Search

Clean Water Advocacy Newsroom

Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News

Bill introduction signals rewrite of major water laws
WATER RESOURCES
Daily
02/18/2002

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee took a big step last week toward a major rewrite of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act with the unveiling of a $35 billion legislative package that would be spread out over the next five years.
Committee Chairman Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), ranking member Robert Smith (R-N.H.) and the top two lawmakers on the water subcommittee, Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Michael Crapo (R-Idaho) are the lead sponsors of the yet-to-be numbered Water Investment Act. Legislative hearings are scheduled for Feb. 26 and 28. Jeffords plans to mark up the bill in early March and have it ready for floor debate before the July 4 recess, said Ken Connolly, the committee's staff director.
In the House, details are still unclear concerning its water infrastructure legislation, which is expected this spring from the Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy and Commerce committees. Justin Harclerode, a transportation committee spokesman, said last week that further hearings are likely before the bill is dropped.
The Jeffords bill calls for significant increases in the authorization levels for both the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF), which combined make the up the largest portion of the Environmental Protection Agency's annual budget. Currently, the two catch-all spending sources are authorized at $1.35 billion and $1 billion, respectively.
For the SRF, Jeffords' bill would ramp up spending to $3.2 billion in 2003 and 2004, $3.6 billion in 2005, $4 billion in 2006 and $6 billion in 2007. For the DWSRF, funding would rise to $1.5 billion in 2003, $2 billion for 2004 and 2005, $3.5 billion in 2006 and $6 billion in 2007.
Should Jeffords' legislation be approved by Congress and, subsequentially, the appropriations committees open their purse strings and fund the programs to their full limits, EPA's annual budget would rise from almost $8 billion last year to nearly $18 billion come 2007.
Peter Cook, executive director of the National Association of Water Companies, hailed the bill's introduction but also noted that the gradual buildup in funding levels "may encourage counterproductive behavior" by utilities. Cook said there is "little likelihood" of the amounts ever being appropriated and that water systems may defer making the necessary investments while "hoping for significant federal assistance in the future that will never be forthcoming."
The budget battle over water spending is not only focused on the long term. Last week, lawmakers in both the Senate and House were critical of the White House's FY '03 proposal for the SRF and DWSRF, which came in below authorized amounts at $1.21 billion and $850 million respectively. In defense of the Bush request, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman boasted that the figure is the highest any administration has ever made for water infrastructure. Meantime, Ben Grumbles, the new EPA deputy assistant administrator for water, said during a House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee hearing last week that EPA is considering a "high level forum" of government and interest groups to address the infrastructure spending gap.
Other significant components of Jeffords' bill include a change to the SRF formula to make it more like the DWSRF. An environment committee aide said the SRF is currently doled out by states based on a construction grants program from the 1970s that is loosely tied to population data. Jeffords bill would reconfigure the SRF so that it is based on EPA's needs survey.
The bill applies to the Clean Water Act several of the lessons learned from the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Amendments, the aide said, adding that the CWA has not been reauthorized since 1987.
For example, the CWA under Jeffords' bill increases flexibility for state spending of federal funds. It also provides additional assistance to disadvantaged communities and makes private utilities eligible to receive federal funds. In an effort to avoid an endless cycle of federal investments, the aide pointed out that the bill requires asset management plans that reflect capital replacement costs, thus pressing water systems to use sound financial practices to ensure they have the funds they need to make additional investments.
The bill also places a renewed emphasis on consolidation, private-public partnerships, nonpoint source issues and non-traditional practices such as decentralized wastewater systems and wetlands restoration. In effect, the bill clarifies existing law to say that systems are required to consider such approaches eligible for funding under the SRF and DWSRF.
Officials at the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and the American Water Works Association did not return calls for comment. The drive for Jeffords' legislation has come in part because of such organizations, which along with other industry, labor and conservation groups, formed the Water Infrastructure Network. Last year, WIN released a report that called for Congress to spend roughly $57 billion through loans, grants and other means over the next five years for rehabilitation and repair projects. Asked why the environment committee did not release a bill that called for $57 billion in funding as WIN requested, the aide said $35 billion was the number both Democrats and Republicans felt most comfortable with.

-- Darren Samuelsohn