 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Drinking Water Needs and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
Mr. Paul D. Schwartz
Good day, Mr. Chairman
and other distinguished members of the 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 works 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 "Drinking Water Needs and
Infrastructure." The
Committee=s sustained focus on drinking water needs and infrastructure is
timely and of vital importance to the nation=s environment, economy and public
health. This hearing is a crucial next step toward strengthening drinking
water protections. Clean Water Action believes that the public's health and
welfare will best be served if this Committee chooses to:
Reinvest in American Communities - Dramatically Increase the Dollars Available for our Aging and Inadequate Core Drinking Water Infrastructure The creation in 1996 of the
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) was a necessary first step in
moving our nation's old and outdated drinking water infrastructure into this
century. Modeled on the
successful Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF), the DWSRF has
already made billions of dollars available to communities across the U.S. to
protect the public health. We note, however, despite this increased flow of
federal dollars over the past six years, that many drinking water providers do
not have the necessary resources to take care of critical drinking water
infrastructure needs. A large chuck of our
nation's drinking water treatment works and distribution systems are old and
near or past the end of their useful life. This physical deterioration of the
nation's drinking water infrastructure imposes an increasing cost burden
every year fixes and replacement is delayed. Our treatment techniques are,
for the most part, old and inadequate to meet the requirements of the job in
the 21st century. Sand filtration and chlorination were at one time
state of the art, but not any more. USGS has recently documented all manner of
once exotic contaminants such as pharmaceuticals in our nation's drinking
water sources. New and emerging microbes, such as cryptosporidium and giardia
are slipping through sand filtration and getting past chlorine
disinfection into our finished water supply. Polluted rivers, lakes,
streams, and aquifers (underground water sources) carry fifty years of
chemicals such as pesticides that are not even regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Not one of the top ten pesticides used (by volume)
on New Jersey lawns, golf courses, and farms are regulated under SDWA. Yet
these chemicals are combining with chlorine used for disinfection to create
even more potent carcinogens and may be one of the largest contributors to
birth defects and stillborn births in the nation. Out of control sprawl
development, large animal feeding operations, naturally occurring contaminants
such as arsenic, nuclear weapons production and storage facilities, the list
of sources of drinking water contamination goes on and on. Yet our commitment
to funding the prevention and cleanup of these problems is going backwards in
real terms and the gap between what is needed and what we are raising and
spending at all levels of government is growing wider and wider. 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 water infrastructure needs in our
communities. WIN estimates that
we have needs of $1 trillion
dollars and projects that $23 billion must be invested annually over the next
20 years to begin to close the gap. Clean
Water Action calls on Congress to authorize and appropriate a much-needed
immediate injection of $57 billion spread over the next five fiscal years. This is a small price to pay to live up to the promise of
clean, safe and affordable water. The Energy and Commerce Committee should
produce a bill that significantly increases the federal share going to the
DWSRF to $25 billion over five years.
The
$25 billion should be used primarily to address core drinking water quality
problems by being targeted: (1) to fix, modernize and maintain our antiquated
and dilapidated drinking water treatment and distribution systems and (2) to
assist in prevention of pollution of the sources of our drinking water. INTEGRATE
TRADITIONAL CORE DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACHES WITH DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION STRATEGIES Drinking water spending
cannot just be targeted to the traditional modes and methods of
end-of-the-pipe engineering solutions. Though
the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) acknowledged this by
creating a voluntary set-aside for drinking water source protection, this
program has not been well used. In 1996 Amendments to SDWA
gave states the option to use up to 15% their DWSRF funds for source water
protection projects. This was
based on the widespread understanding that
source water protection was substantially cheaper and more reliable than the
dominant end-of-the-pipe solution once water quality has been degraded.
And yet, recent EPA data show that states have only spent 2% of
funds on source water protection activities.
According to EPA, some states
have attempted to direct more funds to source water protection -- but have
been stymied by the requirement that the funds had to go through "public
water supply systems." Though
EPA has issued guidance that three-party partnerships are acceptable, i.e., a
landowner, a public water supply system, and a group such as the Clean Water
Action, American Rivers or the Nature Conservancy. Nevertheless, there have been few applicants for the source
water protection dollars. This suggests that the
"voluntary", "statement of intent" of the Congress to
shift resources away from treatment and toward pollution prevention has been a
major failure. Clean Water Action calls on Congress to make two corrections.
First, the eligibility for source water protection projects needs to be
greatly expanded -- to include funding of nonprofit entities directly, and
through such programs as linked deposit bank programs or loans to county
health departments. Loans
could be provided to homeowners and farmers, without the direct involvement of
the local municipal water supply
system. The reason is that most homeowners are resistant to the
involvement of the local utility in their backyard. Most farmers will not turn over ownership of a stream buffer
to the local utility, or allow that utility to attach an easement to their
deed. Second, history shows that
mandatory (vs. voluntary) financial incentives are required.
Congress said in 1996 that it wanted funds spent on source water
protection -- and that has not happened.
If Congress is serious, then "may" should be changed to
"must." Congress
should create a separate pool of funds that states may apply for, but take the
money back (to be reallocated to states that wish to do more source water
protection) after a couple of years if they have not spent it on source water
protection. This approach would necessitate States needing to change their own
eligibility requirements (sometimes through the legislature), but a
"must" approach appears to be necessary to get them to do that. Clean Water Action is
concerned that many DWSRF dollars are going towards promotion of sprawl
development. While sprawl may be
inevitable, scarce DWSRF dollars should not be going to promote this water
polluting use. Core water
infrastructure systems, most of which were built using taxpayer funds, are now
in need of rehabilitation, replacement and repair. Though the 1996 Amendments
to SDWA restrict SRF dollars to be used for existing needs, EPA has left it up
to the States to determine what constitutes "reasonable growth." We
would be happy to work with the Committee to suggest changes to this provision
that will keep DWSRF dollars focused on solving water quality problems not
creating them. PROTECT OUR DRINKING
WATER SOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FROM POTENTIAL SECURITY BREACHES After September 11th security
issues around drinking water protection understandably moved to the fore.
Concerned about potential breaches of our drinking water system, EPA, drinking
water providers, Congress and environmental, consumer and public health groups
all got behind efforts to assess vulnerabilities and to eliminate and reduce
threats and risks of all types. EPA recognized in guidance
to the states that DWSRF dollars could be used in some limited ways to address
security issues. EPA carefully laid out the ground rules for whether
individual security fixes could take advantage of core DWSRF dollars and/or
dollars from the State SRF set-aside accounts. Though Clean Water Action
supports the use of SRF dollars in this manner we would note that the dollar
flow to correct real and present dangers would be at a very slow pace if we
just rely on the current SRF accounts. Also, we note that the costs for
securing our drinking water infrastructure far outstrip the capacity of our
current DWSRF structure. If the DWSRF dollars will help our utilities
eliminate hazards, or reduce them then these dollars certainly should be
eligible. If these dollars help our drinking water providers meet other public
health protection needs or help them come into compliance in other ways or
anticipate future rulemakings that are far along in the pipeline then we see
little problem in the dollars being spent for these purposes. However, the DWSRF is not
sufficient to meet the needs of securing our drinking water supply, and it
should not be used in such a way that would funnel scarce dollars away from
existing public health needs thereby exacerbating them. Congress in passing
Title IV of the Bio-terrorism bill saw the wisdom of creating an additional
pot of money that should be the primary source of revenue for securing the
nation's water supply. If Title IV is insufficient, Congress should come
up with additional appropriations not raid the under funded DWSRF to meet this
critical need. EsTABLISH A National Clean And SAFE WATER TRUST FUND The
two bills drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, S.
1961 and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, H.R. 3930
reauthorize the Drinking Water and Clean Water SRF accounts for a five-year
period, but are silent about the long-term federal interest in funding clean
and safe water. Water
infrastructure issues, just as our airport and highway infrastructure needs
are continuous. Any final bill must provide an ongoing, dedicated revenue
stream from sources other than the ratepayers and taxpayers The Commerce
Committee has an opportunity to play a leadership role in establishing the
longer term nature of the federal interest by reauthorizing the DWSRF for a
ten year period and by establishing a long-term stable funding source - The
National Clean And Safe Water Trust Fund. Clean Water Action
believes that a National Clean And Safe Water Trust Fund will help needy
communities meet critical water infrastructure needs.
The National Clean and Safe Water Trust Fund should in part be funded
by a polluter pays mechanism that imposes a small fee on those vested
interests whose polluting behavior creates the need for water clean up and
public health protection in the first place. In addition Clean Water Action
supports turning over Clean Water Act enforcement settlements that currently
go to the general treasury, to the National Clean And Safe Water Trust Fund. Increased water
infrastructure funding is essential if we are to curb a trend toward a
two-tiered water infrastructure. Many cities have lost much of their rate base
while their infrastructure deteriorates.
Small water systems lack the scale to spread out costs of installing or
maintaining new technologies. Not only are millions of people=s health on the
line, but the basic economies of many cities and whole regions of the country
are put at risk. REQUIRE MEANINGFUL accountability, transparency, and public participation Congress needs to require
more accountability as it invests in SRF programs. Any reauthorization of the
Drinking Water SRF must incorporate mechanisms that ensure open information
and public involvement. Many small and medium sized communities don't know
how to access the SRF accounts; all too often it is the politically connected
that are able to get funding, not those with the most pressing needs.
Meaningful public participation in the decision making process about which
projects get funded is usually absent. Currently there is little
meaningful oversight by EPA and little to no real public involvement in the
creation of intended use plans (IUP's) and the identification of priorities.
Even if no new dollars were appropriated, the States will be spending over
$200 billion over the next twenty years in their combined infrastructure
accounts with very little independent verification of whether or not those
dollars are going for environmental and public health good or harm and whether
or not these scarce dollars are going to meet our most pressing needs. In addition environmentally
sound principles for project design and siting should be observed. In many
cases state NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) --like procedures are not
followed or do not include any real review by the public. With little
oversight by EPA and almost no public involvement in the intended use plans (IUPs),
there is 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 water investment. Conclusion
Congress needs to use
investment in drinking water infrastructure to insure water infrastructure
equity, affordability and sustainability while meeting the goals of preserving
the environment, enhancing the public=s health and helping to lay a new
foundation for broad economic prosperity. This process should not be used as a
way to revisit important but contentious Safe Drinking Water Act
reauthorization issues. Clean Water Action's approach, and we hope your
approach, is to stick to the issues before us -- to identify needs and to
decide how best to structure a new water infrastructure funding program.
The
Clean Water Network and the Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water
are united in demanding 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, drinking water source protection 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 ranking
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. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment. I look forward to working with the Committee in developing any new
proposals to address drinking water needs and infrastructure.
I would be happy to entertain any questions. My phone number is (202)
895-0420 ex 105 and my e-mail is pschwartz@cleanwater.org
|
|||||||||||
|
