SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 3797 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE TRANSPORTATION

SUBCOMMITTEE: WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

HEADLINE: WATER QUALITY FINANCING

BILL-NO:

 

H.R. 3039             Retrieve Bill Tracking Report


                      Retrieve Full Text of Bill

TESTIMONY-BY: BETSY OTTO,, SENIOR DIRECTOR,

AFFILIATION: WATERSHED PROGRAMS

BODY:
Statement of Betsy Otto, Senior Director, Watershed Programs American Rivers

Before the U.S. House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee

March 13, 2002

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. I am Betsy Otto, Senior Director of Watershed Programs at American Rivers, a national non-profit conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the nation's rivers. I am also a member of the Steering Committee of the Clean Water Network, a coalition of more than 1,000 groups supporting clean water from around the country. I present this testimony on behalf of both American Rivers and the Clean Water Network.

Thank you for holding this timely hearing today on the Water Quality Financing Act of 2002 (H.R. 3039), which would reauthorize the Clean Water state revolving funds (SRFs) under the Clean Water Act. This is a tremendous opportunity for the Congress to provide increased funding and essential improvements in these programs. Restore Our Water Infrastructure Investment The federal government's investment in wastewater and drinking water treatment over the last thirty years has brought tremendous progress in cleaning up our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. For example, EPA has documented a dramatic decrease in loadings of sewage contaminants into our waterways from the wastewater treatment plants that we built through the construction grants and clean water state revolving fund programs. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment, U.S. EPA 2-72 (June 2000)

That progress, however, has been eroded by water pollution resulting from urban stormwater, agricultural runoff and of discharges of inadequately treated sewage from our deteriorating collection systems and wastewater treatment facilities. In fact, the same EPA report that trumpets our tremendous success to date in reducing sewage contamination predicts that, if we do not substantially increase investment and treatment efficiency, by 2025, we will again have pollutant loadings from domestic sewage that are as high as they were in 1968 - the highest in our nation's history.

And untreated sewage is not the only growing water pollution problem. The Natural Resources Defense Council's annual report on beach pollution shows increasing beach closures and advisories due to bacterial contamination of coastal waters for 10 of the 13 years reported. Testing the Waters (Eleventh Edition), Natural Resources Defense Council (August 2001). The number of closures in 2000 was the highest ever. While some of the increase is due to better monitoring and reporting of beach pollution, stormwater pollution continues to increase as development replaces soil and vegetation with paved surfaces that collect and convey pollutants directly into our waterways. Stormwater Strategies, Natural Resources Defense Council 23-38 (May 1999). Stormwater, and the way we manage it, has had devastating impacts not only on chemical water quality, but on the physical and biological integrity of our nation's rivers, as well. Studies around the country have documented that stream quality declines significantly when development in the surrounding watershed is altered from natural, permeable surfaces to hard pavement and pipe and concrete stormwater conveyance systems. We need to step up our investment now to keep these sources of pollution and water resource degradation from overshadowing our previous water quality gains. Increase Funding and Spend It on More Environmentally Beneficial Projects

The environmental community would like to see water infrastructure legislation achieve three major goals:

1. Substantially increase funding for state clean water projects.

2. Spend that money on more cost-effective and environmentally beneficial projects. Improve public participation in the funding process and increase state accountability for the expenditure of federal funds.

I will describe each of these issues and our proposals addressing them through this legislation in turn, but, as an initial matter, I would also note that we are concerned that reauthorization of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) not be used as a vehicle for rolling back clean water or safe drinking water protections. We urge the Congress to stick narrowly to the issue of developing a new paradigm for water infrastructure funding that will better meet the needs of our nation and will provide greater environmental benefit for each dollar spent. That is a large enough task for the moment. Mind the Gap

The funding gap between water infrastructure needs and available resources is very large and continues to grow. Yet, the current Clean Water SRFs are grossly insufficient to meet our nation's water quality needs, which include repairing and replacing aging sewer plants and collection systems, controlling contaminated stormwater, minimizing polluted runoff, and ensuring adequate and clean flows in our nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries. We need to authorize substantially more SRF funds to close the gap between our water needs and available federal funding. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that at least $128 billion must be invested over the next 20 years to replace aging wastewater infrastructure as well as an additional $56 billion to $87 billion to correct existing sanitary sewer overflow problems. And, it should be noted that these numbers do not address the nation's stormwater and non-point runoff problems. Water Infrastructure: Information on Federal and State Financial Assistance, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-02-134, p. 4 (November, 2001).

While there are differing estimates of the amount of additional funding needed, the need for greater investment in clean water infrastructure is clear and undisputed. Any reauthorization of the Clean Water SRFs must substantially raise SRF funding levels for those programs, and EPA's own estimate of funding gaps should be a starting point. We commend Chairman Duncan and ranking member, Congressman DeFazio, for including substantially increased funding over the next fiver year in the Water Quality Financing Act of 2002. However, we urge you to include significant increases in funding for at least the next ten years. We know now that we will continue to need vastly increased water infrastructure financing beyond 2007.

We should begin to plan now to meet those future needs by authorizing them in this legislation.

Fund the Smartest, Most Beneficial Projects

The growing funding gap suggests not just the need for more funding, but also the need to begin to spend that funding more wisely to obtain the greatest amount of environmental benefit per taxpayer dollar invested in water infrastructure. We should not merely rebuild our wastewater and stormwater systems using the hard infrastructure technologies of the past. We must become smarter about stretching our federal investment in water infrastructure by spending more on "green infrastructure" - non- point and non-structural solutions that are more efficient and more environmentally effective than traditional concrete and pipe solutions. We need to take advantage of the innovative approaches that have been developed over the past several decades that allow us to use on-site source controls (like rain gardens), stream buffers, conservation practices, and other approaches to prevent pollution. These approaches not only lessen contaminants, but also reduce the amount of water that needs to be conveyed to centralized treatment facilities, thereby reducing the cost of operating those facilities.

Increase Funding to Address Polluted Runoff

For years we have known that polluted runoff is the most significant source of water pollution in the nation for lakes, streams, and coastal waters. Yet, year after year, we continue to direct the vast majority of federal funding to point source discharges. According to EPA, between 1987 and summer, 2000 only 4% of SRF funds went to non-point source projects. Four years ago, EPA adopted a goal of increasing the annual percentage of Clean Water SRF funds loaned for non-point source projects to 10% by 2001. EPA pledged to "work with states and territories to ensure that state loan funds are used for the highest priority polluted runoff projects that meet the programs' financial criteria." Clean Water Action Plan, U.S. EPA 57 (Feb. 1998). While we are moving toward EPA's goal, many states still are not funding environmentally beneficial and cost-effective non-point projects. We need to do more than continue talking if we are going to begin to see the real changes in water quality that are the goal of the SRF program. Prevent Pollution and Reduce Costs with "Green Infrastructure" Approaches

While states are allowed to fund non-point source projects under the Clean Water SRF, many of them continue to fund traditional, centralized wastewater treatment approaches even when a non-point or non-structural solution would be less expensive, more effective, and provide benefits beyond water quality. While hard infrastructure projects are an important component of addressing our wastewater needs, we can often mitigate these needs and do a better job of cleaning up the water by funding a combination of cost-effective, non-structural, preventive projects (green infrastructure) and innovative and alternative engineering strategies. Use of distributed, nonstructural, pollution prevention approaches in addition to modernization of aging, decaying treatment plants, collection systems, and distribution systems can forestall the need for even more costly approaches and investments in the future. For example, Portland, Oregon's Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) used green infrastructure stormwater management techniques in its 20-acre site, including grass swales and "mini-wetlands," that store and filter nearly 70% of the runoff from a six-acre parking lot. These techniques have been documented to remove 50% of sediment and other contaminants that would otherwise have poured into the city's stormwater system, and have saved the museum $78,000 in hard infrastructure costs (e.g., manholes, pipes, trenching, catch basins). A Cost Comparison of Conventional and Water-Quality- Based Stormwater Designs, Portland Department of Environmental Services, pp 1-3, (1996).

Non-structural and non-point approaches can also provide a wider array of benefits than can hard infrastructure like pipes and wastewater treatment facilities. Those benefits include improved wildlife habitat, enhanced drinking water supplies, protected open space and parks, energy savings, smog reduction, decreased flooding, and higher property values. Stormwater Strategies, NRDC, Chapter 12 (Sept. 2001). These approaches result in cleaner bodies of water, a greener environment, and better quality of life. Green infrastructure is already working in many communities across the nation, saving money and enhancing environmental quality. Provide a Specific Funding Incentive for Non-Structural and Non-Point Solutions

The Water Quality Financing Act of 2002 takes several important steps in the right direction toward encouraging the use of nonstructural and nontraditional approaches. First, the bill calls for States to require municipal recipients to evaluate innovative and alternative processes for eligible projects, and to the extent practical, select projects that more efficiently use energy and natural resources, or provide greater environmental benefits. Second, the bill clarifies that nonstructural, decentralized, and nontraditional approaches to stormwater and wastewater needs are eligible under the Clean Water SRF.

Third, the bill allows States to provide additional subsidization, including forgiveness of principal and negative interest loans for innovative and alternative processes, materials, and techniques. We would like to work with the Subcommittee to ensure that the incentives provided are focused on the most environmentally beneficial of these approaches including, agricultural best management practices that benefit impaired watersheds, non-structural stormwater and low-impact development practices, conservation easements, land acquisition for water quality protection, stream buffers, and wetlands restoration.

We are pleased to see that the bill requires states to provide additional subsidization of at least 25% of the states' allocations of "new" money -SRF funding in excess of $1.4 billion - for disadvantaged communities and ratepayers, and to implement alternative processes, materials, and techniques, including nonstructural protection of surface waters. Again, we would like to work with you on this language to ensure that funding is directed to the most environmentally beneficial approaches.

This provision provides a much-needed incentive to communities and other applicants wishing to undertake non-point and nonstructural projects. These recipients have greater difficulty in paying back loans since, unlike water and sewer authorities, they often do not have a guaranteed source of revenue for repayment. Incentives also are needed to overcome significant institutional barriers at the state level to using SRF funds for non-point and non-structural solutions to address wastewater and stormwater pollution. State and local officials repeatedly tell us that these institutional barriers to funding non-point and non- structural solutions with Clean Water SRF monies will be overcome only if we provide significant incentives for their use. Those barriers include the relative ease of making one large loan for a major construction project rather than making many small non- point source loans, the greater voice of sewer authorities than most potential non-point loan recipients in setting priorities at the state and local level, the bias of many engineering firms for traditional, hard infrastructure projects. Some states also have laws or regulations that prevent non-point sources from obtaining SRF loans, even when their projects can provide greater environmental benefit at lower cost.

We are concerned that tying the subsidization requirement to new funding will not go nearly far enough to overcome the institutional barriers of using SRF funds for nonstructural approaches and to address non-point pollution. We strongly support increases in Clean Water SRF funding, but we feel it is important to require States to direct more of the funding for these important purposes now, regardless of Congress' willingness to appropriate more to the SRF program. We urge that the final bill ensure that nonstructural surface water protections receive no less than 10% of States' total SRF allocations. Direct Funding to the Greatest Environmental and Fiscal Needs

In addition to the monetary incentive for non-point and non- structural solutions, we support a number of other mechanisms to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent on projects that will address the greatest environmental and fiscal needs. Give Priority to Projects Addressing Significant Public Health and Environmental Needs and Needs of Disadvantaged Communities

First, we need to prioritize projects that meet the most significant public health and environmental needs and those that help disadvantaged communities the most. The Water Quality Financing Act of 2002 addresses both of these concerns. We note, in particular, that it calls for States to "seek to achieve the greatest degree of water quality improvement" in developing their priority list methodology. This is an important addition to the current statute, as long as States rigorously apply this criterion. Further, we applaud the bill for explicitly requiring States to integrate information into their project prioritization concerning impaired waters, non-point source management programs, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and other needed water quality controls, continuing planning processes necessary to meet state water quality standards, and the States' 305(b) report on water quality. Finally, we are pleased to see that the bill extends lapsed provisions from the construction grants programs ensuring protection against significant environmental harm under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

We recommend two mechanisms to ensure that these important provisions are adhered to - improved EPA oversight of state priority lists and intended use plans, and increased public participation and involvement in setting priorities and in monitoring use of the funds. With little oversight by US EPA and almost no public involvement today in the creation of intended use plans and identification of priorities, there is very little indication of whether federal dollars are actually supporting the most pressing public health or environmental needs. The current language in the bill allows States to simply certify that they are compliance with the SRF program's requirements and does not ensure a more stringent and careful review by EPA of each State's program.

Meaningful public participation in priority list methodology and project review and selection is the best way to ensure that environmental and fiscally sound choices are made. At a minimum, States should take undertake meaningful public outreach and public participation efforts in developing priority list methodologies and intended use plans, including outreach to local governments, small and large wastewater and stormwater systems, public health organizations, environmental organizations, and other local citizen interests. Ensuring such participation is the best way for Congress to protect and build support for its clean, safe water investment. Fund Only Environmental Priorities

Second, we need to require that Clean Water SRF funds be spent to address those projects identified by the state as its top priorities. The Safe Drinking Water SRF already has such a provision. There is no good reason why clean water funds, unlike safe drinking water funds, should be squandered on projects that are not identified as top priorities. This loophole in the current statute must be closed. The bill requires States to fund only projects or activities included on the priority list, which is an improvement over the current statute. However, the bill does not explicitly state that States must fund projects in priority order; nor does it narrowly define the legitimate exceptions - such as readiness to proceed - for why the rank order is not followed. End SRF Funding for Sprawl Development

Third, we need to stop using SRF funds to subsidize new sprawl development. Sprawl development makes pollution worse in the long run by bringing more and ever-larger parking lots, roadways, and driveways to more and more watersheds.

The volume of polluted runoff is significant - a one-acre parking lot produces 16 times more runoff than an undeveloped meadow. And the aggregate costs to our environment are adding up. Urban runoff causes nearly half of the impairment of estuary miles assessed by EPA. Disturbingly, U.S. Department of Agriculture figures show that sprawl is accelerating. The 2.1 million acre-a- year development rate in the 1990s is 50% higher than in the previous decade. The increase in paved surfaces leads directly to increased flooding, stream channel degradation, habitat loss, increased water temperature, contamination of water resources, and increased erosion and sedimentation. By using our scarce taxpayer dollars to fund sprawl, instead of repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of existing sewer systems, we could exacerbate water pollution in the long run. Sprawl will happen, but the federal government shouldn't help foot the bill. We applaud the bill for extending lapsed protections from the construction grants program against new environmental damage that result from sprawl and the funding of new collector systems. Congress also should require States to ensure that no funding is provided to projects that finance anticipation of future population growth or that are inconsistent with local comprehensive or land use plans, and regional transportation improvement plans. The limitation on funding projects based on future population growth is already in place under the Safe Drinking Water Act's SRF provisions. We would welcome the opportunity to work with you to incorporate a similar provision into the Clean Water SRF reauthorization.

Fund Only Law-Abiding Entities

Fourth, we need to discontinue funding for entities that are in significant noncompliance with the Clean Water Act and that have not made a commitment to remedy those violations in the future. Funding of significant violators undermines efforts of law abiding entities to raise funds for their wastewater needs. We will never have enough federal funding to address all wastewater needs. We need to provide incentives for communities to step up to the plate now and raise funds at the state and local level as much as possible to address their wastewater and stormwater problems, not to stay in violation and wait until more funding becomes available. The Clean Water Act SRF should be available only to entities that have committed to comply, not those that have continued to disregard the regulatory requirements. Inform the Public About Publicly-Funded Projects

Fifth, we need to improve the publicly available information about the projects that taxpayer dollars are used to fund. Currently required reports on the use of SRF funds provide little useful information and are not routinely available to the public.

The public has a right to know which projects are being funded at taxpayer expense and what they are accomplishing. The Water Investment Act of 2002 does little to improve state accountability for the use of funds or public availability of such information. Americans Want Clean, Safe Water

As poll after poll has shown, Americans want clean, safe water and are willing to invest more to get it. We applaud you for moving forward with legislation to address the public's demand for clean water. We urge you to ensure that the bill you pass is the best, most effective one possible to meet that demand. Only if Congress substantially increases funding for clean water projects, encourages states to spend that money on more cost- effective and environmentally beneficial projects, improves public participation in the funding process, and increases state accountability can we hope to achieve the clean and safe water Americans want and deserve.

This year is the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act. Let's move ahead this year with legislation that will ensure clean and safe drinking water for years to come.



LOAD-DATE: March 21, 2002