Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
February 26, 2002 Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1573 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
HEADLINE: WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLEAN WATER
TESTIMONY-BY: PAUL D. SCHWARTZ, NATIONAL POLICY
COORDINATOR
AFFILIATION: CLEAN WATER ACTION
BODY: Statement of Paul D. Schwartz National Policy
Coordinator Clean Water Action
Before the United States Senate Committee
On Environment And Public Works
February 26, 2002
Good day, Mr.
Chairman and other distinguished members of 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 has
organization 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 S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, and other
water infrastructure proposals. The Committee's sustained focus
on
water infrastructure funding and the two state clean and
safe water revolving funds is timely and of vital importance to the nation's
environment, economy and public health. This hearing is a crucial next step
toward securing more dollars for critical drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure needs. While Ms. Stoner of NRDC focused on the "clean water"
issues, I'll be focusing most of my remarks today on drinking water issues.
1.Funding Needs & Drivers
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 financial resources
needed by our communities, small and large; rural, suburban and urban; well off
and hard-pressed, to meet urgent public health and environmental protections.
WIN puts the estimate of the need at $1 trillion dollars and projects that $23
billion must be invested annually over the next 20 years to begin to close the
gap. Others have set the number at a somewhat lower level. support those
pollution prevention measures that enhance the performance and cost
effectiveness of needed traditional infrastructure investments.
The
Committee needs to give the states the flexibility to invest in pollution
prevention as part of an integrated core infrastructure package. Traditional
"core" infrastructure needs can be mitigated by putting an emphasis on funding a
combination of non-structural, preventive projects (green infrastructure), with
innovative and alternative appropriate engineering strategies. When joined with
needed modernization of old, decaying and out of date treatment plants, and
collection and distribution systems we will finally lay the foundation that will
forestall the need for even more costly approaches and investments in the near
future.
Clean Water Action and the Clean Water Network and the Campaign
for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water all stand behind the proposal to set
aside a full 10% of the Clean Water SRF to allow for these approaches and hope
that subsequent versions of the S. 1961, or other bills, reflect this
costeffective priority.
While S. 1961 proposes a substantial increase
for the two water SRF accounts over the next five years, from $3 billion to $7
billion per year, the assumption of the bill is that the federal role in funding
water infrastructure ends after this injection of cash takes
place. Clean Water Action appreciates the substantial increased authorizations
proposed in S. 1961 but challenges this Committee to set in place a permanent
Clean Water Trust Fund and "polluter pays" funding mechanisms that will augment
the funding burden which falls primarily on the small consumer and taxpaying
public.
Clean Water Action seeks for Congress to inject more
accountability along with more dollars into the SRF programs. Any
reauthorization of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water SRF's must
incorporate mechanisms that ensure open information and public involvement.Many
communities don't know how to access the SRF accounts; all too often it is the
politically connected that are able to take away the dollars not those with the
most pressing existing needs. Also, meaningful public participation in the
decision making process about which projects get funded is usually absent. S.
1961 makes a rhetorical nod towards fixing this problem but does not back up its
rhetoric with meaning steps and measures that will turn this problem around. in
fact act in part as grants, are a good base to start from, but more direct help
is needed. Additionally, Clean Water Action wants clarification as to how the
low-income assistance program would work.
While Clean Water Action
supports additional funding to address existing wastewater and drinking water
needs we oppose using scarce federal dollars to subsidize drinking water and
waste water systems that support new sprawl development. Core
water
infrastructure systems, most of which were built using taxpayer funds,
are now in need of rehabilitation, replacement and repair. As we have said
before, this is an investment in the future worth making to ensure that our
lakes and streams are safe and support revitalization of our waterfronts and to
provide safe drinking water throughout America. On the other hand funding should
not be used to subsidize new systems (unless it can be shown that the new system
would simply serve existing populations -- new capacity should not be
subsidized).
S. 1961 misses an opportunity to make sure that state SRF
funds do not funnel scarce dollars to sprawl development. S. 1961 should clarify
the "reasonable growth" loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under
the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) it is left up
to each state to determine some standard for defining "reasonable growth." An
uneven and all too flexible set of practices has sprung up among the states in
some cases allowing for major diversion of funds into sparking sprawl
development not for meeting existing environmental and public health needs. On
the clean water side the problem is even more egregious. States with a much more
elastic definition of "reasonable growth" are rewarded by EPA's drinking water
needs survey which is the basis for determining the allocation of the federal
drinking
water infrastructure dollars to the states. Thus
states that constrain the use of their dollars more narrowly to existing needs
instead of growth lose out when it comes time for allocating the scarce DWSRF
dollars.
Even though the states must develop a priority list for doling
out the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) dollars based
on a clear set of public health and environmental criteria, the state has the
right to ignore the priority list rankings altogether and fund whatever project
it wants. S. 1961 should fix this unfair, dangerous and unaccountable loophole.
This loophole, which is used heavily in some states, goes beyond needed
flexibility and potentially undermines the integrity of the CWSRF. The needs are
and to figure out how best we can collectively structure a new
water
infrastructure funding paradigm which meets the criteria and goals
enumerated by Nancy Stoner of NRDC earlier. The environmental and consumer
movements are united in their demand 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 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 rankin 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.
5. Removes incentives for noncompliance with the Clean Water Act, to
ensure that CWSRF funding is only going to utilities that are making efforts to
come into compliance with the law.
As the Committee considers the myriad
of policy options and funding levels, know that the American public is fully
behind your effort to address this pressing problem. Clean Water Action is
heartened by the introduction of the Water Investment Act of 2002, and other
serious efforts introduced by Senators Reid and Voinovich. The emergence of the
Senate's bills and the hearings today and this Thursday are most encouraging.
Let's keep the bipartisan and interest group comity and pursue
water
infrastructure solutions that lay the foundation for clean and safe
water for the next century to come. On the other hand, failure to move a clean
and fair funding bill will be a sure sign of Congress having failed the clean
and safe water test. The time to act is now.
Thank you for the
opportunity to comment. I would be happy to entertain any question or concern.
My phone number is (202) 895- 0420 ex 105 and my e-mail is
pschwartz@cleanwater.org
LOAD-DATE: February
26, 2002