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: 4320 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SUBCOMMITTEE: DRINKING WATER, FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
HEADLINE: TESTIMONY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
TESTIMONY-BY: PAUL D. SCHWARTZ , NATIONAL POLICY
COORDINATOR
AFFILIATION: CLEAN WATER ACTION
BODY: Testimony of Paul D. Schwartz National Policy
Coordinator Clean Water Action Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water of
the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Oversight Hearing On
Water Infrastructure Needs March 27, 2001 Good morning Chairman
Crapo, Ranking Member Graham and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water. My name is Paul Schwartz and it is my
pleasure to be testifying before you today on the topic of "
Water
Infrastructure Needs." I am the National Policy Coordinator of Clean
Water Action, a national 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 organizes strong grassroots groups,
coalitions and campaigns to protect our environment, health, economic well-being
and community quality of life. Additionally, I serve as the Chair of the Clean
Water Network's Funding Workgroup and on the Steering Committee of the Campaign
for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water. Chairman Crapo, thank you for holding
this oversight hearing today. The Subcommittee's early focus in this 107th
session of Congress on
water infrastructure needs is timely and
of vital importance to the nation's environment, economy and public health. This
hearing along with tomorrow's focus on this topic in the U.S. House signals the
importance Congress places in moving the discussion forward. This hearing is a
crucial first step toward securing more dollars for critical drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure needs. Three Decades of Federal Water Investments Have
Made a Difference Almost twenty-nine years ago Congress put a down payment on
cleaning up America's water resources with the passage of the Clean Water Act's
sewage construction grants program. Staunching the flow of direct discharges of
untreated sewage into our nation's rivers, lakes and streams has been one of the
best investments the American people ever made. The federal grants program, and
now the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), have been
integral to making the Clean Water Act one of the most successful laws on the
books. Almost thirty years of investment, have been at the center of a
remarkable water quality turn around. In 1972, it was estimated that American's
could safely swim or fish in only 1/3 of our nation's waters. By the twenty-
fifth anniversary of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency
estimated that the simple act of swimming or fishing could be done with a threat
to our health in sixty percent of our waters. Twenty-seven years ago Congress
recognized that the nation's lakes, rivers and underground waters served a
critical use not adequately addressed in the Clean Water Act -- as a source of
potable drinking water. In passing the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, Congress
set up a framework which began to address key public health issues related to
polluted drinking water sources. Five years ago, in 1996, Congress made a great
stride forward in protecting drinking water by establishing for the first time a
federal pool of money to help our states and local communities meet the burden
of delivering clean, safe,, and affordable drinking water. With the
establishment of the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF), Congress recognized a federal responsibility to partner with ratepayers
and local and state governments to meet the increasing challenges and needs in
the drinking water arena. Millions of citizens have been touched by this act of
federal support and are now drinking cleaner more health protective, and
affordable water as a result of this new program. The Funding Gap is Large; New
Federal Investments Are Needed We as a nation are proud of the progress that has
been made in protecting America's water resources and public health. In the main
we are going in the right direction. But there are some bumps on the road and
there is more work to be done. Clean Water Action joined with the
Water
Infrastructure Network (WIN) this February in endorsing the call for
Congress to set aside an additional $57 billion dollars over the next five
years. Our alliance with Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA),
the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) and the Western Coalition of Arid
States (WestCAS) is not one that we entered into easily. Over the years Clean
Water Action, AMSA and NRWA have found ourselves on opposite sides of critical
Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act issues. And this year we find
ourselves in disagreeing with WestCAS over how health protective the arsenic
standard will be. But despite these differences, what brings us together today
is that, we all agree that there is a huge gap between the total dollars being
raised and spent, and the investments that are needed. Congress has heard and
will continue to hear a steady, almost unremitting drumbeat of information about
the funding gap between drinking water and wastewater investment needs and
available resources. The specific overall dollar figure may vary somewhat
depending on the specific frame, model or method used to generate the numbers,
but all agree that without significant new investment, we face some sobering
environmental, public health and economic issues. Clean Water Action has taken a
careful look at the WIN assumptions, the new 1999 USEPA "Drinking
Water
Infrastructure Survey," various other EPA white papers, and has
concluded that however the number is sliced up, there exists a yawning chasm, a
palpable gap between all funding sources and the serious commitment of resources
that will be needed to deal with core
water infrastructure
needs. It is Clean Water Action's position that the yearly $3 billion currently
in the Drinking Water SRF and Clean Water SRF accounts for the states each year
(combined with state matches, leveraging, mounting built state SRF reserves, and
other sources of federal
water infrastructure funding), is
significant -- but is unfortunately an order of magnitude too low. For a variety
of reasons there has been an under investment in
water
infrastructure at all levels of government and by our private markets
as well. All stakeholders stipulate to this simple fact. We need Congress to
approach its investment in
water infrastructure and protecting
public health with as much enthusiasm and commitment as Congress has provided
for our other important infrastructure, our bridges and highways and airports.
Clean Water Action calls on Congress to fully fund the additional $57 billion
dollar proposal for the next five years and to begin the process of looking into
solutions for the long-term. .Its worth noting that important organizations in
addition to those backing the WIN report (the H20 Coalition, ASWIPCA, ASDWA and
others) agree with its fundamental premise -- the need for more investment in
critical infrastructure funding. One way or another, ratepayers, taxpayers, and
large users of water resources and
water infrastructure will
have to pay more, a lot more over time. Investing now will save money and yield
immediate economic and health benefits. The key question is how do we act in a
way that invokes, to the maximum extent possible, equity, affordability, and
sustainability while meeting the triune goals of preserving the environment,
enhancing the public's health and laying a new foundation for broad economic
prosperity. How Congress disposes of this question is why Clean Water Action is
at this table. We do not want this process to devolve into narrow interests
fighting over turf We are concerned about the possibility that this process
might be used as a way to revisit important but contentious Clean Water Act and
Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization issues. Our approach, and we hope your
approach, is to stick narrowly to the issues before us -- to define what the
needs are and to figure out how best we can collectively structure a new
water infrastructure funding paradigm w c meets e criteria an
goals enumerated in the attached statement of Principles. Clean Water Action
along with its partners in the Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water
and the Clean Water Network has worked out a set of common sense principles and
criteria for
water infrastructure funding. It is our belief
that if these principles and criteria are judiciously applied to any approach
that we will have set in motion a process that will bring our
water
infrastructure from its mostly pre-WWI technology and state of general
decay into the 21st century. We have a lot of catching up to do. Give States
Flexibility To Invest In Green Infrastructure As Well As Traditional
Infrastructure Needs We strongly urge a focus by Congress on funding pressing
current core needs. Heretofore, 98 % of
water infrastructure
funding has gone to brick and mortar projects. But we also need to support those
pollution prevention that enhance the performance and cost effectiveness of
needed traditional infrastructure investments. We need to give the states the
flexibility to invest in pollution prevention as well as basic infrastructure
needs. These core. infrastructure needs can be mitigated by putting an emphasis
on funding a combination of cost- effective, 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. Dollars for Cleanup, Not Sprawl Development
or Environmentally Destructive Projects While Clean Water Action generally
supports funding to address existing wastewater and drinking water needs we
oppose using scarce federal dollars to subsidize systems which support new
sprawl development. Core
water infrastructure, 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). In addition environmentally sound principles
for project design and siting should be observed. In many cases state NEPA--like
procedures are not followed or do not include any real review by the public.
With little oversight by USEPA and almost no public involvement in the intended
use plans (IUPs) there is very little indication whether or not federal dollars
are supporting real public health, compliance or environmental needs. Effective
public participation is 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. Ratepayer and
Taxpayer Protections Supported by Fiscally Conservative Approaches and Utilizing
Market Based Incentives Clean Water Action supports five fiscally conservative
spending parameters which will in the end constrain the federal dollars to flow
most efficiently to solutions, instead of creating additional and more costly
problems. We support: 1)providing flexibility and incentives to
states/communities to invest in green infrastructure solutions that achieve the
compatible ends (e.g. source water protections such as land acquisitions, source
control water methods of water treatment, such as using rain gardens, stream
buffers and water conservation and reuse) and make core "hardware" investments
more cost- effective; 2)fiscal accountability through the integration of
meaningful public comment into priority setting, and clear publicly disseminated
national tracking priorities, project purposes and expenditures; 3)limiting
federal investment to those facilities that have the financial, technical and
managerial capacity to ensure compliance. Facilities which are in significant
non-compliance, should only be allowed funding to restructure or consolidate to
achieve compliance or where consolidation or restructuring is impossible, if the
facility has made a good faith effort to comply and the facility is adhering to
an enforceable compliance schedule, and the funding is necessary to avoid making
water or sewer unaffordable to a significant portion of the facility's retail
customers; 4)requiring a local match for any grant program that is layered on
top of the existing SRF accounts. There is no need to encourage "gold plating"
of projects when money is so scarce. "Free" money without a buy in from the
local community is a prescription for throwing money away. The percentage of the
required local match would be tied to an affordability index; 5)protecting
taxpayers and ratepayers by ensuring that costs are fairly apportioned between
all users of water resources, not just residential consumers. There is already a
powerful mechanism in place for making market forces part of the equation for
getting cleaner and safer water: fees charged for federal permits that allow
discharges into treatment plants and waterways; but, the potential is barely
tapped. Permits are free or almost free in many cases, but a simple switch to
volume/toxicity based fees could yield billions in revenue (that could be used
to reduce the amounts taxpayers must pay) and provided a market incentives for
effluent reductions. One concern which makes Clean Water Action and WIN's call
for increased
water infrastructure funding very urgent and
clearly marked as a federal concern, is the growing permanence of a two tier
water infrastructure picture across the country. Big cities
which have lost much of their rate base while their infrastructure grows beyond
its useful life and small systems that lack the necessary scale to spread out
costs to install or maintain new technologies are threatened to be left behind.
Not only are millions of people's health on the line, but the basic economy's of
many cities and whole regions of the country are put at risk. Fund Safe and
Affordable Water For Small Communities Clean Water Action believes that it
should be made mandatory that priority be given to projects that help
systems/communities with the greatest need based on affordability criteria. An
example of this need can be seen in all the small communities where millions of
American's are currently drinking water with significant amounts of arsenic. The
conundrum is clear, either we can help these communities with the necessary
funding and technical innovation support or we can bury our collective heads in
the sand and just shift the standard until we ensure that most communities are
in compliance. And the fact is that in Fallon, Nevada and in small communities
like Fallon across the country, no matter how un-health protective the final
arsenic standard is set, Fallon will still have to get the arsenic out of its
water. That is why Clean Water Action supports efforts such as the Reid/Ensign
Small Communities Safe Drinking
Water Infrastructure Funding
Act, S 503. One of the WIN proposals that Clean Water Action is especially
delighted by is the call for Congress to authorize $250 million a year to
support an Institute of Technology and Management Excellence. The Institute
would bring to bear the best thinking regarding cost-effective green
infrastructure and promote the development and use of best management practices,
innovative technologies to meet drinking water, wet weather, and wastewater
goals. Clean Water Action would further recommend that the Institute nurture
broad public participation in the development of its research, science and
technology and best management practices agenda. Stakeholders beyond the utility
community should have an integral role in helping to move this exciting project
forward. As you consider 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 supports the WIN approach, and is open to addressing
your concerns. We are heartened by Senator Voinovich's Clean Water SRF funding
bill and by the analogous approach by Reps. Kelly and Tauscher in the House. The
emergence of the
Water Infrastructure Caucus and the hearings
today and tomorrow are most encouraging. Let's keep the bipartisan and interest
group comity and pursue
water infrastructure solutions that lay
the foundation for the next century to come. 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: March 27, 2001, Tuesday