Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
October 8, 2002 Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1248 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
HEADLINE: CLEAN WATER ACT
TESTIMONY-BY: PAUL PINAULT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AFFILIATION: ,NARRAGANSETT BAY COMMISSION
BODY: Statement of Paul Pinault Executive Director,
Narragansett Bay Commission
on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
October 8, 2002
Good morning Chairman Jeffords, Senator Smith,
Members of the Committee, and distinguished guests. My name is Paul Pinault. I
am Executive Director of the Narragansett Bay Commission in Providence, Rhode
Island and President of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA).
It is an honor for me to be here today to represent AMSA's
membership of 280 publicly owned treatment works across the country. As
environmental practitioners, we treat more than 18 billion gallons of wastewater
each day and service the majority of the U.S. population. The success of the
Clean Water Act is due, in large part, to the hard work, ingenuity and
dedication of local wastewater treatment officials. In fact, it has been 32
years since a group of public wastewater officials banded together and founded
AMSA. From the early 1900s, municipal governments have provided the majority of
financial support for water pollution control.
In the early days, cities
financed and built collection systems that conveyed wastewater to primary
treatment facilities. Eventually, outbreaks of cholera and typhoid and the
decline of fish populations led to the passage of the 1948 Water Pollution
Control Act and the first federal funding program that would help cities address
the enormous challenge of treating billions of gallons of wastewater. Then, on
June 22, 1969, Ohio's Cuyahoga River became engulfed in flames, a sign that our
country's water quality was in crisis. The stray spark that ignited the oil and
debris on the Cuyahoga also lit a fire under federal lawmakers to strengthen the
federal water quality program. The result was the enactment of the Clean Water
Act of 1972.
Mr. Chairman, America's greatest water quality improvements
were made during the 1970s and 1980s when Congress boldly authorized and funded
the Construction
Grants Program, providing more than
$
60 billion for the construction of publicly owned treatment
plants, pumping stations, and collection and interceptor sewers. The
Construction
Grants Program was directly responsible for the
improvement of water quality in thousands of rivers, lakes, and streams
nationwide. As our waters once again became fishable and swimmable, recreation
and tourism brought jobs and revenue to local economies.
Unfortunately,
the federal commitment to fund continued water quality improvements declined
drastically with the end of the
grants program and the
implementation of the1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act.
As federal
funds dramatically declined in the 1990s, the complexities of our challenges and
the costs of implementing regulations continued to rise exponentially. While we,
as public agency officials, consider ourselves America's true environmentalists
who have cleaned-up and restored thousands of the nation's waterbodies, our
progress has been slowed by this decline in the federal financial commitment.
Over the past year, this Committee has received substantial testimony
that has documented the coming funding crisis in the wastewater industry. As the
measurable gap between projected clean water investment needs and current levels
of spending continues to grow, local ratepayers will be unable to foot the bill
for the costs associated with increasingly stringent requirements of the Clean
Water Act. In a report entitled "The Clean Water and Drinking
Water
Infrastructure Gap Analysis" that was released last week, EPA estimated
the 20 year gap for clean water could be as high as $
442
billion.
At the Narragansett Bay Commission, an estimated
$
471 million is needed for the completion of current capital
projects. Our average cash expenditures are expected to be $
100
million annually. We anticipate receiving approximately $
60
million a year from Rhode Island's state revolving loan fund, leaving an annual
funding gap' of $
40 million.
Mr. Chairman, Senator
Smith, and Members of the Committee . . . I would like to take this opportunity
to thank you for working with AMSA this year on important legislation that would
significantly increase the authorized levels of funding under the Clean Water
Act.
Unfortunately, the world has changed significantly from when this
process began with a series of hearings in 2001. At that time, AMSA had targeted
the federal budget surplus as a logical source of funding to increase the
federal investment in wastewater infrastructure. In light of our current budget
deficit and the continued costs associated with our nation's defense, we believe
that the authorized levels of funding proposed in S. 1961 and S. 2813 would not
be available to appropriators out of the general revenue fund for many years to
come.
As a result, AMSA is exploring alternative, dedicated sources of
revenue to fund future water quality improvements.
Our municipal
wastewater treatment systems are critical pieces of national infrastructure and,
as such, should be financed through a long-term, sustainable, and reliable
source of federal funds. Although operating efficiencies and rate increases can
provide some relief, they cannot and will not be able to fund the current
backlog of capital replacement projects plus the treatment upgrades that will be
required in the years to come.
Federal support for wastewater
infrastructure is critical to safeguard the environmental progress made during
the past 30 years under the Clean Water Act. As water pollution control
solutions move beyond political jurisdictions to a broader watershed approach
and as we address a wider array of pollutants and pollution sources, the
national benefit of improved water quality will more than justify the larger
federal contribution.
As we look to the future, we see that the
challenges facing the leaders of today's wastewater treatment agencies include
polluted runoff from every source imaginable containing billions of pounds of
soil, manure, fertilizer, farm and lawn chemicals, oil and grease, nutrient and
toxic contaminants, and other pollutants. Nonpoint source pollution, along with
the challenges posed by combined and sanitary sewer overflows and stormwater
system discharges, are going to cost this country billions of dollars and take
several decades to control. In a March 2002 interview with the Christian Science
Monitor, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman said, "I think water is going to be
the biggest environmental issue that we face for the 21st century in both
quantity and quality."
The "quality" part of that challenge, Mr.
Chairman, will fall squarely on the shoulders of local wastewater treatment
officials. As we strive together to make further progress under the Clean Water
Act, it is imperative that we create a new federal funding program to finance
today's infrastructure needs as well as the innovative solutions that will be
required to control future water quality problems.
On behalf of AMSA's
members, we look forward to working with you to solve these problems together.
The bipartisan nature of this Committee over the 30 year history of the Clean
Water Act has undoubtedly contributed to the Act's success. Thank you for the
opportunity to present our views to the Committee and we look forward to your
participation in the celebration of the 30th anniversary of America's Clean
Water Act.
LOAD-DATE: October 9, 2002