This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-116 
entitled 'Energy-Water Nexus: Many Uncertainties Remain about National 
and Regional Effects of Increased Biofuel Production on Water 
Resources' which was released on November 30, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

November 2009: 

Energy-Water Nexus: 

Many Uncertainties Remain about National and Regional Effects of 
Increased Biofuel Production on Water Resources: 

GAO-10-116: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-116, a report to Chairman, Committee on Science 
and Technology, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In response to concerns about the nation’s energy dependence on 
imported oil, climate change, and other issues, the federal government 
has encouraged the use of biofuels. Water plays a crucial role in all 
stages of biofuel production—from cultivation of feedstock through its 
conversion into biofuel. As demand for water from various sectors 
increases and places additional stress on already constrained supplies, 
the effects of expanded biofuel production may need to be considered.   

To understand these potential effects, GAO was asked to examine (1) the 
known water resource effects of biofuel production in the United 
States; (2) agricultural conservation practices and technological 
innovations that could address these effects and  any barriers to their 
adoption; and (3) key research needs regarding the effects of water 
resources on biofuel production. To address these issues, GAO reviewed 
scientific studies, interviewed experts and federal and state 
officials, and selected five states to study their programs and plans 
related to biofuel production.  

GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. A draft of this 
report was provided to the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Energy 
(DOE), and the Interior (DOI); and the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA). USDA, DOE, and DOI concurred with the report and, in addition to 
EPA, provided technical comments, which were incorporated as 
appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

The extent to which increased biofuels production will affect the 
nation’s water resources depends on the type of feedstock selected and 
how and where it is grown. For example, to the extent that this 
increase is met from the cultivation of conventional feedstocks, such 
as corn, it could have greater water resource impacts than if the 
increase is met by next generation feedstocks, such as perennial 
grasses and woody biomass, according to experts and officials.  This is 
because corn is a relatively resource-intensive crop, and in certain 
parts of the country requires considerable irrigated water as well as 
fertilizer and pesticide application. However, experts and officials 
noted that next generation feedstocks have not yet been grown on a 
commercial scale and therefore their actual effects on water resources 
are not fully known at this time. Water is also used in the process of 
converting feedstocks to biofuels, and while the efficiency of 
biorefineries producing corn ethanol has increased over time, the 
amount of water required for converting next generation feedstocks into 
biofuels is still not well known. Finally, experts generally agree that 
it will be important to take into account the regional variability of 
water resources when choosing which feedstocks to grow and how and 
where to expand their production in the United States. 

The use of certain agricultural practices, alternative water sources, 
and technological innovations can mitigate the effects of biofuels 
production on water resources, but there are some barriers to their 
widespread adoption. According to experts and officials, agricultural 
conservation practices can reduce water use and nutrient runoff, but 
they are often costly to implement. Similarly, alternative water 
sources, such as brackish water, may be viable for some aspects of the 
biofuel conversion process and can help reduce biorefineries’ reliance 
on freshwater. However, the high cost of retrofitting plants to use 
these water sources may be a barrier, according to experts and 
officials. Finally, innovations—such as dry cooling systems and 
thermochemical processes—have the potential to reduce the amount of 
water used by biorefineries, but many of these innovations are 
currently not economically feasible or remain untested at the 
commercial scale.  

Many of the experts GAO spoke with identified several areas where 
additional research is needed. These needs fall into two broad areas: 
(1) feedstock cultivation and biofuel conversion and (2) data on water 
resources. For example, some experts noted the need for further 
research into improved crop varieties, which could help reduce water 
and fertilizer needs. In addition, several experts identified research 
that would aid in developing next generation feedstocks. For example, 
several experts said research is needed on how to increase cultivation 
of algae for biofuel to a commercial scale and how to control for 
potential water quality problems. In addition, several experts said 
research is needed on how to optimize conversion technologies to help 
ensure water efficiency. Finally, some experts said that better data on 
water resources in local aquifers and surface water bodies would aid in 
decisions about where to cultivate feedstocks and locate biorefineries. 

View GAO-10-116 or key components. For more information, contact Anu 
Mittal or Mark Gaffigan at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov or 
gaffiganm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Each Stage of Biofuel Production Affects Water Resources, but the 
Extent Depends on the Feedstock and Region: 

Agricultural Practices, Technological Innovations, and Alternative 
Water Sources Can Mitigate Some Water Resource Effects of Biofuels 
Production, but There Are Barriers to Adoption: 

Experts Identified a Variety of Key Research and Data Needs Related to 
Increased Biofuels Production and Local and Regional Water Resources: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Examples of Agricultural Practices Available to Reduce the 
Water Quality and Water Supply Effects of Feedstock Cultivation for 
Biofuels: 

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Average Water Consumed in Corn Ethanol Production in Primary 
Producing Regions in the United States, in Gallons of Water/Gallon of 
Ethanol Produced: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Biofuels Life Cycle: 

Figure 2: Agricultural Water Cycle: 

Figure 3: Diagram of Conversion Process for a Typical Corn-Based 
Ethanol Biorefinery: 

Figure 4: Existing and Planned Ethanol Facilities (as of 2007) and 
Their Estimated Total Water Use Mapped with the Principal Bedrock 
Aquifers, including the Ogallala, or High Plains, Aquifer, of the 
United States and Total Water Use in 2000: 

Figure 5: Example of a Riparian Buffer Adjacent to Cropland: 

Figure 6: Example of Conservation Tillage: 

Figure 7: Example of Low-Energy Precision-Application Irrigation: 

Abbreviations: 

CRP: Conservation Reserve Program: 

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

EIA: Energy Information Administration: 

EISA: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

RFS: Renewable Fuel Standard: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey: 

UST: underground storage tank: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 30, 2009: 

The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Chairman:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In recent years, the federal government has increasingly encouraged the 
use of biofuels and other alternatives to petroleum in response to 
concerns over U.S. dependence on imported oil, climate change, and 
other issues. The United States is the largest user of petroleum in the 
world, consuming 19.4 million barrels per day in 2008, over half of 
which is imported. Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, can be 
produced domestically and are derived from renewable sources, such as 
corn, sugar cane, and soybeans. The Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007 (EISA) expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by 
requiring that U.S. transportation fuel contain 9 billion gallons of 
renewable fuels in 2008 and increasing this amount annually to 36 
billion gallons in 2022.[Footnote 1] Currently, the vast majority of 
domestic biofuel production is ethanol derived from corn starch, which 
EISA defines as a "conventional" feedstock. However, in 2022, the RFS's 
36-billion-gallon total requires that at least 16 billion gallons be 
derived from "cellulosic" materials, such as stalks, stems, branches, 
and leaves. These cellulosic materials, along with newer feedstocks, 
such as algae, are often referred to as "next generation" feedstocks, 
and the fuels produced from them are often referred to as "advanced" 
biofuels.[Footnote 2] 

Although freshwater flows abundantly in many of the nation's lakes, 
rivers, and streams, water is a dwindling resource in many parts of the 
country and is not always available when and where it is needed or in 
the amount desired because of competing demands on water supplies, 
climatic changes contributing to drought conditions in parts of the 
country, and population growth. Foremost among these competing demands 
is irrigation, which accounts for 40 percent of the nation's freshwater 
withdrawals.[Footnote 3] Water is crucial to many stages of the biofuel 
life cycle and is needed for the growth of the feedstock as well as for 
fermentation, distillation, and cooling during the process of 
converting the feedstock into biofuel. As biofuel production increases, 
questions have emerged about the effects that increased production 
could have on the nation's water resources. 

To understand the potential effects of increased biofuel production on 
water resources, you asked us to describe (1) the known water resource 
effects of increased biofuel production in the United States; (2) the 
agricultural conservation practices and technological innovations that 
exist or are being developed to address these effects, and any barriers 
that may prevent the adoption of these practices and technologies; and 
(3) key research needs regarding the effects of biofuel production on 
water resources. 

To address all of these objectives, we conducted a systematic analysis 
of relevant articles from scientific journals and key federal and state 
government publications. In addition, in consultation with the National 
Academy of Sciences, we identified and interviewed recognized experts 
who have published peer-reviewed research analyzing the water supply 
requirements of one or more biofuel feedstocks and the implications of 
increased biofuel production on water resources. These experts included 
research scientists in such fields as environmental science, agronomy, 
soil science, hydrogeology, ecology, and engineering. Furthermore, we 
studied five states in greater depth--Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, 
Nebraska, and Texas--to gain an understanding of the programs and plans 
they have or are developing to address increased biofuel production. We 
selected these states based on several criteria, including ethanol and 
biodiesel production, feedstock cultivation type, reliance on 
irrigation, geographic diversity, and varying approaches to water 
resource management and law. For each of the states, we analyzed 
documentation from and conducted interviews with a wide range of 
stakeholders to gain the views of diverse organizations covering all 
stages of biofuel production. These groups included relevant state 
agencies, including those responsible for oversight of agriculture, 
environmental quality, and water and soil resources; federal agency 
officials with responsibility for a particular state or region, such as 
officials from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); university researchers; industry 
representatives; and relevant nongovernmental organizations, such as 
environmental groups, state-level corn growers' associations, and 
ethanol producer associations. 

We also interviewed senior officials, scientists, economists, 
researchers, and other federal officials from USDA, the Departments of 
Defense and Energy (DOE), EPA, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and USGS 
about effects on water supply and water quality during biofuel 
production. We also interviewed representatives of nongovernmental 
organizations, such as the Renewable Fuels Association, the 
Biotechnology Industry Organization, the Pacific Institute, and the 
Fertilizer Institute. A more detailed description of our scope and 
methodology is presented in appendix I. We conducted our work from 
January 2009 to November 2009 in accordance with all sections of GAO's 
Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The 
framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain 
sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and 
to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information 
and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable 
basis for any findings and conclusions in this product. 

Background: 

Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are an alternative to 
petroleum-based transportation fuels and are produced in the United 
States from a variety of renewable sources such as corn, sugar cane, 
and soybeans. Ethanol, the most common U.S. biofuel, is mainly used as 
a gasoline additive in blends of about 10 percent ethanol and 90 
percent gasoline, known as E10, which is available in most states. A 
relatively small volume is also blended at a higher level called E85-- 
a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline--which can only 
be used in specially designed vehicles, known as flexible fuel 
vehicles. Biodiesel is a renewable alternative fuel produced from a 
range of plant oils, animal fats, and recycled cooking oils. Pure 
biodiesel or biodiesel blended with petroleum diesel--generally in a 
blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent diesel--can be used to 
fuel diesel vehicles. 

The federal government has promoted biofuels as an alternative to 
petroleum-based fuels since the 1970s, and production of ethanol from 
corn starch reached 9 billion gallons in 2008. The Energy Policy Act of 
2005 originally created an RFS that generally required U.S. 
transportation fuel to contain 4 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 
2006 and 7.5 billion gallons in 2012.[Footnote 4] EISA expanded the RFS 
by requiring that U.S. transportation fuel contain 9 billion gallons of 
renewable fuels in 2008 and increasing this amount annually to 36 
billion gallons in 2022.[Footnote 5] Moreover, the 36-billion-gallon 
total must include at least 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, 
defined as renewable fuels other than ethanol derived from corn starch 
that meet certain criteria; only 15 billion of the 36 billion gallons 
of renewable fuels can come from conventional biofuels. In addition, at 
least 16 billion gallons of the 21-billion-gallon advanced biofuels 
requirement must be made from cellulosic feedstocks, such as perennial 
grasses, crop residue, and woody biomass. Unlike corn starch, most of 
the energy in plant and tree biomass is locked away in complex 
cellulose and hemicellulose molecules, and technologies to produce 
biofuels economically from this type of feedstock are still being 
developed. Some cellulosic biorefineries are piloting the use of 
biochemical processes, in which microbes and enzymes break down these 
complex plant molecules to produce ethanol, while others are piloting 
the use of thermochemical processes, which use heat and chemical 
catalysts to convert plant material into a liquid that more closely 
resembles petroleum. 

There are a number of steps in the biofuels life cycle, from 
cultivation of the feedstock through distribution to the end user at 
the fuel pump (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Biofuels Life Cycle: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Biofuels Life Cycle: 

Feedstock: 
Transportation; 
Biorefinery; 
Processing and Conversion; 
Distribution; 
End User. 

Source: DOE. 

[End of figure] 

Water plays a critical role in many aspects of this life cycle. On the 
cultivation side, water is needed to grow the feedstock. Crops can be 
either rainfed, with all water requirements provided by natural 
precipitation and soil moisture, or irrigated, with at least some 
portion of water requirements met through applied water from surface or 
groundwater sources. Figure 2 shows the various water inputs (sources 
of water) and outputs (water losses) that are part of the agricultural 
water cycle. 

Figure 2: Agricultural Water Cycle: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Precipitation: 
Runoff; 
Infiltration; 
Uptake by crops; 
Groundwater flow to stream from surficial aquifer, clay aquitard and 
confined aquifer; 
Evapotranspiration. 

Source: © 2008 International Mapping. 

[End of figure] 

Water is also important for conversion of feedstocks into biofuels. In 
particular, water is used for heating and cooling as well as for 
processing. For example, during the processing of corn-based ethanol, 
corn is converted to ethanol through fermentation using one of two 
standard processes, dry milling or wet milling. The main difference is 
the initial treatment of the corn kernel. In the dry-mill process, the 
kernel is first ground into flour meal and processed without separating 
the components of the corn kernel. The meal is then slurried with water 
to form a mash, and enzymes are added to convert the starch in the mash 
to a fermentable sugar. The sugar is then fermented and distilled to 
produce ethanol. In the wet-mill process, the corn kernel is steeped in 
a mixture of water and sulfurous acid that helps separate the kernel 
into starch, germ, and fiber components. The starch that remains after 
this separation can then be fermented and distilled into fuel ethanol. 
Traditional dry-mill ethanol plants cost less to construct and operate 
than wet-mill plants, but yield fewer marketable co-products. Dry-mill 
plants produce distiller's grains (that can be used as cattle feed) and 
carbon dioxide (that can be used to carbonate soft drinks) as co- 
products, while wet-mill plants produce many more co-products, 
including corn oil, carbon dioxide, corn gluten meal, and corn gluten 
feed. The majority of ethanol biorefineries in the United States are 
dry-mill facilities. Figure 3 depicts the conversion process for a 
typical dry-mill biorefinery. 

Figure 3: Diagram of Conversion Process for a Typical Corn-Based 
Ethanol Biorefinery: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

1) Grain receiving: 
2) Grain storage; 
3) Hammer Mill; 
4) Cook/Slurry Tanks; 
5) Jet Cooker; 
6) Liquefaction Tanks; 
7) Ethanol Fermentation; 
* To atmosphere or recovery facility: Carbon Dioxide; 
8) Distillation; 
9) Molecular Sieve; 
10) Denaturant added; 
11) Ethanol storage: Fuel Ethanol. 
12) from Distillation: Centrifuge Grain Recovery; 
13) Liquids; (sent to Cook/Slurry Tanks to repeat process); or: 
14) Evaporation System; 
15) Syrup Tank (includes solids fro Centrifuge Grain Recovery); 
16) Wet Distillers Grains; or: 
17) Grain Drying; 
18) Dried Distillers Grain. 

Source: © 2007 ICM, Inc. 

[End of figure] 

Each Stage of Biofuel Production Affects Water Resources, but the 
Extent Depends on the Feedstock and Region: 

The extent to which increased biofuel production will affect the 
nation's water resources will depend on which feedstocks are selected 
for production and which areas of the country they are produced in. 
Specifically, increases in corn cultivation in areas that are highly 
dependent on irrigated water could have greater impacts on water 
availability than if the corn is cultivated in areas that primarily 
produce rainfed crops. In addition, most experts believe that greater 
corn production, regardless of where it is produced, may cause greater 
impairments to water quality than other feedstocks, because corn 
production generally relies on greater chemical inputs and the related 
chemical runoff will impact water bodies. In contrast, many experts 
expect next generation feedstocks to require less water and provide 
some water quality benefits, but even with these feedstocks the effects 
on water resources will largely depend on which feedstock is selected, 
and where and how these feedstocks are grown. Similarly, the conversion 
of feedstocks into biofuels may also affect water supply and water 
quality, but these effects also vary by feedstock chosen and type of 
biofuel produced. Many experts agree that as the agriculture and 
biofuel production industries make decisions about which feedstocks to 
grow and where to locate or expand conversion facilities, it will be 
important for them to consider regional differences and potential 
impacts on water resources. 

Water Supply and Water Quality Effects of Increased Corn Cultivation: 

Many experts and officials told us that corn cultivation requires 
substantial quantities of water, although the amount used depends on 
where the crop is grown and how much irrigation water is used. The 
primary corn production regions are in the upper and lower Midwest and 
include 12 states classified as USDA farm production Regions 5, 6, and 
7. Together, these regions accounted for 89 percent of corn production 
in 2007 and 2008, and 95 percent of ethanol production in the United 
States in 2007. Corn cultivation in these three regions averages 
anywhere from 7 to 321 gallons of irrigation water for every gallon of 
ethanol produced, as shown in table 1.[Footnote 6] However, the impact 
of corn cultivation on water supplies in these regions varies 
considerably. For example, in USDA Region 7, which comprises North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska, the production of one 
bushel of corn consumes an average of 865 gallons of freshwater from 
irrigation. In contrast, in USDA Regions 5 and 6, which comprise Iowa, 
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, 
corn is mostly rainfed and only requires on average 19 to 38 gallons of 
supplemental irrigation water per bushel.[Footnote 7] 

Table 1: Average Water Consumed in Corn Ethanol Production in Primary 
Producing Regions in the United States, in Gallons of Water/Gallon of 
Ethanol Produced: 

Type of water consumed: Cultivation: Corn irrigation, groundwater; 
USDA Region 5 (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri): 6.7; 
USDA Region 6 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan): 10.7; 
USDA Region 7 (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas): 281.2. 

Type of water consumed: Cultivation: Corn irrigation, surface water; 
USDA Region 5 (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri): 0.4; 
USDA Region 6 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan): 3.2; 
USDA Region 7 (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas): 39.4. 

Type of water consumed: Total irrigated water; 
USDA Region 5 (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri): 7.1; 
USDA Region 6 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan): 13.9; 
USDA Region 7 (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas): 320.6. 

Type of water consumed: Conversion - Corn ethanol; 
USDA Region 5 (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri): 3.0; 
USDA Region 6 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan): 3.0; 
USDA Region 7 (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas): 3.0. 

Type of water consumed: Total water consumption; 
USDA Region 5 (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri): 10.0; 
USDA Region 6 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan): 16.8; 
USDA Region 7 (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas): 323.6. 

Source: Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, 
Argonne National Laboratory, "Consumptive Water Use in the Production 
of Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline," Center for Transportation Research, 
Energy Systems Division, Argonne Laboratory, January 2009: 

Note: The numbers may not add up due to rounding. The Argonne National 
Laboratory study estimated the water consumed in corn ethanol 
production in each of the major ethanol producing regions considering 
water consumed in both corn cultivation and conversion processing 
steps. Estimates were based on average consumption of 3.0 gallons of 
water per gallon of corn ethanol produced in a corn dry mill, average 
consumptive use of irrigation water for corn in major corn producing 
regions, and dry-mill yield of 2.7 gallons of ethanol per bushel. In 
evaluating corn cultivation, the water consumed is based on total 
amount of irrigation water used for corn production and total corn 
production for each region, and does not include precipitation. In 
addition, the calculation assumes that 30 percent of water recharges 
local surface and groundwater, and the remaining 70 percent of the 
water is consumed by evapotranspiration (water lost through evaporation 
from the soil and plants) and other factors. 

[End of table] 

The effects of increased corn production for ethanol on water supplies 
are likely to be greatest in water-constrained regions of the United 
States where corn is grown using irrigation. For example, some of the 
largest increases in corn acres (1.1 million acres) are projected to 
occur in the Northern Plains region, which is already a water 
constrained region. Parts of this region draw heavily from the Ogallala 
Aquifer, where water withdrawals are already greater than the natural 
recharge rate from precipitation. A 2009 USGS report found water levels 
in the aquifer had dropped more than 150 feet in parts of southwest 
Kansas and the Texas Panhandle, where crop irrigation is intense and 
recharge to the aquifer is minimal.[Footnote 8] In 2000, about 97 
percent of the water withdrawn from the aquifer was used for 
irrigation, according to USGS.[Footnote 9] 

Many officials told us that an increase in corn cultivation using 
current agricultural practices will also impair water quality as a 
result of the runoff of fertilizer into lakes and streams. This will 
happen because corn requires high applications of fertilizers relative 
to soybeans and other potential biofuel feedstocks, such as perennial 
grasses.[Footnote 10] For example, in Iowa, the expansion of biofuel 
production has already led to an increasing amount of land dedicated to 
corn and other row crops, resulting in surface water impacts, including 
nutrient runoff and increased bacteria counts as well as leaching of 
nitrogen and phosphorus into groundwater, according to a state 
official. Fertilizer runoff containing nitrogen and phosphorus can lead 
to overenrichment and excessive growth of algae in surface waters. In 
some waters, such enrichment has resulted in harmful algal blooms, 
decreased water clarity, and reduced oxygen in the water, which impair 
aquatic life.[Footnote 11] In marine waters, this excessive algal 
growth has created "dead zones," which cannot support fish or any other 
organism that needs oxygen to survive.[Footnote 12] The number of 
reported dead zones around the world has increased since the 1960s to 
more than 400.[Footnote 13] Many of them are along the Gulf of Mexico 
and the Atlantic Coast, areas that receive drainage from agricultural 
and urban landscapes, including a large portion of the Corn Belt, where 
many of the existing and planned ethanol production facilities are 
located. A 2007 USGS model estimated that 52 percent of the nitrogen 
and 25 percent of the phosphorus entering the Gulf system are from corn 
and soybean cultivation in the Mississippi River basin.[Footnote 14] 

Increased corn production will also increase the use of pesticides-- 
including insecticides and herbicides--which also have the potential to 
affect surface water and groundwater quality. For example, a 10-year 
nationwide study by USGS detected pesticides in 97 percent of streams 
in agricultural and urban watersheds.[Footnote 15] As would be 
expected, the highest concentrations of pesticides have been found in 
those areas that have the highest use. For instance, application rates 
of atrazine, a commonly used pesticide for corn production, are highest 
in the Corn Belt, and atrazine was also the most widely detected 
pesticide in watersheds in this area, according to the USGS nationwide 
study. USGS determined that the concentrations of atrazine and other 
pesticides detected had the potential to adversely affect aquatic 
plants and invertebrates in some of the streams, since organisms are 
vulnerable to short-term exposure to relatively small amounts of 
certain pesticides. Similarly, increased pesticide use for the 
cultivation of corn could impair groundwater supplies. USGS found 
pesticides in 61 percent of shallow wells sampled in agricultural 
areas. Once groundwater is contaminated, it is difficult to clean up, 
according to the experts we contacted. 

According to some of the experts and officials we spoke with, increased 
demand for biofuel feedstocks may also create incentives for farmers to 
place marginal lands back into production. Marginal lands generally 
have lower productivity soils, so cultivating them may require more 
nutrient and pesticide inputs than more productive lands, potentially 
leading to further water quality impairments. Furthermore, delivery of 
sediments, nutrients, and pesticides to surrounding water bodies may 
increase if these lands are placed back into production because these 
lands are often highly susceptible to erosion due to wind and water. Of 
particular concern to many of the experts with whom we spoke are the 
millions of acres of land currently enrolled in the Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP). This federal program provides annual rental 
payments and cost share assistance to landowners who contractually 
agree to retire highly erodible or other environmentally-sensitive 
cropland from agricultural purposes. As part of the contract, farmers 
are generally required to plant or maintain vegetative covers (such as 
native grasses) on the land, which provide a range of environmental 
benefits, including improved water quality, reduced erosion, enhanced 
wildlife habitat, and preserved soil productivity. However, many 
experts and officials we spoke with from the five selected states are 
concerned that higher corn prices and increased demand for biofuel 
feedstocks may encourage farmers to return CRP land to crop production. 
If such conversion does occur, these officials noted that water quality 
may further decline in the future. 

Little Is Yet Known about the Water Resource Implications of Next 
Generation Feedstocks: 

Next generation feedstocks for biofuels have the potential for fewer 
negative effects on water resources, although several of the experts 
and officials that we spoke with said that the magnitude of these 
effects remains largely unknown because these feedstocks have not yet 
been grown on a commercial scale. These experts suggested that certain 
water resource impacts were likely for the following potential 
feedstocks: 

* Agricultural residues, such as corn stover, collected from fields 
that have already been harvested, can provide feedstock for cellulosic 
ethanol production. The primary advantage of using agricultural 
residues is that they are a byproduct of crop cultivation and thus do 
not require additional water or nutrient inputs. However, removal of 
these residues has consequences for both soil and water quality, so 
there may be limits on how much agricultural residues can be removed 
for cellulosic ethanol production. According to the experts we spoke 
with, leaving crop residues unharvested on the field benefits soil 
quality by providing nutrients that help maintain long-term soil 
productivity, enhancing soil moisture retention, increasing net soil 
carbon, and reducing the need for nutrient inputs for future crops. 
[Footnote 16] In addition, leaving crop residues on the field helps 
prevent soil erosion due to wind and water and nutrient runoff into 
the water supply. Farmers could reduce the negative effects of residue 
removal by harvesting only corn cobs or part of the stover, but the 
optimal removal rate is not yet fully known, and is currently being 
studied by several federal agencies and academic institutions. 

* Perennial grasses may require less water and provide some water 
quality benefits. Perennial grasses such as mixed prairie and 
switchgrass can grow with less water than corn. But some experts 
cautioned that any water supply benefits from these grasses will only 
occur if they are rainfed. For instance, officials in Minnesota told us 
that because the state's crops are primarily rainfed, shifting to the 
cultivation of cellulosic feedstocks, like perennial grasses, without 
irrigation would have a minimal impact on the state's water supply. 
However, other experts and local officials pointed out that if farmers 
choose to irrigate perennial grasses in order to achieve maximum yields 
and profits as they do for other crops, then producing these feedstocks 
could have the same detrimental effects on water supplies as do other 
crops. This concern was reiterated by the National Research Council, 
which stated that while irrigation of native grasses is unusual now, it 
could easily become more common as cellulosic biofuel production gets 
under way.[Footnote 17] 

Perennial grasses can also help preserve water quality by reducing 
soil, nutrient, and pesticide runoff. Research indicates that perennial 
grasses cycle nitrogen more efficiently than some row crops and protect 
soil from erosion due to wind and water. As a result, they can reduce 
the need for most fertilizers after crops are established, and the land 
on which these crops are grown do not need to be tilled every year, 
which reduces soil erosion and sedimentation. According to experts, 
farmers could also plant a mix of perennial grasses, which could 
minimize the need for pesticides by promoting greater diversity and an 
abundance of natural enemies for agricultural pests. In addition, 
perennial grasses cultivated across an agricultural landscape may help 
reduce nutrient and chemical runoff from farm lands. Grasses can also 
be planted next to water bodies to help filter out nutrients and secure 
soil and can serve as a windbreak to help minimize erosion. However, 
the type of land and cultivation methods used to grow perennial grasses 
will influence the extent to which they improve water quality. For 
instance, if perennial grasses were harvested down to the soil, they 
would not reduce soil erosion as compared to conventional feedstocks in 
the long run, according to some experts. In addition, according to some 
experts, if farmers choose to use fertilizers to maximize yields from 
these crops as they do for other crops or if these crops are grown on 
lands with decreased soil quality that require increased nutrient 
application, then cultivation of perennial grasses could also lead to 
water quality impairments. 

* Woody biomass, such as biomass from the thinning of forests and 
cultivation of certain fast-growing tree varieties, could serve as 
feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production, according to some experts. 
Use of thinnings is not expected to impact water supply, as they are 
residuals from forest management. Thinning of forests can have the 
added benefit of reducing the intensity of wildfires, the aftermath of 
which facilitates runoff of nutrients and sediment into surface waters. 
Waste from urban areas or lumber mills may also provide another source 
of biomass that would not require additional water resources. This 
waste would include the woody portions of commercial, industrial, and 
municipal solid waste, as well as byproducts generated from processing 
lumber, engineered wood products, or wood particles; however, almost 
all of the commercial wood waste is currently used as fuels or raw 
material for existing products. In addition, some experts said that 
fast-growing tree species, such as poplar, willow, and cottonwood, are 
potential cellulosic feedstocks. However, these experts also cautioned 
that some of these varieties may require irrigation to cultivate and 
may have relatively high consumptive water requirements. 

* Algae are also being explored as a possible feedstock for advanced 
biofuels. According to several experts, one advantage of algae is that 
they can be cultivated in brackish or degraded water and do not need 
freshwater supplies. However, currently algae cultivation is expected 
to consume a great deal of water, although consumption estimates vary 
widely--from 40 to 1,600 gallons of water per gallon of biofuel 
produced, according to experts--depending on what cultivation method is 
used. With open-air, outdoor pond cultivation, water loss is expected 
to be greater due to evaporation, and additional freshwater will be 
needed to replenish the water lost and maintain the water quality 
necessary for new algal growth. In contrast, when algae are cultivated 
in a closed environment, as much as 90 percent less water is lost to 
evaporation, according to one expert.[Footnote 18] 

The Extent to Which Biofuel Conversion May Affect Water Resources also 
Depends on the Feedstock Used and Biofuel Produced: 

During the process of converting feedstocks into biofuels, 
biorefineries not only need a supply of high-quality water, but also 
discharge certain contaminants that could impact water quality. The 
amount of water needed and the contaminant discharge vary by type of 
biofuel produced and type of feedstock used in the conversion process. 
For example, ethanol production requires greater amounts of high- 
quality water than does biodiesel. Conversion of corn to ethanol 
requires approximately 3 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol 
produced, which represents a decrease from an estimated 5.8 gallons of 
water per gallon of ethanol in 1998.[Footnote 19] According to some 
experts, these gains in efficiency are, for the most part, the result 
of ethanol plants improving their water recycling efforts and cooling 
systems. 

According to some experts we spoke with, the biofuel conversion process 
generally requires high-quality water because the primary use for 
ethanol production is for cooling towers and boilers, and cleaner water 
transfers heat more efficiently and does less damage to this equipment. 
As a result, ethanol biorefineries prefer to use groundwater because it 
is generally cleaner, of more consistent quality, and its supply is 
less variable than surface water. Furthermore, the use of lesser- 
quality water leaves deposits on biorefinery equipment that require 
additional water to remove. However, despite water efficiency gains, 
some communities have become concerned about the potential impacts of 
withdrawals for biofuel production on their drinking water and 
municipal supplies and are pressuring states to limit ethanol 
facilities' use of the water. For example, at least one Minnesota local 
water district denied a permit for a proposed biorefinery due to 
concerns about limited water supply in the area. 

Current estimates of the water needed to convert cellulosic feedstocks 
to ethanol range from 1.9 to 6.0 gallons of water per gallon of 
ethanol, depending on the technology used. Conversion of these next 
generation feedstocks is expected to use less water when compared to 
conventional feedstocks in the long run, according to some experts. 
[Footnote 20] For example, officials from a company in the process of 
establishing a biorefinery expect the conversion of pine and other 
cellulosic feedstocks to consume less water than the conversion of corn 
to ethanol once the plant is operating at a commercial scale. However, 
some researchers cautioned that the processes for converting cellulosic 
feedstocks currently require greater quantities of water than needed 
for corn ethanol. They said the technology has not been optimized and 
commercial-scale production has not yet been demonstrated, therefore 
any estimates on water use by cellulosic biorefineries are simply 
projections at this time. 

In contrast, biodiesel conversion requires less water than ethanol 
conversion--approximately 1 gallon of freshwater per gallon of 
biodiesel. Similar to ethanol conversion, much of this water is lost 
during the cooling and feedstock drying processes. Biodiesel facilities 
can use a variety of plant and animal-based feedstocks, providing more 
options when choosing a location. This flexibility in type of feedstock 
that can be converted allows such facilities to be built in locations 
with plentiful water supplies, lessening their potential impact. 

In addition to the water supply effects, biorefineries can have water 
quality effects because of the contaminants they discharge. However, 
the type of contaminant discharged varies by the type of biofuel 
produced. For example, ethanol biorefineries generally discharge 
chemicals or salts that build up in cooling towers and boilers or are 
produced as waste by reverse osmosis, a process used to remove salts 
and other contaminants from water prior to discharge from the 
biorefinery.[Footnote 21] EPA officials told us that the concentrated 
salts discharged from reverse osmosis are a concern due to their 
effects on water quality and potential toxicity to aquatic organisms. 
In contrast, biodiesel refineries discharge other pollutants such as 
glycerin that may be harmful to water quality. EPA officials told us 
that glycerin from small biodiesel refineries can be a problem if it is 
released into local municipal wastewater facilities because it may 
disrupt the microbial processes used in wastewater treatment.[Footnote 
22] Glycerin is less of a concern with larger biodiesel refineries 
because, according to EPA officials, it is often extracted from the 
waste stream prior to discharge and refined for use in other products. 

Several state officials we spoke with told us these discharges are 
generally well-regulated under the Clean Water Act. Under the act, 
refineries that discharge pollutants into federally regulated waters 
are required to obtain a federal National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, either from EPA or from a state 
agency authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program. These permits 
generally allow a point source, such as a biorefinery, to discharge 
specified pollutants into federally regulated waters under specific 
limits and conditions. State officials we spoke with reported they 
closely monitor the quality of water being discharged from biofuel 
conversion facilities, and that the facilities are required to treat 
their water discharges to a high level of quality, sometimes superior 
to the quality of the water in the receiving water body. 

Storage and Distribution of Biofuels Can Have Some Water Quality 
Consequences: 

The storage and distribution of ethanol-blended fuels could result in 
water quality impacts in the event that these fuels leak from storage 
tanks or the pipes used to transport these fuels. Ethanol is highly 
corrosive and there is potential for releases into the environment that 
could contaminate groundwater and surface water, among other issues. 
[Footnote 23] When ethanol-blended fuels leak from underground storage 
tanks (UST) and aboveground tank systems, the contamination may pose 
greater risks than petroleum. This is because the ethanol in these 
blended fuels causes benzene, a soluble and carcinogenic chemical in 
gasoline, to travel longer distances and persist longer in soil and 
groundwater than it would in the absence of ethanol,[Footnote 24] 
increasing the likelihood that it could reach some drinking water 
supplies.[Footnote 25] Federal officials told us that, because it is 
illegal to store ethanol-blended fuels in tanks not designed for the 
purpose, they had not encountered any concerns specific to ethanol 
storage. However, officials from two states did express concern about 
the possibility of leaks and told us that ethanol-blended fuels are 
still sometimes stored in tanks not designed for the fuel. For 
instance, one of these states reported a 700-gallon spill of ethanol- 
blended fuels due to the scouring of rust plugs in a UST.[Footnote 26] 

According to EPA officials, a large number of the 617,000 federally 
regulated UST systems currently in use at approximately 233,000 sites 
across the country are not certified to handle fuel blends that contain 
more than 10 percent ethanol.[Footnote 27] Moreover, according to EPA 
officials, most tank owners do not have records of all the UST systems' 
components, such as the seals and gaskets. Glues and adhesives used in 
UST piping systems were not required to be tested for compatibility 
with ethanol-blended fuel until recently. Thus there may be many 
compatible tanks used for storing ethanol-blended fuels that have 
incompatible system components, increasing the potential for equipment 
failure and fuel leakage, according to EPA officials. EPA told us that 
it is continuing to work with government and industry partners to study 
the compatibility of these components with various ethanol blends. EPA 
officials also stressed the importance of understanding the fate and 
transport of biofuels into surface water because biofuels are 
transported mainly by barge, rail, and truck. The officials noted that 
spills of biofuels or their byproducts have already occurred into 
surface waters. 

The Effect of Increased Biofuel Production Will Vary by Region, Due to 
Differences in Water Resources and State Laws: 

According to many experts and officials that we contacted, as biofuel 
production increases, farmers and the biofuel production industry will 
need to consider regional differences in water supply and quality when 
choosing which feedstocks to grow and how and where to expand their 
biofuel production capacity. Specifically, they noted that in the case 
of cultivation, certain states may be better suited to cultivate 
particular feedstocks because of the amount and type of water 
available. Some examples they provided include the following: 

* Certain cellulosic feedstocks, such as switchgrass, would be well- 
suited for areas with limited rainfall, such as Texas, because these 
feedstocks generally require less water and are drought tolerant. 

* In the Midwest, switchgrass and other native perennial grasses could 
be grown as stream buffer strips or as cover crops, which are crops 
planted to keep the soil in place between primary plantings. 

* In Georgia, some experts said pine was likely to be cultivated as a 
next generation biofuel feedstock because the state has relatively 
limited land available for cultivation and increased cultivation of 
pine or other woody biomass without irrigation would not cause a strain 
on water supplies. 

* In the Southeast and Pacific Northwest, waste from logging operations 
and paper production was identified as a potential feedstock for 
cellulosic ethanol production. 

* Areas with limited freshwater supplies and a ready supply of lower- 
quality water, such as brackish water or water from wastewater 
treatment plants, would be better suited to the cultivation of algae. 
For example, Texas was identified as a state suitable for algae 
cultivation because of the large amounts of brackish water in many of 
its aquifers, as well as its abundant sunlight and supplies of carbon 
dioxide from industrial facilities. 

Research indicates that in making decisions about feedstock production 
for biofuels it will be important to consider the effects that 
additional cultivation will have on the quality of individual water 
bodies and regional watersheds. Farmers need to consider local water 
quality effects when making decisions regarding the suitability of a 
particular feedstock or where to employ agricultural management 
practices that minimize nutrient application. In addition, state 
officials should consider these effects when deciding where programs 
such as the CRP may be the most effective. For example, experts and 
officials told us it will be important to identify watersheds in the 
Midwest that are delivering the largest nutrient loads into the 
Mississippi River basin and, consequently, contributing to the Gulf of 
Mexico dead zone, in order to minimize additional degradation that 
could result from increased crop cultivation in these watersheds. In 
addition, research has shown it is important that management practices 
be tailored to local landscape conditions, such as topography and soil 
quality, and landowner objectives, so that efforts to reduce nutrient 
and sediment runoff can be maximized. 

In the case of biofuel conversion, some experts and officials said that 
state regulators and industry will need to consider the availability of 
freshwater supplies and the quality of those supplies when identifying 
and approving sites for biorefineries. Currently, many biorefineries 
are located in areas with limited water resources. For instance, as 
figure 4 shows, many existing and planned ethanol facilities are 
located on stressed aquifers, such as the Ogallala, or High Plains, 
Aquifer. These facilities require 100,000 to 1 million gallons of water 
per day, and as mentioned earlier, the rate of water withdrawal from 
the aquifer is already much greater than its recharge rate, allowing 
water withdrawals in Nebraska or South Dakota to affect water supplies 
in other states that draw from that aquifer. Experts noted that states 
with enough rainfall to replenish underlying aquifers may be more 
appropriate locations for biorefineries. 

Figure 4: Existing and Planned Ethanol Facilities (as of 2007) and 
Their Estimated Total Water Use Mapped with the Principal Bedrock 
Aquifers, including the Ogallala, or High Plains, Aquifer, of the 
United States and Total Water Use in 2000: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Identified on the map are: 

High Plains Aquifers; 
Glacial Aquifers. 

Principal Bedrock Aquifers 2000 Water Use: Irrigation/Public 
Supply/Industrial, in millions of gallons per day: 

Map indicates: 
0-250; 
250-500; 
500-750; 
750-1000; 
1000-1250; 
1250-1500; 
greater than 1500. 

2007 Existing and Planned Ethanol Facilities; Estimated Total Water Use 
in millions of gallons per day: 

Map indicates the location of facilities and water use of: 
0-0.05; 
0.05-0.10; 
0.10-0.50; 
0.50-1.00; 
greater than 1.00. 

Source: Created by USGS for use in the National Research Council 2008 
report, Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the U.S. 

[End of figure] 

Finally, relevant water laws in certain states may influence the 
location of future biorefineries. Specifically, several states have 
enacted laws that require permits for groundwater or surface water 
withdrawals and this requirement could impact where biorefineries will 
be sited. These laws specify what types of withdrawals must be 
permitted by the responsible regulatory authority and the requirements 
for receiving a permit. For instance, Georgia's Environmental 
Protection Division grants permits for certain withdrawals of 
groundwater and surface water, including for use by a biorefinery, when 
the use will not have unreasonable adverse effects on other water uses. 
According to state officials, there has not yet been a case where a 
permit for a biorefinery was denied because the amount of projected 
withdrawal was seen as unreasonable. In contrast, groundwater decisions 
are made at the local level in Texas, where more than half of the 
counties have groundwater conservation districts, and Nebraska. In 
deciding whether to issue a permit, the Texas groundwater conservation 
districts consider whether the proposed water use unreasonably affects 
either existing groundwater and surface water resources or existing 
permit holders, among other factors. In Nebraska, permits are only 
required for withdrawals and transfers of groundwater for industrial 
purposes. In addition, in Nebraska, where water supplies are already 
fully allocated in many parts of the state, natural resource districts 
can require biofuel conversion facilities to offset the water they will 
consume by reducing water use in other areas of the region. The volume 
of withdrawals can also factor into the need for a permit. While Texas 
conservation district permits are required for almost all types of 
groundwater wells, Georgia state withdrawal permits are only required 
for water users who withdraw more than an average of 100,000 gallons 
per day[Footnote 28]. 

Agricultural Practices, Technological Innovations, and Alternative 
Water Sources Can Mitigate Some Water Resource Effects of Biofuels 
Production, but There Are Barriers to Adoption: 

Agricultural conservation practices can reduce the effects of increased 
biofuel feedstock cultivation on water supply and water quality, but 
there are several barriers to widespread adoption of these practices. 
Similarly, the process of converting feedstocks to biofuels, 
technological innovations, and the use of alternative water sources can 
help reduce water supply and water quality impacts, but these options 
can be cost prohibitive and certain noneconomic barriers to their 
widespread use remain. 

Certain Agricultural Practices Can Benefit Water Supply and Water 
Quality, but Barriers May Limit Widespread Adoption: 

Many experts and officials we spoke with highlighted the importance of 
using agricultural conservation practices to reduce the potential 
effects of increased biofuel feedstock cultivation on water resources. 
These practices can reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff as well as 
soil erosion by retaining additional moisture and nutrients in the soil 
and disturbing the land less. For example, several experts and 
officials we spoke with said that installing and maintaining permanent 
vegetation areas adjacent to lakes and streams, known as riparian 
zones, could significantly reduce the impacts of agricultural runoff. 
More specifically, several experts and officials said that planting 
buffer strips of permanent vegetation, such as perennial grasses, or 
constructing or restoring wetlands in riparian areas would reduce the 
effects that crop cultivation can have on water quality, as shown in 
figure 5. 

Figure 5: Example of a Riparian Buffer Adjacent to Cropland: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: USDA. 

[End of figure] 

Experts also identified conservation tillage practices--such as "no- 
till" systems or reduced tillage systems, where the previous year's 
crop residues are left on the fields and new crops are planted directly 
into these residues--as an important way to reduce soil erosion (see 
figure 6). Research conducted by USDA has shown a substantial reduction 
in cropland erosion since 1985, when incentives were put in place to 
encourage the adoption of conservation tillage practices.[Footnote 29] 
Another practice, crop rotation, also reduces erosion and helps 
replenish nutrients in the soil. This contrasts with practices such as 
continuous corn cultivation--in which farmers plant corn on the same 
land year after year instead of rotating to other crops--which often 
leads to decreased soil quality. Furthermore, experts identified cover 
crops, a practice related to crop rotation, as a way to mitigate some 
of the impacts of agricultural runoff. Cover crops are planted prior to 
or following a harvested crop, primarily for seasonal soil protection 
and nutrient recovery before planting the next year's crops. These 
crops, which include grains or perennial grasses, absorb nutrients and 
protect the soil surface from erosion caused by wind and rain, 
especially when combined with conservation tillage practices. 

Figure 6: Example of Conservation Tillage: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: USDA. 

Note: The picture depicts conservation tillage, a process in which last 
year's crop residues are left on the field and planting occurs directly 
into this minimally tilled soil. 

[End of figure] 

Experts also identified "precision agriculture" as an important tool 
that can reduce fertilizer runoff and water demand by closely matching 
nitrogen fertilizer application and irrigation to a crop's nutrient and 
water needs. Precision agriculture uses technologies such as geographic 
information systems and global positioning systems to track crop yield, 
soil moisture content, and soil quality to optimize water and nutrient 
application rates. Farmers can use this information to tailor water, 
fertilizer, and pesticide application to specific plots within a field, 
thus potentially reducing fertilizer and pesticide costs, increasing 
yields, and reducing environmental impacts. Other precision agriculture 
tools, like low-energy precision-application irrigation and subsurface 
drip irrigation systems, operate at lower pressures and have higher 
irrigation water application and distribution efficiencies than 
conventional irrigation systems, as shown in figure 7.[Footnote 30] 
Several experts and officials said that in order to promote such 
practices, it is important to continue funding and enrollment in 
federal programs, such as USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, which pay farmers or provide education and technical support. 
See appendix II for an expanded discussion of agricultural conservation 
practices. 

Figure 7: Example of Low-Energy Precision-Application Irrigation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: USDA. 

[End of figure] 

Several experts and officials we spoke with also said that genetic 
engineering has the potential to decrease the water, nutrient, and 
pesticide requirements of biofuel feedstocks.[Footnote 31] According to 
an industry trade group, biotechnology firms are currently developing 
varieties of drought-resistant corn that may be available to farmers 
within the next several years. These varieties could significantly 
increase yields in arid regions of the country that traditionally 
require irrigation for corn production. Companies are also working to 
develop crops that absorb additional nutrients or use nutrients more 
efficiently, giving them the potential to reduce nutrient inputs and 
the resulting runoff. However, industry officials believe it may be up 
to a decade before these varieties become available commercially. 
Furthermore, according to EPA, planting drought-resistant crops, such 
as corn, may lead to increased cultivation in areas where it has not 
previously occurred and may result in problems including increased 
nutrient runoff. 

Experts and officials told us there are both economic and noneconomic 
barriers to the adoption of agricultural conservation practices. 

* Economic barriers. According to several experts, as with any 
business, farming decisions are made in an attempt to maximize profits. 
As a result, experts told us that some farmers may be reluctant to 
adopt certain conservation practices that may reduce yields and 
profits, especially in the short term. Furthermore, experts and 
officials also said that some of these agricultural conservation 
practices can be costly, especially precision agriculture. For example, 
the installation of low-energy precision irrigation and subsurface drip 
irrigation systems is significantly more expensive than conventional 
irrigation systems because of the equipment needed, among other 
reasons.[Footnote 32] Farmers may also hesitate to switch from 
traditional row crops to next generation cellulosic crops because of 
potential problems with cash flow and lack of established markets. 
Specifically, it can take up to 3 years to establish a mature, 
economically productive crop of perennial grasses, and farmers would be 
hard-pressed to forgo income during this period. Moreover, farmers may 
not be willing to cultivate perennial grasses unless they are assured 
that a market exists for the crop and that they could earn a profit 
from its cultivation. Furthermore, efficient cultivation and harvest 
could require farmers to buy new equipment, which would be costly and 
would add to the price they would have to receive for perennial grasses 
in order to make a profit. 

* Noneconomic barriers. Experts and officials we contacted said that 
many farmers do not have the expertise or training to implement certain 
practices, and some agricultural practices may be less suited for some 
places. For example, state officials told us that farmers usually need 
a year or more of experience with reduced tillage before they can 
achieve the same crop yields they had with conventional tillage. In 
addition, precision agriculture relies on technologies and equipment 
that require training and support. Officials told us that to help 
address this training need, USDA and states have programs in place that 
help educate farmers on how to incorporate these practices and, in some 
cases, provide funding to help do so. In addition, some experts and 
officials cited regional challenges associated with some agricultural 
practices and the cultivation of biofuel feedstocks. For example, these 
experts and officials said that the amount of agricultural residue that 
can be removed would vary by region and even by farm. Similarly, 
cultivation of certain cover crops as biofuel feedstocks may not be 
suitable in the relatively short growing seasons of northern regions. 

Use of Innovative Technologies and Alternative Water Sources Could 
Reduce the Water Resource Effects of Biorefineries, but Costs and 
Logistics Impede Adoption: 

Technological improvements have already increased water use efficiency 
in the ethanol conversion process. Newly built biorefineries with 
improved processes have reduced water use dramatically over the past 10 
years, and some plants have reduced their wastewater discharge to zero. 
Of the remaining water use, water loss from cooling towers for 
biorefineries is responsible for approximately 50 to 70 percent of 
water consumption in modern dry-milling ethanol plants.[Footnote 33] 

Some industry experts we spoke with said that further improvements in 
water efficiency at corn ethanol plants are likely to come from 
minimizing water loss from cooling towers or from using alternative 
water sources, such as effluent from sewage treatment plants. One 
alternative technology that can substantially reduce water lost through 
cooling towers is a dry cooling system,[Footnote 34] which relies 
primarily on air rather than water to transfer heat from industrial 
processes.[Footnote 35] In addition, some ethanol plants are beginning 
to replace freshwater with alternative sources of water, such as 
effluent from sewage treatment plants, water from retention ponds at 
power plants, or excess water from adjacent rock quarries. For example, 
a corn ethanol conversion plant in Iowa gets a third of its water from 
a local wastewater treatment plant. By using these alternative water 
sources, the biorefineries can lower their use of freshwater during the 
conversion process. While these strategies of improved water efficiency 
at biorefineries show considerable promise, there are barriers to their 
adoption. For example, technologies such as dry cooling systems are 
often prohibitively expensive and can increase energy consumption. 
Furthermore, according to industry experts, alternative water sources 
can create a need for expensive wastewater treatment equipment. Some 
industry experts also told us that the physical layout of a conversion 
facility may need to be changed to make room for these improvements. 
Because of the considerable costs of such improvements, several experts 
told us, it is difficult for biorefineries to integrate these water- 
conserving technologies while remaining competitive in the economically 
strained ethanol industry. 

Many experts and officials stated that technological innovations for 
next generation biofuel conversion also have the potential to reduce 
the water supply and water quality impacts of increased biofuel 
production. For example, thermochemical production of cellulosic 
ethanol could require less than 2 gallons of water per gallon of 
ethanol produced.[Footnote 36] In addition, some next generation 
biofuels, known as "drop-in" fuels, are being developed that are 
compatible with the existing fuel infrastructure, which could reduce 
the risk that leaks and spills could contaminate local water bodies. 
For example, biobutanol is produced using fermentation processes 
similar to those used to make conventional ethanol, but it does not 
have the same corrosive properties as ethanol and could be distributed 
through the existing gasoline infrastructure.[Footnote 37] In addition, 
liquid hydrocarbons derived from algae have the potential to be 
converted to gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, which also can be readily 
used in the existing fuel infrastructure.[Footnote 38] However, while 
these proposed technological innovations can reduce the water resource 
impacts of increased biofuel production, the efficacy of most of these 
innovations has not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale, and 
some innovations' efficacy has not yet been demonstrated on a pilot 
scale. 

Experts Identified a Variety of Key Research and Data Needs Related to 
Increased Biofuels Production and Local and Regional Water Resources: 

Many of the experts and officials we spoke with identified areas where 
additional research is needed to evaluate and understand the effects of 
increased biofuel production on water resources. These needs fall into 
two broad areas: (1) research on the water effects of feedstock 
cultivation and conversion and (2) better data on local and regional 
water resources. 

Experts and officials identified the following research needs on the 
water resource effects of feedstock cultivation and conversion 
processes: 

Genetically engineered biofuel feedstocks. Many experts and officials 
cited the need for more research into the development of drought- 
tolerant and water-and nutrient-efficient crop varieties to decrease 
the amount of water needed for irrigation and the amount of fertilizer 
that needs to be applied to biofuel feedstocks. According to the 
National Research Council, this research should also address the 
current lack of knowledge on the general water requirements and 
evapotranspiration rates of genetically engineered crops, including 
next generation crops.[Footnote 39] Regarding nutrient efficiency, some 
experts and officials noted that research into the development of 
feedstocks that more efficiently take up and store nitrogen from the 
soil would help reduce nitrogen runoff. In addition, USDA officials 
added that research to determine the water requirements for 
conventional biofuel feedstocks and new feedstock varieties developed 
specifically for biofuel production is also needed. 

Effects of cellulosic crops on hydrology. Many experts and officials 
also told us there is a need to better understand the water 
requirements of cellulosic crops and the impact of commercial-scale 
cellulosic feedstock cultivation on hydrology, which is the movement of 
water through land and the atmosphere into receiving water bodies. 
According to one expert, these feedstocks differ from corn in their 
life cycles, root systems, harvest times, and evapotranspiration 
levels, all of which may influence hydrology. In addition, some 
research suggests that farmers may cultivate cellulosic feedstocks on 
marginal or degraded lands because these lands are not currently being 
farmed and may be suitable for these feedstocks. However, according to 
the National Research Council, the current evapotranspiration rates of 
crops grown on such lands is not well known.[Footnote 40] 

Effects of cellulosic crops on water quality. Many experts and 
officials we spoke with said research is needed to better understand 
the nutrient needs of cellulosic crops grown on a commercial scale. 
Specifically, field research is needed on the movement of fertilizer in 
the soil, air, and water after it is applied to these crops. One expert 
explained there are water quality models that can describe what happens 
to fertilizer when applied to corn, soy, and other traditional row 
crops. However, such models are less precise for perennial grasses due 
to the lack of data from field trials. Similarly, several experts and 
officials told us that additional research is also needed on the 
potential water quality impacts from the harvesting of corn stover. In 
particular, research is needed on the erosion and sediment delivery 
rates of different cropping systems in order to determine the 
acceptable rates of residue removal for different crops, soils, and 
locations and to develop the technology to harvest residue at these 
rates. 

Cultivation of algae. Although algae can be cultivated using lower- 
quality water, the impact on water supply and water quality will 
ultimately depend on which cultivation methods are determined to be the 
most viable once this nascent technology reaches commercial scale. Many 
experts we spoke with noted the need for research on how to more 
efficiently cultivate algae to minimize the freshwater consumption and 
water quality impacts. For example, research on how to maximize the 
quantity of water that can be recycled during harvest will be essential 
to making algae a more viable feedstock option. Further research is 
also needed to determine whether the pathogens and predators in the 
lower-quality water are harmful to the algae.[Footnote 41] In addition, 
research is also needed on how to manage water discharges during 
cultivation and harvest of algae. Although it is expected that most 
water will be recycled, a certain amount must be removed to prevent the 
buildup of salt. This water may contain pollutants--such as nutrients, 
heavy metals, and accumulated toxics--that need to be removed to meet 
federal and state water quality standards. 

Data on land use. Better data are needed on what lands are currently 
being used to cultivate feedstocks, what lands may be most suitable for 
future cultivation, and how land is actually being managed, according 
to experts and officials. For example, some experts and officials told 
us there is a need for improved data on the status and trends in the 
CRP. According to a CRP official, USDA does not track what happens to 
land after it is withdrawn from the CRP. Such data would be useful 
because it would help officials gain a better understanding of the 
extent to which marginal lands are being put back into production. In 
addition, improved data on land use would help better target and remove 
the least productive lands from agricultural production, resulting in 
water supply and water quality benefits because these lands generally 
require greater amounts of inputs, according to these experts and 
officials. Research is also needed to determine optimal placement of 
feedstocks and use of agricultural conservation practices to get the 
best yields and minimize adverse environmental impacts. 

Farmer decision making. Several experts and officials told us that a 
better understanding of how farmers make cultivation decisions, such as 
which crops to plant or how to manage their lands, is needed in the 
context of the water resource effects of biofuel feedstocks. 
Specifically, several experts and officials said that research is 
needed to better understand how farmers decide whether to adopt 
agricultural conservation practices. In particular, some experts and 
officials said research should explore how absentee ownership of land 
affects the choice of farming practices. These experts and officials 
told us it is common for landowners to live elsewhere and rent their 
farmland to someone else. For example, in Iowa, 50 percent of 
agricultural land is rented, according to one expert, and renters may 
be making cultivation decisions that maximize short-term gains rather 
than focusing on the long-term health of the land. In addition, several 
experts and officials said that research is needed to understand the 
cultural pressures that may make farmers slow to adopt agricultural 
conservation practices. For example, some experts and officials we 
spoke with said that some farmers may be hesitant to move away from 
traditional farming approaches. 

Conversion. Existing and emerging technology innovations, such as those 
discussed earlier in the report, may be able to address some effects of 
conversion on water resources, but more research into optimizing 
current technologies is also needed, according to experts. For example, 
research into new technologies that further reduce water needs for 
biorefinery cooling systems would have a significant impact on the 
overall water use at a biorefinery, according to several experts. 
Congress is considering legislation--the Energy and Water Research 
Integration Act--that would require DOE's research, development, and 
demonstration programs to seek to advance energy and energy efficiency 
technologies that minimize freshwater use, increase water use 
efficiency, and utilize nontraditional water sources with efforts to 
improve the quality of that water.[Footnote 42] It would also require 
the Secretary of Energy to create a council to promote and enable, in 
part, improved energy and water resource data collection. Similarly, 
with regard to conversion facilities for the next generation 
feedstocks, further research is needed to ensure that the next 
generation of biorefineries is as water efficient as possible. For 
example, for the conversion of algae into biofuels, research is needed 
on how to extract oil from algal cells so as to preserve the water 
contained in the cell, which would allow some of that water to be 
recycled. 

Storage and distribution. EPA officials noted that additional research 
related to storage and distribution of biofuels is also needed to help 
reduce the effects of leaks that can result from the storage of biofuel 
blends in incompatible tank systems. Although EPA has some research 
under way, more is needed into the compatibility of fuel blends 
containing more than 10 percent ethanol with the existing fueling 
infrastructure. In addition, research should evaluate advanced 
conversion technologies that can be used to produce a variety of 
renewable fuels that can be used in the existing infrastructure. 
Similarly, research is needed into biodiesel distribution and storage, 
such as assessing the compatibility of blends greater than 5 percent 
with the existing storage and distribution infrastructure. 

In addition, experts and officials identified the following needs for 
better data on local and regional water resources: 

Water availability data. Because some local aquifers and surface water 
bodies are already stressed, many experts called for more and better 
data on water resources.[Footnote 43] Although USGS reports data on 
water use every 5 years, the agency acknowledges that it does not have 
good estimates of water use for biofuel production for irrigation or 
fuel production, so it is unclear how much water has been or will be 
actually consumed with increases in cultivation and conversion of 
biofuel feedstocks. Furthermore, some experts and officials told us 
that even when local water data are available, the data sources are 
often inconsistent or out of date. For example, the data may capture 
different information or lack the information necessary for making 
decisions regarding biofuel production. 

According to several experts and officials, better data on water 
supplies would also help ensure that new biorefineries are built in 
areas with enough water for current and future conversion processes. 
Although biorefineries account for only a small percentage of water 
used during the biofuel production process, the additional withdrawals 
from aquifers can affect other users that share these water sources. 
Improving water supply data would help determine whether the existing 
water supplies can support the addition of a biorefinery in a 
particular area. Some experts also noted the need for research on the 
availability of lower-quality water sources such as brackish 
groundwater, which could be used for cultivation of some next 
generation feedstocks, especially algae. Better information is 
necessary to better define the spatial distribution, depth, quantity, 
physical and chemical characteristics, and sustainable withdrawal rates 
for these lower-quality water sources, and to predict the long-term 
effects of water extraction. 

Linkages between datasets. Some experts also cited a need for better 
linkages between existing datasets. For example, datasets on current 
land use could be combined with aquifer data to help determine what 
land is available for biofuel feedstock cultivation that would have 
minimal effects on water resources. In addition, some experts said that 
while there are data that state agencies and private engineering 
companies have collected on small local aquifers, a significant effort 
would be required to identify, coordinate, and analyze this information 
because linkages do not currently exist. 

Geological process data. Several experts and officials also said that 
research into geological processes is needed to understand the rate at 
which aquifers are replenished and the impact of increased biofuel 
production on those aquifers. Although research suggests there should 
be sufficient water resources to meet future biofuel feedstock 
production demands at a national level, increased production may lead 
to significant water shortages in certain regions. For example, 
additional withdrawals in states relying heavily on irrigation for 
agriculture may place new demands on already stressed aquifers in the 
Midwest. Even in water-rich states, such as Iowa, concerns have arisen 
over the effects of increased biofuel production, and research is 
needed to assess the hydrology and quality of a state's aquifers to 
help ensure it is on a path to sustainable production, according to one 
state official. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to USDA, DOE, DOI, and EPA for 
review and comment. USDA generally agreed with the findings of our 
report and provided several comments for our consideration. 
Specifically, USDA suggested that we consider condensing our discussion 
of agricultural practices, equipment, and grower decisions, as these 
items may or may not be relevant depending on the feedstock or 
regulatory control. However, we made no revisions to the report because 
we believe that cultivation is a significant part of the biofuels life 
cycle, and these items are relevant and necessary to consider when 
discussing the potential effect of biofuel production on water 
resources. USDA also noted that the report is more focused on corn 
ethanol production than next generation biofuels and that we had not 
adequately recognized industry efforts to be more sustainable through a 
movement toward advanced biofuels. Given the maturity of the corn 
ethanol industry, the extent of knowledge about the effects on water 
supply and quality from cultivation of corn and its conversion into 
ethanol, and the uncertainty related to the effects of next generation 
biofuel production, we believe the balance in the report is 
appropriate. Moreover, although the shift toward next generation 
biofuels is a positive step in terms of sustainability, this industry 
is still developing and the full extent of the environmental benefits 
from this shift is still unknown. USDA also provided technical 
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. See appendix III for 
USDA's letter. 

DOE generally agreed with our findings and approved of the overall 
content of the report and provided several comments for our 
consideration. Specifically, DOE noted that it may be too early to make 
projections on the amount of CRP land that will be converted and the 
amount of additional inputs that will be needed for cultivation of 
biofuel feedstocks. In addition, DOE suggested we expand our discussion 
of efforts to address risks of ethanol transport and note the water use 
associated with the production of biomass-to-liquid fuels. We adjusted 
the text as appropriate to reflect these suggestions. DOE also 
suggested that the report should discuss water pricing; however, this 
was outside the scope of our review. See appendix IV for DOE's letter. 

In its general comments, DOI stated that the report is useful and 
agreed with the finding on the need for better data on water resources 
to aid the decision about where to cultivate feedstocks and locate 
biorefineries. DOI also suggested that the report should include a 
discussion of the other environmental impacts of biofuel production, 
such as effects on wildlife habitat or effects on soil. In response, we 
note that this report was specifically focused on the impacts of 
biofuel production on water resources; however, for a broader 
discussion of biofuel production, including other environmental 
effects, see our August 2009 report.[Footnote 44] DOI also provided 
additional technical comments that we incorporated into the report as 
appropriate. See appendix V for DOI's letter. 

EPA did not submit formal comments, but did provide technical comments 
that we incorporated into the final report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior; 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and other 
interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact 
us at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov or gaffiganm@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Ms. Anu K. Mittal: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

Signed by: 

Mark E. Gaffigan:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives for this review were to describe (1) the known water 
resource effects of biofuel production in the United States; (2) the 
agricultural conservation practices and technological innovations that 
exist or are being developed to address these effects and any barriers 
that may prevent the adoption of these practices and technologies; and 
(3) key research needs regarding the effects of biofuel production on 
water resources. 

To address each of these objectives, we conducted a systematic analysis 
of relevant articles of relevant scientific articles, U.S. 
multidisciplinary studies, and key federal and state government reports 
addressing the production of biofuels and its impact on water supply 
and quality, including impacts from the cultivation of biofuel 
feedstock and water use and effluent release from biofuel conversion 
processes. In conducting this review, we searched databases such as 
SciSearch, Biosis Previews, and ProQuest and used a snowball technique 
to identify additional studies, asking experts to identify relevant 
studies and reviewing studies from article bibliographies. We reviewed 
studies that fit the following criteria for selection: (1) the research 
was of sufficient breadth and depth to provide observations or 
conclusions directly related to our objectives; (2) the research was 
targeted specifically toward projecting or demonstrating effects of 
increased biofuel feedstock cultivation, conversion, and use on U.S. 
water supply and water quality; and (3) typically published from 2004 
to 2009. We examined key assumptions, methods, and relevant findings of 
major scientific articles, primarily on water supply and water quality. 
We believe we have included the key scientific studies and have 
qualified our findings where appropriate. However, it is important to 
note that, given our methodology, we may not have identified all of the 
studies with findings relevant to these three objectives. Where 
applicable, we assessed the reliability of the data we obtained and 
found them to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

In collaboration with the National Academy of Sciences, we identified 
and interviewed recognized experts affiliated with U.S.-based 
institutions, including academic institutions, the federal government, 
and research-oriented entities. These experts have (1) published 
research analyzing the water resource requirements of one or more 
biofuel feedstocks and the implications of increased biofuels 
production on lands with limited water resources, (2) analyzed the 
possible effects of increased biofuel production on water, or (3) 
analyzed the water impacts of biofuels production and use. Together 
with the National Academy of Sciences' lists of experts, we identified 
authors of key agricultural and environmental studies as a basis for 
conducting semistructured interviews to assess what is known about the 
effects of the increasing production of biofuels and important areas 
that need additional research. The experts we interviewed included 
research scientists in such fields as environmental science, agronomy, 
soil science, hydrogeology, ecology, and engineering. 

Furthermore, to gain an understanding of the programs and plans states 
have or are developing to address increased biofuel production, we 
conducted in-depth reviews of the following five states: Georgia, Iowa, 
Minnesota, Nebraska, and Texas. We selected these states based on a 
number of criteria: ethanol and biodiesel production levels, feedstock 
cultivation type, reliance on irrigation, geographic diversity among 
states currently producing biofuels, and approaches to water resource 
management and law. For each of the states, we analyzed documentation 
from and conducted interviews with a wide range of stakeholders to gain 
the views of diverse organizations covering all stages of biofuel 
production. These stakeholders included relevant state agencies, 
including those responsible for oversight of agriculture, environmental 
quality, and water and soil resources; federal agency officials with 
responsibility for a particular state or region, such as officials from 
the Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); university 
researchers; industry representatives; feedstock producers; and 
relevant nongovernmental organizations, such as state-level corn 
associations, ethanol producer associations, and environmental 
organizations. We also conducted site visits to Iowa and Texas to 
observe agricultural practices and the operation of selected biofuels 
production plants. 

We also interviewed senior officials, scientists, economists, 
researchers, and other federal officials from USDA, the Departments of 
Defense and Energy, EPA, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and USGS 
about effects on the water supply and water quality during the 
cultivation of biofuel feedstocks and the conversion and storage of the 
finished biofuels. In addition, we interviewed state officials from 
Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Texas as well as agricultural 
producers and representatives of biofuel conversion facilities to 
determine the impact of biofuels production in each state. We also 
interviewed representatives of nongovernmental organizations, such as 
the Renewable Fuels Association, the Biotechnology Industry 
Organization, the Pacific Institute, and the Fertilizer Institute. 

To conduct the interview content analysis, we reviewed interviews, 
selected relevant statements from the interviews, and identified and 
labeled trends using a coding system. Codes were based on trends 
identified by previous GAO biofuel-related work, background information 
collected for the review, and the interviews for this review. The 
methodology for each objective varied slightly, because the first 
objective focused on regional differences and therefore relied on case 
study interviews, while analysis performed for the remaining two 
objectives used expert interviews in addition to case study interviews. 
Once relevant data were extracted and coded, we used the coded data to 
identify and analyze trends. For the purposes of reporting our results, 
we used the following categories to quantify responses of experts and 
officials: "some" refers to responses from 2 to 3 individuals, 
"several" refers to responses from 4 to 6 individuals, and "many" 
refers to responses from 7 or more individuals. 

We conducted our work from January 2009 to November 2009 in accordance 
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are 
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. 
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions 
in this product. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Examples of Agricultural Practices Available to Reduce the 
Water Quality and Water Supply Effects of Feedstock Cultivation for 
Biofuels: 

Soil erosion prevention: 

Agricultural conservation practice: Crop residue management; 
Description: Any tillage method that leaves a portion of the previous 
crop residues (unharvested portions of the crop) on the soil surface; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Reduces soil erosion caused by tillage and exposure of bare soil to 
wind and water; 
* Reduces water lost to evaporation; 
* Improves soil quality; 
* Reduces sediment and fertilizer runoff. 

Agricultural conservation practice: No-till; 
Description: Method that leaves soil and crop residue undisturbed 
except for the crop row where the seed is placed in the ground; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Reduces soil erosion caused by tillage and exposure of bare soil to 
wind and water; 
* Reduces water lost to evaporation; 
* Improves soil quality by improving soil organic matter; 
* Reduces sediment and fertilizer runoff. 

Agricultural conservation practice: Cover crops; 
Description: A close-growing crop that temporarily protects the soil 
during the interim period before the next crop is established; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Reduces erosion; 
* Reduces nitrate leaching; 
* Integrates crops that store nitrogen from the atmosphere (such as 
soy), replaces the nitrogen that corn and other grains remove from the 
soil; 
* Reduces pesticide use by naturally breaking the cycle of weeds, 
insects, and diseases; 
* Improves soil quality by improving soil organic matter. 

Nutrient pollution reduction: 

Agricultural conservation practice: Crop rotation; 
Description: Change in the crops grown in a field, usually in a planned 
sequence. For example, crops could be grown in the following sequence, 
corn-soy-corn, rather than in continuous corn; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Integrates crops that obtain nitrogen from the atmosphere (such as 
soy), replaces the nitrogen that corn and other grains remove from the 
soil; 
* Reduces pesticide use by naturally breaking the cycle of weeds, 
insects, and diseases. 

Agricultural conservation practice: Nutrient management; 
Description: Use of nutrients to match the rate, timing, form, and 
application method of fertilizer to crop needs; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Reduces nutrient runoff and leaching. 

Agricultural conservation practice: Subsurface fertilizer application; 
Description: Injection of fertilizer below the soil surface; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Reduces runoff and gaseous emission from nutrients. 

Agricultural conservation practice: Controlled-release fertilizers; 
Description: Use of fertilizers with water-insoluble coatings that can 
prevent water-soluble nitrogen from dissolving; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Reduces nutrient runoff and leaching; 
* Increases the efficiency of the way nutrients are supplied to and are 
taken up by the plant, regardless of the crop. 

Agricultural conservation practice: Controlled drainage; 
Description: Water control structures, such as a flashboard riser, 
installed in the drainage outlet allow water level to be raised or 
lowered as needed; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Minimizes transport of nutrients to surface waters. 

Irrigation techniques: 

Agricultural conservation practice: Subsurface drip irrigation systems; 
Description: Irrigation systems buried directly beneath the crop apply 
water directly to the root zone; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Minimizes water lost to evaporation and runoff. 

Agricultural conservation practice: Low-energy precision-application 
systems; 
Description: Irrigation systems that operate at lower pressures and 
have higher irrigation-water application and distribution efficiencies; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Minimizes net water loss and energy use. 

Agricultural conservation practice: Reclaimed water use; 
Description: Water recovered from domestic, municipal, and industrial 
wastewater treatment plants that has been treated to standards that 
allow safe reuse for irrigation; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Reduces demand on surface and ground waters. 

Multiple benefits: 

Agricultural conservation practice: Wetland restoration; 
Description: Restoration of a previously drained wetland by filling 
ditches or removing or breaking tile drains; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Reduces flooding downstream; 
* Filters sediment, nutrients, and chemicals; 
* Provides habitat for wetland plants, amphibians, and birds. 

Agricultural conservation practice: Riparian buffer zones; 
Description: Strips or small areas of land planted along waterways in 
permanent vegetation that help control pollutants and promote other 
environmental benefits; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Traps sediment; 
* Filters nutrients; 
* Provides habitat and corridors for fish and wildlife. 

Agricultural conservation practice: Precision agriculture; 
Description: A system of management of site-specific inputs (e.g., 
fertilizer, pesticides) on a site-specific basis such as land 
preparation for planting, seed, fertilizers and nutrients, and pest 
control. Precision agriculture may be able to maximize farm production 
efficiency while minimizing environmental effects. Key technological 
tools used in this approach include global positioning systems, 
geographic information systems, real-time soil testing, real-time 
weather information, etc; 
Potential environmental benefits: 
* Reduces nutrient runoff and leaching; 
* Reduces erosion; 
* Reduces pesticide use. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USDA: 
United States Department of Agriculture: 
Research, Education, and Economics: 
Agricultural Research Service: 

Office of the Administrator: 
James L. Whitten Federal Building: 
Room 302-A: 
1400 Independence Avenue, SW: 
Washington, D.C. 20250-0300: 

An Equal Opportunity Employer: 

Ms. Anu Mittal: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
441 G. Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Mittal: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office Draft Report, Energy-Water Nexus: Many 
Uncertainties Remain About National and Regional Effects of Increased 
Biofuel Production on Water Resources (GAO-10-116). 

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reviewed the GAO Draft Report 
and is in general agreement with its findings. We are impressed with 
its comprehensiveness, the broad scope of topics covered, and accurate 
assessment of those issues. We agree with the report's general 
contention regarding the uncertainties of the availability of water 
resources to sustain increased biofuel production. Moreover, several of 
the specific issues cited—such as the potential for ground water 
contamination from benzene production in underground storage tanks 
(UST)—provide great insight into the many infrastructure deployment 
challenges currently facing biofuels production and distribution. The 
report also does an excellent job laying out the parameters that frame 
the link between bioenergy and water resource management, thus 
providing an excellent starting point for the establishment of research 
and development needs to address water availability and quality issues 
related to increased production of biofuels. Some substantive comments 
on the report are as follows: 

1. We note that some topics stray from the overarching issue of 
bioenergy production and water management. For instance, the report 
discusses details of conservation tillage practices, the need for 
planting and harvesting equipment, and decisions that a grower might or 
might not make related to production and environmental concerns. Some 
of these questions may or may not be relevant depending on the 
biofeedstock to be produced or may be more dependent on regulatory 
control. Condensing and shortening these areas could improve the focus 
of the report. 

2. The report documents the move toward advanced biofuels development 
and notes that many producers are beginning to adopt feedstocks that 
use less water. The report fails to adequately recognize the degree to 
which industry is already moving along a more sustainable development 
path. 

3. The Draft report allocates significant space and attention to grain 
based ethanol production, even as concentrated efforts and policies are 
focusing on next generation biofuels. 

USDA's technical and specific comments are attached. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

[Illegible] for: 
Edward B. Knipling: 
Administrator: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

November 12, 2009: 

Mr. Mark Gaffigan: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Gaffigan: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft GAO Report 
titled: "Energy-Water Nexus: Many Uncertainties Remain About National 
and Regional Effects of Increased Biofuel Production on Water 
Resources" (GA0-10-116). The Department of Energy (DOE) appreciates the 
effort put forth by GAO with regard to this report and is in general 
agreement with GAO's findings and approves of the overall content of 
the report, but would like to take this occasion to reiterate its 
assertion that certain sections of the report would benefit from 
further revision. 

First, statements regarding the likely need for additional nutrients 
and pesticide inputs on marginal lands (page 11) and the role of 
biofuels in motivating farmers to return Conservation Reserve Program 
(CRP) land to row crop production (page 12) are speculative. It could 
be noted that alternative views exist and that it is too early to make 
projections for CRP conversion and for whether or not additional inputs 
are needed. 

Second, the section on storage and distribution is appropriate but 
could be expanded. This section would provide a clearer overview of 
risks of biofuels if they were put into context. The inclusion of a 
brief description of the risks associated with storing and transporting 
petroleum products would be a useful comparison to the risks of 
biofuels storage and distribution. The EIA suggests that the report 
recognize the dramatic expansion of El0 motor fuel over the past few 
years and the governmental and industry efforts to address the 
associated risks of handling ethanol blends. The Department of 
Transportation and its Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety 
Administration (PHMSA) division, in conjunction with industry groups, 
are engaged in efforts to deal with the associated risks in handling 
ethanol blends. 

Third, it should be noted that in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2009 
[hyperlink, http://www.cia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html] projections 
there is a growing use of biomass-to-liquids (BTL) fuels (5 billion 
gallons by 2030) to satisfy the EISA 2007 cellulosic biofuels mandate. 
EIA believes it might be worth mentioning that the production process 
for BTL requires no continuous water inputs (water is used for cooling 
but in a closed loop system). 

Moreover, pyrolysis oils which are also being currently considered as 
cellulosic biofuels use no process water as well. The table in the 
Appendix that summarizes the potential environmental benefits of the 
agricultural practices is very useful. The inclusion of a similar table 
summarizing the pros and cons of the various biofuel conversion 
processes discussed in the text would be a useful addition. 

Finally, DOE believes it would be appropriate to raise the issue of 
price reform for water in this report. Price sends an important signal 
to consumers. Distorted prices are resulting in overconsumption of 
water because the full cost of water is not always passed on to the
consumer. In areas where water is too inexpensive to monitor, 
incomplete data on water use exists. 

DOE trusts that GAO will consider these suggestions, but does not deem 
it necessary that the report be revised on account of the three issues 
raised. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft 
Report. We look forward to working with GAO as we continue our efforts 
to develop the potential of biofuels. 

If you have any questions, please contact me or Ms. Martha Oliver, 
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, at (202) 586-
2229. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jacques Beaudry-Losique: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy: 
Office of Technology Development: 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department or the Interior: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Washington, DC 20240: 

November 12 2009: 

Ms. Anti Mittal: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Mittal: 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft Government Accountability Office 
report entitled, "Energy-Water Nexus: Many Uncertainties Remain about 
National and Regional Effects of Increased Biotite! Production on Water 
Resources" (GAO-10-116). 

The GAO report explicitly makes no recommendations: however, we would 
like to provide technical comments and some general comments. We hope 
these comments will assist you in preparing the final report. if you 
have any questions or need additional information, please contact Donna 
Myers, Chief, National Water-Quality Assessment Program, United States 
Geological Survey, at (703) 648-5012. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 
Anne J. Castle: 
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science: 

Enclosures: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Anu Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov: 

Mark Gaffigan, (202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Erdmann, Assistant 
Director; JoAnna Berry; Mark Braza; Dave Brown; Muriel Brown; Colleen 
Candrl; Miriam Hill; Carol Kolarik; Micah McMillan; Chuck Orthman; Tim 
Persons; Nicole Rishel; Ellery Scott; Ben Shouse; Jeanette Soares; 
Swati Thomas; Lisa Vojta; and Rebecca Wilson made significant 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 110-140, § 201 (2007). The act authorizes the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 
consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, to waive 
the RFS levels established in the act, by petition or on the 
Administrator's own motion, if meeting the required level would 
severely harm the economy or environment of a state, a region, or the 
United States or there is an inadequate domestic supply. Throughout 
this report, the RFS levels established in the act are referred to as 
requirements, even though these levels could be waived by the EPA 
Administrator. 

[2] For additional information on the effects of biofuel production, 
see GAO, Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required 
Increases in Production and Use, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-446] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 25, 
2009). 

[3] Other major sources of freshwater withdrawals in the United States 
are thermoelectric (39 percent), public water supply (13 percent), and 
industrial (5 percent) uses. The remaining withdrawals consist of 
mining (1 percent), domestic (1 percent), aquaculture (1 percent), and 
livestock (1 percent) uses. S. Hutson et al., "Estimated Use of Water 
in the United States in 2000," Circular 1268, U.S. Geological Survey 
(2004). 

[4] The RFS applies to transportation fuel sold or introduced into 
commerce in the 48 contiguous states. However, the Administrator of EPA 
is authorized, upon a petition from Alaska or Hawaii, to allow the RFS 
to apply in that state. On June 22, 2007, Hawaii petitioned EPA to opt 
into the RFS, and the Administrator approved that request. For the 
purposes of this report, statements that the RFS applies to U.S. 
transportation fuel refer to the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii. 

[5] Pub. L. No. 110-140, § 201 (2007). 

[6] Wu, M., M. Mintz, M. Wang, and S. Arora. "Consumptive Water Use in 
the Production of Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline," Center for 
Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National 
Laboratory (Argonne, Ill., January 2009.) 

[7] According to the National Corn Growers Association, across the 
United States the acres of corn irrigated represent 21 percent of the 
total irrigated crop area. The volume of water used in corn irrigation 
represents 7 percent of all irrigation water. 

[8] McGuire, V.L., "Water-level changes in the High Plains aquifer, 
predevelopment to 2007, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007," USGS SIR 2009-5019 
(2009). 

[9] Maupin, M.A., and Barber, N.L., "Estimated withdrawals from 
principal aquifers in the United States," USGS Circular 1279 (2000). 

[10] Increased corn cultivation could also result in soil erosion, 
which reduces fertility by reducing nutrient-rich topsoil. It also 
contributes to sedimentation, which fills channels in deep areas of 
waterbodies, affecting aquatic life and recreation. Sediment can also 
carry contaminants, such as fertilizers and pesticides. 

[11] The algae themselves do not reduce oxygen; instead, when the algae 
die, bacteria deplete oxygen as the algae decompose. 

[12] Dried distiller's grain, a byproduct of ethanol production used in 
animal feed, also contains high levels of phosphorous and contributes 
to overenrichment of surface and marine waters. 

[13] Diaz, Robert and Rutger Rosenberg, "Spreading Dead Zones and 
Consequences for Marine Ecosystems," Science, vol. 321 (2008): pp. 926- 
929. 

[14] Alexander, Richard, Richard Smith, Gregory Schwarz, Elizabeth 
Boyer, Jacqueline Nolan, and John Brakebill, "Difference in Phosphorous 
and Nitrogen Delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River 
Basin," Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 42, no. 3 (2008): 
pp. 822-830. 

[15] Gilliom et al., "The Quality of Our Nation's Waters--Pesticides in 
the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001," USGS Circular 1291 
(2006): p. 172. 

[16] While some agricultural residues must be left on the ground to 
maintain soil moisture and carbon content, a significant portion of the 
total can be removed in many areas. According to a DOE official, in 
some parts of the country removal of a portion of the residue is needed 
because the excess residue does not degrade quickly enough and 
interferes with subsequent crop growth. 

[17] National Research Council, Water Implications of Biofuels 
Production in the United States. The National Academies Press, 
Washington, D.C. (2008). 

[18] Water is still lost with closed cultivation due to the cooling 
needs of the closed systems, among other uses. 

[19] In comparison, the recovery and refining of 1 gallon of crude oil 
requires a total of 3.6 to 7.0 gallons of water. Wu, M. et al., 
"Consumptive Water Use in the Production of Ethanol and Petroleum 
Gasoline," Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, 
Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, Ill., January 2009). 

[20] DOE's Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy 
Outlook 2009 projects that there is a sufficient growth in use of 
biomass-to-liquids (BTL) fuels to meet the EISA cellulosic biofuel 
requirement and that the production process for BTL fuels does not 
require continuous water inputs. BTL refers to processes for converting 
biomass into a range of liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel. In 
addition, EIA noted that certain oils currently eligible for inclusion 
as cellulosic biofuels also do not use process water. 

[21] Reverse osmosis is a filtration process used to purify freshwater 
by, for example, removing the salts from it. This process is used to 
treat water prior to discharging it from the ethanol plant. 

[22] Glycerin results in elevated levels of biological oxygen demand, 
which is a measure of how much oxygen it will take to break down the 
material. According to EPA officials, biodiesel wastewater with small 
amounts of glycerin and efficient recovery of methanol has a biological 
oxygen demand of 10,000-15,000 mg/liter, compared to a normal wash 
water biological oxygen demand of about 200 mg/liter. With glycerin, 
biodiesel wastewater has a biological oxygen demand of 80,000 mg/liter. 
Pure glycerin has a biological oxygen demand of 1,000,000 mg/liter. 

[23] There are other hazards that may occur from releases of ethanol- 
blended fuels. For example, some spills of gasoline with ethanol may 
pose an explosion risk. Large-scale releases of ethanol have been shown 
to degrade under anaerobic conditions to produce explosive 
concentrations of methane. According to EPA, this can pose a 
significant challenge for remediation contractors mitigating biofuel 
spills. In addition, the methane generated in the subsurface can 
migrate into overlying buildings, degrading indoor air quality. 

[24] When ethanol is present, the ethanol is consumed by micro- 
organisms in the soil before other, more harmful fuel constituents. 
This decomposition takes up nutrients and oxygen needed to break down 
benzene and related compounds. As a result, the benzene plume extends a 
greater distance. 

[25] Mackay, Douglas, Nicholas R. de Sieyes, Murray D. Einarson, Kevin 
P. Feris, Alexander A. Pappas, Isaac A. Wood, Lisa Jacobson, Larry G. 
Justice, Mark N. Noske, Kate M. Scow, and John T. Wilson. "Impact of 
Ethanol on the Natural Attenuation of Benzene, Toluene, and o-Xylene in 
a Normally Sulfate-Reducing Aquifer." Environmental Science Technology, 
vol. 40 (2006): pp. 6123-6130; and Ruiz-Aguilar, G., K. O'Reilly, and 
P. Alvarez. "A Comparison of Benzene and Toluene Plume Lengths for 
Sites Contaminated with Regular vs. Ethanol-Amended Gasoline." Ground 
Water Monitoring & Remediation, vol. 23, no. 1 (winter 2003): pp. 48-
53. 

[26] EIA noted that use of E10 has dramatically increased over the past 
few years and that there are governmental and industry efforts, such as 
the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Material 
Safety Administration, that work with industry groups to address risks 
associated with handling ethanol blends. 

[27] Some UST systems are specifically designed to store fuel 
containing 85 percent ethanol. According to EPA officials, owners using 
blends containing 85 percent ethanol generally work with a licensed 
installer to use certified, compatible storage and dispensing 
equipment. UST systems comprise many components; however, some of these 
components have not been tested for use with high ethanol fuel blends. 

[28] Any entity that withdraws more than 100,000 gallons a day (monthly 
average) of surface water or 100,000 gallons a day (daily average) of 
groundwater requires a water permit. 

[29] See the USDA-NRCS 2003 Annual National Resources Inventory 
[hylerlink, 
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/nri03eros-mrb.html]. 

[30] Low-energy precision-application center-pivot systems discharge 
water between alternate crop rows planted in a circle. In subsurface 
drip irrigation, drip tubes are placed from 6 to 12 inches below the 
soil surface, the depth depending on the soil type, crop, and tillage 
practices. 

[31] In addition to genetically engineering crops, USDA officials 
commented that traditional breeding techniques offer great potential 
for decreasing water, nutrient, and pesticide requirements of biofuels 
feedstocks. 

[32] USDA officials noted that use of precision agriculture may also be 
limited in the cultivation of cellulosic feedstocks due to the costs 
involved. 

[33] Cooling towers are used to control temperatures during the 
conversion process by transferring the heat to cooler water. This heat 
is then transferred via evaporation to the atmosphere. 

[34] In one type of dry cooling system, steam flows through condenser 
tubes and is cooled directly by fans blowing air across the outside of 
these tubes to condense the steam back into liquid water. 

[35] GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: Improvements to Federal Water Use Data 
Would Increase Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-23] (Washington, D.C.: 
Oct. 16, 2009). 

[36] Wu, M. et al., "Consumptive Water Use in the Production of Ethanol 
and Petroleum Gasoline," Center for Transportation Research, Energy 
Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, Ill., January 
2009). 

[37] Similar to ethanol, biobutanol is an alcohol that can be produced 
from domestic feedstocks. However, biobutanol has a few advantages over 
ethanol. Biobutanol has a higher energy content than ethanol and is 
compatible with the existing infrastructure. 

[38] Liquid hydrocarbons, such as petroleum, are a class of chemical 
compounds containing only hydrogen and carbon. Potentially, 
hydrocarbons can be derived from substitutes such as oils from plants 
or algae. 

[39] Evapotranspiration refers to the water lost to the atmosphere from 
soil and water bodies (evaporation) and from plant leaves 
(transpiration). 

[40] National Research Council, Water Implications of Biofuels 
Production in the United States, 2008. 

[41] U.S. Department of Energy, "National Algal Biofuels Technology 
Roadmap," Draft, 2009. In December 2008, DOE convened a workshop to 
discuss and identify the critical barriers currently preventing the 
economical production of algal biofuels at a commercial scale. As a 
result of this workshop, DOE assembled a draft roadmap that highlights 
a number of areas in need of additional research. 

[42] H.R. 3598, 111th Cong. (2009). 

[43] The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 requires, in part, 
the Secretary of Interior, in coordination with the National Advisory 
Committee on Water Information and state and local water resource 
agencies, to establish a national water availability and use assessment 
program. Pub. L. No. 111-11, § 9508(a) (2009), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 
10368(a). This program will, among other things, provide a more 
accurate assessment of the status of the water resources of the United 
States. The program may address some of the water availability data 
needs identified by the experts we spoke with. 

[44] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-446]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: