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: 3280 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
HEADLINE: WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND
CLEAN WATER
TESTIMONY-BY: NANCY STONER, DIRECTOR
AFFILIATION: CLEAN WATER PROJECT
BODY: Statement of Nancy Stoner, Director, Clean
Water Project Natural Resources Defense Council
Before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
February 26, 2002
Good
morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. I am Nancy Stoner, Director
of the Clean Water Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a
national environmental group that has a long history of working to protect our
nation's waters through the Clean Water Act. I am also one of the co-chairs 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 NRDC
and the Clean Water Network. My expertise is primarily on clean water, not safe
drinking water issues, so while I will touch on both, I will focus my remarks on
the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund. Thank you for holding
this timely hearing today on S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, which
would reauthorize the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
state
revolving funds (SRFs). 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 and in ensuring the safety of our
drinking water. 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. NRDC'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). We
need to step up our investment now to keep these sources of pollution from
overshadowing our previous water quality gains.
Increase Funding
and-Spend It on More Environmentally Beneficial Projects The environmental
community would lil: to see
water infrastructure legislation
achieve three major goals:
1.Substantially increase funding for state
clean water and safe drinking water projects.
2.Spend that money on more
cost-effective and environmentally beneficial projects.
3.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 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
As was
discussed extensively at the Fisheries, Wildlife & Water Subcommittee's
oversight hearing last spring, the funding gap between
water
infrastructure needs and available resources is very large and
continues to grow. Yet, the current Clean Water and Drinking 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 remedying decaying and
out-of-date drinking water treatment, protection, and distribution systems. 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 and the
Water Infrastructure Network estimate that $23
billion must be invested annually in the next 20 years to replace aging
infrastructure and to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
While there are differing estimates of the amount of
additional funding needed, the need for greater investment in clean water and
drinking
water infrastructure is clear and undisputed. Any
reauthorization of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water SRFs must
substantially raise the funding levels for those programs. We commend the
sponsors of the Water Investment Act of 2002 for supporting substantially
increased funding over the next five years, but urge you to look ahead and to
authorize additional spending 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 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 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 last summer, only
4% 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). This goal has not been met. In fact, the
percentage of Clean Water SRF funds used for non- point sources has not
increased in the four years since this pledge was made. 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 non-water quality benefits. Similarly, while states are also
authorized to fund non- structural drinking water protection (such as buffer
zones or easements), many states have failed to use this authority despite the
cost-effectiveness and environmental benefits of such projects. 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 costeffective, 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.
Non-structural and non-point
approaches can also provide a wider array of benefits than hard infrastructure,
like pipes and wastewater treatment facilities, can. Those benefits include
improved wildlife habitat, enhanced drinking water supplies, 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 a number of communities across the nation,
saving money and enhancing environmental quality.
Provide a Specific
Funding Incentive for Non-Structural and Non- Point Solutions The Water
Investment Act of 2002 takes a step in the right direction on this issue by
clarifying that non- structural and non-traditional approaches to wastewater
needs are eligible for funding under the Clean Water SRF. However, this
clarification alone is not sufficient to overcome the institutional barriers to
using SRF funds for non-point and non- structural solutions to address
wastewater and Stormwater pollution. Those institutional 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, and the greater difficulty that many
non- point source recipients have in paying back loans since they often do not
have a guaranteed source of revenue as water and sewer authorities do. 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.
State and local officials repeatedly tell us that
these institutional barriers to funding non-point and non-structural solutions
with Clean Water SRF movies will be overcome only if we provide incentives for
their use. That's why NRDC and the Clean Water Network support providing a
specific incentive for non- point, non-structural approaches for cleaning up our
waters. In particular, we support providing an incentive of additional funding
of up to 10% of base funding for any state that voluntarily sets up a SRF clean
water fund for projects that provide non-structural protection to surface
waters, 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, wetlands restoration and other non-point source or estuary projects.
This incentive approach relies on lessons learned from the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and its successor, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 S' Century, which allocated 10% of state
surface transportation funds for environmental enhancement projects that improve
transportation systems and the quality of life in our communities.
Transportation enhancements preserve the human and natural environment, increase
the transportation mode choices available to citizens, and encourage coordinated
state, local, and public involvement in transportation decisions. This
multi-billion dollar program has received broad support from state and local
communities by making funding available for non-traditional transportation
projects, including the restoration of a historic train station in Tampa,
Florida, creation of a park in Manchester, Vermont, and the construction of a
rail-trail in Mineral Wells, Texas.
The Water Investment Act of 2002
contains funding a demonstration program to promote innovations in water supply
and treatment technology. While such a program would helpful to spur continued
innovation in water and wastewater technologies, many green infrastructure
approaches have been in use for more than a decade. They have been demonstrated
to be effective and should be promoted for widespread use, not merely piloted,
at this point. 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.
Fund Only Environmental Priorities
First, 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.
Give Priority to Projects Addressing Significant Public Health
and Environmental Needs and Needs of Disadvantaged Communities Second, we need
to prioritize projects that meet the most significant public health and
environmental needs and those that help disadvantaged communities the most. We
support providing an explicit priority for projects on these bases, as the Safe
Drinking Water Act already does, and also support principal forgiveness and
other means to ensure that disadvantaged communities and users receive greater
access to SRF funds. We also recommend two mechanisms to ensure that this
mandate is adhered to - improved EPA oversight of state priority lists and
intended use plans and increasing 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 supporting the most pressing public health or
environmental needs. Meaningful public participation in 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
clean, safe water investment.
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 everlarger 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. Congress should make the Safe Drinking Water Act
requirement that projects in state plans not support future growth a part of the
Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund as well.
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 thumbed their noses at 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 state clean water and safe drinking water
projects, spends 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.
Thank you for providing
me with the opportunity to testify today. We have drafted specific language on
each of these issues and would like to work with you to address them. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
LOAD-DATE: February 26, 2002