Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Clean Water Report
COPYRIGHT 2005 Business Publishers, Inc.
February 28, 2005
Volume 43; Issue 5
President Bush made wrong choices in proposed budget, industry says.
Water and wastewater professionals could face more budget shortfalls if
Congress adopts President Bush's fiscal year (FY) 2006 budget. But they plan to
convince Congress not to do that.
Industry groups are disappointed with the proposed budget because Bush requested
a large cut to the state revolving fund (SRF) for clean water and kept the
request the same as the funding received last year for drinking water. They
would like Congress to restore SRFs to the FY 2004 level of $1.35 billion for
clean water.
"We understand that the president has to make choices in a tight fiscal year but
he is penny wise and pound foolish to cut a program that does so much for a
clean environment," Tom Curtis, deputy executive director for American Water
Works Association (AWWA), told CWR.
Producing clean drinking water is harder for treatment plants if pollution in
rivers and surface water increases. That is why many drinking plants want
funding for sewage upgrades, Curtis said.
AWWA also wants Congress to put back funding for research into new technologies
to increase water resources, such as desalination. The federal government also
should protect watersheds and American treasures, such as the Chesapeake Bay and
Long Island Sound.
"It will be unfortunate if the budget is passed as is. It is a federal
responsibility to protect these water bodies."
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) also was disappointed with
the federal budget as requested. AMSA is urging Congress to support both full
funding for the SRF in the short-term and create a dedicated trust fund for
infrastructure projects to guarantee safe water, said Executive Director Ken
Kirk.
"This proposed cut is the wrong measure at the wrong time. Without long-term,
sustainable federal-state-local partnership, communities will not be able to do
essential capital replacement projects needed to meet federal Clean Water Act
mandates and improve the quality of the water," he said.
Hard Decisions
EPA had to choose areas for cuts in a fiscally conservative budget year, said
Assistant Administrator Ben Grumbles.
"The needs for funding are many but we can only fund some. We had to set
important priorities for the agency and make tough budgetary choices," he told
CWR.
EPA hopes the limited resources will bring more partners to the table to
leverage more of the funds. In addition, the federal government wants SRF seed
money to stop (see story, p. 45).
Despite the limited funds for SRFs, EPA requested funding for a new program to
help local governments meet the challenge of water security. Funding will help
drinking water plants protect against biological threats, conduct vulnerability
assessments and make scientific investments.
"This is a growing concern among systems. We did not want to be an added burden
but change the way of thinking. We want them to think about security in a
beneficial way," Grumbles said.
Local governments will have to make choices about their water systems. Consumers
will have to accept rate increases if they want to pursue clean water and a
healthy environment, said Water Environment Federation President Lynn Orphan.