Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
March 27, 2001, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1827 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SUBCOMMITTEE: DRINKING WATER, FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
HEADLINE: TESTIMONY
WATER
INFRASTRUCTURE TESTIMONY-BY: ALLEN BIAGGI ,
ADMINISTRATOR, DIRECTOR OF
AFFILIATION: CONSERVATION
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
BODY: March 27, 2001
STATEMENT OF ALLEN BIAGGI, ADMINISTATOR, NEVADA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND WATER Members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife and Water, my name is Allen Biaggi, and I am the Administrator of the
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. I would like to thank you for
allowing me to appear before you this morning to discuss the water and
wastewater infrastructure needs of Nevada. I greatly appreciate your interest in
bridging the gap that exists between need and fiscal resources in the water
programs. At the outset, I would like to recognize Senator Reid and Senator
Ensign for their leadership in addressing these serious public health and
economic concerns and thank them for advancing the dialog on the national level.
As the fastest growing and one of the most urbanized states in the country,
infrastructure development and maintenance are critical to the health and well
being of our citizens and visitors. Obviously, the need is great in Nevada's
major urban centers where the majority of this growth is occurring.
Paradoxically however, the need is no less important in our rural communities
where mining and agriculture are struggling and where funding is often not
available for even the most basic wastewater collection and treatment systems or
for providing adequate and safe supplies of drinking water. Nevada has long
supported its communities with state supported
grant and loan
programs for water and wastewater. Like all states, however, we have been asked
to undertake significant new responsibilities under the Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water Acts without the resources necessary to carry out those
responsibilities. As a result, federal assistance is vitally important and,
frankly, the only way communities can achieve and maintain regulatory compliance
to protect public health and maintain and improve environmental quality. Without
increased funding at the federal level, state drinking water and wastewater
programs are facing crisis conditions. Let me give you some examples of the
needs within our small state. On the clean water side of the equation, the State
of Nevada has operated a construction
grants program or a
revolving loan program for over twenty years and has provided greatly needed
financial assistance to rural and urban communities alike. For example, the
rapidly growing communities of Henderson, Reno and Sparks have taken advantage
of these programs and constructed some of the most sophisticated wastewater
treatment systems in the country. This has allowed these communities to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act and maintain and enhance water quality in
the Colorado and Truckee Rivers. This provides high quality water for downstream
users, wildlife habitat and the sustainability of endangered species. Similarly,
small communities in Nevada, such as Silver Springs, have used these funds to
meet waste collection and treatment needs and, for the first time, provide this
basic service to their citizens while protecting vital groundwater resources.
The problem is that demand for these funds greatly exceeds availability. For the
year 2000, we had $152 million dollars in proposed projects submitted to the
Clean Water SRF for funding; for 2001, $166 million, and we anticipate similar
increases throughout the next decade. Compare this demand with the average
available program funding which is a mere $14 million. In an attempt to overcome
this funding gap, we work closely with other entities such as economic
development agencies and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Assistance
Program to leverage available funds and meet community needs. Yet dramatic
shortfalls still occur. This means that facilities must be funded using
alternative sources, or, as most often occurs, projects simply do not happen.
What does this mean for a community? Sometimes it means that collection lines
cannot be built to serve a residential development historically on septic
systems where ground water contamination is occurring. Perhaps new treatment
units cannot be constructed at a wastewater treatment plant resulting in
environmental impairment and the potential for fines and litigation. In some
communities it means they cannot meet the needs of growth and must initiate
moratoriums or limits on residential and industrial development. On the drinking
water side of the equation, the prospects are not any brighter. In Nevada, as in
the rest of the country, there is a need to refurbish and, in many cases,
replace the pipes, lines and treatment facilities that supply our drinking
water. Systems age and without the proper care and maintenance reliability is
reduced, costs increase and in extreme cases public health impacted. The year
2000 priority list for Nevada through the Drinking Water Revolving Loan program
showed that over three quarters of a million dollars was needed to address acute
health concerns associated with community water systems. An additional $35.8
million is needed to address chronic concerns and $94.8 million for system
rehabilitation. Add to this the ever-increasing demands of the regulatory
environment. In the next few years we can expect new federal rules dealing with
ground water disinfection, enhanced surface water treatment, and modified
contaminant monitoring and screening. All with good intentions with the goal of
public health in mind, but costly to implement and maintain. Nationally, it has
been estimated that for the drinking water program alone, an $83 million dollar
gap exists for states to implement the program and billions per year for system
upgrades and repairs. In closing, we in Nevada intend to do our part to continue
to fund programs, to provide
grants and loans to our
communities large and small, and to advocate for increased support for water and
wastewater infrastructure. We will continue to participate in a dialog along
with our fellow state representatives and through national associations such as
the Environmental Council of the States, Association of State Water Pollution
Control Administrators and Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
The challenges are great, the resources limited, and the stakes of public health
and environmental quality high. I ask for your careful consideration in making
water and drinking
water infrastructure funding a national
priority.
LOAD-DATE: April 3, 2001, Tuesday