THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

We are going to get lost here. We don't want to get lost on the Senator's needs or what we want to accomplish. This shows exactly why this is the wrong place to offer this amendment. It is so complicated. We have needs surveys. We have formulas. We have safe water . We have clean water . We have drinking water . We have dirty water . We have wastewater. We need to be clear that the formulas are based on the problem to be addressed as well as on population.

[Page: S8641]  GPO's PDF

   Section 2 of the Senator's amendment is unclear. The Agency would be at a loss on how to calculate the formula given this direction.

   The needs for surface water quality projects differ geographically from drinking water projects. For example, some communities are served by central drinking water systems, but there is no municipal wastewater system. In another circumstance, a community may have a minor drinking water problem but might have a terrible or significant combined sewer overflow or a sanitary sewer overflow. As a result, surveying the construction needs of drinking water systems has no connection to the wastewater treatment system in the same community.

   The Presiding Officer was a Governor. I am sure he follows that. But most of all, local government follows it.

   Which brings me to another issue: Changes of this magnitude applied here with such scant notice would severely disrupt State programs. States must plan ahead. They have to use an expected range of capitalization grants for planning purposes. You have to know what you are going to get and when you are going to get it. Changes of the size implicit in the amendment would stop the State CWSRF, the clean water State revolving fund, loan programs for a significant period of time. This means that States would have to scurry around, prepare new intended-use plans, hold public hearings, try to get their bond issues straightened out.

   As you know, States have capital budgets. We don't. Capital budgets are based on what is going to come out of general revenue and what able Governors take to the bond market. A lot of our water and sewer is done on bonds, particularly at the local level.

   This is going to wreak havoc in all States. I know the Senator's intention is to get more money into some States. It will wreck havoc even in his own State .

   Keep in mind, we will not only have the loss of money but we will have the loss of time. It will affect our drinking water as well as our commitment to the environment.

   The clean water State revolving fund addresses clean water needs which are very different from drinking water . I have talked about that. The use of the drinking water State revolving fund would misdirect resources, resulting in a mismatch between the allocation of Federal funds by States and by the State's needs.

   I could go on: Who are winners, and who are losers.

   The important thing is, when it comes to water , there should be no losers. We all have our needs. We all have our problems. These formulas were originally established to meet those needs.

   Maybe there is the need to adjust those formulas. In every formula, some States gain and some States do not do as well as they should. Formulas are really complicated. They do approach the level of treaty negotiations.

   To try to do this on this bill would wreck havoc. It would trigger Senators coming to see what they are going to get and what they are going to lose.

   The more prudent way would be for there to be some type of instruction to EPA for evaluation. We would be happy to enter into a colloquy with both Senators from Arizona. We would be happy to sign a letter to the very able Administrator at the EPA outlining the concerns the Senators have.

   But we don't think we should have this amendment. If we pass this amendment, it is going to wreak havoc in the States with their ability to administer their programs; it is going to wreak havoc with the capital programs; it is going to wreak havoc with their bonds; and, most of all, it is going to wreak havoc with, really, the confusion that is going to come with using one formula for wastewater and use it also for drinking water . We really encourage--because it is not sound--this is not the place to enter into such a significant, complex public policy debate with enormous consequences to our constituents, to our communities, to our States and their ability to meet their fiscal responsibility as well as their environmental and public health stewardship. I am telling you, this is really the very wrong place to do this amendment. I oppose it.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chair of the subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, for laying out the concerns, first, that the EPA has about it. I am relieved to see I was not the only one confused by the formula. I tried to figure out how the formula in section 2 would work, and I found a lot more questions than answers.

   The EPA has advised us that they don't know how the formula would work. That is why I said a few moments ago that on these complicated items there needs to be substantive hearings. There should be hearings on how the changes might affect existing water bonding issues, existing water programs in the States. There should be hearings on how these changes would affect the States where the needs are. Most important, we need to sit down with all of the players and make sure we have a formula that everybody understands and that works.

   So I believe the EPA has given us the reasons that we described in general about the problems in trying to adopt a significant change on the floor. Having said that, I am very enthusiastically a supporter of the suggestion the chair of the committee has made that we join either in a colloquy, letters and instruction, first, to the EPA, to present to us options for revising and updating the formula, if needed, for both the drinking water revolving fund and the clean water revolving fund and the one that deals with wastewater, to give us their best assessment and to actually provide that to the Environment and Public Works Committee so we will have something with which to work.

   As I have said before, I am a most enthusiastic proponent of revising these formulas and finding ways to put more money into this very badly needed area, for investments for the future health and well-being of our community.

   With that, I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

   Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues I very much support the Safe Drinking Water Act. There are tremendous needs throughout America and in our Commonwealth of Virginia, especially in the southwestern region of Virginia.

   This issue deals with wastewater and the need for cleaning up our wastewater, where there are combined sewer overflow situations in Lynchburg, Richmond, and other areas, as well as the Northern Virginia area, which flows into the Potomac, which affects the Chesapeake Bay, which is important to Virginia and the State of Maryland; and the Chair's home State of Delaware has a few tributaries that flow into the Chesapeake Bay. It is also important to Pennsylvania and New York, which are also part of that watershed.

   Now, again, I am very much in favor of all these ideas. The question is: How do you meet the needs? In trying to determine how you meet the needs for clean water , drinking water , and clean water as regards wastewater treatment, you want to have a good, objective, up-to-date determination of needs.

   The drinking water allocations are based on EPA's recommendations. There is a needs survey. But as I best understand it--and I may ask, in a moment, my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to join me to explain this because some fellow Senators are saying they don't understand this, and I want to have a better understanding.

   The wastewater moneys are based on a 1970s population number and have not changed since the law was passed in 1987, 14 years ago. As I understand this formula change, what it attempts is to bring in fairness and equity and address the needs for wastewater cleanup and base the numbers on EPA's wastewater needs survey. So it is a similar sort of logic and formula and survey that is used for drinking water that we would want to use for wastewater.

   It strikes me, regarding the matter of fairness, that a minority of States in this proposal get way more than the percentage EPA recommends under the current formula and a majority receive much less--mostly in States that are growing faster. Regardless, everyone recognizes--and I haven't heard anybody listening to the debate on the floor or in between saying that the current formula is right--now is the time

[Page: S8642]  GPO's PDF

   The formula change also does not affect the so-called earmarks. That is separate and in a smaller pot of money. I ask the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, if he will please take the floor and let me ask him a few questions so we can clear up any misunderstandings that have been proffered here by others who may not seem to understand this proposal.

   I ask the Senator from Arizona this: The current plan, the current allocation for wastewater moneys, is it a formula based on population from the 1970 census?

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, my staff has tried to find out the basis for the current formula, and they have had a very difficult time getting anybody to tell them what it is. We have gone back in the debates, in the records, and so on. As best we can tell, it is a formula that is based upon a construction grant program using 1970s data, including population data. That is as clear as I can be about it. I urge anybody--of course, I find it

   interesting that those who are opposing the amendment do so on procedural grounds, not defending the existing formula. I haven't found anybody to defend, let alone explain, what the basis of the existing formula is.

   Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, I ask the Senator from Arizona this: The formula he is proposing here, though, is based, as he states, on needs, actual needs. How do you determine those needs? What is the formula? What is the criterion by which needs are addressed?

   Mr. KYL. I appreciate that question from the Senator because there has been, I think, a misunderstanding here. My understanding is that EPA has at least two different ``needs surveys,'' as they call them. They survey needs of communities for drinking water , and we use that survey with a formula for the allocation of drinking water moneys in a different place in this bill. They also do a survey for wastewater needs.

   It is my proposal that we use that survey as the basis for the allocation of wastewater funds . Those are different surveys. We should not confuse the two. We are not suggesting that we use the drinking water survey for wastewater allocations. Leave the drinking water survey for the drinking water allocations and use the wastewater survey for the wastewater allocations.

   It is further my understanding that each of these is redone every 4 years on a rotating basis.

   In 2002, there will be the new 4-year wastewater treatment survey. Two years ago, we had the most recent drinking water survey. So every 2 years, we have a new survey. One is for drinking water ; one is for wastewater. My concern is we will wait until the 2002 wastewater survey, and then it will be at least fiscal year 2003, or later, when it can be implemented, even if we are all in agreement to use that survey. Clearly, we will be yet another year or even 2 years down the road without having made the formula safe.

   To summarize, the Senator from Virginia is correct. There are two different needs surveys, one for drinking water and one for wastewater. We are not using the drinking water survey; we are using the wastewater survey. The formulas also differ slightly.

   I believe there is a 1-percent minimum on drinking water for that fund. In ours, it is a .675-percent minimum, 8-percent maximum, and everybody else within that range receives 97.5 of what is available. It is a very simple formula and not dissimilar to the drinking water formula, but it is not the same formula.

   Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he will yield for a further question.

   There was an assertion that this will affect some of the bonding and expected amounts of money. The Senator is saying after the 2002 analysis, or the survey for wastewater monies, which is calculated on an antiquated, outdated, inaccurate formula, there would be a change. Even if nothing happened, even if the Senate does not act in a farsighted, appropriate way and vote for the amendment, there still would be changes in allocations to the different States anyway. Isn't that correct?

   Mr. KYL. The Senator from Virginia is correct. That is based on two primary factors:

   First, as both the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri have noted, they have fought very hard for increased funding. One never knows. Each year, from one year to the next, we never know what amount of money is going to be available; that is very true. It would be folly for someone to count on a particular amount of money.

   Second, as I said, we do not touch the earmarks. The earmarks come from a separate pot, basically, if we want to simplify it. That comes from a separate pot of money, and the committee can certainly do a lot of adjusting within their earmark authority from year to year. We cannot predict, obviously, from year to year what that would be.

   So, yes, the Senator is correct. There are at least two bases, and maybe others, for not knowing exactly how much money one is going to get from one year to the next, even under the existing formula.

   Mr. ALLEN. As far as that is concerned in bonding and hypothecating expected revenues from the Federal Government, it is a risky business for State governments or local or regional municipal waterworks anyway.

   As I understand it, the Senator is trying to make sure we are allocating scarce taxpayer resources; we are making a priority. Obviously, on drinking water --and that is not affected by this--in the wisdom of the Senate, the House, and the Federal Government, they said--before the Presiding Officer and I were in the Senate, but it made sense--let us make sure the money is getting to those who need it the most.

   The same logic is applied in the measure of the Senator from Arizona, as far as wastewater is concerned, which is very important for recreation, for water treatment and, obviously, for our enjoyment and health.

   It seems to me the Senator from Arizona is moving forward, making sure, when the survey is done next year, it will utilize a needs assessment, not outdated population figures that are 20 or 30 years old, and making sure we are getting the funds to the areas that need it the most.

   Most tributaries do not just flow out of one State ; they start in one State and sometimes travel through several others. For example, as I mentioned, Delaware: Folks from Delaware say everything flows into the Atlantic Ocean or towards the oceanside. Some of the rivers or streams will flow through Maryland into the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, if there is some waste coming from a stream that--and I am sure there would not be too much, but there can be from time to time, as we all know, on the Delmarva peninsula. But the point is, if one is cleaning it up on the riparian areas of the river in Delaware, that helps Maryland and that helps Virginia as well.

   Sometimes we look at it on a State -by-State basis. The Colorado River flows, obviously, out of Colorado through Utah, through Arizona, through a part of or at least the border of Nevada and California. The Potomac River actually starts some of the tributaries in Virginia, goes through West Virginia, obviously through Maryland, and obviously on the banks of Virginia. The same with the Missouri, the Mississippi, the Ohio, the Kanawa, the Cheat--all sorts of rivers go through many States.

   I ask the Senator from Arizona one final question: What would he say is the most salient point in how his proposal would more accurately reflect the actual wastewater treatment needs of this country than the old formula that is admitted by

   all to be outdated and wrong? How would his proposal, in the most salient way, make it a more accurate determination and allocation of scarce funds to the actual needs of wastewater cleanup?

   Mr. KYL. I will answer the question of the Senator from Virginia by simply saying it is based upon EPA recommendations. We know growth States, population changes, account for a big part of the increased needs.

   The Senator is also correct that there are some other localized factors, including waterways, the existence of waterways and other factors that bear on this. That is why I note that States that have been significantly underfunded include a big growth State such as California and the State of Illinois.

[Page: S8643]  GPO's PDF

   New Jersey is another State that has been woefully underfunded. Yet it is not as big a growth State as California or my own State of Arizona.

   Indiana is another State that is underfunded. It could be that series of rivers in the Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois area. I cannot explain why the EPA recommends exactly what it recommends and, in comparison to the existing formula, why some States are so much out of skew. One general reason is that of population growth. There are others, as the Senator has pointed out.

   The main reason this formula makes sense is EPA looks at all of this, applies a needs-based test, makes the recommendations, and those are the recommendations that we plug into the formula.

   Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Arizona, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senator from Arizona. I think it is the Kyl-Fitzgerald-McCain amendment.

   It is a matter of fairness. It is addressing actual needs, and there is a reason population would be more of a concern, because as population increases, obviously there may be a corresponding increase in wastewater treatment needs.

   I conclude by saying I urge my colleagues to use objective standards. Do not use politics but look at objective needs to clean up the wastewater in this country.

   I am very grateful to the Senator from Arizona for spending this amount of time and effort to try to correct this inequity. It seems to have been around for several decades, and this is the time to act. Who knows when we will have another chance, the way the Senate moves.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display