Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Thursday, March 7, 2002
LOCAL
Urban Chronicle
Infrastructure in need ; Failing: The city needs money for its water and sewer
systems, but more funding isn't a high priority with the Bush administration.
Eric Siegel
SUN STAFF
THE MONEY would be just a drop in the bucket compared to what
Baltimore needs to upgrade its aging sewer system, and the Bush
administration is opposing even a modest increase in funding.
But maybe there's at least some comfort to be taken by the city -
and its water and sewer customers - that some of official Washington
recognizes the dimensions of the problem faced by Baltimore and other
cities and is trying to do something about it.
Last week, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
and one of its subcommittees held a pair of hearings on legislation
dealing with water and sewer infrastructure.
The primary focus of the hearings was the Water Investment Act of
2002, which would more than triple the federal government's annual
contribution to state revolving loan funds to an average of $7
billion a year for the next five years.
The funds - which require a 20 percent state match - are lent to
localities at interest rates that are about half the rates in the
bond market.
Last year, Maryland received about $40 million from two federal
pools of money.
In the past, Baltimore has tapped into the fund for upgrades to
the Patapsco and Back River wastewater treatment plants, and has
applications pending for about $28 million in loans for sewer
repairs, said Jag Khumen, program administrator for the Maryland
Water Quality Financing Administration, which runs the state's loan
program.
As for the additional funding contained in the congressional
legislation, he said: "More money, we'll take it."
The state could use it. A report in December by a gubernatorial
Task Force on Upgrading Sewer Systems put the statewide needs at $4.3
billion. As with so many other things, Baltimore accounts for a
substantial portion of that figure.
Federal regulators are pressing the city to agree to make up to
$900 million in repairs to a faulty sewer system that is spilling
millions of gallons of sewage into tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
Yesterday, the city took the initial step in seeking what
officials say will be the first of a series of rate increases to pay
for those repairs.
Staggering as that number is, it does not represent all the city's
needs. Baltimore also faces another $300-plus million in repairs to
the Back River and Patapsco treatment plants.
In congressional testimony last week, Benjamin H. Grumbles, an
administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said the
Bush administration could not support the increased funding because
it was "not consistent" with the president's priorities of defense
and homeland security.
"Are you indicating that clean water and safe drinking water are
not priorities of this administration?" asked Sen. James M. Jeffords,
the Vermont independent who is chairman of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee and a key sponsor of the bill to increase
infrastructure funding.
"It is more than just a federal funding issue," said Grumbles, who
called for more privatization and better technology.
Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes expressed concern that the funding formula
did not adequately reflect the water quality challenges of each
state.
The Maryland Democrat also spoke in support of a separate bill he
is co-sponsoring that would provide hundreds of millions of dollars
in federal grants to upgrade wastewater treatment plants in the
Chesapeake Bay region.
An aide said Sarbanes' bill, which could be incorporated into the
Water Investment Act, would not help the city patch its sewer lines,
but it could help with longer-range needs at its treatment plants.
And some water and sewer officials called for more outright grants
and more flexible loan terms.
But what was most striking in listening to Internet broadcasts of
the hearings and reading the testimony of witnesses was the degree of
consensus - among those officials and environmentalists, and
Democrats and Republicans - about the need for more federal
infrastructure funding.
Noting estimates that $23 billion annually will be required
nationwide for the next 20 years, Nancy Stoner, director of the Clean
Water Project of the National Resources Defense Council, said, "The
need for greater investment in clean water and drinking water
infrastructure is clear and undisputed."
Paul Pinault, vice president of the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies, said local budgets are being strained by
regulatory requirements, including those involving sewer overflows
like those in Baltimore. Pinault urged funding of $57 billion over
five years.
"Without a significant fiscal partnership that includes long-term
federal participation to meet these core infrastructure challenges,
we will see a continued and devastating decline in both our national
wastewater treatment and collection systems and the nation's public
health and well-being," he said.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat, spoke of $20
billion in needs in her state.
And Sen. George V. Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, talked about the
$7.4 billion in needs in his state.
Voinovich noted the case of Akron, which has a long-term sewer
control plan with a price tag of $248 million.
"Without outside funding, Akron's sewer rates could more than
double," he said.
In other words, Baltimore has plenty of company in its
infrastructure misery.