Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
No. 41
Friday, March 1, 2002 Page A-9
ISSN 1521-9402
News
Water Pollution
Senate Infrastructure Bill on Fast Track; Groups Show Support, Suggest Changes
Legislation that would authorize $35 billion over five years for wastewater
and drinking water infrastructure is on a fast track and could be marked up
within a few weeks, the chairman of a Senate panel said at a Feb. 28 hearing.
Officials representing numerous interest groups testified mostly in support of
the legislation, the Water Investment Act of 2002 (S.1961), before the Senate
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water.
The bill would reauthorize the state revolving fund under both the Clean Water
Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, it would revise the clean
water state revolving fund to incorporate some of the flexibility found in the
drinking water fund, which was first authorized in 1996.
The subcommittee heard testimony on the bill from the Environmental Protection
Agency and several interest groups Feb. 26 (39 DEN A-2, 2/27/02).
Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the subcommittee, said he wanted to move
the bill to a vote soon on the Senate floor. A committee aide told BNA he
expected the bill to be marked up possibly as soon as March 14.
One objective of the bill, Graham said, was to authorize the state revolving
fund, which first came into existence in 1987 under the Clean Water Act, for the
last time. In the current fiscal year, combined funding for both state revolving
funds totals $2 billion, a level that has been flat for several years.
"The theory was that there would be a block of federal funds allocated to the
states, and as one loan is paid off it will free up funds for the next project,"
Graham said.
State Revolving Fund Said Successful
A panel of witnesses representing municipal and private water and wastewater
treatment facility operators testified that the state revolving fund program has
been successful in helping communities to meet clean water and drinking water
objectives by funding treatment plants. However, none said they thought Congress
should stop authorizing funds for the program after five years.
Federal requirements under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
continue to impose additional costs on treatment facilities, Paul Pinault,
executive director of the Narragansett Bay Commission, said while testifying on
behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies.
Tom Morrissey, director of planning and standards for the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection, called the state revolving fund one of the "most
successful federal public works programs" in history and attributed its success
to its being a "streamlined, state-based" program.
Complexity Added
He said he was concerned the legislation fails to "modernize and minimize" the
state revolving fund program.
"We note certain provisions that appear to make matters more difficult by adding
greater complexity," he said. "Overall, we are concerned that some of the new
requirements will lead to extensive bureaucracy, burdensome implementation and
oversight, project delay, increased costs and potential litigation."
He listed as potential obstacles provisions requiring:
projects to be consistent with local land use and other plans,
states to develop a priority system and intended use plans; and
states to regulate local technical, management, and fiscal capacity building
through state revolving fund loan assistance.
Suggested Revisions
Municipal treatment officials generally applauded the bill but called for some
revisions. For example, the bill provides certain benefits for disadvantaged
communities, such as allowing them 30 years to repay the loan instead of the 20
years required of other communities. Pinault suggested other cities be allowed
to pay back their loans in 30 years.
Graham said he wanted to ensure loans were repaid as quickly as possible in
order to free up funds for other projects.
Ed Archuleta, general manager of the El Paso Water Utilities, said the
subcommittee should consider a 15-percent set-aside specifically for drinking
water agencies to ensure "states address their needs." Currently, the bill does
contain such a set-aside for small systems.
Archuleta, speaking on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies,
expressed concern about a requirement that water agencies consider
public-private partnerships. While not opposed to such partnerships, Archuleta
said, the decision to participate should be left to local discretion.
Howard Neukrug, director of watersheds in the Philadelphia Water Department,
urged the subcommittee to "keep the SRF as unencumbered as possible by
unproductive red tape." He said certain types of projects, such as those that
fall below a certain size threshold should be exempt from "SRF red tape
requirements that don't make sense."
Private Companies Laud Bill
Andrew Chapman, president of the Elizabethtown Water Company, speaking on behalf
of private water companies, applauded the bill for allowing private groups
access to state revolving fund funds, including access to the clean water fund
for the first time. While private entities have access to the drinking water
state revolving fund, no money has actually been allocated to them.
The private companies, represented by the National Association of Water
Companies, argued against grants, saying they breed inefficiency. However, loan
requirements in the legislation call for such measures as asset management and
capacity development.
"These provisions require managers to take an enterprise approach to utility
management and move all systems toward self-sustainability," Chapman said.
Officials with the public utilities said they oppose allowing private companies
access to the funds.
"We do not think that taxpayers should help the cause of privately owned
systems," Elmer Ronnebaum, general manager of the Kansas Rural Water
Association, said. Moreover, he called for more funding for small, rural water
systems.
By Susan Bruninga