Search

Clean Water Advocacy Newsroom

Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News

SENATE LEADERS SEEK STATE, UTILITY INPUT ON WATER FUNDING LEGISLATION

Date: December 29, 2003 -

Senate environment committee leaders are calling on states, and the drinking water and wastewater treatment community, to help develop bill language to revamp the state revolving loan fund (SRF) programs in hopes of passing legislation in 2004.

The call went out to SRF stakeholders in a letter earlier this month, signed by Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member James Jeffords (I-VT), Mike Crapo (R-ID), chair of the water subcommittee, and Bob Graham (D-FL), ranking member of the water subcommittee. Groups contacted by the committee include the Association of State & Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, the Northeast Rural Water Association, the Water Environment Federation and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. The letter is available on InsideEPA.com.

The letter states that EPW is "interested in examining appropriate changes to facilitate easier and more efficient use of the SRF program," and asks stakeholders to "provide [EPW] your suggested changes, illustrated with examples, of how you and your members would recommend changing the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) SRF application processes."

"The intent of the letter is to kick-start the process" of creating and moving SRF legislation in 2004, one Senate staffer says.

Another Senate source explains that lawmakers "have heard that the SRF program is cumbersome, but we haven't gotten any concrete suggestions" on how to improve the program. The source says lawmakers are hoping to get some input regarding how the program should be changed.

Under the CWA and SDWA SRF programs, EPA provides money to states who then distribute low-interest loans to a variety of borrowers for water protection projects -- such as infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

While Senate sources say they are not aware of a similar effort to address SRF concerns in the House, a House source says Water Resources & Environment Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan (R-TN) may offer broad infrastructure legislation that encompasses wastewater funding and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers water projects early next year in an effort to spark federal environmental spending that creates jobs (Water Policy Report, Dec. 1, p13).

"Water infrastructure would improve the environment, and clean water and other aspects would be a jobs creation bill," the aide says. However, the aide cautions, "Right now we are at the idea stage."

A number of bills targeting changes to the CWA SRF and SDWA SRF have been introduced in the House and Senate in recent years, but have failed for a variety of reasons. Among those bills, Duncan's bill authorizing $20 billion for the CWA SRF never cleared the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee in 2003, and wastewater and drinking water infrastructure legislation introduced by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) early in 2003 did not advance in the EPW Committee.

The Bush administration has opposed significant increases in water infrastructure funding, and outgoing EPA water chief Tracy Mehan has repeatedly said utilities should focus on asset management techniques, conservation, rate changes and other tools to address infrastructure needs.

Republican and Democrat Senate sources say lawmakers have not had discussions with the White House regarding SRF legislation in 2004. One source says, "I expect when we come back next year those discussions [with the White House] will be had."

Wastewater treatment sources suggest the president could benefit from supporting new water project funding that creates jobs, because it could bolster his environmental and employment record. "It's a natural fit to allow them to address two issues where they are seen as being vulnerable," a source who works with wastewater plants says.

Another obstacle to passage of SRF legislation has been debate over whether to include prevailing wage standards required for federally funded construction projects under the so-called Davis-Bacon law, which unions support but key conservative Republicans oppose.