Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Outstanding concerns may delay infrastructure bill markup
WATER RESOURCES
Daily
04/22/2002
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is planning to mark up its
$35 billion water infrastructure bill Thursday, but sources off Capitol Hill say
outstanding differences among stakeholders have sidetracked the debate and will
likely lead to the session's postponement.
So far, the committee has delayed two previously scheduled markups because of
infighting among lawmakers. Outside Congress, environmental groups and water
industry representatives are also at odds over the path that the bill, S. 1961,
should take.
At its core, S. 1961 as written would reauthorize both the Safe Drinking Water
Act and the Clean Water Act and boost the laws' major revolving loan accounts by
billions of dollars. Amendments are in order, however, that would establish new
criteria for municipalities before they dole out their federal funds and change
the formula by which states are allocated the critical dollars they use to
replace aging pipes and supply systems.
Negotiations have been underway for more than a month among Environment
Committee lawmakers. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) has drafted a substitute
amendment to the original bill that has garnered the support of the Association
of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, a critical player in the infrastructure
debate. Also in play is a manager's amendment from Committee Chairman Jim
Jeffords (I-Vt.), which in at least one area has drawn the ire of AMSA and
garnered the backing of environmental groups such as Clean Water Action and the
Natural Resources Defense Council. The manager's amendment would require a
municipality that is in "significant noncompliance" with the CWA to receive a
consent decree, or permit, from the Environmental Protect Agency to receive
funding under the State Revolving Loan Fund.
Adam Krantz, communications director at AMSA, said the provision would create an
unnecessary hurdle for needy communities that likely would involve costly legal
proceedings. Between EPA noncompliance penalties, federal enforcement of wet
weather standards and the ever-present possibility of a citizen lawsuit, Krantz
said municipalities already face enough incentive to comply with the CWA. He
questioned why lawmakers would make things more difficult for municipalities,
particularly in legislation that is designed to increase funding that will
benefit the environment.
Environmental groups, however, have split from their partners within the issue's
major lobbying branch, the Water Infrastructure Network, and say they are not
willing to budge on what they are calling their "fiscally smart" argument. Paul
Schwartz, national campaigns director for Clean Water Action, said, "You don't
want good dollars chasing bad. All we're calling for is them to have a plan to
get into compliance. That's not a lot to ask for for low interest, and to some
extent, free money."
Schwartz said he stands by WIN's overall principle of garnering increased
funding for water infrastructure, but he also pointed out that one of the
original reasons that green groups signed on to the coalition was because of
their stated purpose to ensure the financial boost does not harm the
environment.
In the debate over the formula by which the Clean Water State Revolving Loan
Funds (SRF) are appropriated, environment committee aides have said there may be
several amendments once the markup occurs to ensure no lawmaker loses his or her
share of the pie. Under S. 1961, the SRF would be configured to look like the
Drinking Water SRF, providing funds based on EPA's needs survey, of which a new
version is due out this August. EPA's current SRF formula appropriates funds to
states based on a construction grants program from the 1970s that is loosely
tied to population data. One amendment that is likely to drop would have the SRF
still following the needs-based formula but would also ensure that no state sees
its funding reduced under the new setup in comparison with its levels from the
old formula. Krantz said he expects other formula plans to be offered at the
markup.
The debate over incorporating Davis-Bacon prevailing wages into all rounds of
SRF-backed construction, unlike in the House, does not appear to be shaping up
as the environment panel's dominant issue. An amendment to limit Davis-Bacon to
apply to the first round of construction work through the SRF is expected. Such
a measure failed last month when the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee approved its own $25 billion wastewater infrastructure bill, H.R.
3930.
In other areas, environmental groups are pressing for the inclusion of several
other provisions within S. 1961. Schwartz said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is
preparing an amendment to the manager's mark that would create incentives to
motivate states to fund, and SRF recipients to use, nonpoint pollution projects
and nonstructural alternatives. Wyden also has language that would limit SRF
funding to projects that primarily benefit water quality. Green groups are still
on the lookout for a sponsor to their language that would disallow SRF and DWSRF
funding for projects that would spur sprawl development. S. 1961, as written,
includes a community development provision facilitating better planning, but it
is not sufficient to ensure SRF money doesn't fund a growth boom, Schwartz said.
House GOP at odds over labor issue
In the House, a leadership dispute is brewing among Republicans concerning the
Davis-Bacon labor issue. House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-Texas) opined
last week during a GOP Conference Committee meeting that his party would not
support H.R. 3930 in its current form on the House floor because of its
expansion of Davis-Bacon, Armey spokesman Greg Crist said. Armey said he would
change his tune if a majority of Republicans came forward in support of the
change. If not, the water bill would only come to the House floor after seeing
the Davis-Bacon issue removed, which likely would occur in the Rules Committee.
Steve Hansen, a spokesman for House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska), defended H.R. 3930 and said it was not an
expansion of Davis-Bacon as Armey had said. The transportation panel's voice
vote in favor of the pro-labor provision's inclusion was a sign of the concept's
support among a majority of House Republicans, Hansen added. Further, he said
Young wants to bring H.R. 3930 to the floor "as soon as possible."
Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Committee said last week that lawmakers
there are waiting to see a final report on the entire water infrastructure issue
from the Congressional Budget Office before they begin drafting a bill to
address drinking water specifically. Schwartz said he believes the panel is also
waiting to see how the Senate environment committee handles its markup.
At a committee hearing earlier this month, CBO principal analyst Perry Beider
said that a preliminary report showed annual investment costs for drinking water
infrastructure, including capital and financing, will average $11.6 billion from
2000 to 2019 under a low-cost scenario and $20.1 billion under a high-cost case.
Beider has previously testified on Capitol Hill that cost estimates from the
Water Infrastructure Network, a coalition of industry, engineer, professional
and environmental groups, may be overestimated. Beider was not asked, nor did he
give an estimate, when CBO will release its final report.
Schedule: As of press time, the markup is scheduled for Thursday, April 25, in
406 Dirksen. Time TBA.
-- Darren Samuelsohn