Witness Testimony

MAIN POINTS

Corrosion control under the Lead and Copper Rule has been an effective means of reducing exposure from lead in drinking water.

Removing and replacing lead service lines can be effective, but is problematic due to the cost of doing so and the lack of control the water agency has over the homeowner's portion of the lead service line.

Increasing exposure to lead and making compliance difficult, however, are the levels of lead contained in and leaching from home plumbing fixtures into consumers' homes - both authorized by the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Water systems are facing enormous infrastructure replacement needs for routine infrastructure replacement and for hardening drinking water systems against security threats.

Metropolitan systems received only five percent of drinking water state revolving fund assistance, even though these systems accounted for 20 percent of the estimated needs. Thirty states do not provide any assistance to metropolitan systems.

Significant federal investment in drinking water infrastructure must come from the resources of the nationwide economy through a long-term funding source.

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting us to testify and for your interest in drinking water infrastructure.

My name is Brian Ramaley. I am the Director of the Newport News Waterworks and an officer and board member of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, on whose behalf I am testifying today.

Newport News Waterworks is the regional water provider for Hampton, Newport News, Poquoson and parts of York and James City counties. We serve safe drinking water to 400,000 people in southeastern Virginia.

The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) is a nonprofit organization of the largest publicly owned drinking water systems in the United States. Our members collectively serve more than 110 million Americans with safe drinking water.

LEAD

Lead that is found in tap water can originate from three sources: lead service lines, which are the smaller pipes running from water mains to customer meters; home plumbing fixtures; and lead solder in the home.

Under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Lead and Copper Rule, water agencies serving 50,000 or more people must optimize their systems to reduce corrosivity. If, in spite of optimization, a system still detects more than 15 parts per billion (ppb) in 10 percent of home tap water samples, it must reduce lead exposure by educating the public and replacing the lead service lines it owns. (Samples are collected at the customer's tap after the water sits unused for several hours, typically first thing in the morning. This is intended to represent the worst case for potential lead exposure in that particular residence. The number of samples required and the frequency of collection are based on the size of the water system and past results.)

The regulatory approach laid out in the Lead and Copper Rule recognizes that corrosion control - through the use of chemical corrosion inhibitors and pH adjustment - has been determined to be a very effective way for water systems to minimize lead exposure from homeowners' plumbing fixtures and lead service lines. For example, by using a zinc and phosphate-based corrosion inhibitor and carefully controlling pH, Newport News Waterworks, which disinfects with chloramines, has limited lead levels at our customers' taps at well below the EPA action level and in most cases below detectable amounts.

The Lead and Copper Rule also recognizes that water systems rarely, if ever, have direct control over the customer's portion of the lead service line or the customer's indoor plumbing. Lead service line removal can be effective, but removing the whole line can be problematic, and replacement of the customer's portion of the service line is not currently required under the law. Replacing the customer's portion of the service line (on private property) requires the homeowner's permission, which is not always provided in spite of high lead levels. Agreeing with a homeowner to not replace his or her private plumbing may leave the water system open to legal claims by other inhabitants or the house's future owners, particularly if legal requirements for service line replacement are extended to include the homeowner's private line in the future.

What's more, paying for the removal and replacement of customers' lead service lines presents a significant burden on water systems - most of which are part of local government. In many cases, the water utility was not responsible for installing a lead service line on private property. Contractors and developers may have used lead service lines. Regardless, the bottom line is that the part of the service line on a homeowner's property is just that - the homeowner's property. Therefore, while the utility may do the work, the cost of replacing the whole line should be shared by the utility and the homeowner in proportion to the work required on public and private property.

Lead service lines were commonly used until about 70 years ago, because they were relatively less expensive than other options and very malleable. In 1897, about half of all American municipalities had lead services lines. When they are found today, they are typically connected to very old homes. According to a 2002 survey by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), 56 percent of existing customer service lines are made of copper while only 3.3 percent are made of lead.

According to a 1994 American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF) report, there were, at that time, between 2.3 million and 5.1 million lead service lines in use in the United States. The national cost to replace the lead service lines under the control of both the utilities and homeowners was estimated to be between $10 billion and $14 billion in 1994 (or between $13 billion and $18 billion today).

Some utilities have aggressively targeted replacement of lead service lines under their control, but others have not had the resources to do so. Newport News Waterworks replaced more than 1,000 known lead service lines before the Lead and Copper Rule took effect. Any newly discovered lines are replaced immediately in our system. However, in older cities with many more lead service lines, this has not been economically viable for cash-strapped utilities facing huge infrastructure needs.

With regard to lead, it is clear to AMWA and its members that mandating replacement of privately owned lead plumbing will create financial and operational difficulties for many utilities. Currently mandated monitoring and response mechanisms have worked well in most municipalities to reduce lead exposure to our consumers. Recent EPA data show that less than four percent of 7,702 systems that each serve more than 3,300 people have exceeded the action level for lead since 2000. Those systems experiencing difficulties have many successful models to follow and are proceeding quickly down that path.

Increasing exposure and making compliance difficult, however, is the level of lead contained in and leaching from home plumbing fixtures into consumers' homes. The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act allowed plumbing manufacturers to establish their own voluntary standard for leaching from their fixtures. The leaching level they chose was 11 parts per billion. And the Act defines "lead-free" fixtures as containing as much as eight percent lead.

DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

The infrastructure needs confronting the nation's drinking water systems are enormous. The Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) report, Clean & Safe Water for the 21st Century, and its follow up, Water Infrastructure Now: Recommendations for Clean and Safe Water in the 21st Century, estimate that drinking water utilities across the nation collectively need to spend about $24 billion per year for the next 20 years on infrastructure, largely for buried pipelines, for a total of $480 billion. WIN's analysis also concluded that drinking water systems currently spend $13 billion per year on infrastructure, leaving an $11 billion annual gap between current spending and overall need.

In the Environmental Protection Agency's 2002 infrastructure gap analysis, the agency estimated that drinking water systems will spend between $154 billion and $446 billion through 2019.

According to a 2002 survey by AMWA, 32 metropolitan systems alone reported that they must spend $27 billion over the next five years on drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. For instance, Cleveland, Ohio must spend up to $700 million; Columbus, Ohio, $253 million; New Orleans, $1.2 billion; Kansas City, Mo., over $500 million; Denver, $363 million; Chicago, $600 million; Austin, $568 million; Phoenix, $1.28 billion; and Omaha, Nebraska, $355 million. In 2002, Detroit reported that its capital expenditures for drinking water projects would be $1.4 billion over the next five years and $2.9 billion would be spent for wastewater projects. Washington, D.C. will have to spend almost $2 billion over the next 10 years, plus more than a billion dollars to meet EPA wet weather requirements.

The total length of pipe for water mains in the United States is nearly 900,000 miles, according to AwwaRF. Age is the primary reason we are confronted with such high estimates of infrastructure spending needs. From the late 1800s to the late 1960s, most water mains were made of cast iron. Now much of that pipe has reached the end of its life, and water systems are more often experiencing main breaks and water loss. AwwaRF estimates there are approximately 238,000 water main breaks each year and, on average, water systems lose 10 percent of their treated drinking water, mostly due to deteriorated pipes.

Newport News Waterworks has nearly 2,000 miles of pipeline in its system. Our capital investment needs, though small compared to the cities I just listed, have averaged more than $10 million dollars per year over the last fifteen years.

Regulatory mandates are another reason for such high infrastructure spending needs. New drinking water regulations to remove arsenic from drinking water and to control microbial contamination and disinfection byproducts will better protect public health, but they come with enormous costs.

WATER SECURITY

Compounding these financial burdens are the looming investments local water agencies will be forced to make to help protect their facilities and consumers from potential terrorist attacks. The American Water Works Association estimates that water systems will need to spend approximately $1.6 billion on immediate next steps. These steps include fencing around facilities and reservoirs, security doors and locks, intruder alert systems, better lighting, surveillance cameras to monitor entry ways and sensitive facilities, access control and barricades around key facilities. Some systems already have some or all of these measures in place, while others are in the process of installing them.

According to security consultants in the water sector, studies of 17 large utilities project overall security costs ranging from $750,000 to $91 million, averaging $15.5 million per utility. AMWA roughly estimates that water systems will spend an average of $8 to $11 per individual in a service area to improve security. Another study by security consultants estimates that the 450 drinking water systems in the United States serving 100,000 or more people will have to spend approximately $1.2 billion to harden their facilities against possible attacks.

METROPOLITAN WATER SYSTEMS

Most federal drinking water assistance is reserved for smaller water systems, and we encourage Congress to increase its assistance to metropolitan systems - systems serving 100,000 people or more. Programs at USDA serve only rural systems, and EPA's drinking water state revolving fund (SRF) is primarily used to resolve regulatory compliance problems at small systems. According to EPA, metropolitan systems received only five percent of drinking water SRF assistance, even though these systems accounted for 20 percent of the estimated needs. Thirty states do not provide any assistance to metropolitan systems.

There are two key reasons why metropolitan water systems do not benefit from the drinking water SRF. First, the Safe Drinking Water Act directs drinking water SRF funding to systems unable to meet drinking water regulations and protect public health. The more common problem metropolitan systems face is simply the need to replace aging infrastructure. And while aging infrastructure can contribute to public health concerns, the drinking water SRF primarily assists small systems facing acute problems. The second reason metropolitan systems do not benefit from the drinking water SRF is that there just isn't enough money in the program.

Even while the drinking water SRF program is authorized at the relatively modest amount of $1 billion, EPA has not asked for and Congress has not appropriated more than $850 million for the program.

SOLUTIONS

A lack of increased federal infrastructure funding risks jeopardizing public health and the security of our infrastructure. Safe drinking water is the first line of defense against deadly waterborne viruses, and adequate infrastructure is the key component in the effort. Furthermore, with increased funding, water systems will endure fewer main breaks and better protect our families from security threats.

To pay these large infrastructure costs, drinking water systems across the country will need to rely on a multi-pronged approach consisting of rate increases, federal and state funding, asset management, consolidation and regionalization, and more efficient use of water, among others.

Water rates are increasing all over the country, but household budgets can only absorb so much. Publicly owned utilities are also becoming more efficient, and most are engaged in asset management programs to help prepare for the future. Beyond these steps, the solutions must include a significant investment from the resources of the nationwide economy through a long-term funding source. An expanded national commitment would account for the external costs endured by utilities, such as the cost to treat nonpoint source agricultural pollution, MTBE and perchlorate.

EPA's solution to the infrastructure crisis is to encourage administrative improvements at utilities. This and rate increases will help to some extent, but they will never be enough. That's why AMWA and its 50 other coalition partners in the Water Infrastructure Network strongly urge Congress to pass bipartisan legislation to significantly increase federal assistance to drinking water and wastewater systems, particularly those serving metropolitan areas.

Not only will increased federal assistance help protect public health and the environment, but it will also increase jobs. According to government leaders, about 47,500 jobs are created for every $1 billion spent on infrastructure in the United States.

We appreciate your attention to the serious matter of drinking water infrastructure. We hope that you and your colleagues in the House and Senate can develop a mutually acceptable proposal for the sake of safe drinking water and American jobs.