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