Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
April 11, 2002 Thursday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2470 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HEADLINE:
DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
TESTIMONY-BY: MS. JOSEPH
A. MOORE, ALDERMAN
AFFILIATION: CHICAGO
BODY: Testimony The Committee on Energy and
Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman
Drinking Water Needs and
Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
April 11, 2002
Ms. Joseph A. Moore Chicago Alderman
Mr.
Chairman, members of the Committee: I am Joseph Moore, Alderman from the city of
Chicago, and chair of the National League of Cities' Energy, Environment and
Natural Resources Committee. I am here today to testify on behalf of NLC and the
18,000 cities we represent across the United States on the need for an expanded
federal investment in the nation's drinking
water
infrastructure. We appreciate the opportunity to present the views of
our members as well as those of the
Water Infrastructure
Network[1].
I would like to discuss the
Water
Infrastructure Network (WIN) Report -
Water
Infrastructure NOW - which recommends a major new and revitalized
federal commitment to the nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
It outlines the parameters of a potential federal response to the
$
1 trillion funding gap between the amount cities are currently
investing in our drinking water and wastewater infrastructure and the additional
dollars needed to assure protection of public health, the environment and our
economy over the next generation. Before examining the details of the Report,
however, it is necessary to address some fundamental questions:
(1) Why
do we have a funding gap of such enormous magnitude?
(2) What have local
governments been doing to address the issue?
(3) Why should the federal
government help? and,
(4) How should the federal government help?
1.Why is there a
water infrastructure funding gap?
A number of factors contribute to the
water
infrastructure funding gap facing municipalities:
the
simultaneous expiration of the useful life of
water
infrastructure installed at different times;
population growth;
and
implementation of new, more costly, and more complex federal
mandates which, in effect,
substitute federal priorities for local
priorities.
The nation's drinking
water infrastructure
represents more than a century of investment, funded almost entirely by local
ratepayers. A significant part of the nation's
water
infrastructure dates from the late 19th century. More recent expansions
of these systems took place following the two world wars. All of which means the
newest systems are over 50 years old. What is more, the newer the
infrastructure, the more likely it is to be deteriorating. Different materials,
with increasingly shorter useful lives, were used over time, thus leaving us in
the position where 100 year's worth of infrastructure is being exhausted all at
once. As a consequence, municipalities now face a confluence of deterioration of
their underground pipes, and, in some cases, their treatment facilities, that
process the nation's drinking water and sewerage.
Until passage of the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, the federal government made no
financial commitment to the nation's drinking water systems. The fact that
drinking water in the United States is among the safest in the world is a
significant tribute to the local ratepayers and their leadership that have
financed these treatment facilities.
Another factor contributing to the
current funding gap is that urban populations grew significantly as local
water infrastructure aged. Systems designed and built for the
population at the time of their construction are now serving two to three times
as many people as their design capacity.
While Congress recognized the
need to provide financial assistance to municipal drinking water utilities when
it passed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, this funding is
limited in its use for infrastructure repair. For the most part, it is available
only as loans, and is substantially targeted to addressing the non-compliance
problems of the nation's smaller drinking water systems.
Finally,
federal mandates have also played a role in diverting local resources away from
local needs and priorities and retargeting them to federal priorities. When
cities do manage to set aside funds to address a critical local
water
infrastructure need, more often than not, a new unfunded - and usually
costly - federal mandate depletes local resources that would have been dedicated
to infrastructure replacement.
2.What have local governments been doing
to help themselves?
local governments - or rather local tax and
ratepayers - invest $
60 billion annually in our drinking water
and wastewater systems. A recent asset management study in 20 cities estimated
the average per capita replacement value of their systems to be
$
2,400 per person.
local systems are raising water and
sewer rates to accommodate the increasing costs (which EPA indicates are 6
percent a year above the inflation rate) of operating and maintaining their
systems.
local governments are managing their infrastructure assets in a
more businesslike manner, spurred in part by new federal requirements developed
by the Government Accounting Standards Board-on which local government bond
ratings are based. local governments are applying new management tools to assess
and operate their systems more effectively and efficiently.
Until
recently, our drinking
water infrastructure was funded entirely
by local ratepayers. And the deteriorating
water infrastructure
that must be replaced because it has maximized its useful life over the past 50
to 100 years was constructed entirely at local expense.
In addition,
municipal local rate structures generate the $
60 billion
annually we invest in maintaining and operating our drinking water and
wastewater systems and cover 90 percent of all costs, including construction
costs. In meeting the enormous needs of the future, cities also expect to
finance-again through local ratepayers- trillion of the needs for repair,
rehabilitation and replacement of the aging and crumbling
water
infrastructure over the next 20 years.
Municipalities have also
been raising their water and sewer rates to accommodate increases in their
operating and maintenance costs, which, according to EPA, are rising at six
percent above inflation annually. Many cities require developers, and
subsequently homeowners, to finance the cost of new connections to municipal
systems.
In addition, cities are improving their management practices.
Local governments will soon be required to comply with new rules promulgated by
the Government Accounting Standards Board in Statement 34 (GASB 34). These rules
will require municipalities to report their long-term financial position,
quantifying resources and obligations more comprehensively. The information
cities will be required to provide will include an evaluation of the condition
of local infrastructure. Bond rating services and others will be able to
evaluate whether cities are "acquiring assets to benefit future fiscal years or
if these assets are being used but not replaced."[2] The GASB 34 rule will, at a
minimum, encourage local governments, who have not done so already, to evaluate
their infrastructure in a more systematic manner.
Other asset management
tools, such as the "Nessie Study" are also being implemented by cities to help
identify when pipes and treatment plants were built, how long they can be
expected to last, when they will need to be replaced, and the likely cost for
such replacement. More efficient operations are also among the tools used to
provide more cost effective operations at the municipal level. And some local
governments are subjecting their system operations to competitive bidding to
affect cost savings and generate new and better efficiencies.
3. Why
should the federal government help?
a sound infrastructure is the
foundation of a sound economy;
a sound infrastructure is essential to
the protection of public health;
federal assistance, as demonstrated by
the success of the Clean Water Act, is the catalyst that ensures public health
protection and environmental progress; and,
federal assistance is
essential to enhance the security of our drinking water systems.
The
Water Infrastructure NOW report makes an eloquent case for a
renewed federal financial partnership in
water infrastructure.
It says:
The case for federal investment is compelling. Needs are large
and unprecedented; in many locations, local sources cannot be expected to meet
this challenge alone; and because waters are shared across local and state
boundaries, the benefits of federal help will accrue to the entire nation. Clean
and safe water is no less a national priority than are national defense, an
adequate system of interstate highways, or a safe and efficient aviation system.
These latter infrastructure programs enjoy sustainable, long-term federal
grant programs; under current policy, water and wastewater
infrastructure do not.
With respect to the need for enhanced security,
it should be remembered that our drinking water facilities were constructed with
little, if any thought given to the potential for the unprecedented terrorist
activities of the type witnessed on September 11th. The security mechanisms
built into these systems were not designed for anything of that magnitude. We
believe federal assistance to enhance drinking water security needs - especially
those involving capital investments - is both necessary and a legitimate use of
these funds.
In light of the staggering costs of maintaining, operating,
rehabilitating, and replacing our drinking water system infrastructure to serve
our citizens, a partnership similar to that in the Clean Water Act of the
1970-80's must be established. Since virtually all of us live downstream from
someone else, it is in the national interest for all levels of government to
participate in assuring that our drinking
water infrastructure
is sound, reliable, protective of human health, and affordable.
4. How
can the federal government help?
establish a financial partnership for
drinking
water infrastructure; provide more flexibility
in the types of assistance available to municipalities to include
grants as well as loans;
expand investments in research
and technology development;
establish a mechanism to develop a long-term
and secure financial partnership for
water infrastructure
needs; and
provide assistance to ensure implementation of new and
heightened security needs of drinking water systems.
The
Water
Infrastructure Network has developed and agreed on the outlines of a
legislative proposal to enhance the federal financial commitment to drinking
water infrastructure needs. The proposal recommends a
five-year, $
57 billion authorization beginning in fiscal 2003
for loans,
grants, loan subsidies and credit assistance for
basic drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs. These funds would be
allocated to states to capitalize state-administered
grant and
loan programs.
Half the funds would be targeted to wastewater and half
to drinking water needs, States would have the flexibility, however, to shift up
to an additional 15 percent from one purpose to the other, an innovation
incorporated in the 1996 amendments to the SDWA. This flexibility would be
available so long as such a transfer did not adversely affect any project on the
state's priority list that was "ready to go."
WIN recommends, and NLC
supports, that Congress require the States to provide 25 to 50 percent of each
year's allocation as
grants that would fund up to 55 percent of
project costs. Up to 75 percent of project costs would be eligible for
grant funding in economically distressed communities. Loans and
loan subsidies would include interest rate discounts, zero interest rate loans,
principal forgiveness and negative interest rate loans.
The report
proposes an additional $
4 billion in resources for State
governments to help them meet their drinking water and wastewater
responsibilities. WIN also recommends funding for development of innovative
technology and management techniques to assist local governments in providing
clean and safe water more effectively and efficiently in the future.
And
finally, the WIN report recommends that Congress "establish a formal process to
evaluate alternatives for, and recommend the structure of, a longer-term and
sustainable financing approach to meet America's water and wastewater
infrastructure needs."
As the committee is well aware, both the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee are moving forward with legislation that would
significantly enhance resources available to the Clean Water and - in the case
of the Senate - the Drinking Water SRFs. As these proposals have moved through
the legislative process, NLC and others have raised concerns about potential new
federal requirements to establish public/private partnerships in providing
drinking water and wastewater services. We consider such recommendations
sufficiently important, to raise the issue before you develop legislation.
First, NLC believes such relationships are solely the province of local
governments. There are many examples at the local level where public/private
partnerships - particularly in drinking water - are working well and redound to
the benefit of local ratepayers, the municipality and the private entity
operating the local system. Simultaneously, other examples indicate such
relationships can leave much to be desired.
Second, while not claiming
expertise in this area, NLC also has concerns about the impact of international
trade agreements on the privatization of local services and the relationship of
such agreements to the maintenance of local control and autonomy. As the
committee undoubtedly knows, the majority of the large private water companies
operating in the United States are foreign owned. At the local level, we have
concerns that contracting with these foreign-owned companies may - because of
the terms and conditions of international agreements - adversely affect the
ability of a local government to make many critical determinations about the
utility once it is under contract with such a private partner. We would be happy
to provide expert resources and additional information to the committee on this
issue and ask only that there be a full understanding of the ramifications of
public/private partnerships in the water business before requiring or
encouraging such activities in federal law.
Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify for the 158,000 local
elected officials who comprise the National League of Cities on the critical
needs facing local governments in financing drinking
water
infrastructure needs over the next generation.
LOAD-DATE: April 29, 2002