Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Bill faces labor, funding hurdles as markup nears
Water Resources
Daily
03/04/2002
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee aims to mark up legislation
March 14 that would authorize $35 billion for water infrastructure projects over
the next five years. However, several sources are indicating the bill may get
held up in committee over the divisive issue of whether or not to include
prevailing provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.
An Environment Committee source said last week that while Davis-Bacon is not
currently in S. 1961, the Water Investment Act, it is likely to come up during
the markup as an amendment. The issue, the source noted, kept brownfields reform
legislation from passing into law for more than a year.
A pair of hearings held last week set the stage for the debate that will come as
part of the bill's advancement. A range of concerns were brought up, including
S. 1961's funding levels, language shifting the nature of the Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Fund to operate more like its drinking water counterpart and
whether or not states receiving federal funds should be required to follow
federal mandates when managing infrastructure construction's effects on land use
and sprawl (Environment and Energy Daily, Feb. 27).
Last week, a key EPA water official testified that the Bush administration's
current fiscal priorities -- focusing on homeland defense and overseas military
operations -- meant it could not support the funding levels as called for in S.
1961. On the other side, several water interest groups, including the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and the American Water Works
Association, called on lawmakers to approve a $57 billion authorization bill
over five years. The National Association of Water Companies questioned whether
Congress would even appropriate funding levels of the nature in S. 1961.
The Environment Committee source said a large-scale manager's amendment will be
introduced at the markup this month, but noted that the funding level is not
something that would be changed.
-- Darren Samuelsohn