SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 2887 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE

HEADLINE: DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

BILL-NO:

 

H.R. 3930             Retrieve Bill Tracking Report


                      Retrieve Full Text of Bill

TESTIMONY-BY: MR. PAUL D. SCHWARTZ, NATIONAL POLICY COORDINATOR OF

AFFILIATION: CLEAN WATER ACTION

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

Mr. Paul D. Schwartz National Policy Coordinator of Clean Water Action

Good day, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the Committee. I am Paul Schwartz, National Policy Coordinator of Clean Water Action, a national environmental organization working for clean, safe and affordable water; prevention of health- threatening pollution; creation of environmentally-safe jobs and businesses; and empowerment of people to make democracy work. Clean Water Action works in 15 states and has 700,000 members across the nation. Additionally, I serve as co-chair of the Clean Water Network=s Wet Weather and Funding Workgroup and am on the Steering Committee of the Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on "Drinking Water Needs and Infrastructure." The Committee=s sustained focus on drinking water needs and infrastructure is timely and of vital importance to the nation=s environment, economy and public health. This hearing is a crucial next step toward strengthening drinking water protections. Clean Water Action believes that the public's health and welfare will best be served if this Committee chooses to:

Reinvest in American Communities - Dramatically increase the federal dollars going to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) available for our aging and inadequate core drinking water infrastructure;

Integrate traditional core drinking water infrastructure approaches with drinking water source protection strategies;

Protect our drinking water sources and infrastructure from potential security breaches; Create a new source of available federal funds outside of the DWSRF by setting up a "National Clean and Safe Water Trust Fund" that is funded at least in part by a polluter pays component;

Require meaningful accountability, transparency and public participation.

Reinvest in American Communities - Dramatically Increase the Dollars Available for our Aging and Inadequate Core Drinking Water Infrastructure

The creation in 1996 of the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) was a necessary first step in moving our nation's old and outdated drinking water infrastructure into this century. Modeled on the successful Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF), the DWSRF has already made billions of dollars available to communities across the U.S. to protect the public health. We note, however, despite this increased flow of federal dollars over the past six years, that many drinking water providers do not have the necessary resources to take care of critical drinking water infrastructure needs.

A large chuck of our nation's drinking water treatment works and distribution systems are old and near or past the end of their useful life. This physical deterioration of the nation's drinking water infrastructure imposes an increasing cost burden every year fixes and replacement is delayed.

Our treatment techniques are, for the most part, old and inadequate to meet the requirements of the job in the 21st century. Sand filtration and chlorination were at one time state of the art, but not any more. USGS has recently documented all manner of once exotic contaminants such as pharmaceuticals in our nation's drinking water sources. New and emerging microbes, such as cryptosporidium and giardia are slipping through sand filtration and getting past chlorine disinfection into our finished water supply.

Polluted rivers, lakes, streams, and aquifers (underground water sources) carry fifty years of chemicals such as pesticides that are not even regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Not one of the top ten pesticides used (by volume) on New Jersey lawns, golf courses, and farms are regulated under SDWA. Yet these chemicals are combining with chlorine used for disinfection to create even more potent carcinogens and may be one of the largest contributors to birth defects and stillborn births in the nation.

Out of control sprawl development, large animal feeding operations, naturally occurring contaminants such as arsenic, nuclear weapons production and storage facilities, the list of sources of drinking water contamination goes on and on. Yet our commitment to funding the prevention and cleanup of these problems is going backwards in real terms and the gap between what is needed and what we are raising and spending at all levels of government is growing wider and wider.

It has been well established by the USEPA, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) and others that there is a gap between all available sources of revenue and the water infrastructure needs in our communities. WIN estimates that we have needs of $1 trillion dollars and projects that $23 billion must be invested annually over the next 20 years to begin to close the gap.

Clean Water Action calls on Congress to authorize and appropriate a much-needed immediate injection of $57 billion spread over the next five fiscal years. This is a small price to pay to live up to the promise of clean, safe and affordable water. The Energy and Commerce Committee should produce a bill that significantly increases the federal share going to the DWSRF to $25 billion over five years.

The $25 billion should be used primarily to address core drinking water quality problems by being targeted: (1) to fix, modernize and maintain our antiquated and dilapidated drinking water treatment and distribution systems and (2) to assist in prevention of pollution of the sources of our drinking water.

INTEGRATE TRADITIONAL CORE DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACHES WITH DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION STRATEGIES

Drinking water spending cannot just be targeted to the traditional modes and methods of end-of-the-pipe engineering solutions. Though the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) acknowledged this by creating a voluntary set-aside for drinking water source protection, this program has not been well used.

In 1996 Amendments to SDWA gave states the option to use up to 15% their DWSRF funds for source water protection projects. This was based on the

widespread understanding that source water protection was substantially cheaper and more reliable than the dominant end-of- the-pipe solution once water quality has been degraded. And yet, recent EPA data show that states have only spent 2% of funds on source water protection activities.

According to EPA, some states have attempted to direct more funds to source water protection -- but have been stymied by the requirement that the funds had to go through "public water supply systems." Though EPA has issued guidance that three-party partnerships are acceptable, i.e., a landowner, a public water supply system, and a group such as the Clean Water Action, American Rivers or the Nature Conservancy. Nevertheless, there have been few applicants for the source water protection dollars.

This suggests that the "voluntary", "statement of intent" of the Congress to shift resources away from treatment and toward pollution prevention has been a major failure. Clean Water Action calls on Congress to make two corrections. First, the eligibility for source water protection projects needs to be greatly expanded -- to include funding of nonprofit entities directly, and through such programs as linked deposit bank programs or loans to county health departments. Loans could be provided to homeowners and farmers, without the direct involvement of the local

municipal water supply system. The reason is that most homeowners are resistant to the involvement of the local utility in their backyard. Most farmers will not turn over ownership of a stream buffer to the local utility, or allow that utility to attach an easement to their deed.

Second, history shows that mandatory (vs. voluntary) financial incentives are required. Congress said in 1996 that it wanted funds spent on source water protection -- and that has not happened. If Congress is serious, then "may" should be changed to "must." Congress should create a separate pool of funds that states may apply for, but take the money back (to be reallocated to states that wish to do more source water protection) after a couple of years if they have not spent it on source water protection. This approach would necessitate States needing to change their own eligibility requirements (sometimes through the legislature), but a "must" approach appears to be necessary to get them to do that.

Clean Water Action is concerned that many DWSRF dollars are going towards promotion of sprawl development. While sprawl may be inevitable, scarce DWSRF dollars should not be going to promote this water polluting use. Core water infrastructure systems, most of which were built using taxpayer funds, are now in need of rehabilitation, replacement and repair. Though the 1996 Amendments to SDWA restrict SRF dollars to be used for existing needs, EPA has left it up to the States to determine what constitutes "reasonable growth." We would be happy to work with the Committee to suggest changes to this provision that will keep DWSRF dollars focused on solving water quality problems not creating them.

PROTECT OUR DRINKING WATER SOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FROM POTENTIAL SECURITY BREACHES

After September 11th security issues around drinking water protection understandably moved to the fore. Concerned about potential breaches of our drinking water system, EPA, drinking water providers, Congress and environmental, consumer and public health groups all got behind efforts to assess vulnerabilities and to eliminate and reduce threats and risks of all types.

EPA recognized in guidance to the states that DWSRF dollars could be used in some limited ways to address security issues. EPA carefully laid out the ground rules for whether individual security fixes could take advantage of core DWSRF dollars and/or dollars from the State SRF set-aside accounts. Though Clean Water Action supports the use of SRF dollars in this manner we would note that the dollar flow to correct real and present dangers would be at a very slow pace if we just rely on the current SRF accounts. Also, we note that the costs for securing our drinking water infrastructure far outstrip the capacity of our current DWSRF structure. If the DWSRF dollars will help our utilities eliminate hazards, or reduce them then these dollars certainly should be eligible. If these dollars help our drinking water providers meet other public health protection needs or help them come into compliance in other ways or anticipate future rulemakings that are far along in the pipeline then we see little problem in the dollars being spent for these purposes.

However, the DWSRF is not sufficient to meet the needs of securing our drinking water supply, and it should not be used in such a way that would funnel scarce dollars away from existing public health needs thereby exacerbating them. Congress in passing Title IV of the Bio-terrorism bill saw the wisdom of creating an additional pot of money that should be the primary source of revenue for securing the nation's water supply. If Title IV is insufficient, Congress should come up with additional appropriations not raid the under funded DWSRF to meet this critical need.

EsTABLISH A National Clean And SAFE WATER TRUST FUND

The two bills drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,

S. 1961 and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, H.R. 3930 reauthorize the Drinking Water and Clean Water SRF accounts for a five-year period, but are silent about the long-term federal interest in funding clean and safe water. Water infrastructure issues, just as our airport and highway infrastructure needs are continuous. Any final bill must provide an ongoing, dedicated revenue stream from sources other than the ratepayers and taxpayers The Commerce Committee has an opportunity to play a leadership role in establishing the longer term nature of the federal interest by reauthorizing the DWSRF for a ten year period and by establishing a long-term stable funding source - The National Clean And Safe Water Trust Fund.

Clean Water Action believes that a National Clean And Safe Water Trust Fund will help needy communities meet critical water infrastructure needs. The National Clean and Safe Water Trust Fund should in part be funded by a polluter pays mechanism that imposes a small fee on those vested interests whose polluting behavior creates the need for water clean up and public health protection in the first place. In addition Clean Water Action supports turning over Clean Water Act enforcement settlements that currently go to the general treasury, to the National Clean And Safe Water Trust Fund.

Increased water infrastructure funding is essential if we are to curb a trend toward a two-tiered water infrastructure. Many cities have lost much of their rate base while their infrastructure deteriorates. Small water systems lack the scale to spread out costs of installing or maintaining new technologies. Not only are millions of peoples health on the line, but the basic economies of many cities and whole regions of the country are put at risk.

REQUIRE MEANINGFUL accountability, transparency, and public participation

Congress needs to require more accountability as it invests in SRF programs. Any reauthorization of the Drinking Water SRF must incorporate mechanisms that ensure open information and public involvement. Many small and medium sized communities don't know how to access the SRF accounts; all too often it is the politically connected that are able to get funding, not those with the most pressing needs. Meaningful public participation in the decision making process about which projects get funded is usually absent.

Currently there is little meaningful oversight by EPA and little to no real public involvement in the creation of intended use plans (IUP's) and the identification of priorities. Even if no new dollars were appropriated, the States will be spending over $200 billion over the next twenty years in their combined infrastructure accounts with very little independent verification of whether or not those dollars are going for environmental and public health good or harm and whether or not these scarce dollars are going to meet our most pressing needs.

In addition environmentally sound principles for project design and siting should be observed. In many cases state NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) --like procedures are not followed or do not include any real review by the public. With little oversight by EPA and almost no public involvement in the intended use plans (IUPs), there is little indication whether or not federal dollars are supporting real public health, compliance or environmental needs. Effective public participation is the best way to ensure that environmental and fiscally sound choices are made. Ensuring such participation is the best way for Congress to protect and build support for its water investment.

Conclusion

Congress needs to use investment in drinking water infrastructure to insure water infrastructure equity, affordability and sustainability while meeting the goals of preserving the environment, enhancing the public=s health and helping to lay a new foundation for broad economic prosperity. This process should not be used as a way to revisit important but contentious Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization issues. Clean Water Action's approach, and we hope your approach, is to stick to the issues before us -- to identify needs and to decide how best to structure a new water infrastructure funding program.

The Clean Water Network and the Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water are united in demanding that any final water infrastructure legislation:

1. Substantially increases funding for state clean and safe drinking water funding projects.

2. Provides significant incentives to states to direct more Clean Water SRF funds to nonpoint pollution, drinking water source protection and non-structural approaches, ensuring that (1) today's greatest source of water pollution (nonpoint runoff) is addressed; and (2) that cost-effective "green infrastructure" solutions are used to repair and improve existing wastewater and drinking water systems.

3. Ensures that SRF funds are not used to subsidize new sprawl development, but instead are used to repair and improve existing wastewater and drinking water systems.

4. Funds SRF projects based on the states' priority system ranking after meaningful public input, by closing the loophole (in the Clean Water SRF) that allows states to fund projects not on their own priority list. Also, tighten-up and make consistent the "reasonable growth" loophole in the Drinking Water SRF.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to working with the Committee in developing any new proposals to address drinking water needs and infrastructure. I would be happy to entertain any questions. My phone number is (202) 895-0420 ex 105 and my e-mail is pschwartz@cleanwater.org



LOAD-DATE: April 30, 2002