[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND: HOW FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT CAN HELP COMMUNITIES MODERNIZE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND
ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES
=======================================================================
(116-5)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 7, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-383 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
MARK DeSAULNIER, California PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona ROSS SPANO, Florida
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas GREG PENCE, Indiana
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chair
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JOHN GARAMENDI, California THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
JARED HUFFMAN, California ROB WOODALL, Georgia
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas MIKE BOST, Illinois
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York DOUG LaMALFA, California
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
HARLEY ROUDA, California JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida Puerto Rico
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment:
Opening statement............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement, submitted for the record by
Mrs. Napolitano................................................ 7
Hon. Terri A. Sewell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alabama, prepared statement, submitted for the record by
Mrs. Napolitano................................................ 9
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 101
WITNESSES
Hon. David Condon, Mayor, city of Spokane, Washington, on behalf
of the United States Conference of Mayors:
Oral statement............................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
John Mokszycki, Water Superintendent, town of Greenport, New
York, on behalf of the National Rural Water Association and New
York Rural Water Association:
Oral statement............................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Catherine Coleman Flowers, Rural Development Manager, Equal
Justice Initiative, Montgomery, Alabama:
Oral statement............................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Maureen Taylor, State Chairperson, Michigan Welfare Rights
Organization, Detroit, Michigan:
Oral statement............................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Andrew Kricun, P.E., BCEE, Executive Director/Chief Engineer,
Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, Camden, New
Jersey:
Oral statement............................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Jill Witkowski Heaps, Visiting Scholar, University at Buffalo
School of Law, and Assistant Professor, Vermont Law School:
Oral statement............................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
H.R. 1497, Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2019,
submitted for the record by Mrs. Napolitano.................... 3
Letter of March 5, 2019, from the Western Governors' Association,
submitted for the record by Mrs. Napolitano.................... 10
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, submitted
for the record by Mrs. Napolitano.............................. 11
Article, ``Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water
Could Go First,'' Bloomberg Businessweek, submitted for the
record by Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.................................. 67
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano for Hon. David Condon.... 103
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano for John Mokszycki....... 106
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano for Andrew Kricun, P.E.,
BCEE........................................................... 108
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano for Jill Witkowski Heaps
and supplementary information to testimony..................... 111
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
March 1, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``The Clean Water State
Revolving Fund: How Federal Infrastructure Investment Can Help
Communities Modernize Water Infrastructure and Address
Affordability Challenges''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will
meet on Thursday, March 7, 2019, at 10 a.m. in HVC 210, Capitol
Visitor Center, to receive testimony related to ``The Clean
Water State Revolving Fund: How Federal Infrastructure
Investment Can Help Communities Modernize Water Infrastructure
and Address Affordability Challenges.'' The purpose of this
hearing is to examine the current state of our clean water
systems and receive testimony on the backlog of clean water
infrastructure needs and the infrastructure affordability
challenges facing communities and American households. The
Subcommittee will hear from representatives of urban and rural
utilities, individuals impacted by inadequate clean water
infrastructure and affordability challenges, and a law
professor who can speak to recommendations for the EPA to
address water infrastructure needs in environmental justice
communities.
BACKGROUND
CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
America's water infrastructure is in need of further
financial investment. According to the American Society of
Civil Engineers 2017 Infrastructure Report Card, America's
wastewater treatment infrastructure receives a grade of D+,
which is only a slight improvement from its previous grade of D
in the 2013 Report Card.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency,
communities need at least $271 billion of investment over the
next 20 years \1\ to bring their systems to a state of good
repair. Given the current level of Federal investment to
address these needs, States and local governments are covering
more than 95 percent of the cost of clean water projects.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.epa.gov/cwns/clean-watersheds-needs-survey-cwns-
2012-report-and-data.
\2\ Congressional Budget Office. Public Spending on Transportation
and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2017. October 2018. https://
www.cbo.gov/publication/54539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These statistics indicate a need for increased investment
in our Nation's water infrastructure, and the benefits are
numerous. Investing in clean water creates thousands of
domestic jobs in the construction industry and reduces the
overall costs of operating and maintaining that infrastructure.
According to the National Utility Contractors Association,
every $1 billion invested in our Nation's water infrastructure
creates or sustains nearly 27,000 jobs in communities across
America, while improving public health and the environment at
the same time.\3\ In addition, clean water infrastructure helps
prevent contamination of our nation's waters that are relied
upon by the recreational industry. People spend approximately
$70 billion per year on recreational boating and fishing; that
industry employs more than 150,000 people.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Clean Water Council: Sudden Impact: An Assessment of Short-Term
Economic Impacts of Water and Wastewater Construction Projects in the
United States (June, 2009).
\4\ EPA 2012. The importance of Water to the US Economy, Part 1:
Background Report. Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency.
September 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLEAN WATER ACT AFFORDABILITY
Communities and governments at all levels face growing
challenges in effectively managing the water resources
necessary to support growing and shifting populations, thriving
residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors,
and healthy and productive natural environments. Many local
governments also face complex affordability challenges--with
some communities addressing shrinking rate bases, while others
with growing populations facing increasing segments of their
rate base that are unable to afford the rising costs of clean
water. In short, local infrastructure needs can
disproportionately impact the poorest segments of communities
across the country. Nationwide, water utilities and
communities, of all sizes, seek to ensure clean, safe,
accessible, and affordable water, all the while dealing with
the challenges of extreme weather events and mounting concerns
regarding water quality and quantity.
In 2017, the National Academy of Public Administration,
issued a report that examined the challenges local communities
face in providing clean, safe, and affordable water and
wastewater services.\5\ This report concluded that the
governmental responsibility to assure clean water that is also
affordable to both communities and individuals has become an
increasing challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Academy of Public Administration. Developing a New
Framework for Community Affordability of Clean Water Services. October
2017. https://www.napawash.org/studies/academy-studies/developing-a-
new-framework-for-community-affordability-of-clean-water-servi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the report recognized that water infrastructure in
the United States is aging, imposing additional costs on
communities to both upgrade and maintain deteriorating
infrastructure from deferred maintenance. Second, the report
recognized the costs to communities to come into compliance
with the Clean Water Act as an additional factor, and
highlighted the importance of more cost-effective and
innovative solutions, such as increased use of green-
infrastructure approaches, stormwater recapture and reuse, and
integrated planning, to address these challenges. Finally, the
report highlighted how affordability is an especially critical
issue for low-income customers throughout the United States,
noting that, while average annual expenditures for water are
generally low relative to other utilities, they represent a
higher share of income for those with the lowest 20 percent of
income.
In the 115th Congress, Congress approved two bills to
address some of the challenges highlighted in the NAPA report.
First, Congress approved the America's Water Infrastructure Act
of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-270), which, among other things, expanded
the eligibility for Clean Water Act grants to address sewer
overflows and to capture, treat, and reuse wastewater and
stormwater runoff. In addition, Congress passed the Water
Infrastructure Improvement Act (Pub. L. 115-436), which
codified the ``integrated planning'' concept that helps
communities by providing them greater flexibility in meeting
their requirements under the Clean Water Act while maintaining
their obligation to achieve improvements in local water
quality, as well as incorporated the use of green-
infrastructure approaches into the permitting and enforcement
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
In addition, legislation was introduced in both in the
House \6\ and the Senate \7\ to amend the Clean Water Act to
address the issue of water affordability at the household
level; however, no additional action was taken on these bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ H.R. 2328, the Low-Income Sewer and Water Assistance Program
Act of 2017 (115th Congress).
\7\ S. 3564, the Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Programs Act
of 2018 (115th Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER INVESTMENT: CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
For close to 80 years, Congress has provided Federal funds
to municipalities to address local water quality challenges,
including sewage treatment needs. Initially, this assistance
was provided as direct grants to municipalities (covering 55 to
75 percent of the total costs of the projects). However, in
1987, Congress converted the direct grant program to a Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (``Clean Water SRF'') authority that
provides funding directly to States which, in-turn, provide
below-market rate loans to communities to finance local
wastewater infrastructure needs (required to be fully repaid
over a 30-year term).
The authorization of appropriations for the Clean Water SRF
expired after 1994. Yet, Congress continues to fund this
critical investment in our Nation's wastewater infrastructure
through annual appropriations bills--providing more than $43
billion in Federal capitalization assistance to States since
1987--including an appropriation of $1.694 billion for the
Clean Water SRF in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill
(Pub. L. 116-6). In turn, this infusion of Federal capital to
State revolving funds has leveraged over $120 billion in direct
assistance to communities over this period.
In 2014, Congress enacted amendments to the Clean Water Act
which authorized States that provide assistance to communities
under the Clean Water SRF program, to provide additional
subsidization, including forgiveness of principal and negative
interest loans to benefit a municipality that meets the
affordability criteria of the State; or that seeks additional
subsidization to benefit individual ratepayers in the
municipality's residential user rate class that will experience
a significant hardship from the increase in rates necessary to
finance the project or activity for which assistance is
sought.\8\ In addition, in recent years, the annual
appropriations bill for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has enacted additional provisions to require States to
use a portion of Clean Water SRF funding to provide communities
with ``additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of
forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants''
as well as to reserve an additional portion of Clean Water SRF
funding for ``projects to address green infrastructure, water
or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally
innovative activities.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 5003 of Pub. L. 113-121.
\9\ The fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill requires States to
utilize 10 percent of their Clean Water SRF capitalization grant for
this subsidy/grant component, and 10 percent of their capitalization
grant for green infrastructure and water and energy efficiency
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past few Congresses, legislation has been
introduced to reauthorize and increase the authorized level of
Federal appropriations for the Clean Water SRF program, as well
as address the cost of wastewater service to low-income
customers and households. Reauthorization of the Clean Water
SRF program would provide Congress with the ability to
establish Federal appropriations targets commensurate with
local water infrastructure needs.
The Committee could examine whether additional changes to
the Clean Water SRF program are warranted, including whether to
permanently incorporate into the Clean Water Act green
infrastructure and additional subsidization provisions like
those included in the recent appropriations bills for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
In January 2019, a coalition of 91 utility, engineering,
contractors, and conservation groups cosigned a letter \10\ to
Congress urging that water infrastructure be included as part
of any infrastructure package approved in the 116th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.wef.org/globalassets/assets-wef/5--advocacy/
legislation-and-regulation/legislative-and-regulatory-affairs/water-
sector-letter-to-congress-on-infastructrure-package-jan2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESSES
Mayor David A. Condon, city of Spokane,
Washington, on behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors
Mr. John Mokszycki, Water and Sewer
Superintendent, Town of Greenport, New York, on behalf of the
National Rural Water Association
Ms. Catherine Flowers, Rural Development Manager,
The Equal Justice Initiative, Montgomery, Alabama
Ms. Maureen Taylor, State Chairperson, Michigan
Welfare Rights Organization, Detroit, Michigan
Mr. Andrew Kricun, P.E., BCEE, Executive
Director/Chief Engineer, Camden County Municipal Utilities
Authority, Camden, New Jersey, on behalf of the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies
Professor Jill Heaps, Assistant Professor of Law,
Vermont Law School, Burlington, Vermont
THE CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND: HOW FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT CAN HELP COMMUNITIES MODERNIZE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND
ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room JVC-210, the Capitol, Hon. Grace F. Napolitano (Chair of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the
first meeting of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment for the 116th Congress. I call this hearing to
order.
Today's hearing focuses on the tremendous clean water
infrastructure needs facing our country, and on the challenges
facing both our communities, large and small, urban, rural and
Tribal, as well as our American families, in addressing these
needs.
It is a privilege to serve as the chairwoman of this
subcommittee, and I am pleased to be joined by my colleague and
the ranking member, Mr. Westerman of Hot Springs, Arkansas. We
had a nice meeting, a very comfortable meeting a couple of
weeks ago, and I look forward to his input and working with him
this Congress.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. I also welcome new Members to the
subcommittee: Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell of Florida;
Representative Salud Carbajal of California; Representative
Adriano Espaillat of New York; Representative Lizzie Fletcher
of Texas; Representative Abby Finkenauer of Iowa;
Representative Antonio Delgado of New York; Representative
Chris Pappas of New Hampshire; Representative Angie Craig of
Minnesota; Representative Harley Rouda of California;
Representative Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts; Representative
Tom Malinowski of New Jersey; Representative Gary J. Palmer of
Alabama; and Representative Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto
Rico.
Welcome, everybody.
This subcommittee will have a very busy agenda in the
coming Congress, and I pledge to do my very best to run the
committee with fairness, with mutual respect for every Member
consistent with the longstanding, bipartisan successes of this
committee.
We have an ambitious agenda, but achievable, for this
Congress.
We will seek to find a legislative mechanism to ensure that
all collections for harbor maintenance fund are spent annually.
We will hold hearings on WRDA 2018 implementation and lay
the groundwork for enactment of a new WRDA bill in 2020. As
part of these discussions, we will look at ways to make our
communities more resilient by learning about how we can use
natural infrastructure, water recycling, and other tools.
And I ask everybody to please provide comments and input so
that we can work on a new WRDA and have it be more effective.
We will strive to enact a bipartisan water infrastructure
financing bill that not only reauthorizes the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (SRF), but also seeks to assure and address the
affordability challenges facing all of our communities.
Finally, we will renew our constitutional obligation to
exercise congressional oversight over implementation of laws
within our subcommittee's jurisdiction.
We will start with now the opening of the hearing,
To the topic of this hearing, the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, how Federal infrastructure investment can help
communities modernize water infrastructure and address
affordability challenges.
Today, our Nation's network of sewers, stormwater
conveyances, treatment facilities are all aging, often
outdated, and, in many places, not meeting the standards and
the needs of our communities or water quality needs.
The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave
America's wastewater infrastructure a grade of a D-plus, up
from a D, in its 2017 Infrastructure Report Card. According to
the Environmental Protection Agency, communities report a need
of almost $300 billion of investment over the next 20 years to
bring their wastewater treatment systems to a state of good
repair.
Yet these statistics only tell half of the story. As noted
by our witnesses here today, many communities also face the
challenge of ensuring that water and sewer utilities remain
affordable to those living in those communities.
As communities of all sizes seek to continually improve the
quality, safety, and reliability of their water utilities, they
often struggle to also address challenges of declining rate
bases, lower income households, and other competing local
needs.
All of these factors and many more compel us to find ways
to make sure that water quality improvements are made more
affordable to our communities.
Congress has already taken significant steps to meet this
challenge. Through enactment of integrated planning
legislation, thank you, and the promotion of nature-based or
green infrastructure alternatives to address planning local
water quality challenges, we have provided tools to communities
to develop more cost-effective, long-term plans to meeting
local water quality challenges.
We also need to make sure that we look at low-income
communities and how they can be part of this, too.
More needs to be done. We have to find ways to make sure
the cost of Federal financing is affordable for all
communities.
One significant step that is long overdue is to reauthorize
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a goal that has eluded
Congress for almost 30 years.
As witnesses note, this program is universal and very
important to provide affordable financing to urban and rural
communities alike, and its successes are typically limited only
by a lack of available resources.
On Tuesday, I was pleased to join Chairman DeFazio,
Congressman Don Young, and Congressman John Katko in
introducing H.R. 1497, the Water Quality Protection and Job
Creation Act of 2019, to reauthorize the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, and I urge all of our Members to support this
legislation, and our efforts to address local water quality
challenges.
I ask unanimous consent to include this in the record.
Does anybody have any objections?
[No response.]
Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
H.R. 1497, Submitted for the Record by Mrs. Napolitano
h.r. 1497, water quality protection and job creation act of 2019
Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-
bill/1497/text
Mrs. Napolitano. However, for those communities where a
State Revolving Fund loan is still not enough to address local
affordability needs, we need to ensure other tools are
available. We need to fund targeted clean water grants, such as
those authorized for combined and sanitary sewer overflows and
stormwater capture and reuse in the 2018 Water Resources
Development Act.
We also need to explore whether the Federal Government can
play a role in helping subsidize the cost of clean water at a
household level, as we do today for household heating and
cooling costs through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program. That is a mouthful, LIHEAP.
Many States and communities run similar rate assistance
programs today, but I believe the Federal Government can take a
greater role to reduce the cost of water to our American
families, and I hope to discuss this issue further.
Before us, we have a distinguished panel of witnesses that
can talk about real-world examples of where our network of
clean water infrastructure works, where it does not, and what
we can do better.
I urge all of our Members to pay attention, listen to their
stories, and to reflect on the real challenges American
families face, every day, in obtaining clean, safe, and
affordable water and wastewater services.
[Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
Good Morning. Welcome the first meeting of the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment for the 116th Congress. I call this
hearing to order.
Today's hearing focuses on the tremendous clean water
infrastructure needs facing our country, and on the challenges facing
both our communities--large and small, urban, rural and tribal--as well
as our American families, in addressing these needs.
It is a privilege to serve as the chairwoman of this subcommittee,
and I am pleased to be joined by my colleague and the ranking member,
Congressman Bruce Westerman of Hot Springs, Arkansas. We had a good
meeting a few weeks ago, and I look forward to working with you this
Congress.
I also welcome the new Members to the subcommittee: Rep. Debbie
Mucarsel-Powell of Florida, Rep. Salud Carbajal of California, Rep.
Adriano Espaillat of New York, Rep. Lizzie Fletcher of Texas, Rep. Abby
Finkenauer of Iowa, Rep. Antonio Delgado of New York, Rep. Chris Pappas
of New Hampshire, Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota, Rep. Harley Rouda of
California, Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Rep. Tom Malinowski of
New Jersey, Rep. Gary J. Palmer of Alabama, and Rep. Jenniffer
Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico.
This subcommittee will have a busy agenda in the 116th Congress. I
pledge to do my best to run the subcommittee with fairness and with
mutual respect for every Member--consistent with the longstanding,
bipartisan successes of this committee.
We have an ambitious but achievable agenda this Congress.
We will seek to find a legislative mechanism to ensure that
collections for harbor maintenance are spent annually.
We will hold hearings on WRDA 2018 implementation, and lay the
groundwork for enactment of a new WRDA bill in 2020. As part of these
discussions, we will look at ways to make our communities more
resilient, by learning about how we can use natural infrastructure,
water recycling, and other tools.
We will strive to enact a bipartisan water infrastructure financing
bill that not only reauthorizes the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF), but also seeks to address the affordability challenges facing
all of our communities.
Finally, we will renew our constitutional obligation to exercise
congressional oversight over implementation of the laws within our
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Now, to the topic of this hearing--today, our nation's network of
sewers, stormwater conveyances, and treatment facilities is aging,
often outdated, and, in many places, not meeting the needs of our
communities or water quality standards.
The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave America's
wastewater infrastructure a grade of a D+ in its 2017 Infrastructure
Report Card. According to the Environmental Protection Agency,
communities report a need of almost $300 billion of investment over the
next 20 years to bring their wastewater treatment systems to a state of
good repair.
Yet, these statistics only tell half the story.
As noted by our witnesses here today, many communities also face
the challenge of ensuring that water and sewer utilities remain
affordable to those living in the community.
As communities of all sizes seek to continuously improve the
quality, safety, and reliability of their water utilities, they often
struggle to also address challenges of declining rate bases, lower
income households, and other competing local needs.
All of these factors compel us to find ways to make water quality
improvements more affordable to our communities.
Congress has already taken significant steps to help meet this
challenge. Through enactment of integrated planning legislation and the
promotion of nature-based or green infrastructure alternatives to
addressing local water quality challenges, we have provided tools to
communities to develop more cost-effective, long-term plans to meeting
local water quality challenges.
However, more needs to be done.
We have to find ways to make sure the cost of Federal financing is
affordable to all of our communities.
One significant step that is long overdue is to reauthorize the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund--a goal that has eluded this Congress
for almost 30 years.
As witnesses note, this program is universally important to
providing affordable financing to urban and rural communities alike,
and its successes are typically limited only by a lack of available
resources.
On Tuesday, I was pleased to join Chairman DeFazio, Congressman Don
Young, and Congressman John Katko in introducing H.R. 1497, the Water
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act to reauthorize the Clean Water
SRF, and I urge all of our Members to support this bipartisan effort to
address local water quality challenges.
However, for those communities where a State Revolving Fund loan is
still not enough to address local affordability needs, we need to
ensure other tools are available. We need to fund targeted clean water
grants, such as those authorized for combined and sanitary sewer
overflows and stormwater capture and reuse in the 2018 Water Resources
Development Act.
We also need to explore whether the Federal government can play a
role in helping subsidize the cost of clean water at a household level,
as we do today for household heating and cooling costs through the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
Many States and communities run similar rate assistance programs
today, but I believe the Federal government can take a greater role to
reduce the cost of water to our American families, and I hope to
discuss this issue further today.
Before us, we have a distinguished panel of witnesses that can talk
about real-world examples of where our network of clean water
infrastructure works, where it does not, and what we can do better.
I urge all of our Members to pay attention, listen to their stories
and to reflect on the real challenges American families face, every
day, in obtaining clean, safe, and affordable water and wastewater
services.
Mrs. Napolitano. At this time, I am pleased to yield to my
colleague, the ranking member of our subcommittee, Mr.
Westerman, for any thoughts he may have.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano.
It is an honor to get to serve with you, to be on the
leadership side of the Republican side of the dais, but I look
forward to working with you for good solutions that are good
for America.
You know, a lot of times there is a lot to be said in a
name, and I think Chairwoman Napolitano could not have a better
first name than Grace. I have always said that the definition
of Grace is getting something good that you do not deserve, and
she exemplifies that. She is very kind, very nice to work with.
It does not mean she is not tough and principled, but I
appreciate the kindness and the openness to work together, and
I look forward to carrying that relationship forward as we
address these important issues.
I am happy that we have such a diverse panel here so that
we can gain your perspective on the issues facing local
communities and addressing the Nation's water and wastewater
infrastructure needs.
These needs are substantial, and they continue to grow. In
many communities, including communities in my State, in my
district, water and wastewater infrastructure is long past its
design life and in need of urgent repair, replacement and
upgrading.
As a result, we see leaks and blockages that are all too
common across the Nation and represent a massive waste of a
vital and sometimes scarce resource.
Additionally, the needs are especially urgent for hundreds
of communities trying to remedy the problem of combined sewer
overflows, or CSOs, and sanitary sewer overflows, or SSOs.
Shrinking municipal budgets, insufficient independent financing
capabilities, and increasingly burdensome regulations without
the necessary Federal support has strained communities' efforts
to address these critical needs.
This is especially the case for many of our small and rural
communities. According to EPA, the total documented need for
sustainable wastewater infrastructure, CSO and SSO correction,
and stormwater management are over $270 billion over the next
20 years.
The needs for drinking water infrastructure drive this
figure to over $600 billion, and these are considered
conservative estimates. In Arkansas alone, the total documented
needs are approaching $1 billion.
So with talk of a major infrastructure package, today we
need to ask the not so simple question: what can we do?
How can we--and I do not necessarily mean the Federal
Government--collectively, how can we pay for it?
I believe it is going to take an ``all hands on deck''
approach to reverse the decline of our Nation's water
infrastructure. Federal, State and local investment will be
necessary, but cannot be relied upon to solve all of our
problems.
Instead we need to move away from business as usual and
utilize every tool that is available. This means searching for
new sources of funding, increasing collaboration between the
public and private sectors, and improving Federal regulations.
We need smarter asset management and increased efficiencies
in our water systems, and to achieve that, we need to
incentivize the adoption of new and innovative technologies
that will cut cost and improve water quality.
In addition, communities, particularly those that are
struggling to address their needs and reduce the financial
burdens on households, need to be given greater flexibility,
including through the implementation of a vibrant integrated
planning and permitting approach in addressing the compliance
mandates that have been imposed upon them.
Last year, the legislation that codified the EPA's
integrated planning initiative was enacted. EPA now needs to
effectively implement the initiative to help communities meet
their needs in a more cost-effective manner.
We need to carefully prioritize our investments in water
infrastructure to ensure that we are adequately protecting the
public health, promoting the economic growth of our
communities, and preventing the degradation of the environment.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of our witnesses
today, and again, Chairwoman, it is an honor to be here in our
first hearing. Having an engineering background and reading the
testimony, it is kind of exciting to us nerds in the world.
[Laughter]
Mr. Westerman. So I look forward to getting the hearing
started, and I yield back.
[Mr. Westerman's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment
Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, and thank you to our witnesses
for being here.
I'm happy we have such a diverse panel here so that we can gain
their perspectives on the issues facing local communities in addressing
the Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure needs. These needs are
substantial, and they continue to grow.
In many communities, water and wastewater infrastructure is long
past its design life and in need of urgent repair, replacement, and
upgrading. As a result, leaks and blockages are all too common across
the Nation and represent a massive waste of a vital, and sometimes
scarce, resource.
Additionally, the needs are especially urgent for hundreds of
communities trying to remedy the problem of combined sewer overflows
(or CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (or SSOs).
Shrinking municipal budgets, insufficient independent financing
capabilities, and increasingly burdensome regulations without the
necessary federal support have strained communities' efforts to address
these critical needs. This is especially the case for many of our small
and rural communities.
According to EPA, the total documented needs for sustainable
wastewater infrastructure, CSO and SSO correction, and stormwater
management are over $270 billion over the next 20 years. The needs for
drinking water infrastructure drive this figure to over $600 billion.
And these are considered conservative estimates.
In Arkansas alone, the total documented needs are approaching $1
billion.
So with talk of a major infrastructure package, today we need to
ask the not-so-simple questions: What can we do? How are we
collectively going to pay for it?
I believe it is going to take an all-hands-on-deck approach to
reverse the decline of our Nation's water infrastructure. Federal,
State, and local investment will be necessary, but cannot be relied
upon to solve all our problems. Instead, we need to move away from
``business as usual'' and utilize every tool available.
This means searching for new sources of funding, increasing
collaboration between the public and private sectors, and improving
federal regulations.
We need smarter asset management and increased efficiencies in our
water systems, and to achieve that, we need to incentivize the adoption
of new and innovative technologies that will cut costs and improve
water quality.
In addition, communities--particularly those that are struggling to
address their needs and reduce the financial burdens on households--
need to be given greater flexibility, including through the
implementation of a vibrant integrated planning and permitting
approach, in addressing the compliance mandates that have been imposed
on them.
Late last year, legislation that codified the EPA's Integrated
Planning Initiative was enacted. EPA now needs to effectively implement
the Initiative to help communities meet their needs in a more cost-
effective manner.
We need to carefully prioritize our investments in water
infrastructure to ensure that we are adequately protecting the public
health, promoting the economic growth of our communities, and
preventing the degradation of the environment.
I look forward to hearing thoughts from our witnesses today.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, and thank you for your
kind words.
It is a pleasure to have him working with us. It truly is,
in a bipartisan manner.
I ask unanimous consent that the following submissions be
made part of today's hearing record:
A statement from the chairman of the committee, Peter A.
DeFazio;
A statement from the Honorable Terri Sewell from Alabama;
A letter, dated March 5th, 2019, from the Western
Governors' Association;
A statement from the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Are there any objections?
[No response.]
Mrs. Napolitano. If not, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Submitted for the Record by Mrs.
Napolitano
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and congratulations on holding the
first hearing of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Today's hearing continues to tell the story on both the tremendous
infrastructure needs facing this nation, as well as on the consequences
to everyday Americans from our failure to invest in our water-related
infrastructure systems.
It is important to remember that in the days before enactment of
the Clean Water Act, our nation's waters were so polluted that they
typically were unsafe for swimming, were unable to support life, or
they literally caught fire.
Recognizing that we needed to do things differently and that
pollution does not respect political or State boundaries, Congress
enacted a comprehensive, national water pollution control program and
provided States and communities with substantial funding to help
address local water quality challenges.
In the years immediately following the Clean Water Act, significant
progress was made in cleaning up our waters. Yet, in recent years, the
importance of safe, reliable, and affordable water systems has, again,
become front page news, all across the country.
In Flint, Michigan, a series of bad decisions, aging
infrastructure, and poor local water quality resulted in the
contamination of household drinking water supply for almost an entire
city.
In Toledo, Ohio, nutrient water quality contamination in Lake Erie
forced the third largest city in the State to warn its citizens not to
drink or even brush their teeth with their own water for days.
In Charleston, West Virginia, a release of a toxic chemical
immediately upstream of its drinking water intake shut down the State
capital's drinking water supply for close to a week.
Closer to home, just this past month, in Coos Bay, Oregon, an
intense rainstorm that dropped over 5 inches of rain over two days
overwhelmed our sewer system and caused the release of over 36,000
gallons of sewer overflows into Coos Bay through the storm drain
system.
What all of these stories remind us is what we already should
know--that our nation's network of water infrastructure is aging,
outdated, and in desperate need of repair. We also now recognize that
our water-related infrastructure is woefully inadequate to adapt to a
changing climate, and to the extreme weather events and coastal storms
that have become the norm.
Numerous studies and reports have documented the poor national
condition of our water infrastructure and the growing financial gap
between infrastructure needs and available resources.
These stories also demonstrate how our communities, both large and
small, remain vulnerable to losing their basic water and sanitation
services at a moment's notice, and how we need to invest in the
protection and resilience of our water utilities. That is why I was
pleased to join with the chairwoman and Congressmen Don Young and John
Katko in a bill to reauthorize increased appropriations for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund program.
Finally, these examples highlight how essential comprehensive Clean
Water Act authorities are to protect the health of our citizens, our
local economies, and our environment. Clean, safe, and reliable water
should be a basic human right--and we should all, vigilantly, fight
against efforts to weaken those protections, including those pursued by
the current administration.
Lastly, Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased that today's hearing
highlights the growing affordability gap for basic water and sewer
services.
As the Federal government has pulled back on the share of Federal
funds it contributes to local water and sewer projects, rate payers are
typically asked to fill in the gap.
While recent reports noted how the costs of water services are
generally low when compared to other utilities, these costs also
represent a higher share of income for those households in the lowest
20 percent of income--those with the least ability to pay.
Today, several of our witnesses will provide the committee real-
life examples on the consequences of unaffordable water services--from
the threat of thousands of water and sewer shutoff notices issued in
the city of Detroit to the re-emergence of hookworm--a parasite that
thrives in areas without basic sanitation--here in the United States.
We need to do better.
Communities throughout the country are generally trying to do the
right thing--to ensure clean, safe, and reliable water services to
their citizens.
However, we, in Congress must do our part as well--to ensure that
we meet the Clean Water Act's ``fishable and swimmable'' goals we
established for ourselves almost 50 years ago, and to do so in a manner
that is affordable for all hard-working American families.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Terri A. Sewell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Alabama, Submitted for the Record by Mrs.
Napolitano
Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Bruce Westerman,
Thank you for hosting today's hearing on the need for federal
infrastructure investment to help communities modernize water
infrastructure and address affordability challenges. This issue is so
critical, especially in rural communities like so many of the ones I
represent, where millions of Americans are living with failing
wastewater systems and contaminated drinking water.
I am proud that Catherine Flowers, who is from my congressional
district, is a witness today. I want to thank Chairman DeFazio and
Chairwoman Napolitano for making sure that we have witnesses like
Catherine who can talk about the real-life impact of our failure to
invest in wastewater infrastructure. And I appreciate all of you for
allowing me to submit these remarks for the record today as an off-
committee member.
Catherine has been working for decades in Lowndes County and
Alabama's Black Belt to improve the quality of life for so many
families. She has been a tireless advocate on behalf of some of our
Nation's most vulnerable people. And today, she is bringing their story
to Washington. She has been effective in shining a light on this
wastewater crisis and bringing much needed attention to the issue in
the national and international press.
A serious problem facing my constituents is the state of rural
wastewater infrastructure. For too long, many rural Americans have not
had access to properly-functioning and affordable wastewater treatment
systems.
The vast majority of Americans are served by municipal water-
treatment plants, where waste is carried directly from homes to
wastewater treatment plants. An approximate 20 percent of Americans,
mostly in rural communities, are responsible for the installation and
maintenance of their own sewage disposal systems because they are not
connected to a municipal line. Some of these Americans have properly
designed and maintained septic tanks that keep bacteria, viruses, and
nutrients out of groundwater, drinking water, and bodies of water where
humans recreate. These systems can cost between $4,000 and more than
$12,000 depending on size, complexity, location, and soil conditions.
Due in part to the unaffordability of such a basic domestic utility,
there are potentially millions of Americans living in areas where water
has been contaminated by raw sewage from failing, improperly installed,
or homemade septic systems.
Because of affordability and environmental barriers, many of my
constituents rely on homemade systems such as ``straight-pipe septic
systems,'' in which a pipe deposits untreated, raw sewage directly into
yards, ditches, drain pipes, bodies of water, and other areas where
humans and animals have direct and indirect access. Others are living
with failing septic systems that discharge raw sewage into homes, land,
and water, and do not have the income necessary to fix them.
And this issue isn't unique to my district or Alabama. Rural
communities across the country--from West Virginia to California--are
struggling with failing septic tanks or makeshift septic systems.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Housing Survey, as of
2013, 1.25 million housing units across all 50 States lack adequate
plumbing. More specifically, as of 2015, there are nearly 200,000
housing units in the United States without a sewage system altogether--
meaning these homes do not have an adequate method for disposing of
human waste.
And as Catherine discussed in her testimony, many residents in
Lowndes County have tested positive for parasitic infections. In 2019,
it is unacceptable that American families are at risk of parasitic
infections because this country hasn't provided proper wastewater
infrastructure to rural Americans.
We've made a lot of progress over the past couple of years in
Congress. I'm proud that we secured an additional $1.8 billion in rural
wastewater funding in FY2018 with the help of Alabama Congressman
Robert Aderholt. That funding has been awarded in communities across
the country, including Lowndes County and other parts of the 7th
district.
We also secured new language in the Farm Bill creating a rural
septic tank access program. Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers introduced
that bill with us on the House side and Senators Doug Jones, Cory
Booker, and Shelley Moore Capito introduced on the Senate side. We will
fight for more funding for that program during this Appropriations
cycle and for years to come. We will also work to streamline the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund to ensure States are using that funding
where it is needed the most.
We've been fortunate to coalesce a wonderful and eager group of
engineering experts and stakeholders from the University of Alabama,
Auburn University, University of South Alabama, and Columbia University
to identify and develop an affordable decentralized system that can
work in rural places like Lowndes County. Researchers at the University
of Alabama at Birmingham have been awarded CDC funding to conduct
parasite studies in the Black Belt. We will be successful in our
efforts because we have gathered a coalition of stakeholders who are
committed to doing everything in their power to bring proper wastewater
infrastructure to rural places across the country.
The families I represent do not need our pity. They need our
commitment to addressing this issue once and for all. I look forward to
working with Chairman DeFazio, Chairwoman Napolitano and all the
members of this committee on this issue in the months and years to
come. I would like to reiterate how appreciative I am that Catherine
Flowers is a witness on today's panel. I yield back.
Letter from the Western Governors' Association, Submitted for the
Record by Mrs. Napolitano
March 5, 2019.
Hon. Grace Napolitano
Chair
Hon. Bruce Westerman
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman:
Western Governors support federal policies that promote states'
abilities to implement the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and to protect
their water resources. Thank you for examining the important topic of
clean water needs and affordability at the Subcommittee's March 8
hearing to examine the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of
2019. To inform the Subcommittee's consideration of this subject and
proposed legislation, I request that you include the following
attachments in the permanent record of the hearing:
WGA Policy Resolution 2018-08, Water Resource Management
in the West;
WGA Policy Resolution 2018-12, Water Quality in the West;
and
A February 20, 2019 letter from the Western Governors'
Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Association of
Clean Water Administrators, Association of State Wetland Managers,
Council of State Governments-West, and the Western States Water Council
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers which presents recommendations that would improve permitting
processes under the CWA while preserving states' authority to manage
and protect water resources.
Western states are eager to serve as a resource to the Subcommittee
as it examines these critical issues and seeks improvements to the CWA.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
James D. Ogsbury
Executive Director
wga policy resolution 2018-08 water resource management in the west
Retained in the committee files and available at http://
westgov.org/resolutions/policy-resolution-2018-08-water-resource-
management-in-the-west
policy resolution 2018-12: water quality in the west
Retained in the committee files and available at http://
westgov.org/resolutions/policy-resolution-2018-12-water-quality-in-the-
west
letter dated february 20, 2019
Retained in the committee files and available at http://
westgov.org/letters/letter-wga-led-coalition-shares-recommendations-
for-clean-water-act-section-401-process-reforms-with-epa-army-corps
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the
Record by Mrs. Napolitano
introduction
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appreciates the
opportunity to submit our position on the importance of long-term,
strategic investment in our nation's water infrastructure systems. ASCE
also thanks the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment for
holding a hearing on this critical issue. ASCE is eager to work with
the Subcommittee in the 116th Congress to reauthorize the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund.
ASCE's 2017 Infrastructure Report Card
Infrastructure is the foundation that connects the nation's
businesses, communities, and people, serves as the backbone to the U.S.
economy, and is vital to the nation's public health and welfare. Every
four years, ASCE publishes the Infrastructure Report Card, which grades
the nation's 16 major infrastructure categories using a simple A to F
school report card format. The Report Card examines the current
infrastructure needs and conditions, assigning grades and making
recommendations to raise them.
ASCE's 2017 Infrastructure Report Card rated the overall condition
of the nation's infrastructure a cumulative grade of ``D+'' across
sixteen categories, with an investment gap of $2 trillion. The Report
Card gave our nation's wastewater infrastructure category a grade of
``D+,'' while our nation's drinking water infrastructure category
received a grade of ``D.''
Millions of new users are expected to be connected to centralized
wastewater treatment centers in the coming years. America's wastewater
and drinking infrastructure provide a critical service; therefore, it
is crucial that all levels of government and the private sector make
sustained, significant, and strategic investments these infrastructure
systems.
investment shortfalls total billions of dollars
A well-maintained public drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure is critical for public health, strong businesses, and
clean waters and aquifers. However, funding both capital projects and
operations and maintenance (O&M) is difficult because the public often
does not appreciate the modern convenience of wastewater and drinking
water treatment, making it difficult to convey the need for water rate
increases. Furthermore, capital spending has not kept pace with needs.
If these trends continue, the funding gap will only widen, resulting in
leaking pipes, source water pollution, and increases in the cost of
O&M.
Overall, the nation's infrastructure funding gap comes to $2
trillion over 10 years. Despite increased efficiency methods and
sustainable practices, there is a growing gap between the capital
needed to maintain drinking water and wastewater infrastructure and the
actual investments made. By 2025, the disparity between needed and
anticipated funding for drinking water and wastewater systems will be
$105 billion.
The nation's drinking water systems face staggering public
investment needs over the next several decades. According to the
American Water Works Association \1\, $1 trillion will be needed to
maintain and expand drinking water service demands during the next 25
years. Many of the pipes that deliver drinking water in the nation were
laid in the early to mid-20th century with a lifespan of 75-100 years.
Failures in drinking water infrastructure can result in water
disruptions, impediments to emergency response, and damage to other
types of essential infrastructure. Every day, nearly six billion
gallons of treated water is lost due to leaking pipes, with an
estimated 240,000 water main breaks occurring each year. It is
estimated that leaky, aging pipes waste about 14 to 18 percent of each
day's treated drinking water--enough to support 15 million households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Water Works Association, Buried No Longer: Confronting
Americas Water Infrastructure Challenge, February 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 240 million Americans--76 percent of the population--rely on
the nation's 14,748 treatment plants for wastewater sanitation. There
are over 800,000 miles of public sewers and 500,000 miles of private
lateral sewers connecting private property to public sewer lines. Each
of these conveyance systems is susceptible to failure, blockages, and
overflows.
As cities continue to experience population growth and rural
households switch from septic systems to public sewers, pressure on
existing centralized systems will require billions of dollars in
investment to meet federal regulatory requirements. Over the next two
decades, it is estimated that more than 56 million new users will be
connected to centralized wastewater systems, which will require the
construction of 532 new systems by 2032 to meet future demand. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) \2\ estimates that over the
course of the next 20 years, $271 billion will be needed for wastewater
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water Needs Survey, 2012
Report to Congress, December 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
solutions
Fortunately, Congress has provided some federal funding options
that could help close the funding gap needed for drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure if appropriated. Certainly, federal funding
is not the only answer; since the mid-1970s, money from local and state
governments has represented an increasing percentage--nearly 95
percent--of public drinking water and wastewater investment. Cities and
towns across the country report that complying with federal wastewater
and stormwater regulations represent some of their costliest capital
infrastructure projects.
As some water systems have become privatized, private capital has
become another financing mechanism. Regardless of whether a water
system is publicly or privately owned or managed, households and
businesses still ultimately foot the bill. Therefore, care much be
taken to ensure that rates are set at levels sufficient to maintain and
upgrade infrastructure while not increased so much that low-income
residents would face financial hardship.
The federal government funds many infrastructure categories, and of
all of these, water services receive less than 5 percent. However, the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF)--both authorized by Congress several decades
ago--play a vital role in providing much-needed support for investments
in state and local drinking and wastewater infrastructure.
In the past 30 years, the federal government has loaned $42 billion
to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico through the
CWSRF, which has given states the ability to fund over $126 billion in
wastewater infrastructure system improvements--all through low-interest
financing. Every dollar provided by the federal government is matched
at 20 percent by the state.
Likewise, the DWSRF program provides low-interest loans to state
and local infrastructure projects. The EPA provides an allotment of
funding for each state, and like the CWSRF, each state provides a 20
percent match. Since the program's inception, $35.4 billion of low-
interest loans have been allocated. ASCE was pleased that the DWSRF was
reauthorized at increasing funding levels in the America's Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-270, Sec. 2023) and urges Congress
to reauthorize the CWSRF at increasing funding levels, as well.
ASCE believes that our nation's elected leaders need to act quickly
to address the growing gap in drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure investment. We urge Congress to:
1. Renew the federal commitment to water infrastructure by
reinvigorating the CWSRF program through permanent reauthorization and
tripling the amount of annual authorization and appropriations.
2. Fully fund the WIFIA program at no less than the FY19 enacted
level of $68 million.
3. Eliminate the state cap on private activity bonds for water
infrastructure projects to bring an estimated $6 billion to $7 billion
annually in new private financing to bear on the problem.
4. Create legislation to allow Public Private Partnerships (P3) as
one of many methods of financing water infrastructure improvements.
ASCE supports the use of P3 project delivery methods to enhance
federal, state and local resources when the public interest is
protected.
6. Preserve tax exempt municipal bond financing, which provides
communities with low-cost access to capital for drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure upgrades.
7. Support green infrastructure solutions, which provide co-
benefits such as water and quality improvement, aesthetic value to
communities, and cost competitiveness.
5. Create legislation to establish a dedicated source of revenue
for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects that would
provide a stable, long-term basis for financing for these critical
systems.
Finally, ASCE believes our nation must prioritize the investment
needs of our wastewater and drinking water infrastructure to ensure
public health, a strong economy, and clean and safe water sources.
Strategic, robust, and sustained investments in these water
infrastructure systems from a variety of mechanisms must be made
quickly if we hope to close the growing funding gap. ASCE thanks the
Subcommittee for holding this hearing and bringing attention to this
critical matter. We look forward to working with you to find solutions
to our nation's wastewater and drinking water infrastructure investment
needs.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
We will now proceed to hear from our witnesses who will
testify. Thank you for being here, and welcome to our House and
your House.
We have the Honorable David Condon, mayor, city of Spokane,
Washington; and Mr. John Mokszycki, the water and sewer
superintendent from the town of Greenport, New York. He will be
introduced by Mr. Delgado.
Ms. Catherine Flowers with Equal Justice Initiative,
Montgomery, Alabama; Ms. Maureen Taylor with Michigan Welfare
Rights Organization, Detroit, Michigan; Mr. Andrew Kricun from
the Camden County, New Jersey, Municipal Utilities Authority;
and Professor Jill Heaps, from the Vermont Law School.
Your prepared statements will be entered into the record.
All witnesses are asked to limit their remarks to 5 minutes.
Mr. Delgado, would you like to introduce Mr. Mokszycki?
Mr. Delgado. I surely would. Thank you, Chairwoman. I
appreciate the opportunity.
It is my great honor to introduce one of the witnesses on
today's panel, Mr. John Mokszycki. John grew up in Athens, New
York, and attended St. Pat's High School. He now lives in
Stottville, New York, with his wife of 37 years, Dawn, and
their three sons.
John earned a degree in biology from SUNY, Oswego, and
after beginning his career in California, returned to New York
to run a small water treatment plant in Valatie. John then
began to work as a senior operator for the town of Greenport in
1998.
In 2000, he became a superintendent of the water and
wastewater department for the town of Greenport. His role as
superintendent has made him a leader on rural water
infrastructure needs.
John has worked to diligently repair and replace broken
water lines, as well as to oversee the construction of a new
sewage treatment plant in the town.
John has played an important role in dealing with the
wastewater collection after flooding events caused by severe
storms. After a hurricane in 2014, the town of Greenport
experienced sewage water backing up and overflowing in the
homes. John was responsible for overseeing the inspection,
drainage, and repair of the overloaded pipes.
The town of Greenport has seen no overflow issues since the
project was completed in 2015.
John is also responsible for the creation of a
reimbursement program the town employed to get backflow
preventers installed in individual residences. Through this
program, residents were reimbursed up to $3,000.
The town of Greenport will be looking to replace 14,000
feet of pipe starting in June, and John will be leading that
project.
I look forward to hearing his testimony today, and I am
excited to get to work with the committee on ways to help
address the rural water infrastructure needs of the communities
like that of Greenport.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Delgado.
Mr. Condon, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID CONDON, MAYOR, CITY OF SPOKANE,
WASHINGTON, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF
MAYORS; JOHN MOKSZYCKI, WATER SUPERINTENDENT, TOWN OF
GREENPORT, NEW YORK, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RURAL WATER
ASSOCIATION AND NEW YORK RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION; CATHERINE
COLEMAN FLOWERS, RURAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, EQUAL JUSTICE
INITIATIVE, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA; MAUREEN TAYLOR, STATE
CHAIRPERSON, MICHIGAN WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, DETROIT,
MICHIGAN; ANDREW KRICUN, P.E., BCEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CHIEF
ENGINEER, CAMDEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY, CAMDEN,
NEW JERSEY; AND JILL WITKOWSKI HEAPS, VISITING SCHOLAR,
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO SCHOOL OF LAW, AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL
Mr. Condon. Well, good morning, and I would like to thank
Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Westerman and the
members of the committee for inviting me to speak today.
My name is David Condon, and I am the mayor of the city of
Spokane, and I am also representing the U.S. Conference of
Mayors.
I have served on the Mayors Water Council for the last 7
years as part of the Conference and have served with many of
our other local leaders, many from California and across the
country, in really explaining why this infrastructure is so
critical.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, especially to
address H.R. 1497 and really look to the future of
infrastructure in wastewater.
Cities need the Federal infrastructure investment in
stormwater and wastewater projects. We need flexibility in
meeting the regulatory requirements, and we need support for
the innovation for affordable challenges or for addressing the
affordable challenges when delivering clean water projects.
Last year, you said it and we want to thank you for passing
the integrated planning legislation, H.R. 7279. You know, it
really took that leadership of this committee to make sure that
integrated planning is a key component to the futures of the
water infrastructure. It is so critical to Spokane's story.
You know, I want to tell you a little bit about Spokane. I
was elected in part because of water rates that went up 16
percent in a single year in my city. What happens in the fall?
People get their bills from August and July.
Because of those double digit increases from the primary to
the general, there was a double-digit swing in the vote count
which led to my election.
So when I took office, I took that lesson with me. I came
here to Washington, DC, and met with EPA officials in about
this month of my first year, March. EPA officials told me you
should ask for a consent decree and blame it on the Federal
Government.
They also said at the time they were thinking about a new
approach, integrated planning, and that I should look to our
region to look at it. So we took that approach. We saved our
citizens some $150 million and at the same time got better
pollution reduction results for our river.
You can see if you have our handout that our city is around
a beautiful Spokane River. Still, Spokane's citizens are
investing some $350 million to improve the health of that
river. We are investing in some two dozen tanks which hold
about 16 million gallons.
We also are putting in some of the top tier technology in
our treatment plant, some of which treats about 34 million
gallons a year. We are using a membrane technology that is
commonly used in drinking water solutions.
We also have a commitment to remove stormwater flows from
our system as we build our streets and have complete streets
looking at all sorts of integrated solutions you can see on the
back side of your handout on slide 2.
You know, it really comes down to this, and I will spend
some time on this. It really talks about aligning our work with
our citizens and our country's environmental goals. It is
talking about making sure that we are accountable and, finally,
affordable.
So, yes, we are aligned with our citizens' environmental
goals and integration across our city. You can see on pictures
3, 4, and 5 that our integrated solutions have resulted in play
fields, a new plaza overlooking our river, and improved
gateways to our city on top of those CSO tanks. Never thought
of before.
We also must be accountable, yes, accountable to
regulations, but also accountable to make sure that we deliver
on the permit.
Finally, affordability. This investment, the largest ever
for our city, is some $4,000 per household on this alone. But
we are committed to our rate increases not being any more than
inflation, about 2.9 percent.
And so as you can see in figure 1, like across this
country, our community went through the ALICE assessment, asset
limited, income constrained employed. For our community, that
is some $59,000 for a family of four, but our median household
income, $46,500.
You can see on the line for housing some $789 is allocated
to rent or housing costs. Take out of that a couple hundred
dollars for utilities. That leaves $500 for a family of four to
find an apartment. Even in Spokane that does not buy you much.
So we needed reasonable approaches and flexibility to meet
the Clean Water Act.
I finish with this. One, I want to thank you for the
additional authorization in this bill, but we clearly need to
work with the appropriations to make that come true.
Number 2, I want to reiterate, and it is wonderful to hear
it, that all parties, Federal, State, and local, must work
together to look at our priorities and make sure that the
financial burden does not fall onto our citizens.
Number 3, we really need to think outside the box and into
innovation. We need to define the funding source to support
integrated projects. Right now we are forced to piecemeal
together from many different funding sources, and if time
permits in questioning, I would love to talk about one that we
are facing right now.
And finally, number 4, Federal funding programs like your
reauthorizing SRF are an amazing opportunity, and we need to
continue to look at the opportunity for forgivable or lower
percentage payback on those.
I want to finish. Speaker Foley would have turned 90 years
old yesterday. I sat and spoke to his wife last night for a
couple hours at her home here. At that time, he had secured for
our community some $100 million for a grant to remove septic
systems from our community.
We'd had an innovative local plan that did that to make the
quality of our water that much better. But that was a grant
from the Federal Government.
So we believe the opportunity comes today to look back at
that time and to make an investment in our environment like
Speaker Foley did and this Congress has through the years, and
we believe that this opportunity is a partnership with the
Federal, State, and local governments.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
[Mr. Condon's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Condon, Mayor, Spokane, Washington, on
behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors
introduction
Good morning Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and
members of the Committee. My name is David Condon and I am the Mayor of
Spokane, Washington.
I thank you for this invitation to give the Conference of Mayors'
and my perspective regarding Federal infrastructure investment and
affordability challenges in the area of storm and wastewater
infrastructure and compliance in the United States.
Let me start by thanking this committee for your work last year in
passing Integrated Planning legislation (HR 7279). Integrated planning
can, if implemented properly, provide the flexibility to begin to
realign standards and requirements with local priorities and local
financial capability. We encourage Congress to be vigilant as the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States implement this law
so that it is done in the manner that was intended.
Integrated planning is an important tool to allow local governments
to balance the costs of infrastructure financing and compliance with
Clean Water Act mandates, and one that my community has relied on. I
would also like to thank this subcommittee for introducing the Water
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act and for holding this hearing
today. By focusing on additional funding and affordability, you are
building on your successful work from last year. As a Nation, we need
additional funding as well as new approaches in wastewater and
stormwater infrastructure investment and compliance and to do so in a
more sustainable and affordable manner.
the spokane story
Let me take a moment to tell you the story of the Spokane River and
the $350 million investment that the city of Spokane citizens,
businesses and utility customers are making to improve the river's
health.
While the City manages the work, we need to recognize that the
investment is made by the citizens. The work is being paid for with
money from their monthly utility bills for water and sewer. And not
just right now: They will continue to pay for the improvements we have
made over the last several years for at least another 15 years.
We sold $200 million in designated ``green'' revenue bonds to pay
for more than half the work, and those bond payments continue until
2034. Additionally, we have taken out another $85 million in loans
through Washington's Clean Water SRF program. These loans charge
interest and don't have forgivable principal, by the way.
Our current river work is the largest infrastructure investment
ever made by the city of Spokane--more than the $110 million we spent
to build a Waste to Energy Facility, more than the cost of our original
wastewater treatment plant, more than separating storm sewers on the
north side of Spokane or eliminating septic tanks.
And in those earlier projects, we received significant grant
support from Federal or State partners. Then-U.S. Rep. Tom Foley helped
secure a $100 million grant for the Spokane area to eliminate septic
tanks, and the State of Washington provided a $60 million grant for the
Waste-to-Energy plant out of $450 million in general obligation bonds
that it sold for solid waste disposal facilities, for example.
Today, our river work amounts to about a $4,000 cost per household.
This is a GENERATIONAL investment--one that we can't easily repeat,
at least not for a long time. There are many priorities for the
precious dollars our citizens provide beyond clean water--from public
safety to parks to streets. We need to make choices and balance those
priorities, ensuring that we give our citizens value for their dollar.
What does our generational investment look like? It looks like
major construction projects throughout our City:
We are completing work on a total of about 16 million
gallons in underground storage to manage overflows from combined
wastewater and stormwater sewers. We are finishing the last four of two
dozen underground tanks, some of which can hold more than 2 million
gallons of combined wastewater.
We are adding a third level of treatment at the City's
water reclamation facility, which processes about 34 million gallons of
wastewater a day. We are installing membrane technology traditionally
used in drinking water treatment to dramatically improve the quality of
our effluent. We will see a huge impact on phosphorus and other
nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, and persistent chemicals like PCBs.
Our region is leading the way on this advanced technology; Spokane is
one of the first places in the Nation required to install this level of
technology at its wastewater plant.
And we are working to reduce stormwater going to the
river. We are voluntarily removing stormwater flows from our systems as
we rebuild roads and complete other infrastructure projects to reduce
the amount reaching our river.
Integration like this is important to this story. I want to thank
you for passing legislation to allow for integration. Our Integrated
Clean Water Plan, developed primarily in 2012 and 2013, relied on a
memo from EPA that discussed integrated planning. I am telling you that
we built a $350 million program based on voluntary compliance and a
memo.
EPA leaders at the time told us to seek a consent decree to buy
more time to complete our Clean Water Act work and to blame the Federal
Government for the cost. But we worked on a more holistic and practical
solution that could be accepted by our citizens instead.
Our citizens have been willing to make this investment for two
reasons--their love for our wild, spectacular river, to be sure, but
also our commitment to complete the work for an affordable price.
We have refused to accept the notion that good government must be
expensive government; we committed to making government affordable and
still provide the services our citizens expect. We have committed to
limit annual utility rate increases to about inflation-2.9 percent
annually. And we've held to that commitment. We have held our utility
rates increases to that inflationary increase for the last 6 years
already.
When I took office in 2012, the City had completed a major utility
rate study that indicated that we would need to implement multiple
years of double-digit rate increases to meet our river requirements to
manage CSOs and comply with the TMDL for dissolved oxygen. That would
have sent monthly bills soaring.
Our rate story is a huge success story.
How were we able to do that? We are meeting our regulatory
requirements, so it wasn't that we cut corners. Our solution was
INTEGRATION.
We followed that suggested guideline from the EPA called Integrated
Planning. We looked at all pollutants, at all the pipes to the river,
and considered how we could gain value for our citizens. We removed
compounded factors of conservatism and designed to actual regulations.
We built in mitigation for climate change and for downsizing of some
infrastructure by committing to remove stormwater when we rebuilt
streets.
Some 78 percent of citizens supported that integrated approach
which was detailed as part of a major Street Levy passed in 2014.
In the end, we cut about $150 million of cost out of our previously
identified Clean Water capital plans through this effort. And, we not
only saved money but we also have documented a greater positive impact
on pollutants going to the river.
We've since expanded our use of integrated thinking throughout our
City in an effort to continue to find value for citizens. Multiple
benefits for the same dollar.
This kind of thinking is absolutely imperative when you want to
deliver better results but maintain affordability. Affordability is
particularly important when you consider that our citizens make less.
Our median household income (MHI) in the city of Spokane is about
$46,500, considerably less than the national or Statewide MHI.
And less than what's known as the ALICE standard for our community.
ALICE stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained Employed. The ALICE
number looks at how much money a family needs just to meet their
expenses paycheck to paycheck. In Spokane, that number for a family of
4 is nearly $59,000--more than $12,000 more than the median household
income.
An ALICE budget for that Spokane family of 4 allocates about $800 a
month for housing, including bills for energy and water, sewer and
garbage. After paying those utility bills, that family would have in
the neighborhood of $500 to $600 a month for rent, which is more
typically the cost of a one-bedroom unit in our market.
So, we are compelled to come up with environmentally responsible
solutions that are also financially sustainable for our citizens.
Support for clean water from our State and Federal Governments is
absolutely critical to maintain that affordability. Because our
investments in our river won't stop with our current generational
investment. We can't even really quantify what's next for our
community.
Water Quality Standards in our State now include a standard for
PCBs at 7 parts per quadrillion. There is no test that is accurate down
to that level, and there is no technology known to reliably achieve
this standard. We face unknown costs to meet this standard, which is
magnitudes more stringent than most other places in the Nation.
Bear with me for a moment while I put that number in perspective. A
million seconds is 12 days, so it was still February a million seconds
ago. A billion seconds ago, it was 1987. A trillion seconds ago, we had
no written human history. A quadrillion seconds takes 31 million years.
Effectively, with our standard, we are looking for 7 seconds in 31
million years.
We need reasonable approaches and flexibility to achieve clean
water for our communities. In preparation for this meeting, I was asked
to recommend creative new approaches to help local communities. We
would suggest defined funding to support integrated projects. Right
now, we are forced to piecemeal together funding from various sources
for projects that would have true Clean Water outcomes.
In Spokane, separation of storm sewers in the 1980's created what's
called the Cochran Stormwater Basin. Through one 54-inch pipe flows
about half the stormwater that goes to the Spokane River annually
between 300 million and 600 million gallons a year. Because we don't
have specific stormwater requirements, we haven't been able to fund the
integrated, green infrastructure project that would manage this known,
point source of pollution. We've gotten a few million to complete
design and small pieces of the project. But this is an opportunity to
achieve the results the Clean Water Act is seeking.
Remember, local governments are not making a profit; they are
taking care of a community's waste. And, we need strong financial
partners who will walk alongside with us.
uscm infrastructure policy/congressional proposal
On behalf of the Conference of Mayors, I want to thank you for
introducing The Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act, which
authorizes a continuation of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan
program. This proposal sends two clear messages to cities across the
Nation:
This House Subcommittee has demonstrated that they have
heard and understand the financial burden that clean water mandates
have on distressed communities and households. Thus, this proposal
provides a much more generous Federal financial assistance amount than
in the last several decades (with the exception of ARRA), and it does
not contain directions to the USEPA to establish additional mandates.
Second, the Committee has convened this hearing to learn
the perspectives of those at the local level who provide all of the
services and nearly 98 percent of the funding to provide the service
and comply with mandates. Asking local government their opinion on this
matter is critical if we are going to continue to make progress.
And while we are grateful for the sums of money in this
consideration, I think all will agree, these amounts are not enough to
address every wastewater infrastructure investment need, so reliance on
a more flexible model to improve water quality can be achieved through
the Integrated Planning and other potential tools.
One of these tools that unfortunately was not included in H.R. 7279
last year was direction to EPA to reconsider how they assess a
community's financial capability and a determination of what individual
citizens or households could afford. As I talked about earlier, our
communities and more importantly, our residents, do not have unlimited
resources to bear the burden of implementing every rule and regulation
without support or without regard to context. Today, we are faced with
a myriad of pressing and complex public health and environmental
challenges that require the careful evaluation of each public dollar
spent against competing causes.
As my Mayoral colleagues have mentioned before, it is crucial that
we renew the Federal-State-city partnership to identify and invest in
environmental and public health infrastructure. Attached to my
testimony is a letter signed by the Conference of Mayors, National
League of Cities, and National Association of Counties that supports
the authorization proposal and encourages Congress to appropriate these
levels of assistance for wastewater and stormwater programs including
the SRF program. We also would ask for you to encourage the States to
provide at least some portion of the SRF program to be in the form of
negative interest or no interest loans and principal forgiveness for
disadvantaged communities. This has proved to be a valuable tool for
many of our communities and could provide a much-needed financial
stimulus to address the most pressing needs that challenge cities.
I wanted to provide some thoughts regarding the legislative
proposal and if the authorizing of additional SRF grants to States will
be helpful. Additional Federal financial assistance is always welcome,
although these amounts are never sufficient to help cities with
compliance obligations, and some States do not provide adequate SRF
assistance to larger cities. So, while additional capitalization grant
amounts are a step in the right direction it is important to keep in
mind that this assistance can help us close some of the needs gap, but
it has not realized its original goal that it will provide enough
Federal aid to cities to comply with the current stringent regulatory
regime.
The $20 billion plus authorization in this proposal--while generous
compared to recent history--doesn't come close to filling what EPA
described as a need to invest from $300-$400 billion in addition to the
current $123 billion a year of local spending to comply with existing
law.
The math suggests that $20 billion is, unfortunately,
perhaps a Federal down-payment on helping cities comply with mandates
while providing this public service.
The math also suggests that if Congress appropriates $80
billion a year for 5 years the EPA's need gap could be closed.
So the question is--If Congress doesn't have that kind
of money to spend on wastewater systems how does anyone expect local
governments to have that level of resources?
USCM research on a ``cost per household'' basis reveals
that EPA's expectation that utility customers should be able to pay at
least 2 percent of Median Household Income to comply with the CWA turns
out to range between 2 and 10 percent of income for most households.
Additionally, the Census reports local government long-
term debt is above $1.8 trillion, and SRF loans simply add to this high
level of debt.
We have serious concerns when our Federal leaders say
more local investments are needed to maintain and improve the nation's
water quality for our children and grandchildren, but the urging of
local government to commit to greater levels of debt will impose that
financial burden on those same children and grandchildren. Generational
debt is a serious problem because cities have sizable long-term debt,
and those children are now suffering from the responsibility to repay
student loans.
The lack of resources at all levels of government suggests that our
Federal partners should implement the Clean Water Act with flexibility.
H.R. 7279 can provide some of that flexibility and recognize the
importance of investment in local water priorities. The gaps in funding
that continue to be unmet can be addressed if EPA and the States give
municipalities greater flexibility, including through the
implementation of a vibrant integrated planning and permitting
approach.
We urge the Committee to keep a close eye on the reconsideration of
affordability assessment. An updated and broader consideration of
affordability and the factors that should be included in the analysis
and the sorts of criteria to be considered should be transparent and
defensible.
conclusion
I would like to thank this subcommittee for holding this hearing
today and for your focus to find meaningful ways to reestablish our
Federal-State-city partnership and to develop solutions to address our
Clean Water Act infrastructure needs. The Conference of Mayors would
like to work with you as you move forward on this important endeavor.
[The following materials were provided to the committee and retained in
the committee files:
Mayors' Infrastructure Priorities for the 116th Congress
available at: https://www.usmayors.org/issues/infrastructure/
Public Water Cost Per Household: Assessing Financial Impacts
of EPA Affordability Criteria in California Cities (November 2014),
available at: https://cacities.org/getattachment/Member-Engagement/
Regional-Divisions/Los-Angeles-County/Water-Cost-Per-Household-Report-
California-Cities.pdf.aspx]
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Condon.
Next is Mr. John Mokszycki. You are on, sir.
Mr. Mokszycki. Good morning, Chairwoman Napolitano and
members of the committee.
All small rural communities in all of the States are very
appreciative for the invitation to testify today about small
community wastewater issues, the Clean Water Act, and water
infrastructure financing.
I am John Mokszycki. I am the water superintendent for the
town of Greenport. It is a small municipality in rural New York
on the Hudson River, located in the 19th Congressional
District.
We have a population of just over 4,000 people, and an
annual budget of $5.3 million, which includes the operating
budgets for both the town's water and sewer utilities.
I want to thank our Representative, Congressman Delgado,
for his continued attention and help to all of the
municipalities in New York's 19th District, with environmental
protection and economic development.
I would also like to thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano and
Representatives Young and Katko, for introducing the Water
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2019 today. Your
legislation is very welcome, especially the provisions to
increase funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
My community and many just like it would not be operating
today without the water infrastructure assistance from the
State Revolving Funds.
I am testifying today on behalf of all the approximately
12,000 small and rural communities in all States that operate
public wastewater utilities through my affiliation with the
National Rural Water Association and the New York Rural Water
Association.
About 85 percent of the approximately 15,000 public
wastewater utilities in the U.S. are in small or rural
communities. We have a much more challenging time complying
with our Federal Clean Water Act permits and operating complex
wastewater treatment systems due to the lack of technical
resources in small communities.
While the cost of a small community's water infrastructure
may only be a fraction of a larger metropolitan community, the
cost per household is often much higher because we have so few
ratepayers to spread out the cost.
Currently our town is under a Clean Water Act enforcement
order and struggling to pay for the needed sewer improvements.
Our initial sewer system was installed in the 1930s with clay
sewer pipe. This pipe cracks easily, which allows rainwater to
flow into the collection system.
Back in 2007, we were under a Clean Water Act consent order
for violating our sewer permit. Every time we experienced a
heavy rain, all of the extra water overwhelmed the treatment
plant and resulted in rainwater and sewage discharging to the
Claverack Creek, which drains to the Hudson River.
Fixing this situation was estimated to cost the town
upwards of $10 million to build a new and larger treatment
plant. This occurred around the same time that Congress passed
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We received
a $9.5 million funding package, which was half for loan
forgiveness and half zero-interest loan, which we are still
repaying.
The newer sewer plant allowed us to comply with our consent
order. However, we still had all of the clay pipes in the
ground draining all the excess water during heavy rain events.
For our drinking water utility, we needed to replace the
antiquated cast iron waterlines that were installed in the
1930s. These lines are frequently breaking, causing civic and
economic disruption.
Before we started to replace the cast iron pipes in 2006,
we were experiencing up to 50 line breaks a year, which was
affecting just about everyone in our community. Over the past
15 years, we have replaced about 40 percent of our old cast
iron lines with $5.8 million in financing.
In 2014, we were pressured to sign another Clean Water Act
enforcement order for sanitary sewer overflows. The failing
clay sewer pipes were not overwhelming the sewer plant anymore,
but it was causing the sewage water to back up into people's
homes.
We have taken a number of steps to comply with our current
consent order, and so far we have prevented any reoccurrence of
the sewage backups into anyone's home. However, we are still
operating under the consent order which may require the lining
of additional sections of our faulty clay sewer pipes.
It is likely to cost another $4.5 million, and most of the
community currently thinks they are maxed out on their ability
to pay. Raising rates at this time could actually threaten the
political stability of the community.
As the committee considers modifications to the SRFs, we
urge you to target the Federal funding within the SRFs to the
communities and citizens most in need of the Federal subsidies.
This evaluation should be made on a per capita analysis that is
sensitive to local economic conditions.
In closing, I would like to thank this committee, which is
very important to rural and smalltown America. Every Federal
dollar that has been granted to the many thousands of small
towns to build, expand, and maintain their wastewater
infrastructure through the State Revolving Funds was authorized
by this committee.
We are grateful to be able to testify today and grateful
for the numerous opportunities this committee has provided
rural America to testify and be included in the crafting of
Federal water environmental legislation.
Thank you.
[Mr. Mokszycki's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Mokszycki, Water Superintendent, Town of
Greenport, New York, on behalf of the National Rural Water Association
and the New York Rural Water Association
Good morning, Chairwoman Napolitano and members of the committee.
All small and rural communities in all of the States are very
appreciative for the invitation to testify today about small community
wastewater issues, the Clean Water Act, and water infrastructure
financing.
I am John Mokszycki and I am the Water Superintendent for the Town
of Greenport, a small municipality in rural New York on the Hudson
River, located in the 19th congressional District. We have a population
of just over 4,000 people and an annual budget of $5.3 million which
includes the operating budgets for both the town's water and sewer
utilities. I want to thank our representative, Congressman Delgado, for
getting on this very important committee for small communities and for
his continued attention and help to all the municipalities in New
York's 19th District with environmental protection and economic
development.
I would also like to thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, and
Representatives Young and Katko for introducing the ''Water Quality
Protection and Job Creation Act of 2019'' today. Your legislation is
very welcome, especially the provisions to increase funding for the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund. My community and many just like it
would not be operating today witho ut the water infrastructure
assistance from the State revolving funds.
I am testifying today on behalf of all the approximately 12,000
small and rural communities in all States that operate public
wastewater utilities through my affiliation with the National Rural
Water Association and the New York Rural Water Association. About 80
percent of the approximately 15,000 public wastewater utilities in the
U.S. are in small or rural communities. Small and rural communities
have a much more challenging time complying with our Federal Clean
Water Act permits and operating complex wastewater treatment systems
due to the lack of technical resources in small communities. While we
have fewer resources, we are regulated in the exact same manner as a
large community. While the cost of a small community's water
infrastructure may only be a fraction of a large metropolitan
community, the cost per household is often much higher because we have
so few ratepayers to spread out the cost. Similarly, the compliance
burden of Clean Water Act is more severe because we don't have the same
technical resources as large communities. Many small communities may
only have one operator with multiple duties, not just wastewater
treatment--and we don't have staff engineers, compliance officers and
attorneys to help with compliance. But we still have to stay current
with all the new rules, maintain our treatment and collection systems,
and manage our very complex Federal sewer permits (i.e. the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit).
My main objective here today is to show you, through the experience
in the Town of Greenport, that small communities are struggling with
the burden of maintaining our wastewater infrastructure, that
compliance is very expensive, that it is very complex, and that nobody
wants to comply with the Federal environmental standards, protect our
community and protect the environment more than local governments.
Currently, our town is under a Clean Water Act enforcement order or
consent order and struggling to pay for the needed sewer improvements
which I will explain after providing a brief history of our situation.
Our initial sewer system was installed in the 1930's in large part
by the depression era Works Progress Administration and Civilian
Conservation Corps initiatives which trenched and laid 64,000 feet of
clay sewer pipe or tile. This type of pipe, although now antiquated,
cracks easily which allows rain water to flow into the collection
system in the cracks and also in the joints between the 6 foot
sections.
In order to modernize our collection system and keep all the
rainwater from entering (i.e. infiltration), we need to insert a modern
material into the old pipe which expands and seals the existing lines.
This is called slip-lining and it is very expensive. However, it less
expensive and disruptive than the alternative of excavating and
replacing all the old pipes which would include digging up the entire
town, all the roads, and people's yards. In 1996, we started slip-
lining our sewer lines and to date we have slip-lined about 1/3 of our
clay tile collection system for approximately $1,000,000 which we are
still repaying. It is estimated that slip-lining the remaining clay
pipes will cost approximately $4.5 million.
Back in 2007, we were under a Clean Water Act consent order for
violating our sewer permit--largely as a result of all the rainwater
infiltration from our clay pipes. A town typically does not feel
pressured to sign a consent order unless they are in very severe
violation of their Clean Water Act permit and, at that time, we were in
severe violation. Our clay pipe-based sewer collection system was
collecting and sending tremendous amounts of ``extra'' water to our
central sewer plant every time it rained. The clay pipes themselves
allowed much of the rain to infiltrate the system through cracks and
failed joints. In addition, many of the homes in the town had their
sump pumps, roof gutters, household drains, and every one of their
yards' drainage systems to be connected to the sanitary sewer pipes.
Every time we experienced a heavy rain, all the extra water overwhelmed
the treatment plant and resulted in rainwater and sewage bypassing our
treatment works and discharging to the Claverack Creek which drains to
the Hudson River. In addition to the problem of the treatment bypass,
the excess flow would also wash out all the biological processes that
are needed to treat our sewage during normal flows and this would take
a number of days to re-establish after any heavy rain event.
Fixing this situation was estimated to cost the town upwards of $10
million to build a new and larger treatment plant. That was financially
impossible for us. However, lucky for us, this occurred around the same
time that Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009. The funding provided to the Clean Water State Revolving Funds
from the Act was used to fund our new sewer system. We received a $9.5
million funding package which was about half for loan forgiveness (i.e.
a grant) and the other half was a zero interest loan which we are still
repaying. This funding package did result in water rate increases but
the amount was feasible for the community to absorb. In addition to
expanding the capacity of our treatment plant, we were also able to
modernize our treatment process with a sequential batch reactor system
and the use of ultraviolet light disinfection.
The new sewer plant allowed us to comply with our consent order;
however, we still had all the clay pipes in the ground draining all the
excess water during every heavy rain event. Additionally, at that time,
we had up 50 line breaks each year in our antiquated and deteriorating
cast iron drinking water lines which needed replacement. Also, keep in
mind that the town supervisors were facing all the financial challenges
of the water system in addition to other community needs like roads,
bridges, parks, schools, etc.
In 2014, not long after financing and building our new $9.5 million
sewer plant, when the community supervisor believed that water rates
were high, when we were still struggling to fund replacement of our
drinking water cast iron lines and when we needed a new drinking water
filtration plant--we were pressured to sign another Clean Water Act
enforcement order for sanitary sewer overflows or SSOs. All the rain
water infiltration into the failing clay sewer pipes was not
overwhelming the sewer plant anymore, but it was causing the sewage
water to back up into people's homes, 26 homes to be exact--and as you
can imagine, this results in a crisis in town for the individuals whose
homes are impacted, for the town to respond and for our local political
leaders. By the way, our town board of supervisors holds a monthly town
public meeting which includes an opportunity for the public to speak
out about their expenses and their ability to pay their water bills.
Around this time, our State environmental agency presented the town
with a second consent order to fix the sanitary sewer overflows which
we signed to avoid the threat of very costly fines. We have taken a
number of incremental steps to comply with our current consent order
including installing backflow preventers in every home vulnerable to a
backup, and separating the rainwater drainage from all the vulnerable
houses to the sewer system (sump pumps, household drains, gutters,
etc.). We did line about one-third of the clay sewer pipes and are
still paying off that debt. So far, we have prevented any re-occurrence
of the sewage backup into anyone's home. However, we are still
operating under the consent order which may require the lining of
additional sections of our faulty clay sewer pipes. This is something
we want to do and needs to happen, but it is likely to cost another
$4.5 million and most of the community currently thinks they are maxed-
out on their ability to pay. Raising rates at this time could actually
threaten the political stability of the community.
Compounding our problems is the fact that the needs or our
wastewater utility also competes with our drinking water needs. For our
drinking water utility, we need to replace the antiquated cast iron
water lines that were installed in the 1930's. These lines are
frequently breaking, causing people to be without drinking water as
well as civic and economic disruption. Before we started to replace the
cast iron pipes in 2006, we were experiencing up to 50 line breaks a
year which was affecting just about everyone in the community. Over the
past 15 years we have replaced about 40 percent of our old cast iron
lines with $5.8 million in financing. This dramatically reduced the
frequency of emergency line breaks to approximately 10 line breaks a
year. Our annual debt payment is approximately $400,000 per year for
water alone. In June, we will be starting a drinking water line
replacement project to replace approximately 14,000 feet of old water
lines at a price of $4.6 million. This will add about $245,000 to our
annual debt service. The replacement cost for the rest of the lines
needing replacement (30,000 feet) is estimated to cost an additional
$11 million. In addition to modernizing all the old lines, we also need
a new pump, new pump house and a iron and manganese filtration system
that will cost another $1.5 million.
Our water and sewer rates have been climbing over the past few
years to the point where many people in the community, especially our
low and fixed income citizens, are struggling to pay their bills.
Financing our water infrastructure has also resulted in increasing the
property tax rates. The average family water bill is over $100 a month
and we are not a wealthy community.
In the 2010 census, the median income for a household in the town
was $37,394, and the median income for a family was $47,452. Much of
the town's historic industry moved away in the 1980's including three
cement plants, a match factory, a Canada Dry bottling facility, and
other businesses.
The current debt service for our drinking water utility is $6.8
million with annual payments of approximately $400,000. This does not
include the new project beginning in June as financing has not been
finalized. The debt service for the sewer utility is $4.6 million with
an annual payment of approximately $250,000.
Most of the financing for water infrastructure repairs and
replacements including the partial replacement of our water lines and
sewer lines, the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant, and
the abatement of our sanitary sewer overflows has only been made
possible with funding from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
and we are very grateful to this committee for that funding. And only
because of the loan forgiveness and zero interest loan provisions with
the program were we able to make the financing work for the citizens of
Greenport. Again, thank you for including those critical assistance
provisions that make the SRFs work for small and rural communities.
As the committee considers modifications to the SRFs, we urge you
to retain these provisions and continue to target the Federal funding
within the SRFs to the communities and citizens most in need of the
Federal subsidies through the following provisions:
First, local communities have an obligation to pay for their water
infrastructure and the Federal Government should only subsidize water
infrastructure when the local community can't afford it and there is a
compelling Federal interest such as public health or compliance. To the
maximum extent possible, the State revolving loans should prioritize
funding to the communities most in need based on their economic
challenges combined with the public health necessity of the project.
This evaluation should be made on a per capita or impact per citizens
(ratepayer) analysis that is sensitive to local economic conditions
(i.e. affordability analysis).
Second, communities out of compliance with the Clean Water Act
should receive prioritization for SRF funding where the most severely
in non-compliance (environmental and economic) are moved to the top of
the list for funding.
Third, a small percentage of water funding programs should be set-
aside for technical assistance and assistance to complete the
applications for water infrastructure funding. Small communities often
lack the technical and administrative resources to achieve compliance
and complete the necessary applications to access the Federal funding
programs. Providing these small communities with shared technical
resources allows small communities access to technical resources that
large common communities have and are needed to operate and maintain
water infrastructure, comply with standards in the most economical way,
and obtain assistance in applying for State revolving loan funds.
Often, this assistance saves thousands of dollars for the community and
keeps the systems in long-term compliance with EPA rules.
Fourth, allow infrastructure funds some ability to provide grants
(i.e. loan forgiveness and zero interest financing)--not just loans.
Commonly, low-income communities do not have the ability to pay back a
loan, even with very low interest rates, and require some portion of
grant or principal forgiveness funding to make a project affordable to
the ratepayers.
Fifth, a minimum portion of the funds should be set-aside for small
and rural communities. This ensures that any infrastructure program
must set-up a process for dealing with small and rural communities.
Once established, local pressures and priorities will determine the
actual portion directed to small systems which we expect will often be
greater than the minimum prescribed.
In closing, I would to thank this committee which is very important
to rural and small town America; every Federal dollar that has been
granted to the many thousands of small towns to build, expand, and
maintain their wastewater infrastructure through the State revolving
funds was authorized by this committee. Also, every Federal regulation
under the Clean Water Act was likewise authorized by this committee. We
are grateful to be able to testify today and grateful for the numerous
opportunities this committee has provided rural America to testify and
be included in the crafting of Federal water and environmental
legislation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Flowers.
Ms. Flowers. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Chairman
DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Westerman, and
members of the committee for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Catherine Coleman Flowers. I am the rural
development manager for the Equal Justice Initiative in
Montgomery, Alabama. I am also a practitioner in residence at
the Franklin Humanities Institute at Duke University and a
senior fellow at the Center for Earth Ethics and the founder of
The Alabama Center for Rural Enterprise.
I grew up in Lowndes County, Alabama, which is located
along the route from Selma to Montgomery. As a child in the
1960s and 1970s, I used an outhouse and a slop jar before my
family eventually installed indoor plumbing.
I left the area to achieve an education, and upon returning
to Alabama in 2000, I was surprised at the disparities that
still existed in rural wastewater treatment.
Since 2002, I have visited homes with wastewater failures
at all levels. I first began meeting with people about this
problem in the early 2000s as a pastor. A pregnant woman and
other members of the community were being threatened with or
actually arrested for not being able to afford on-site
wastewater treatment.
Yes, it is a crime in this country if you cannot afford
wastewater treatment. Many of the community members have
resorted to unpermitted alternate methods like straight-piping
to discharge raw sewage from their homes or disconnecting
failing septic systems to keep the sewage from coming back into
their homes.
And while the arrests have decreased, the threat remains. I
have visited homes with on-site systems that fail each time it
rains, and the sewage comes back into the homes either through
the toilet, bathtub, or both.
In one town, citizens pay a wastewater treatment fee. Yet
they still have sewage backing up into their homes and yards.
A neighborhood is bordered by a sewage lagoon, a cheap
solution generally used in poor rural communities. In addition
to the stench from the lagoon, their tanks must be pumped as
often as three times a week to remove sewage from their yards
or their homes.
Children are unable to play in their yards due to raw
sewage on the ground. This is not what people expect to see in
the United States.
In 2009, I was bitten by mosquitoes swarming a pool of raw
sewage. My body broke out in a rash that doctors could not
identify.
I later reached out to Dr. Peter Hotez of the National
School of Tropical Medicine in Texas, which culminated in a
peer reviewed study that was published in 2017. This study
found that over 30 percent of Lowndes County residents that
tested were found to have hookworm and other tropical parasites
long thought to have been eradicated in the United States.
Inadequate wastewater treatment is not just a Lowndes
County or an Alabama problem. It is estimated that more than 20
percent of the country uses on-site wastewater treatment,
reaching 40 percent or more in areas with large rural
populations.
Up to half of the septic systems in the U.S. do not work
properly or fail at some point. By some estimates, 60 percent
of the land in the U.S. cannot support septic systems. It is
time for Congress to act to address this widespread problem,
beginning with acknowledging the problem more broadly,
gathering more information, especially through the census, and
eliminating policies that criminalize residents for being
unable to afford wastewater treatment.
In addition, I invite all of you to visit Lowndes County so
you can witness the problem firsthand, but also talk to your
own rural constituents because some of these same problems are
in all rural areas.
Congress should further use its oversight powers to ensure
that investments in addressing this problem are meaningful.
Specifically, it is critical that funding should take into
account the realities of climate change, community input, and
the unique geography of an area.
Funding must also go to those who need it most and cannot
afford wastewater treatment or upgrades without assistance.
And finally, if Federal funding is used to continue to
design and permit failing systems, the State entities that
approve these systems should be held accountable instead of the
individual homeowners.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is an excellent tool
to help communities with much needed wastewater upgrades, but
to truly be effective, it needs the flexibility to reach the
people who need it the most. Rural communities should no longer
be left behind. Congress must begin addressing this problem
now, while also looking at technological solutions for the new
future of wastewater.
If we can treat wastewater in outer space, it is not
unrealistic to see a time when one can go to a hardware store
and purchase an on-site wastewater treatment system. This is an
opportunity to remove the shame associated with discussing
wastewater treatment failure and instead focus on sustainable
solutions that provide meaningful investment.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to answering any questions.
[Ms. Flowers' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catherine Coleman Flowers, Rural Development
Manager, Equal Justice Initiative, Montgomery, Alabama
Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and all
of the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify. My name
is Catherine Coleman Flowers. I am the rural development manager for
the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama. I also serve as
practitioner in residence at the Franklin Humanities Institute at Duke
University, a senior fellow at the Center for Earth Ethics, and I am
the founder of the Alabama Center for Rural Enterprise, which has a
mission of targeting the root causes of poverty.
I am a country girl, having grown up in Lowndes County, Alabama.
Lowndes County is located along the road from Selma to Montgomery. As a
child in the 1960's and 70's, I used an outhouse and slop jars. My
family eventually installed a cesspool which facilitated us having
functioning indoor plumbing. I left the county after graduating high
school and when I returned in 2000, I was surprised at the disparities
that still existed in wastewater treatment. In 2002, I invited Robert
Woodson of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise to Lowndes
County to see firsthand the problems residents were experiencing.
During that trip, we visited the home of a family that had been
threatened with arrest for having a failing septic system. As we
approached the home, we could see the raw sewage running down the road
from the septic tank. A man approached us as we were walking up the
road, crying. He had been threatened with arrest and was told he could
no longer hold worship services at his church because he did not have a
septic tank. Mr. Woodson called William Raspberry, a Pulitzer Prize
winning columnist with the Washington Post, who wrote a syndicated
column about the arrests, which was the first time that I can recall
there being any media attention regarding this problem. This was 2002,
just 17 years ago.
These arrests have since decreased, but the threat remains.
The Black Belt region of Alabama, where Lowndes County is located,
is particularly affected by the lack of adequate sanitation services
because the clay-like soil, which worked well for growing cotton during
the slavery and sharecropping eras, makes it extremely difficult to
install septic systems. Over half of the region is unsuitable for
conventional septic systems, meaning that failing septic tanks are
common.
Most of the soil in Lowndes County requires a more complex type of
septic system, which can cost up to $30,000 depending on the site
conditions.\1\ Yet the median household income in Lowndes County, for
example, was only $27,000 in 2016, making more costly systems out of
reach and leading to more people relying on unpermitted systems, after
their septic tanks repeatedly fail. Families that cannot afford to
install septic systems must use some alternative method to dispose of
waste without treatment, such as a straight pipe. Straight pipes are
generally metal, or PVC pipes connected to the home's plumbing that
discharge raw, untreated sewage directly into their yards, ditches,
woods, or various surface waters. In 2011, the Alabama Department of
Public Health estimated that in Lowndes County, 40-90 percent of homes
have no septic system or an inadequate one, and 50 percent of homes
with septic systems are failing.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Patricia Jones & Amber Moulton, The Invisible Crisis: Water
Unaffordability in the United States (May 2016), at http://
www.uusc.org/sites/default/files/the_invisible_crisis_web.pdf.
\2\ 2011 U.N. Report, supra n. 5, at 7; Apple Loveless & Leslie
Corcelli, Pipe Dreams: Advancing Sustainable Development in the United
States, EPA Blog (Mar. 5, 2015), https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2015/03/
pipe-dreams-advancing-sustainable-development-in-the-united-states/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affordability is a primary reason poor families in Lowndes County
do not have expensive engineered systems needed to treat wastewater
onsite in Black Belt soils. However, over the course of my career and
my work in the community, I began to discover that cost was only part
of the issue: failing systems remains a larger burden, one that comes
along with impacts like disease and illness. For example, when a member
of the community approached me around 2014 and said he could afford any
system, yet he could not find one that actually worked. I quickly
learned that the problem is much larger than just failing septic tanks
and straight piping. Since 2002, I have visited homes with systems that
fail each time it rains and the sewage comes back into the house
through either the toilet, bathtub, or both. Some families have had
numerous insurance claims because of failed systems. In one town,
citizens pay a wastewater treatment fee to a management entity, yet
they still have sewage backing up into their homes and yards. Another
neighborhood is bordered by a sewage lagoon which is full of raw
sewage. Septic tanks are connected to pipes that take their affluent to
the lagoon. However in addition to the stench from the lagoon, their
tanks must be pumped as often as three times a week to remove sewage
from their yards or their homes. Charlie Mae Holcombe, a resident of
Lowndes County, recently walked from her home to the street to tell
former Vice President Al Gore and Bishop William Barber about the
problem she has experienced for more than 20 years.\3\ Holcombe can't
let her grandchildren play outside due to the sewage outside their home
and has had to replace her carpet countless times due to the sewage
that has run into the house. The families I speak to, including Mrs.
Holcombe's, also regularly complain about illnesses. Living with
repeated exposure to raw sewage causes acute and chronic health impacts
and reduces families' standard of living. Short-term exposure to
parasites, bacteria, and viruses in raw sewage can cause infections or
diarrhea and have also been linked with long-term health impacts such
as cancer, dementia, and diabetes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Shah, Khushbu, ``Al Gore admits US poverty 'shocking'--but
warns climate crisis will make things worse, The Guardian (February 22,
2019), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/22/al-gore-alabama-
environmental-justice-climate-worse.
\4\ West Virginia Public Broadcasting, Inside Appalachia: Water in
the Coalfields, http://wvpublic.org/post/inside-appalachia-water-
coalfields#stream/0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With longer periods of warm weather, mosquitoes are more common in
the fall and winter months. In October 2009, I was asked by State of
Alabama Health Department officials to meet them at a home of a
pregnant woman who had been threatened with arrest for not having a
septic system. She lived in a singlewide mobile home. Behind her home
was a pool of raw sewage that ran into a pit. It was teeming with
mosquitoes. I was bitten by mosquitoes and had bites all over my legs.
Shortly thereafter, my body broke out in a rash. Seeking medical care,
my blood tests came back negative, providing no clue for the raised
rash that covered most of the trunk of my body and was sporadically on
my legs and arms. That was when I asked if it was possible that I had
something American doctors were not trained to look for.
The conditions in Lowndes County are not what people expect to see
in the United States. Problems occurring in rural communities are far
from the major media centers and often go unnoticed. In August 2012, I
read an op-ed in The New York Times written by Dr. Peter Hotez, the
founding dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor's
School of Medicine, entitled, ``Tropical Diseases: The New Plague of
Poverty.'' \5\ I googled him and found an email. We met a brief time
later and from these meetings, came up with the idea for a study to
look for hookworm and other tropical parasites (which had long been
thought to have been eradicated from the U.S.) in stool samples, soil
samples, water samples and blood samples in Lowndes County. In
September 2017, our peer-reviewed study was published. The study found
that 34.5 percent of participants tested positive for hookworm and
other tropical parasites in Lowndes County.\6\ Hookworms are not
deadly, but can cause delays in physical and cognitive development in
children. I want to repeat an earlier statement: we once believed
hookworm had been eradicated from the U.S. Our peer-reviewed study
found that over 30 percent of samples from Lowndes County tested
positive for hookworm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Hotez, Peter, ``Tropical Diseases: The New Plague of Poverty,''
The New York Times (August 18, 2012), https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/
19/opinion/sunday/tropical-diseases-the-new-plague-of-poverty.html.
\6\ McKenna et al., Human Intestinal Parasite Burden and Poor
Sanitation in Rural Alabama, Am. J. of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
(Sept. 2017) (``McKenna et al.''), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC5817782/pdf/tpmd170396.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What we have concluded is that in many instances current onsite
septic systems and some small package systems are not working
correctly, even after large expenditures by homeowners. Cheap lagoon
systems are used generally in poor or rural communities. This is not
just a Lowndes County or an Alabama problem. I have heard of examples
of these type of failures across the United States. For example, in
South Florida, more and more septic systems are vulnerable to failure
due to climate change. A recent study has found that by 2040, due to
sea level rise, 64 percent of Miami-Dade County's septic systems could
harm people's health and water supply.\7\ In California, problems have
also been reported. For example, according to documentation by Self-
Help Enterprises, 42 percent of respondents in one community in
Bakersfield have experienced septic system issues. More broadly, it is
estimated that more than 20 percent of the country uses onsite
wastewater treatment, and this percentage reaches 40 percent or more in
some States with large rural populations like North Carolina, Kentucky,
South Carolina, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire.\8\ Up to half of
conventional septic systems in the U.S. function improperly or fail
completely at some point in their expected lifetime. By some estimates,
65 percent of the land in the U.S. cannot support conventional septic
systems.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory & Economic
Resources, Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department, & Florida
Department of Health in Miami-Dade County (Dr. Samir Elmir), Septic
Systems Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise (November 2018), https://
www.miamidade.gov/green/library/vulnerability-septic-systems-sea-level-
rise.pdf.
\8\ U.S. EPA, Septic Systems Overview, https://www.epa.gov/septic/
septic-systems-overview.
\9\ Richard Siddoway, Alternative Onsite Sewage Disposal
Technology: A Review (Jan. 1988), Washington State Institute for Public
Policy, http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2017, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty
and Human Rights visited Lowndes County at my invitation, as part of a
tour of the U.S. In a statement, the Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston,
noted: ``In Alabama, I saw various houses in rural areas that were
surrounded by cesspools of sewage that flowed out of broken or non-
existent septic systems. The State Health Department had no idea of how
many households exist in these conditions, despite the grave health
consequences. Nor did they have any plan to find out, or devise a plan
to do something about it.'' \10\ The nonprofit organization I founded,
Alabama Center for Rural Enterprise, has since filed a Title VI
complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services, alleging
that the Alabama Department of Public Health and Lowndes County Health
Department have for decades been placing an adverse impact on the
health and well-being of the black community of Lowndes County for
failing to address this problem. The Department of Health and Human
Services is currently deciding whether to investigate this complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner,
Statement on Visit to the USA, by Professor Philip Alston, United
Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
(December 15, 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/
DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22533&LangID=E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is time for Congress to act to address this widespread problem
that rural communities across the country face. In order to
meaningfully address the issue of inadequate onsite wastewater, a
comprehensive approach must be taken.
As a baseline, there needs to be an acknowledgement of this problem
more broadly. It has only been recently that we have begun to garner
attention in the media about the lack of adequate wastewater options
for some communities, but for years Lowndes County residents largely
suffered in silence, and many across the country continue to do so.
Members of Congress should talk to their rural constituents to find out
where there may be lack of adequate wastewater services in their
districts.
Local and State authorities, and to the extent they can, Federal
authorities, also need to eliminate laws, policies, and practices that
criminalize residents for their failure to comply with wastewater
regulations, even when the cost to do so is substantially higher than
their means.
We need more information on where people are living without access
to sanitation and wastewater services, as well as on individuals who
pay a wastewater treatment fee to a management entity and yet still
have sewage backing up into their homes. The Rural Community Assistance
Partnership estimated that more than 1.7 million people in the United
States lack access to basic plumbing facilities \11\ and EPA estimates
that more than one in five families in the U.S. are served by
decentralized wastewater.\12\ This is only an estimate, however, as
most States do not have an inventory of where septic systems are
located. The U.S. Census once captured information regarding whether
homeowners were served by municipal treatment or a septic system, but
the question regarding household sewage treatment was taken off after
the 1990 census. As a first step, that question should be added back to
the Census to begin compiling data once again to illustrate the scope
of this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Still Living Without
the Basics in the 21st Century: Analyzing the Availability of Water and
Sanitation Services in the United States, at https://rcap.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/Still-Living-Without-the-Basics-Water.pdf.
\12\ U.S. EPA, Septic Systems Overview, https://www.epa.gov/septic/
septic-systems-overview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should use its oversight powers to ensure that investments
are meaningful, distributed equitably, and the agencies and engineers
approving the use of the funds are ultimately accountable if a system
fails.
Funding should take into account the realities of climate
change, as more rainfall and extreme weather due to climate change is
likely to only stress these systems more. Funding must also take into
account community input and the unique geography of an area. For
example, the soil in Lowndes County and across the Black Belt creates
unique challenges that other communities may not face.
Funding also must go to those who need it most and cannot
afford wastewater services or upgrades without assistance.
And finally, Congress should ensure that individual
homeowners are not responsible if the system that was approved for
installment on their property, especially one that is installed using
Federal funds, fails due to geographic, soil, or other conditions
outside of their control.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is an excellent tool to help
communities with much-needed wastewater upgrades, but to be the most
effective it needs the flexibility to reach the people who need it
most.
Although addressing the problem of inadequate wastewater and its
roots in poverty and oppressive policies is complex, it must be done.
Congress must begin addressing this problem now, while also looking at
technological solutions for the new future of wastewater. This is an
opportunity to remove the shame associated with discussing wastewater
treatment failures and instead focus on sustainable solutions that
consider community input, offers assistance to those who need it most,
and provides meaningful investment in wastewater that actually helps
people, rather than causing further harm.
attachment: human intestinal parasite burden and poor sanitation in
rural alabama
The report is retained in the committee files and available at: https:/
/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5817782/pdf/tpmd170396.pdf
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next we have Ms. Maureen Taylor. You are on.
Ms. Taylor. Good morning, Chairwoman Napolitano and members
of the committee.
My name is Maureen Taylor, and I bring you greetings from
Michigan Welfare Rights where I am honored to serve as the
State chairperson of that organization.
And I want to say at the outset we are so pleased that we
were included in an opportunity to address these issues
relative to how to manage water and water problems.
Epic changes in the relationship between working people and
the world over and traditional means of survival have altered
the progress of humanity permanently. Since the age of
industrialization, blue collar America has only known one
process of existence. You work. You earn a paycheck. You spend
it on those things you need to continue to live. You run out of
money. So you go back to work. This is the cycle that repeats
itself.
Cities like Cincinnati, Chicago, Gary, Flint, Highland
Park, Pontiac, Detroit and others have all similar histories
which have been tied to these locations and industries that
require mass numbers of laborers.
Detroit's nearby communities built cars for the world, and
that world was connected to automobile manufacturing and all of
the ancillary items required to keep that industry thriving. In
1914, when Henry Ford advertised the first $5 a day opportunity
for those willing to work on his assembly line, blue collar
workers, especially those in unions, established a pattern for
the Nation to follow: 8-hour days, extra pay on weekends,
holiday pay, time off for vacation, health care benefits,
academic benefits, et cetera.
Municipals, schools, and most other employers duplicated
contracts that mirrored employee-employer relationships and
negotiations set in factories. The quality of life for millions
of us has been tied to those relationships from 1914 to 1984,
just over 70 years.
Standard of living for working people started to change in
small, imperceptible ways in the mid-1980s that was coupled
with population declines forced by massive losses of high-
paying jobs. With the onset of high-tech manufacturing methods,
the die was cast and Detroit went from 1.9 million residents to
just over 700,000 today.
With the population on the move, why keep so many schools
open? Why keep hospitals open? Why keep opportunities available
for people that will never find a job again?
In 2014, the Detroit Water Department started the most
recent and egregious campaign of mass water shutoffs that
targeted only low-income residential customers who were 2
months behind in payments or $150 in arrears.
In June of that year, we started to hear rumors about
something happening in a place called Flint, Michigan.
Poisonings were going on, and the word started to come out. In
the end of the program, both of these issues marked the genesis
of long nights of terror for blue collar workers, a night that
has not yet ended.
Despite multiple levels and battles to stop these draconian
practices, residents have not been able to stop the moral
bankruptcy of water shutoffs or even water poisoning. We are
left to create methods of survival as the only option for
Detroit, for Highland Park, for Flint, and for other cities and
communities across the country who are facing shutoffs.
In early 2014, the initial numbers shared with us that were
being targeted for mass water shutoffs were 59,990 addresses.
Since those days, Detroit has seen upwards of 100,000
disconnections.
Possible solutions include these suggestions:
A federally mandated opportunity to establish uniform
policies on water and sewage affordability based on each
residential customer's ability to pay;
A Federal dedicated source of funding to the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund and a renewal of the Build American Bonds
Program to address aging water and sewage infrastructure
issues.
In the end, in Detroit especially, the only thing I can say
is that I do not live in a bankrupt city. I live in a city that
has been bankrupted. We need you to help us to stop water
shutoffs. We need you to help us restore all water services and
then determine individual eligibility. And then we need you to
help create a private and a public water policy and procedure.
In the end, I want to thank you so very much for the
opportunity to share a little bit about the misery that we have
been going through, and I am going to go further.
I would like it if some of you that are here today might
consider assigning someone from your offices to work directly
with us.
Thank you so much.
[Ms. Taylor's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Maureen Taylor, State Chairperson, Michigan
Welfare Rights Organization, Detroit, Michigan
michigan/ground zero water crisis
Good Morning Chairman Defazio, Ranking Member Graves and members of
the committee. My name is Maureen Taylor and I am the State Chairperson
for the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization a State chapter of the
National Welfare Rights Union which advocates for public assistance
recipients and low-income people. The Michigan Welfare Rights
Organization works to build a social movement by bringing together
people directly affected by water problems, grassroots leaders,
community attorneys, researchers, educators, artists, and policymakers
to strategize on solutions provide clean, healthful water regardless of
income. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today to share a bit
about the water affordability challenges facing citizens in the State
of Michigan, particularly the city of Detroit and offer a few suggested
solutions.
The epic changes in the relationship between working people the
world over and the traditional means of survival have altered the
progression of humanity permanently. Since the age of
industrialization, blue-collar America has only known one process of
existence--you work, you earn a paycheck, you spend it on those things
you need to live, you run out of money, so you return to work--the
cycle repeats. Cities like Cincinnati, Chicago, Gary, Flint, Highland
Park, Pontiac, Detroit and others all have similar histories which have
tied these locations to industries that required massive numbers of
laborers.
Detroit, and near-by communities, built cars for the world and that
world was connected to automobile manufacturing and all the ancillary
items required to keep that industry thriving. From 1914 when Henry
Ford advertised the first $5/day opportunity for those willing to work
on the assembly line, blue-collar workers especially those in unions
established a pattern for the Nation to follow . . . 8-hour days, extra
pay on weekends, holiday pay, time off for vacations, healthcare
benefits, academic benefits, etc. Municipal, school, and most other
employees duplicated contracts that mirrored employee/employer
negotiations set in factories. The quality of life for millions have
been tied to these relationships from 1914 to 1984 . . . just over 70
years.
The standard of living for working people started to change in
small, imperceptible ways in the mid-1980's that were coupled with
population declines forced by massive losses of high-paying jobs. With
the onset of hi-tech manufacturing methods, the die was cast. Detroit
went from 1.9 million residents to just over 700,000 today. With the
population on the move, why keep so many schools open or teachers
working since millions will never need basic educational skills ever
again? With the population on the move, why maintain the notion that
people are entitled to affordable housing since most will not be needed
at work? With the population on the move, why not tie healthcare, or
public transportation, or simple community safety, or access to clean
water and sanitation to the notion that these items must be paid for?
The concept of access to clean water and sanitation even for the
poorest among us, has always been a ``common'' viewed as something
owned by humanity as a rule. It appears that the new rule allows for
the ``torture'' of working people who live on fixed incomes that
normalizes mass water shutoffs as part of the ``new normal''.
In 2014, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Dept. started the most
recent and egregious campaign of mass water shutoffs that targeted only
low-income, residential customers who were 2 months behind in payments
or $150 in arrearages. In June of that year, rumors started to surface
about poisoned public water in Flint, MI. Both issues marked the
genesis of long nights of terror for blue-collar workers, a night that
has not yet ended. Such practices were not new to those in the American
``rust-belt'' but never before had the ferocity and scale reached such
depths.
When the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department began this
aggressive campaign, The Michigan Welfare Rights Organization (MWRO)
established a water shutoff water hotline to try to assist citizens who
were threatened with water shutoff. We received forty or more calls per
hour regarding water shut offs. As part of our work we have seen
children living in homes without water. Parents with children, whose
water services are terminated, fear Child Protective Services because
if Child Protective Services is notified, it can result in a child or
children being removed from their home. We saw this happen in a case
where a Detroit Water and Sewage Department customer who lost her job,
had her water shut off; and then her children were taken and placed in
foster care by social services. The situation in Detroit is untenable,
I have personally assisted with moving families into homeless shelters
or church basements to obtain temporary shelter until water is
restored.
Despite multi-level battles to stop these draconian practices,
residents have not been able to deter the moral bankruptcy of water
shutoffs or water poisonings. Attempts to ``privatize'' what has always
been a ``public common'' held in trust has only been slowed. The city
of Detroit is focused on re-classifying access to clean water and
sanitation as a commodity to be bought and sold, supported by the
notion that if you can't pay for it, residents can't have it . . .
SCANDALOUS! The city of Highland Park, a suburb of Detroit, was first
to feel the pain of ``water privatization'' attempts that came on the
heels of that community losing more than 50 percent of its population.
Elected officials have no other answer. All elected officials, all
genders, all party affiliations, and all nationalities label then sell-
off city assets that once belonged to the people as a means to balance
the financial books during challenging economic times. The falsely
declared ``bankruptcy'' in Detroit sealed our fate and made city assets
open game to having these re-classified items to be sold. I don't live
in a bankrupt city . . . I live in a city that was bankrupted!
In early 2014, the initial numbers being targeted for mass water
shutoffs was 59,990. Since those days, Detroit has seen upwards of
100,000+ disconnections. We have been left with no choice but to fight
for our lives as we try to envision what a different kind of world
might look like that won't punish poor people because they are poor!
To be threatened with shutoff, a household must be 2 months behind
in payments, or merely $150 in arrears . . . SCANDALOUS!! When water is
turned off, neighborhood issues surface. When water is turned off,
children can be removed from the household and placed in foster care.
When water is turned off, infectious diseases increase connected to the
buildup of surface algae and other contaminants that grow on the inside
of water pipes surface and are passed from household to household. No
one hears our cries, no one sees our tears.
We are left with creating methods of survival as the only option
for Detroit, for Highland Park, for Flint and for the other cities and
townships across the country who are facing shutoffs. The government
answer to how to treat poor people, poor children, poor retirees, poor
disabled persons, and poor veterans is to deny access to clean water.
God Bless America, Land That I love . . .
As possible solutions I offer the following suggestions which our
coalition has shared at previous hearings and in written testimony:
A Federal mandate to establish a uniform policy on water
and sewerage affordability, based on each residential customer's
ability to pay.
A Federal dedicated source of funding to the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund and renew the Build America Bonds Program to
address aging water and sewerage infrastructure, which is but one of
the reasons for rising costs, passed on to residential customers.
Federally funded bill payment assistance for those with
the lowest incomes that pay a high proportion of household income for
home energy to meet their immediate need for home energy
Federal consumer protections for water service, including
shutoff procedures that require sufficient notice, shutoff prohibitions
for vulnerable households with minor, elderly, pregnant, or disabled
persons, and water quality.
Recommended solutions specific to Detroit, Michigan include:
Stop all water and sewerage shutoffs until DWSD has
implemented policies and procedures addressing shutoffs by implementing
the original Detroit Water Affordability Plan (2005) created by expert
Roger Colton.
Immediately assess of the number of Detroiters living in
homes without water, including a survey of the number of children,
disabled, elderly and other at-risk citizens, with a review of public
health and safety issues.
Restore all water service and then determine eligibility
for assistance programs, in one stop, including Federal and State
assistance. Only if it is determined that the person has the ability to
pay, but has not, will the water and sewerage services be terminated.
Create a comprehensive DWSD Policy and Procedure for
shutoff of residential and commercial accounts.
Declare an amnesty on Detroit criminal prosecutions for
``alleged water thief''; instead evaluate these Detroiters for
financial assistance based on what Detroiters can afford to pay. Turn
an alleged criminal into a contributor.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to share a bit about the water
affordability challenges facing citizens in the State of Michigan,
particularly the city of Detroit and offer a few suggested solutions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony.
Next, Mr. Andrew Kricun. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kricun. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking
Member Westerman, and distinguished members of the House Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
I would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to
speak before you today to discuss how the Camden County MUA in
Camden, New Jersey, used the State Revolving Fund to
significantly improve our wastewater infrastructure while
holding our rate steady without impacting our communities.
I work with the Camden County MUA, a city right across from
Philadelphia, and I also serve on the board of directors of the
National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and I work as the
chair of their Utility of the Future and Environmental Justice
in Community Service Committee.
Camden County has used the State Revolving Fund to
significantly improve our performance, and we also did that
while holding rates. So specifically, by using the State
Revolving Fund, we borrowed over $1 billion from the fund since
1987 in today's dollars.
In 1996, our household rate was $337 per year, 23 years
ago. Today, 23 years later, by using the SRF to upgrade our
system, our rate is only $352 per year per household. It has
only gone up 4 percent in 23 years, less than .2 percent per
year because of the State Revolving Fund.
In Camden City, we have a combined sewer system, too, and
we have some of the same issues that Ms. Flowers described with
regard to combined sewage backing up into people's homes, into
parks, into streets. And your zip code should not define
whether or not you have safe drinking water or whether or not
you have sewage backing up into your streets, parks, or homes.
But with the SRF, thanks to the SRF, we are going to be
able to eliminate combined sewage flooding in Camden City for
up to the 1-inch storm by the end of 2020. By the end of next
year, that combined sewage flooding will be a thing of the past
in Camden City because of the SRF, and we will not have to
raise rates.
Because the way the SRF works, it is a low interest
program, as you know. It is not a handout. It is a handup. We
are borrowing funds, a loan that we have to pay back, but
because of the low interest rates and because it is spread over
20 and now 30 years in New Jersey, we are able to take those
funds, upgrade our system, and do it without affecting our
economically distressed communities.
Camden City is one of the poorest cities in the country. We
have a household income of $26,000 per household. We have an
unemployment rate of 10 percent. So for us, we cannot raise the
rates.
Wastewater utilities like ours have to choose between
infrastructure improvements and affordability for our
communities, but with the State Revolving Fund, we do not have
to choose. We can upgrade our facilities, and we can also do it
in an affordable way. Like I said, our rate has only gone up 4
percent total in 23 years because all of our capital
improvements are through the State Revolving Fund.
The other thing that we are going to be doing is making our
city more resilient. Hurricane Sandy was a disaster for the
State of New Jersey. We want to make sure that we are not
vulnerable to another storm like that. Using the State
Revolving Fund, by the end of next year also, the same
timeframe, we will be generating all of our own electricity
from our biosolids and taking Camden City's treatment plant off
the grid and then building a microgrid to protect the drinking
water plant, hospitals, fire, school, police, all through the
State Revolving Fund without raising rates.
Again, it is a loan program. It is not a grant, but it
makes a huge difference. It is a hand up, not a hand out. I
cannot stress that enough.
So proposed solutions, you know, to this infrastructure
gap. Chairwoman Napolitano, you indicated that the American
Society of Civil Engineers gave a D-plus grade. That is
terrible. It is not acceptable, you know, for this country, for
anyone, urban or rural. Everyone deserves safe drinking water
and deserves to have freedom from sewage in their homes, in
their streets.
So the first thing we water utilities have to do is
optimize. I heard what you said, Ranking Member Westerman,
about we utilities have to do our work ourselves. We are
working to optimize our internal efficiencies. You know, we
public sector entities have to harness the private sector model
of efficiency for the public good and then use the State
Revolving Fund to build our infrastructure in the most cost-
effective way.
Those two pillars have enabled us to upgrade our facilities
without raising rates, and this can be replicated in any
community across the country, urban or rural, because the State
Revolving Fund is that successful, that terrific.
The other thing, too, I do recommend and agree an
affordability program is necessary. We need to make sure that
our low-income customers are able to afford their services.
Everyone deserves safe drinking water and freedom from sewage,
combined sewage. It ought to be a right that every American
citizen has. And with the State Revolving Fund, it can be done.
The other thing I really strongly recommend is a peer-to-
peer effort. One of the things we found in Camden City is that
although the State Revolving Fund is so helpful, they lacked
the resources to apply for funding. They have communities that
lack resources, whether it be urban or rural. They do not often
have people to write grants or write for funds.
So a peer-to-peer initiative among resource utilities with
less resource utilities would be really helpful to help
communities like Flint and Gary to apply for funds that are
available to them. The National Association of Clean Water
Agencies and EPA are working together on a peer-to-peer network
to try to assist utilities with that.
The other thing, I agree with you, Ranking Member
Westerman. Those are public-to-public partnerships, peer-to-
peer. But public-private partnerships are helpful, too, and we
were able to use them in some design-build contracts, a power
purchase agreement to put solar in. So these opportunities are
available.
I would really like to thank you all for your interest in
the water sector, the importance of drinking water and
wastewater protection.
I will just say one last thing. This is an opportunity for
a win-win. President Roosevelt put in the Civilian Conservation
Corps to put people to work, to build infrastructure. President
Eisenhower did the same with the Interstate Highway System in
the 1950s.
This is a tremendous opportunity to put our citizens to
work, to protect our environment, and rebuild our water
infrastructure.
Thank you very much.
[Mr. Kricun's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew Kricun, P.E., BCEE, Executive Director/
Chief Engineer of the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority,
Camden, New Jersey
introduction
Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and distinguished
members of the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I
would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to speak before
you today to discuss how the Camden County Municipal Utilities
Authority, located in Camden, NJ, has used the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund to upgrade its wastewater infrastructure while
sustaining an affordable user rate for our customers. My name is Andy
Kricun and I am the Executive Director and Chief Engineer of the Camden
County Municipal Utilities Authority (CCMUA), operators of an 80
million gallon per day wastewater treatment facility located in Camden,
NJ. I also serve on the Board of Directors of the National Association
of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), and as the Chair of NACWA's Utility of
the Future and Community Service Committees.
Camden County has used the State Revolving Fund to significantly
improve its water quality and odor control performance while increasing
its annual household user rate from $337 per household in 1996 to $352
per household in 2019. This represents only a 4 percent increase,
total, in the span of 23 years. When inflation from the past 23 years
is factored in, this represents a 40 percent rate decrease for our
customers. This demonstrates the tremendous environmental and economic
benefits that can be realized from the State Revolving Fund Program.
The SRF program is a ``hand up'', not a ``hand out''. Without the low
interest rates provided through the SRF program, Camden County would
have been forced to choose between environmental performance and
maintaining an affordable rate for our customers in Camden, NJ, one of
the most economically distressed communities in the country. Thanks to
the SRF, we were able to provide both the environmental protection and
the affordability that our customers need and deserve. And, our case
study is completely replicable for any water utility in the country.
For these reasons, we sincerely thank Congress, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection for the SRF funding that we have received, and
we strongly support reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund as a proven and successful way to protect the environment and the
public health while sustaining affordable user rates.
overview
The Infrastructure Gap Problem
It is self-evident that properly functioning drinking water and
wastewater treatment systems are essential to maintaining the public
health of our citizens and protecting our environment. Moreover, our
industries and commerce are largely dependent upon the reliable
provision of drinking water and wastewater services. However, the
American Society of Civil Engineers has recently given a ``D'' grade to
the nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure systems. This
is indicative of a very significant vulnerability, and corresponding
threat, to the public health, the commerce, and the environment of our
country.
Moreover, recent climate history, such as Hurricane Sandy in New
Jersey and the hurricanes in Houston, Florida and Puerto Rico last
year, have shown us that our existing water infrastructure is
inadequate to deal with extreme climate events, some of which we are
already experiencing now. For example, during Hurricane Sandy and its
aftermath, billions of gallons of untreated sewage were discharged into
our waterways. Should the climate change more rapidly as most experts
predict, then this would only exacerbate the current infrastructure
gap. But, even if the climate were not to change, there is already a
very significant infrastructure gap in our country's drinking water and
wastewater facilities that must be addressed if we are to adequately
protect the public health, commerce and the environment into the
future.
The Affordability Challenge
The cost of maintaining and upgrading drinking and clean water
infrastructure falls nearly entirely on the systems' ratepayers--in
fact the Congressional Budget Office found that the Federal share of
the nation's total water and wastewater infrastructure investment is
just 4 percent, with States and local governments covering the vast
majority. I ask that as the House and Senate consider infrastructure
legislation this Congress, water be raised to a more equal footing with
other sectors like transportation and energy.
Closing the aforementioned infrastructure gap will be very costly
and will impose an economic burden on all customers, which will be felt
especially by our most economically distressed customers. Camden City,
NJ has a median household income, citywide, of only $26,000 and its
unemployment rate is just under 10 percent, at 9.8 percent. Our
customers need, and deserve, safe drinking water, and properly
functioning water and wastewater infrastructure. However, most of them
cannot afford water rate increases with the income and unemployment
rates I have quoted. A person's zip code should not determine whether
or not they have safe drinking water or have combined sewage backing up
into their basements or streets or parks.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon drinking water and wastewater
utilities, like mine, to find ways to provide the water treatment
services that every citizen, regardless of where they live, deserves,
while keeping our rates affordable.
proposed solutions
In order to protect public health, the economy and our environment,
it is essential that clean water utilities close the existing
infrastructure gap, while also keeping rates affordable for our
customers. There are at least five important solutions that could help
to accomplish this, as follows:
1) Optimize internal efficiency--Before water utilities seek
assistance from any outside entities, we must first optimize our own
internal efficiency, harnessing the private sector efficiency model to
work for the public good. In Camden County, we implemented an ISO 14001
Environmental Management System to optimize performance and cost
efficiency. For example, by optimizing our preventative to reactive/
emergency maintenance ratio, we significantly reduced costs while
improving performance.
Improving efficiencies in how a utility can manage its multiple
clean water compliance and investment objectives is also an area
Federal policy can help advance. I applaud this Subcommittee for
advancing language into law last Congress that will help communities
consider a more integrated planning approach and better manage costs.
However, alongside strong clean water policy, Federal investment
must remain strong as well.
2) Utilization of the State Revolving Fund Program--After internal
efficiency improvements, the next most important factor for Camden
County's infrastructure improvement and rate performance was abundant
use of the SRF program. Because of the low interest rates provided by
the SRF, spread out over 20, or even 30, years, Camden County was able
to upgrade its entire wastewater treatment plant, thereby improving
water quality performance, without raising rates for our customers.
This is because newer equipment has lower maintenance costs and lower
electricity costs and so there is an annual savings in operations and
maintenance costs associated with new equipment. Because of the SRF's
low interest rates, the annual operations and maintenance cost savings
are greater than the annual debt service payments on the loan. This is
how the SRF enabled Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority to
replace our aging, underperforming, infrastructure, and improve
environmental performance while only increasing rates by a total of 4
percent over a period of 23 years, from 1996 to 2019. This esulted in
savings of over $500 million to our ratepayers during that period of
time.
The State Revolving Fund program involves loans that still must be
paid back by the utility, so it is truly a ``hand up'', not a ``hand
out'', but this program has enabled Camden County to provide our
customers with the water infrastructure they deserve, at rates they can
afford. And, Camden County's success in this regard can be replicated
in every city and every town, urban or rural, across the country.
3) Affordability programs--The balancing act that clean water
utilities must undertake to upgrade infrastructure while keeping rates
affordable would be aided immeasurably if there were affordability/rate
assistance programs, similar to those available for electricity and
heat, available to lower income customers. If these programs were
available in the clean water industry as well, then clean water
utilities could have more flexibility to charge full cost rates needed
to restore and preserve infrastructure without harming our most
vulnerable customers.
4) Public-Private partnerships also offer an excellent opportunity
to reduce the infrastructure funding gap while keeping rates down. Tax
incentives that encourage private sector investment in clean water
infrastructure would be extremely helpful. For example, thanks to tax
incentives extant at the time, Camden County entered into a power
purchase agreement with a solar panel provider which reduced
electricity costs for our ratepayers by over $300,000 per year, while
reducing our vulnerability to power outages with reliable green energy.
5) Public-Public partnerships--Improved performance from clean
water utilities across the sector can be accelerated by developing peer
to peer programs and information sharing mechanisms that ensure
optimally systematic and efficient dissemination of best utility
practices, already developed by the leaders in the industry, as widely
and rapidly as possible across the clean water sector. In this way, the
learning curve for best practices can be traversed more quickly,
thereby improving environmental performance while reducing operational
costs as well. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
is currently working with the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) to develop a
national peer to peer and information exchange program. I believe that
this will make a significant difference for the entire sector,
especially urban and rural municipalities and utilities with limited
resources to improve best practices on their own.
conclusions and recommendations
In summary, I offer the following conclusions and recommendations:
1. There is a very significant water infrastructure gap that
exists at present, even under present climate conditions, that must be
dealt with while keeping rates affordable for water customers. Every
American citizen, rural and urban, regardless of their zip code,
deserve safe drinking water and clean rivers and streams at affordable
rates.
2. This gap, if not dealt with now, will only widen and worsen as
our nation's water infrastructure continues to age and climate
conditions become even less predictable.
3. The State Revolving Fund (SRF) program is a proven and
successful resource for clean water utilities to replace and upgrade
their infrastructure while keeping rates affordable. The Camden County
Municipal Utilities Authority used the SRF extensively to replace all
of the main process units for its wastewater treatment plant, and
upgrade its sewer system, while only raising rates 4 percent, total in
a period of 23 years. The SRF was an essential component of that
environmental and economic success for our ratepayers. We strongly
recommend the re-authorization of the SRF, at the highest levels
possible, so that other municipalities across the country can realize
the same economic benefits that Camden County has been fortunate to
realize. We applaud the bipartisan legislation introduced by Chairman
Napolitano and members of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
to do just that for the CWSRF.
Other vital Federal programs that provide important support for
the States in implementing specific clean water objectives similarly
deserve ongoing support. For example, the Section 319 program that
provides funding to the States to help localities address nonpoint
pollution control can help advance green infrastructure, which I am
proud to say Camden County has made huge strides in advancing.
4. In addition to the SRF, clean water utilities must also work to
optimize their own efficiency and also look for opportunities for
public-private partnerships and public-public, peer to peer,
partnerships in order to further improve environmental performance and
cost efficiency.
5. Affordability programs for lower income families will enable
utilities to charge full cost rates that will allow for the
infrastructure replacement that is needed without disproportionately
burdening the most economically vulnerable members of our communities.
6. Finally, there is an opportunity for a ``win-win'' in dealing
with the infrastructure gap as construction of new water infrastructure
will also create jobs at a time when they are badly needed in our
economy. Just as President Roosevelt did with the Civilian Conservation
Corps, and President Eisenhower did with the construction of the
Interstate Highway system, there is an opportunity to address our water
infrastructure problems and create jobs at the same time.
Thanks, once again, to the distinguished members of the House Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee for holding this hearing and for
your focus on the importance of the State Revolving Fund program to
clean water utilities and the communities that we serve. There is a
tremendous opportunity to better protect the public health and the
environment, and create jobs for our economy, without causing economic
harm to our most vulnerable communities. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to address this very important issue with you. I look
forward to your questions.
about the camden county (nj) municipal utilities authority
The Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority (CCMUA) operates an
80 million gallon per day wastewater treatment plant, and a 125-mile
regional sewer system, that provides sewage treatment and conveyance
service to the 500,000 residents of Camden County, NJ. Camden County
consists of the county seat of Camden City, one of the most
economically distressed cities in the Nation, and 36 suburban
municipalities of varying economic wherewithal. The CCMUA discharges to
the Delaware River and is, after Philadelphia and Wilmington, the third
largest point source discharger to the Delaware. In addition, the
CCMUA's treatment plant is only about one hundred yards from a
residential community of about 1800 people. Therefore, the CCMUA faces
four main challenges:
optimizing environmental performance to optimize the
water quality of the Delaware River
minimizing odor impact on the adjoining neighborhood
restoring and preserving our infrastructure, and reducing
our vulnerability to severe storms
accomplishing all of these goals while minimizing costs
to our ratepayers, particularly those living in the economically
distressed city of Camden.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Heaps.
Ms. Heaps. Good morning, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking
Member Westerman, and members of the subcommittee.
I am Jill Witkowski Heaps, visiting scholar at the
University at Buffalo School of Law and assistant professor at
Vermont Law School. I also serve as Vice Chair of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council, a Federal advisory
committee to EPA on environmental justice.
I chaired the work group which wrote the report, ``EPA's
Role in Addressing the Urgent Water Infrastructure Needs of
Environmental Justice Communities.''
That report is being delivered to Administrator Wheeler
this week. I am happy to submit to you a copy of the report
when it is available.
I am here today speaking in my individual capacity.
The city of Buffalo has invested more than $150 million in
its water infrastructure over the past 10 years, but Buffalo
needs to raise water revenues to pay for more improvements,
including a $500 million program to address the city's lead
poisoning problem by replacing 41,000 lead-containing resident
service lines.
Many Buffalo residents already have problems paying their
water bills. More than 30 percent of the households are at or
below the Federal poverty level. Approximately 200 households a
month have their water shut off.
On January 1st, 2019, Buffalo adopted an affordability
program along with its water rates increase, but the city will
see more shutoffs despite the new program. Why?
First, the program only sought to cover the cost of the
rate increase, even though the city already had water
affordability issues.
Second, even though 40,000 households will be eligible for
the program, Buffalo estimates 10 percent participation in the
program. That means 36,000 households living paycheck to
paycheck will see a 17-percent increase in their bills.
Third, the city increased the capacity charge, not the cost
of water itself. So families cannot avoid increased bills by
conserving water.
This example demonstrates at least two things:
One, decades of infrastructure underfunding have left
systems crumbling. Families are now struggling to pay larger
and larger water bills as utilities are raising rates to pay
for delayed investments.
This problem is not unique to Buffalo. According to a
Michigan State University study, in 2014, approximately 13.8
million households likely struggled to pay their water bills.
The second lesson is that utilities need help designing and
implementing effective programs that will actually address
water affordability issues. We need congressional action to
solve this problem.
I have six recommendations to share with you today. First,
Congress needs to massively increase Federal Government
investment in water infrastructure. While the proposed $4
billion appropriation for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
is an improvement over past years, $6 billion would bring
investment back up to Reagan era levels.
But even that is not enough. Congress must take bold action
to fill the $600 billion funding gap for water and wastewater
infrastructure. The WATER Act of 2019, which creates a $35
billion trust fund to invest in water infrastructure
improvements, is a good start.
Second, Federal water infrastructure funding should provide
more grants to the neediest communities. The neediest
communities often struggle to qualify for loans or even apply
for grants, particularly where utilities are run by volunteers.
States should be proactively identifying and reaching out
to these communities who may not be aware of grant
opportunities.
Third, Congress should recognize that water is a human
right. Everyone should have access to clean, safe drinking
water and sanitation. Congress can recognize this in a stand-
alone law modeled after California's right to water law or in
water affordability legislation.
Fourth, Congress should create a Federal block grant
program to directly assist households in paying water and sewer
bills. This can be modeled after the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, LIHEAP.
Fifth, we need legislation promoting water affordability.
This legislation should prioritize solutions that provide low-
income customers the dignity of paying their bills without
having to enroll in an assistance program. Structuring rates in
a way to keep essential water usage affordable for everyone
promotes equity, incentivizes water conservation, eases stress
on the sewage system, and addresses concerns where State law,
like California, provides hurdles to affordability programs.
The Honolulu program is a good example of an essential
needs rate structure.
Any legislation helping utilities adopt a customer
assistance program needs to ensure programs are thoughtfully
designed and well implemented based on a community's particular
challenges. As Ms. Flowers said, we need to listen to the
communities, and they need to have input in these programs as
they are being developed.
Philadelphia's Tiered Assistance Program is an excellent
model of where bills for low-income residents are capped based
on income. Programs should automatically enroll customers using
existing eligibility requirements from other sectors, like food
stamps and SNAP.
Finally, all communities deserve clean water now. The fact
that families in a community are struggling with household
water affordability should not be an excuse for regulated
entities pushing Clean Water Act compliance back for decades.
Congress should fund programs like WIFIA that can provide
significant financial assistance to help bring water and sewer
systems into compliance as quickly as possible.
Communities can then work to pay back those funds over
time, spreading the cost of upgrades over decades while getting
clean water now.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I would
be delighted to serve as a resource as this committee continues
to craft solutions to address these daunting issues.
Thank you.
[Ms. Heaps' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jill Witkowski Heaps, Visiting Scholar,
University at Buffalo School of Law, and Assistant Professor, Vermont
Law School
Good morning, Chairperson Napolitano, Ranking Member Westerman, and
members of the Subcommittee. I am Jill Witkowski Heaps, visiting
scholar at the University at Buffalo School of Law and Assistant
Professor at Vermont Law School. I am an expert in water law and policy
and environmental justice. I have worked on water issues in most of the
states represented by members of this committee, including California,
Arkansas, New York, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Alabama, Georgia, as well
as states in the Mississippi River watershed and the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. I also serve as vice-chair of the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council, a Federal advisory committee to EPA on
environmental justice. I chaired a workgroup which wrote the report
``EPA's Role in Addressing the Urgent Water Infrastructure Needs of
Environmental Justice Communities.'' That report is being delivered to
Administrator Wheeler this week. I am here today speaking in my
individual capacity.
summary of testimony
Buffalo, New York provides a key example of the water
infrastructure funding problems facing communities across the country.
Buffalo has invested more than $150 million in its infrastructure over
the past 10 years, but the utility needs to raise revenues to pay for
more infrastructure upgrades. For example, the city will be addressing
its lead poisoning problem by investing $500 million to replace 41,000
resident service lines that contain lead.
While Buffalo faces mounting water infrastructure needs, Buffalo
residents already struggle to pay their water bills. More than thirty
percent of Buffalo households are at or below the Federal poverty
level. Approximately 200 households a month have their water shut off.
Along with its January 1, 2019 water rate increase, the city
adopted an affordability program. But the city will see more shutoffs
despite the new program for three main reasons. First, the program only
sought to cover the cost of the increase, even though the city already
had affordability issues. Second, even though 40,000 households would
be eligible for the program, Buffalo estimates 10 percent participation
in the program. That means 36,000 households living paycheck to
paycheck will be seeing a 17 percent increase in their bills. Third,
the city increased the capacity charge, not the cost of water itself.
Families cannot avoid increased water bills by conserving water.
The Buffalo case study demonstrates how underfunding causes water
affordability issues and how utilities are struggling to address it.
Decades of underfunding has left water systems crumbling. Families are
now struggling to pay larger and larger water bills as utilities are
raising rates to pay for delayed investments. A Michigan State
University study found 13.8 million households likely struggled to pay
their water bills in 2014. Further, utilities need help designing and
implementing effective programs that will actually address
affordability issues.
I recommend that Congress take the following actions to address the
problem:
1. Congress should massively increase federal government
investment in water infrastructure. The Clean Water State Revolving
Fund should be funded at $6 billion a year to bring investment back up
to Reagan-era levels. But even that is not enough. Congress must take
bold action to fill the $600 billion funding gap for water and
wastewater infrastructure. The WATER Act of 2019, which creates a $35
billion trust fund to invest in water infrastructure improvements, is a
good start.
2. Federal water infrastructure funding should provide more grants
to the neediest communities. The neediest communities often have the
least capacity to qualify for loans or even apply for grants,
particularly where utilities are run by volunteers. Congress should
remove the statutory limitation of subsidies in the Clean Water SRF.
States should be proactively identifying and reaching out to these
communities, who may not be aware of grant opportunities.
3. Congress needs to recognize that Clean Water is a human right.
Everyone should have access to clean, safe drinking water and
sanitation.
4. Congress should create a Federal block grant program to
directly assist households in paying water and sewer bills. This can be
modeled on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
5 Congress should pass legislation promoting water affordability.
Legislation should prioritize solutions that provide low income
customers the dignity of paying their bills without having to enroll in
an assistance program. Rates can be structured in a way that keeps
essential water usage affordable for everyone. These rate structures
promote equity, incentivize water conservation, ease stress on the
sewage system, and address concerns where State law provides hurdles to
affordability programs. The Honolulu program provides a good example of
a rate structure making essential needs affordable to all.
Any legislation helping utilities to adopt a customer assistance
program needs to ensure programs are thoughtfully designed and
implemented, based on a community's particular challenges.
Philadelphia's Tiered Assistance Program is an excellent model of a
program offering water payments that are capped based on income.
Programs should automatically enroll customers using existing
eligibility requirements from other sectors. Utilities should combine
customer assistance programs with strategies such as bill timing,
budget billing, pre-termination protections, conservation incentives
and debt management plans that assist struggling households.
the water infrastructure affordability problem
Ensuring that all Americans have affordable, reliable, and
sustainable access to safe drinking water and appropriate wastewater
treatment and disposal is a defining problem of the 21st century. Water
infrastructure demands, costs, and complexity mean many Americans do
not have access to clean, affordable water, and sanitation. American
public water systems and communities of all sizes are grappling with
the need for water infrastructure maintenance or improvements to ensure
clean, safe, accessible, and affordable drinking water and treatment of
wastewater. Rising rates are making basic water and wastewater service
unaffordable for low income consumers across the country. People are
faced with choosing between paying their rent or paying their water and
sewerage bills. Aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, changes in
regulations, and limitations on water resources increase the complexity
and cost of ensuring access to the basic public health needs of safe
drinking water and adequate wastewater treatment. The problem will only
get worse in the future, as increasingly frequent and severe drought
and flooding from climate change impact our most vulnerable
communities.
The U.S. EPA conservatively estimates the country must invest
$472.6 billion for drinking water \1\ and $271 billion for sewage
systems and stormwater \2\ over the next 20 years to meet and maintain
existing health and environmental standards. EPA recognizes that this
$744 billion projection likely underestimates the actual needs, given
that systems underreport their needs. Further, the sewage system
estimate represents investments needed between 2012 and 2017, even
though the Clean Water Act directs EPA to submit updated needs
estimates every other year.\3\ The Value of Water campaign estimates
that the US needs to invest an additional $82 billion per year in water
infrastructure at all levels of government over the next 10 years to
meet projected capital needs.\4\ Likewise, the American Water Works
Association estimates that restoring existing water systems as they
reach the end of their useful lives and expanding them to serve a
growing population will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 25
years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA, 2018 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/
documents/sixth_drinking_water_
infrastructure_needs_survey_and_assessment.pdf.
\2\ EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey--2012 Report and Data,
https://www.epa.gov/cwns/
cleanwatersheds-needs-survey-cwns-2012-report-and-data.
\3\ The Clean Water Act directs that EPA shall ``make . . . a
detailed estimate, biennially revised, of the cost of construction of
all needed publicly owned treatment works in all of the States and of
the cost of construction of all needed publicly owned treatment works
in each of the States . . .'' 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1375(b)(1)(B). The Act
directs that the EPA Administrator ``shall submit such detailed
estimate and such comprehensive study of such cost to the Congress no
later than February 10 of each odd-numbered year.'' 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 1375(b)(1).
\4\ Value of Water Campaign, ``The Economic Impact of Investing in
Water,'' http://thevalueofwater.org/sites/default/files/
Economic%20Impact%20of%20Investing%20in%20Water
%20Infrastructure_VOW_FINAL_pages.pdf.
\5\ American Water Works Association, ``Buried No Longer:
Confronting America's Water Infrastructure Challenge'' http://
www.urbanwaterslearningnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/
AmericanWaterWorksBuriedNoLonger2017.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small, unincorporated communities, orphaned systems, and those
serving vulnerable, impoverished populations require urgent attention.
These communities lack adequate resources to repair and replace
infrastructure, or to build new systems.\6\ Some rural communities,
like Lowndes County, Alabama have never had working septic systems,
despite decades of pleas for help.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Aging infrastructure, lead pipes, nitrate runoff and funding
among challenges vexing Midwest's drinking water systems,'' Mar. 2016,
http://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/0316-
drinking-water.aspx.
\7\ See Catherine Flowers, ``Opinion: A County Where the Sewer is
Your Lawn,'' New York Times, May 22, 2018; ``The U.N. Looks at Extreme
Poverty in The U.S., From Alabama to California,'' NPR, Dec. 12, 2017,
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/12/12/570217635/the-u-n-
looks-at-extreme-poverty-in-the-u-sfrom-alabama-to-california; https://
www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/opinion/alabama-poverty-sewers.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crumbling water infrastructure means enormous expenses for many
utilities to bring their systems into compliance with the Clean Water
Act. For example, Kansas City faces a $2.5 billion price tag to come
into compliance with the Clean Water Act.\8\ Baltimore plans to invest
an additional $1.6 billion in upgrades by 2030 to comply with its Clean
Water Act consent decree.\9\ Despite investing more than $1 billion in
upgrades since 2002, Baltimore missed its original consent decree
deadline, and now has until 2033 to comply.\10\ The cost of these
upgrades have hit Baltimore residents hard. In 2013, the city raised
rates 42 percent over 3 years.\11\ Then in January of 2019, the city
again voted to raise rates another 30 percent over 3 years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA, ``Kansas City, Missouri Clean Water Act Settlement,''
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/kansas-city-missouri-clean-water-act-
settlement.
\9\ ``Baltimore officials approve $1.6 billion, 13-year sewer
plan,'' Baltimore Sun, Aug. 9, 2017 https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/
maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-sewer-consent-decree-20170808-
story.html?
\10\ Id.
\11\ ``Baltimore raises rates 42 percent over three years,''
Baltimore Sun, July 3, 2013, https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/
maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-water-bill-increase-20130703-
story.html.
\12\ ``Baltimore water rates will increase 30 percent over next
three years,'' Baltimore Sun, Jan. 9, 2019, https://
www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-water-rate-
hike-20190109-story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even utilities without major upgrades are needing to increase
revenues to meet capital investment and operations and maintenance
expenses, meaning families are struggling to pay their water bills. A
Michigan State University study found 13.8 million households likely
struggled to pay their water bills in 2014.\13\ That study also found
that if water rates rise at projected amounts over the next five years,
the percentage of U.S. households who will find water bills
unaffordable could triple from 11.9 percent to 35.6 percent.\14\
Detroit, Michigan has shut off water to more than 100,000 households
since 2014.\15\ In Philadelphia, in 2016, an estimated 227,000
customers, or 4 out of 10 water accounts, were past due.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Mack, Elizabeth, Wrase Sarah (2017) ``A Burgeoning Crisis? A
Nationwide Assessment of the Geography of Water Affordability in the
United States.'' PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169488.
\14\ Id.
\15\ ``Detroit shut off water to 1 in 10 homes this year. Yes,
that's progress,'' Bridge Detroit Journalism Cooperative, Dec. 5, 2017,
https://www.bridgemi.com/detroit-journalism-cooperative/detroit-shut-
water-1-10-homes-year-yes-thats-progress.
\16\ ``7 years, no water at home for Senior,'' NBC Philadelphia,
April 8, 2016, https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/7-Years-No-
Water-375060031.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the face of mounting infrastructure costs, the Federal
Government has been investing less and less in water infrastructure. In
2016, the Federal Government invested approximately $4 billion in water
and sewer infrastructure, down from approximately $16.8 billion in the
mid 1970's.\17\ State and local government invested approximately $109
billion in water infrastructure in 2016. We need congressional action
to address this estimated $600 billion water investment shortfall.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In 2014 dollars.
\18\ ``New water infrastructure finance center seeks to restore
$600 billion infrastructure gap.'' http://sustainablewater.com/new-
water-finance-center-seeks-to-restore-600-billion-infrastructure-gap/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal spending on water and wastewater utility
infrastructure has decreased while State and local
spending on water infrastructure has quadrupled.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Congressional Budget Office (October 2018)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
the solutions
Solution #1: Congress must massively increase federal investment in
water infrastructure.
Appropriate $6 billion per year for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water
Revolving Fund are the main vehicles to get Federal moneys to water and
wastewater utilities. Congress established these revolving funds to
provide States sustainable, long-term financial assistance to support
communities' water infrastructure needs. While the proposed $4 billion
appropriation for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is an
improvement over past years, $6 billion would bring investment back up
to Reagan-era levels.\19\ This increased investment would be a good
start to the Federal Government funding a larger portion of water
investments and closing the funding gap.\20\ The Clean Water SRF should
target a growing list of priorities that are currently underrepresented
in the States' portfolios of assistance, including: \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Natural Resources Defense Council, ``Go Back to the Well:
States and Federal Government are neglecting a key funding source for
water infrastructure,'' May 2018, https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/
files/State-revolving-fund-water-infrastructure-ip.pdf.
\20\ See, Clean Water for All, ``Water, Health, and Equity, Sept,
2017, http://protectcleanwater.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/CWFA-
Infrastructure-Health-Equity-White-Paper-Oct-2018.pdf.
\21\ See NRDC, ``Go Back to the Well.'', supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water infrastructure that is designed to address the
increased risk of droughts, floods, sea level rise, and extreme weather
events;
Green infrastructure and stormwater management;
Source water protection to help prevent pollution and
runoff from contaminating rivers, lakes, and reservoirs; and
Water efficiency, water reuse, and water recycling.
More of the Clean Water SRF must be awarded as grants to
the neediest communities.
The communities that need the money most often have the least
capacity to apply for grants and loans, particularly where utilities
are run by volunteers. A large portion of Federal investment should
support grants for the neediest communities. To support this goal,
Congress should remove the statutory cap on subsidization, which is
currently set at 30 percent of EPA's annual capitalization grant.
States should be proactively identifying and reaching out to these
communities, who may not be aware of grant opportunities.
Increase appropriations to address nonpoint source
pollution.
Appropriations for Section 319 nonpoint source grants is critical
to making progress toward our clean water goals. Stormwater and
agricultural runoff pollution are the two biggest sources of water
pollution across the country and deserve special attention. Section 319
funding should focus on supporting green infrastructure, especially in
low income communities.
Continue funding for WIFIA until it can be replaced with
another major water infrastructure funding vehicle.
The Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
increased investment in water infrastructure by providing long-term,
low-cost supplemental loans for regionally and nationally significant
projects. For example, Baltimore recently received a $202 million loan
under WIFIA to support its clean water upgrades.\22\ San Diego received
a $614 million WIFIA grant to support its cutting-edge potable reuse
project, which addresses both sewage and water supply issues for the
city.\23\ WIFIA funding is limited to projects that are invited to
apply for funding. For 2018, EPA invited 39 projects to apply for loans
totaling up to $5 billion. This invitation-only process excludes many
needy communities and projects across the Nation. It has led to at
least one project that should not be prioritized over funding needy
communities. Clean water advocates and conservationists opposed the
Carlsbad Desalination Project for years as the most energy intensive
and expensive water supply option that had a poorly designed ocean
intake that unnecessarily harms wildlife.\24\ EPA invited the project
to apply for a $32 million loan to reconfigure intake facilities and
come into compliance with California law.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``EPA provides $202 million loan to modernize Baltimore's
wastewater infrastructure,'' EPA, Feb. 25, 2019, https://www.epa.gov/
newsreleases/epa-provides-202-million-loan-modernize-baltimores-
wastewater-infrastructure.
\23\ ``EPA awards $614 million to bolster San Diego's innovative
Pure Water project,'' the city of San Diego, Nov. 27, 2018, https://
www.sandiego.gov/mayor/news/releases/epa-awards-614-million-loan-
bolster-san-diego%E2%80%99s-innovative-pure-water-project.
\24\ See https://www.sdcoastkeeper.org/drinkable/san-diegos-water-
supply/desalination/desalination.
\25\ EPA, ``2018 WIFIA selected projects,'' https://www.epa.gov/
wifia/wifia-selected-projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create a trust fund for water infrastructure investments.
Increasing funding for the Clean Water SRF, the Drinking Water SRF,
and WIFIA is not enough. With more than 27 million Americans being
served by water systems violating health-based standards established in
the Safe Drinking Water Act,\26\ Congress must take bold action to meet
our nation's urgent infrastructure needs to protect public health. The
Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability (WATER) Act
of 2019,\27\ which creates a $35 billion trust fund to invest in water
infrastructure improvements, is a good start. The WATER Act also
directs the EPA Administrator, in conjunction with the Civil Rights
Division of the United States Department of Justice, to study
``discriminatory practices of water and sewer service providers'' and
``violations by such service providers that receive Federal assistance
of civil rights under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with
regard to equal access to water and sewer services.'' Given EPA's poor
track record related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,\28\ Congress
should appoint an independent bipartisan commission of experts to
investigate Title VI violations related to water and sewer service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Natural Resources Defense Council, ``Threats on Tap:
Widespread Violations Highlight Need for Investment in Water
Infrastructure and Protections'' (2017), https://www.nrdc.org/
resources/threats-tap-widespread-violations-waterinfrastructure.
\27\ H.R. 1417 (Lawrence) and S. 611 (Sanders).
\28\ See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, ``Environmental Justice:
Examining the Environmental Protection Agency's Compliance and
Enforcement of Title VI and Executive Order 12898,'' Sept. 2016,
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2016/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2016.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solution #2: Congress should recognize Clean Water is a human right.
Everyone should have access to clean, safe drinking water and
sanitation. Every person needs safe water to drink, bathe, cook, and
clean and every community needs a working wastewater system to prevent
the spread of disease, bacteria and parasites. When poor communities
are denied access to clean, safe, affordable water and sanitation
(specifically low-income communities and communities of color), they
are put at a high risk for waterborne diseases and pathogens (such as
cholera, typhoid, legionella, and polio).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See World Health Organization, Drinking Water, http://
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs391/en/; Center for Water Policy,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, ``Water Main Breaks Expose Public to
Waterborne Disease Risk,'' http://home.freshwater.uwm.edu/mclellanlab/
files/2013/06/6-21Water-main-breaks-expose-public-to-waterborne-
disease-risk.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Health Organization firmly states, ``Water safety and
quality are fundamental to human development and well-being. Providing
access to safe water is one of the most effective instruments in
promoting health and reducing poverty.'' \30\ In fact, in 2010, the
United Nations General Assembly passed Assembly Resolution 64/292,
formally recognizing the position that clean water and sanitation is a
human right.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ World Health Organization, Water Sanitation Hygiene, http://
www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/water-quality/en/.
\31\ See http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/
human_right_to_water.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should adopt laws that recognize the human right to water.
Congress could follow in California's lead and adopt a human right to
water law, modeled after AB 685, or recognize the human right to water
in affordability legislation. California's Right to Water law
prioritizes domestic drinking water for human consumption over
commercial water use and directs State agencies to consider the human
right to water when implementing policies.
Solution #3: Congress should create a Federal block grant program to
provide direct assistance to households to pay water and sewer
bills.
A Federal water and sewer bill block grant assistance could be
modeled on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
LIHEAP provides block grants to States, tribes, and territories to help
low income households in meeting home energy needs. The Water
Affordability Act of 2018, introduced by Senator Harris, would have
created the Low Income Sewer and Water Assistance Program (LISWAP), to
award grants for public water utility companies to assist low-income
households with bill repayment. Eligibility for grant assistance would
consider environmental risk factors and inequitable environmental
burdens.
Solution #4: Congress should adopt water affordability legislation.
To directly address household water affordability issues, Congress
should adopt water affordability legislation. This legislation should
do the following:
Facilitate utilities adopting affordable rate structures.
One of the best options to address household affordability is to
structure rates in a way that keeps minimal water usage affordable for
everyone. This could include eliminating or drastically reducing the
base cost to simply have water access at home, coupled with very low
cost for very low water usage. This provides low income customers the
dignity of paying their bills without having to enroll in an assistance
program. To ensure that utilities can meet revenue requirements,
utilities would create several tiers of costs for additional water
usage, ramping up costs as water usage increases. This would spread
fixed costs across user groups more equitably because larger volume
users place a greater burden on the system. This approach also
incentivizes water conservation, which eases the stress on the sewage
system. Additionally, this approach addresses concerns around customer
assistance plans where State law, like California's Proposition 218,
provides hurdles to these programs.
Honolulu's program provides an excellent example of very low-cost
water for very low water usage.\32\ The Board of Water Supply
established an Essential Needs Tier that all residentials customers
will be given for the first 2,000 gallons of water used, to promote
affordability. Ten percent of all Honolulu residential customers use
less than 2,000 gallons per month, and this Essential Needs rate
structure will assist those with low incomes or on fixed income. This
water rate structure is consistent with Hawai'i's State water code,
which recognizes that the waters of Hawai'i are held for the benefit of
the citizens of the State and the people have a right to have the
waters protected for their use.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Board of Water Supply rate schedule for Schedule for July
1, 2019--June 30, 2023, https://www.boardofwatersupply.com/bws/media/
files/water-rate-schedule-2018-2023-2018-09-15.pdf.
\33\ State of Hawaii State Water Code, Chapter 174C, Part 1 Section
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support adoption of effective customer assistance
programs.
An EPA study found that approximately 25 percent of utilities have
customer assistance programs, which use bill discounts, special rate
structures, and other means as an approach to help financially
constrained customers maintain access to drinking water and wastewater
services.\34\ Customer assistance programs can be effective in
addressing water affordability issues, but only if they are well-
designed and implemented, based on a community's particular challenges.
The Buffalo example demonstrates that a well-intentioned program, if
not well-designed and implemented, will be ineffective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ EPA, ``Drinking Water and Wastewater Utility Customer
Assistance Programs,'' at 2, April 2016, https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2016-04/documents/dw-ww_utilities_
cap_combined_508-front2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tailor every customer assistance program to community
needs.
To design an effective customer assistance program, a utility must
first determine why people are struggling to pay their bills. Are there
high poverty levels and people are struggling to make ends meet? Are
quarterly bills too large and too difficult to budget for in households
living paycheck to paycheck? Are people struggling during the heat of
summer or the dead of winter when energy bills are the highest? Are
people wracking up tremendously high bills due to undetected leaks? Are
landlords or fellow tenants in a duplex delinquent in paying the bill?
Are customers being charge for water usage at an apartment after they
have moved out? Are people struggling with personal trauma such as
illness, job loss, divorce, or caring for ailing family?
A utility or its consultants will not be able to design and
implement an effective customer assistance program without conducting
significant outreach to learn why customers are struggling to pay their
bills. Only once a utility understands the community it serves can it
design a program to address customers' struggles. Ideally, a utility
should convene both a stakeholder group to guide program design, as
well as conduct individual or community-level meetings--at places where
customers are already gathering--to understand customer concerns, hear
customer complaints, and accept customer ideas about solutions.
Customer assistance programs should automatically
enroll customers.
Programs should automatically enroll customers using existing
eligibility requirements from other sectors. There are many well-
established Federal and State programs to ensure that low-income
households have affordable access to utility services for electricity,
natural gas, and telecommunications, including the Federal Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Low Income Energy
Efficiency Program (LIEE).\35\ A number of water suppliers use the same
program-enrollment eligibility as a public assistance program such as
Medicaid; Women, Infants, and Children Program; Supplemental Security
Income; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); or Tribal
TANF.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Pacific Institute, ``Water Rates: water affordability,'' Jan.
2013, https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/water-rates-
affordability.pdf. California programs include California Alternate
Rates for Energy (CARE); the Family Electric Rate Assistance Program
(FERA) and the California LifeLine Program.
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where auto-enrollment is not possible, utilities
should hire communications professionals to conduct community outreach
about the program and assist customers with enrollment.
Once a utility invests in creating a customer assistance program,
it must invest in a creating and implementing a community outreach plan
to inform customers of the program and assist with enrollment. Time and
again, utilities rely on the engineers that assist with operations
upgrades to design community outreach programs or conduct outreach.
Congress should ensure that any pilot programs that support community
assistance programs require utilities to work with professionals
qualified in community outreach, stakeholder participation,
communications, and environmental justice. The award-winning Pure Water
San Diego project is an exemplar of effective stakeholder process and
community outreach.\37\ The stakeholder processes provided multiple
meaningful opportunities for input. The city put such an outstanding
effort in reaching communities where they are that the project now has
widespread community support. This widespread support is remarkable
because an identical project more than a decade earlier was tabled due
to community opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Pure Water San Diego has won more than two dozen awards, many
related to its public outreach. See https://www.sandiego.gov/public-
utilities/sustainability/pure-water-sd/awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prioritize programs that offer income-based payments.
Often the most effective affordability programs provide income-
based payments that remain the same regardless of water use.
Philadelphia's Tiered Assistance Program is an excellent model.\38\ The
average bill for residents accepted into the is $19.84 per month,
compared to the system-wide average of $70.87.\39\ Twenty percent of
program enrollees only pay $12, the program minimum.\40\ The Tiered
Assistance Program is divided into three tiers: households earning up
to 50 percent of the Federal poverty level pay 2 percent of monthly
income; those between 51 percent and 100 percent of the Federal poverty
level pay 2.5 percent; and those between 101 percent and 150 percent
pay 3 percent of monthly income. Households with higher incomes that
experience a special hardship may still apply for the program. For
those accepted in the program, bills do not change according to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See https://www.phila.gov/services/water-gas-utilities/pay-or-
dispute-a-water-bill/water-bill-customer-assistance.
\39\ ``Philadelphia water rate experiment aims to help struggling
residents pay bills,'' Circle of Blue, Nov. 1, 2017, https://
www.circleofblue.org/2017/world/philadelphia-water-rate-experiment-
aims-help-struggling-residents-pay-bills/
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilities should combine customer assistance plans
with other services that alleviate hardships for low-income customers.
While providing lower water and sewer bills for low-income
customers is the most direct way to address water affordability, there
are a variety of services that can be provided to reduce financial
hardships for low-income customers.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Pacific Institute, ``Water Rates: water affordability,''
Table 4. Jan. 2013, https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/
water-rates-affordability.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These programs include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
..........................................................
Bill timing---Change the timing of bills to more closely coincide with-
the income stream of the household. For example, time
bills to coincide with customer's receipt of Social
Security or pension income
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Allow methods of bill payment to avoid unaffordable peaks
billing (typically during summer months)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre- Provide full due process protections before terminating
termination water service--for example, required notice of customer's
protections opportunity to enter a budget billing program or deferred
payment arrangement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriate Ensure that all charges for late payments, disconnection
charges and reconnection, and deposits are imposed after clear
notification and do not exceed the true costs of the
services provided. For example, a water service provider
may choose to waive late payment fees for low-income
customers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Provide assistance to help reduce usage by curtailing
programs leaks and installing conservation devices--for example,
target low-income houses for audit, retrofit, and rebate
programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt Establish incentive programs that reward customers for
management timely payments with partial forgiveness of old debt and
plans provide installment plans to re-pay old debt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pacific Institute, ``Water Rates: Water Affordability'' Jan.
2013
Solution #6 Congress should help low-income and vulnerable communities
access cutting-edge technology.
Congress should provide grants to communities with high income
inequality and large numbers of low-income households to use innovative
technology to address water, sewer, and affordability issues. For
example, potable reuse projects can be used to address water supply and
sewage issues, while also treating drinking water with reverse osmosis
and UV light, which eliminate most contaminants of emerging concern
from drinking water. Grey water systems can drastically reduce
household water usage, and rain barrels can reduce water usage for
outdoor uses. Low flow and dual-flush toilet systems can reduce water
bills and reduce burdens on the sewer system. Composting toilet systems
can provide sanitary sewage solutions where households are not
connected to a sewer system. Even water tracking systems, like
Dropcountr,\42\ can help customers track water usage in real-time,
which can assist with water conservation. Technology and innovation
should not be limited to our wealthiest communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ ``An app that tracks water use in real time so Californians
can save in the drought,'' Fast Company, Aug. 5, 2014, https://
www.fastcompany.com/3033873/an-app-that-tracks-water-use-in-real-time-
so-californians-can-save-in-the-drought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solution #7 Ensure the poorest communities have access to clean water
now.
Community affordability--the ability of a community to pay for
upgrades to comply with the Clean Water Act--is a legitimate concern
for regulated entities. But everyone deserves clean water now, and the
fact that a community has families struggling to pay their water bills
does not justifying pushing Clean Water Act compliance out for decades.
Instead, we need to find ways to get these communities the funds to
upgrade their systems immediately and figure out a long-term solution
to plan for scheduled capital improvements and operations and
maintenance to avoid massive upgrade costs in the future.
For example, Baltimore delayed maintenance of their aging sewer
system for nearly 100 years after they built their system in 1909. EPA
and Maryland brought suit to enforce compliance with the Clean Water
Act, and settled in 2002 with the city of Baltimore to ``end the years
of chronic discharges of millions of gallons of raw sewage into city
streets and local waterways.'' \43\ The settlement decree gave
Baltimore 14 years to completely overhaul the sewage system, but
between 2010 and 2012, over 7,000,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled
into Baltimore's streams and harbor.\44\ In 2015, the Baltimore
Department of Public Works received 5,000 reports of sewage basement
floods.\45\ Because Baltimore has not been able to meet its initial
compliance deadline, Baltimore now has until 2033 to comply with the
consent decree. That means local residents have to wait a total of 31
years from settlement to compliance. This schedule is unacceptable. The
Federal Government should have immediately provided additional
financial support to Baltimore to meet upgrade needs to help the city
comply within the original timeframe. In the future, the Federal
Government should immediately use funding from programs like WIFIA or a
clean water trust fund to help these communities meet clean water
standards as quickly as possible. To meet this goal, Congress must
significantly increase Federal water infrastructure funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ EPA, ``City of Baltimore, Maryland, Sewer Overflows
Settlement,'' https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/city-baltimore-maryland-
sewer-overflows-settlement.
\44\ Blue Water Baltimore Consent Decree Fact Sheet, https://
www.bluewaterbaltimore.org/wp-content/uploads/BWB-Baltimore-City-
Consent-Decree-Fact-Sheet-7-31-13_link.pdf.
\45\ ``Raw sewage has been leaking into Baltimore's harbor for 5
days, city says,'' Baltimore Sun, Aug. 23, 2016, http://
www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-sewage-
updates-20160823-story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
continuing to assist the Subcommittee as it continues to address these
challenging and critical issues.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Heaps.
And now I will defer to the chairman of the full committee,
Mr. DeFazio, for any comments he may have.
Mr. DeFazio, you are recognized.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was over speaking to the airports about their needs and
unfortunately could not be here at the beginning of the
hearing.
I did want to provide this small recognition of your
chairpersonship, chairwomanship [passing a box to Mrs.
Napolitano].
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio. However one properly says that. Chair, just
chair.
And you know I feel very strongly about the Federal
Government's role in this. I was a county commissioner when my
two largest cities, Eugene and Springfield, and I live in
Springfield, for years could not agree on even putting their
waste together. But when I got on the county, we finally formed
a Metropolitan Wastewater District, and we built out a system
that has served us well, and the population has just about
doubled in the time period since I was a commissioner.
And we are still not at capacity, but we are able to do
that because we got a massive infusion of funds from the
Federal Government. We got an 80/20 share. We put up 20; they
put up 80.
And then in the rates, we put in rates basically an
additional charge, but the rates were very affordable, to build
a capital fund to replace the system when it wears out. So, I
mean, it was a great investment by the Federal Government, and
other communities certainly need that partnership.
I think we have had some great examples. I really like
the--I just unfortunately only came in to hear New Jersey and
did not hear the others--but the idea of building your new
system to be resilient, self-sufficient in terms of energy. You
know, those are really great points, and the fact that you were
able to do it without a rate increase is fairly astounding.
What is the interest rate on the SRF? Do you know?
Mr. Kricun. It is less than 1 percent, and that makes the
difference between go and no go.
Mr. DeFazio. Wow.
Mr. Kricun. Because the interest rate is so low and spread
it over 30 years. So we can do that without raising rates.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Kricun. The conventional rate would be like 4\1/2\ to 5
percent. We would have to raise rates significantly in order to
do the same thing.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. When we had a select committee on
privatization a few years ago appointed by Chairman Shuster, at
the beginning there was a lot of enthusiasm among some Members
on the idea that these should be private-public partnerships.
By the end, most Members agreed that it just was not going
to work because of the cost and the expected rates of return
that many of the P3s want. There is no one who is going to lend
you money at less than 1 percent in the private sector. I mean,
they are looking at very high rates of return.
So I want to thank the chairwoman for convening the
hearing. I want to look into some of the other issues that were
raised about the examples of the ``right to water'' and those
things.
Hopefully, we can not only reauthorize the SRF, but look at
other ways that we can help communities that are very low
income or disadvantaged in other ways to get what I think I
would agree with the panel should be a right, a right not to
pollute with wastewater and a right to have clean, potable, and
safe drinking water.
So with that, Madam Chair, I thank you for holding this
hearing.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio, and I agree with
you.
Mr. DeFazio. Are you going to show your gift?
Mrs. Napolitano. A gavel with my name on it. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. DeFazio. Much appreciated.
We start the questions off, and I will have 5 minutes to do
it just like everybody else.
The first question for Ms. Flowers, and I was shocked to
read your testimony and learn that over 30 percent of the
samples from Lowndes County tested positive for hookworm, a
disease no longer thought alive in this country.
What does it say about the Federal Government's commitment
to clean water and healthy communities, that people in this
country are still suffering from hookworm?
Ms. Flowers. I think what it says about the Federal
Government is that there are some people that have been left
behind, and when we heard about Flint and what happened in
Flint, we often said that part of Flint's problem was flawed
infrastructure.
There are large parts of the United States that have no
infrastructure at all. And for me having grown up in that area,
I thought that was normal until I went to other parts of the
country and saw that it was not.
And it is even more astounding when the U.N. Special
Rapporteur on extreme poverty, who I invited to come to visit
Lowndes County, saw that and said that what he saw there was
uncommon in the First World.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, it just is unreal, to be honest with
you, and I think we have learned a lot, and we hopefully will
address it in the future, both in the FDA and the EPA and all
the other agencies that should have been looking for that.
My next question for Ms. Taylor, in your testimony you talk
about how automation has displaced workers. It seems like
Detroit experienced unemployment and declining rate base.
Because of that, residents are unable to pay their bills,
including water, and are faced with water shutoffs and
additional consequences. You note it in your testimony.
In your opinion, do shutoffs help address the issue of
affordability or do they contribute to more poverty?
You also discuss in your testimony the idea of addressing
affordability based on the customer's ability to pay. Why is
that a preferred approach to shutoffs?
Ms. Taylor. Shutoffs highlight poverty. Shutoffs mean that
whoever is in charge of making certain that citizens are safe
are asleep at the wheel. Shutoffs do not have to occur if, in
fact, there is a priority set that establishes water and access
to water and clean sanitation as a human right.
If we start with that as a priority, then what we do as
mothers and fathers, like we would do in our homes, we set
policies based on what the priorities are.
So if you have shutoffs like I have in my city, thousands
and thousands, I remember the first shutoff case. A young woman
had two jobs, and she lost them both. She had four little
girls, and they were taken out of the house and put into three
foster care homes.
The foster care people pay $465 per child. The water bill
was only $1,100. The children stayed in foster care for 18
months. That becomes an issue.
So what shutoffs do is that they highlight the problem, and
they most certainly contribute to ongoing poverty.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry. Mr. Graves was my prior chair,
and I was welcoming him back to the committee.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
The question for Ms. Heaps, you mentioned you chaired a
workgroup of National Environmental Justice Advisory Council,
which wrote a report on EPA's role in addressing urgent water
infrastructure needs of environmental justice communities.
Would you please give a copy of that report to this
committee? We have not seen that.
Ms. Heaps. Yes. It is being delivered to Administrator
Wheeler this week. As soon as I have the go from EPA, I would
be happy to deliver it to you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
You have just heard examples of what is happening in
Michigan and Alabama and how long communities or individuals
may not be able to afford clean drinking water and wastewater
services.
In your opinion, what can we do to ensure every American in
every community across the country has access to these
utilities?
Ms. Heaps. I think there are three things: a shift in how
we view water; the actual funding issue, Federal funding,
increasing Federal funding; and guaranteeing community
participation in developing solutions.
Congress can take a huge role in leading a fundamental
shift of how we as Americans view water, from viewing it as a
commodity to viewing it as a human right. Our Declaration of
Independence views life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as
an inalienable right, but there is no life without water.
We need to recognize this and find ways that everyone
living in America can have access to water for life and
sanitation for life.
Second, we need more funding, and I can think of at least
five different types of funding: the Clean Water and Drinking
Water SRFs to support infrastructure at the utility level;
programs like WIFIA, which provides supplemental funding for
significant projects. That has been a huge game changer,
especially in San Diego. They just got a $16 million WIFIA
grant for Pure Water, a San Diego project which is in direct
potable reuse, which is addressing not only San Diego's
drinking water issue but their sewage issue as well.
We need money for water affordability programs to support
utilities adopting customer assistance programs.
We need block grants that go straight to the customers.
Clean Water SRF is great, but it trickles down from the Federal
Government to the States, the utilities, and then the utilities
might get it to the customers. We need something directly to
the customers.
And then also I think we also need big funding grants for
our most critical issues, like dealing with these rural sewage
issues.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
I think I had better go on to the next Member. Questions
from Mr. Westerman?
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. Ms.
Flowers, as you talked about your life experiences, it kind of
took me a little bit back down memory lane.
I know growing up in rural Arkansas. The little country
church I went to as a kid had a single hole outhouse, which was
the sanitary facilities there. Now, it cut down on the number
of church members getting up and going to the restroom during
church. You only went there if it was an absolute emergency.
But I think sometimes we forget to appreciate how far we
have come when we are looking at where we need to be. I know my
parents, not my grandparents, but my parents talked about when
they got running water and electricity in their homes, and then
my grandparents saw much more technology advances in their
lives.
So as we look at this issue and affordability seems to be a
major problem, and we have talked about that some here, and
there are always two sides to the coin on affordability.
For one thing, I think we put regulations in place
sometimes that falsely drive up the costs that need to be
there. There is this concept of diminishing returns. You can
try to do something perfect, but at some point, the cost
greatly exceeds the benefits.
And, Mayor Condon, you mentioned in your written testimony
and talked about State water quality standards for PCBs at 7
parts per quadrillion. It was a good illustration you used
there. You cannot even measure that, but it still is a standard
that is out there.
And I know I used to serve in the Arkansas Legislature, and
one of the first occurrences I had to deal with was a situation
like that. I had constituents come in and tell me that in their
drinking water system, the dissolved mineral content in their
drinking water did not meet EPA standards, and they were going
to have to put demineralization equipment in for their drinking
water.
Now, to country folks, you are telling them this is safe to
drink, but you cannot water your grass with it, and sometimes
it does not make sense.
So I do not think that just throwing money at the problem
is always the answer. I think there are ways we can be smarter
about how we put the policies and standards in place.
Mayor Condon, I wanted to get you to elaborate a little bit
on that, and also maybe an idea of, you know, what is good for
a major city versus a rural area.
Are there certain standards that could provide sanitary
sewer systems and clean drinking water, but not have the extra
cost added onto it that you might see in a larger metropolitan
area?
Mr. Condon. Thank you for the question.
You hit the nail on the head. I talked about originally
when I came into office, the expected cost of our program was
about $500 million, and literally in my inbox were two
contracts that were waiting to be signed for, I believe, about
$38 million just to manage that.
As we came back to DC this time in 2012, that is where I
was presented with a choice. ``Mayor, ask for a consent decree
and blame it on us or we are thinking about this idea of
integrated planning.''
So we cut about $150 million out of that cost, and they go,
``Well, you are not meeting the regulation obviously. There is
no way you could.''
Well, the reality is what you just said. In integrated
planning, there are other ways of looking at how you meet the
requirement. We were going to a level, for regulatory purposes,
a level that was insurmountable. We cannot even test below 170
parts per quadrillion, and our State standard is 7.
And so as you look at this, right now, as I have been
lauded, I have received the national award from NACWA several
years ago. I have been and our plan has been quoted in both the
Obama administration and now the Trump administration from EPA
that we were leading the country. We are literally doing
integrated planning based off of a memo, which is not a great
place to be.
So thank you for the law, but now we are ready to go sign
that permit as we are in our final year of the largest
infrastructure project that my community has ever seen. Yet
they say, ``Well, you are going to have to meet seven now.''
My citizens are going to pay that bill for the next 17
years. We are one of the first in the country to sell green
bonds, some $200 million in green bonds as part of that $350
million cost.
So now we need to meet seven. Some estimates have it up to
$1 billion to meet seven. Our wastewater treatment facility is
using technology that is used for drinking water to get it to a
standard to put back into our Spokane River, which is literally
the center point of our community and has been for years.
And so I sit there and so as you look at it, it really is
the framework that allows us to look at the cost rather than
always going to try to alleviate that cost on the final end.
You really need to look at the construction side of that.
We have some other 144 other contaminants that we should be
looking towards to remove from our river rather than going back
to PCBs to try to get to this unreasonable level that no one
can actually get to or prove that you were to it.
So I have sat in many meetings with our State folks, with
the EPA, and I sat here several years ago. I meet with EPA
constantly, and they said, ``Yes, Mayor. It is hard to
justify.''
Well, I have to justify it to my citizens. That is the
reality. So as we look at this and as you look at these
programs, regulatory innovation and innovations to meet those
requirements are so key.
I will finish with this, and that is as we look at these
programs, especially in a delegated State like ours, our State
has never had a variance to meet this.
Mr. Westerman. Our graceful chair is not going to show me
mercy if we do not yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
Mr. Espaillat, you are on.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund and its sister
program, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, are of vital
importance to New York City and New York State and cities
around the country really.
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection
owns and operates one of the largest wastewater collection and
treatment systems in the world with 96 pumping stations and 14
treatment plants.
While our waterways in the New York area are cleaner now
than they have been in a century; in fact, the Hudson River
right now is a playground for sports and other activities.
There is still so much work to be done.
In Upper Manhattan, combined sewer overflow tanks release
gallons of dirty water directly into the Hudson whenever too
much rainfalls happen quickly. This happens on a regular basis.
So any time you have storms, untreated sewage water is released
into the Hudson where people are kayaking and doing water
sports.
We saw this happen all over the city during Super Storm
Sandy as well, when not only rainfall, but also storm surge
waters overwhelmed our system, damaged our infrastructure, and
dirtied our waterways.
After the storm, it was determined that part or all of our
14 treatment plants and more than half of our pumping stations
are at risk and could suffer more than $1 billion in damage in
a single storm or flood.
New York has been putting FEMA resiliency funds to work in
order to make upgrades to our clean water system, but the clean
water state we have all been for and is still so vital for
long-term upgrades.
A city of nearly 9 million people can witness a great
damage to our clean water and environment if we do not invest
in maintaining our water infrastructure. The companion impacts
of climate change make this work even more critical.
New York City has a wastewater resiliency plan that calls
for critical equipment to be protected to the 100-year base
flood elevation plus an additional 32 inches to account for sea
level rise. But New York and other cities around the country
simply cannot meet this challenge without Federal investment.
So the buck stops here. This is a deep pocket issue, and we
must be a full partner.
Federal funding through the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund will go towards raising low lying wastewater treatment
facilities and other ways to make them more resilient. But even
more important, the Clean Water SRF will help make the system
greener.
New York City would like to upgrade all of our wastewater
plants to replace their engines with ones that use cleaner
natural gas and even green energy. This will not only make our
water cleaner, it would at the same time make our air cleaner
by reducing emissions, and it helps to combat climate change by
reducing our footprint.
So this is a major, major endeavor, and we need money. And
so in an era where we see the White House speaking about budget
cuts and we are here sitting in the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee trying to wrestle with a potential
major infrastructure bill, what are you recommending about the
money, the green money, that must come to ensure that we, in
addition to some of the measures that, for example, have been
taken in Spokane; what are you recommending that we do to make
this happen before the infrastructure in America collapses?
Mr. Kricun. Well, we have been very lucky with the State
Revolving Fund on both of the issues you described. Camden City
has a combined sewer system, and we have used the State
Revolving Fund to upgrade our wastewater treatment plant, make
it bigger; to upgrade Camden City sewer system to allow it to
convey more flow to the plant; and we have also greened 100
acres for a green infrastructure program, all funded through
the SRF, to capture 100 million gallons of stormwater by
soaking it through the ground.
And then good begets good. Because we now have 100 acres of
parkland that we have to manage, we used an AmeriCorps grant to
hire 240 at-risk youth between 18 and 25 to maintain the green
infrastructure.
So green infrastructure not only has a functional benefit
of capturing stormwater, but also greens the city, has those
benefits, but also there are green job opportunities.
On the green energy side, through the SRF we will have
eliminated combined sewage flooding for up to the 1-inch storm
in Camden by the end of 2020.
And then for green energy, we are using the SRF again to
make our plan completely resilient. We will be off the grid by
the end of 2020 by using the SRF to build a district facility
and a combined heat and power system to turn our sludge, our
biosolids, into electricity.
So without the State Revolving Fund, we could not do that.
So we thank the Government and the EPA for the State Revolving
Fund and hope that you will reauthorize it and remember it is a
loan program, not a grant. So it really is a hand up, not a
handout.
We have to pay it back, but that low interest rate makes
the different.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
Mr. Webster, you are recognized.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Professor, are the rates paid for water and wastewater
treatment way low, medium, too high, or is it a mix?
Ms. Heaps. Thank you for the question.
I think the answer depends on where you are and who you
ask. I think in many communities we have what is considered
reasonable water and sewer rates, but many people struggle. And
I think one of the challenges of setting affordable rates is
that in many places, the cost of water itself is very, very
cheap, and the cost of the infrastructure, the energy to move
the water is what is very expensive.
So often rates are structured in a way that I have seen
recommendations that say make your fixed costs of your
infrastructure the base rate for all of your ratepayers, and
then the cost of water, your flexible costs go beyond that.
So often what we have is for somebody who uses very little
water, it is very expensive for them to just even get in the
game and turn on water at their home. And if we were able to
have more sliding rates that recognize very low usage of water
at very low water cost, I think we could see a more equitable
system and have the larger water users actually paying a more
equitable cost of their burden on the system.
Mr. Webster. So should the Federal Government get engaged
in any way in setting rates?
Ms. Heaps. I think there we are talking about a federalism
issue, that rate setting has been a local issue and a State
level issue, and unlike with energy where we have public
utility commissions, often water rates are Wild West, kind of
all over the place.
But I think the Federal Government can provide incentives
to good policies at a local level by tying Federal support,
Federal monetary support, to policies that support water
affordability at a local level.
Mr. Webster. So that would be like a shared expense? The
better you do, the better the Federal Government will do?
Ms. Heaps. I think we can reward systems that end up well
structured to deal with both affordability and clean water
compliance issues.
Mr. Webster. Is the diversity playing in that somewhere? I
mean, you know, I think about Florida. There is water. It is
almost like a wetland, especially in the middle of south
Florida, and so you can dig down a few feet, maybe 5 feet, and
there's water as opposed to other places.
Now, certainly it needs to be cleaned up or whatever.
However, the point is when you do septic tanks or something
like that, then there is a difference than if they were done in
some other State.
So does the topology play a role in that?
Ms. Heaps. Yes, absolutely, and as Ms. Flowers' testimony
demonstrated, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for every
community. We need to look specifically at what engineering
solutions will work and what makes sense for local communities.
Mr. Webster. So but that affects rates, too. There may be a
simple way to do it in one part of the country and a little
more complex in another part of the country. Is that true?
Ms. Heaps. I would agree with that, yes.
Mr. Webster. OK. I yield back.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell [presiding]. Thank you. I now yield to
Ms. Finkenauer for 5 minutes.
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am happy to sit on this subcommittee and be here with you
all today, and thank you so much for all that you are doing. I
know you are dedicated, as I am, to making sure that every
single American has access to clean, safe drinking water.
It is one of our number one priorities around here, and
again, thank you for being here today.
One of the things that I am really curious about because I
come from the city of Dubuque and have seen some really
innovative things around water quality and partnerships, and a
lot of technology in regards to, well, using technology to
monitor and improve water systems.
So where I am from in Dubuque, they have actually partnered
with IBM's Watson Research Center where they did a smarter
water pilot study for over a year. Some of you may or may not
have heard of it, but where they used actually smart water
meters to help reduce water usage over 6 percent, and then
increased leak detection and actually the response is
eightfold.
So I just kind of want to hear from you all today about
intelligence systems, and specifically, how can we use
technology to reduce leaks and other causes of system down
time, as well as making sure that our water systems are more
environmentally sustainable?
Is there anything that you have seen across the country,
whether local, State level? Obviously, I know the Dubuque
example, but I am wondering if you all have any examples that
States or other localities have done well and anything that we
should be looking at on the Federal level to either ramp up or
be helpful with this.
Again, use of technology we do have and making sure that
every dollar we do spend we are doing it in the best way
possible and in the most efficient way possible.
Mr. Kricun. Well, nonrevenue water is a huge problem for
every community, but especially in communities, whether it is a
city or rural, that are lower resourced. So, for example, the
norm in a well-run system there is always going to be some
leaks, maybe 10 percent. But Camden City, for example, has a
nonrevenue water of over 40 percent. So that means that for
every 100 gallons that go out of their water treatment system,
they only get paid for 60.
Now, some of that goes for firefighting, and that is
normal, but a lot of it is for leaks or unbilled revenue. So
that is a huge loss for a city that needs revenue. But it is
sort of a vicious cycle because if you lack the resources to
find the leak, then you cannot find the revenue that you need.
So I have heard of like smart water systems, too, but
usually it is a public-private partnership, which is at a much
higher rate. So one thing the Federal Government could do
because the technologies are out there would be through the
Drinking Water SRF allow rural and urban communities to borrow
and invest in that smart technology to reduce their nonrevenue
water, and then that revenue would help pay back the loan. It
would pay for itself.
So the problem is that many of these communities that need
it the most cannot afford them.
Thank you.
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate
it.
Mr. Condon. I was just going to say the technology is a key
component, as a city that is going to all smart meters and
looking at the real time use. One is real time reporting back
to the users, especially large users.
In our system we are thinking of golf courses and parks, to
give people that real solution.
The other is technology and leak detection. We used more
recently in-line technology that saved us some $7 million
because, of course, there are algorithms based on years and
gallons through certain systems because you did not know what
was under the ground. Now using certain types of technology, we
were able to alleviate $7 million that was in our capital plan.
But, again, back to the issues of partnering with
technology, one is the real time reporting to use, and we will
be a fully automated city here shortly through a smart city
initiative. But, again, that is all privately done, which is
great because they are coming to the table to demonstrate
those.
But secondly is to use that sort of technology that had
typically been on the wastewater side, but again, as we are
here about wastewater, the real issue is the clean water
solutions on the drinking water also.
Ms. Heaps. And if I could add, technology can also benefit
affordability. If you have real time reporting in residential,
customers have that, and you have rates structured so that
people can have control of their bill and actually use less
water. People can say, ``Oh, I am going to take a shorter
shower today,'' or, ``we are going to save laundry until next
week,'' or something like that.
So it really benefits all around, both from the utility and
the consumer end.
Ms. Finkenauer. Great. Thank you all so much for your
comments, and I would love to follow up on some of this as
well.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Babin for 5 minutes.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, witnesses, for being here today. I
appreciate it.
Mokszycki, right? Is that the way? Mokszycki?
Mr. Mokszycki. Mokszycki, yes.
Dr. Babin. Mokszycki. OK. I am sorry.
I represent a large district in Texas, nine counties, from
Houston over to Louisiana. The majority of my constituents live
in rural communities, and you talk about the difficulties that
rural communities face with respect to and compliance with
Federal regulations due to a lack of technical resources.
You mentioned that compliance is expensive. It is complex
and burdensome to small communities who have minimal resources
and personnel, and I can understand issues very similar to
yours in my district.
Many of my constituents are suffering at the hands of
overregulation from the Federal Government in many areas of
their lives already. In your testimony, you lay out five
provisions which aim to help target communities most in need of
Federal assistance.
Do you think that these provisions are sustainable for
solving the long-term issues that rural communities like ours
face?
Mr. Mokszycki. I think they are sustainable. I think there
just needs to be enough money in the fund so that more people
can participate in these rural communities.
The rural communities need the technical assistance that we
get from like the Rural Water Association because for us even a
small project, we had a wellhead protection project that we did
in our town. It was going to cost us $75,000. For a small rural
community, $75,000 is a lot of money.
We were fortunate that through clean water funding and
through the New York Rural Water Association, their
hydrogeologist did the program for us, saved us $75,000, and
our wellhead was protected. That allowed us to get this
wellhead protection done because what happens in a small
community is that work just does not get done if there is not
some sort of outside funding to help with it.
Dr. Babin. All right. Well, let me just follow this up. Do
you see an opportunity for the private sector to bring
solutions to some of these problems?
Mr. Mokszycki. I do not see how that would work. It is just
going to be a little bit more expensive if private entities
come into the picture because they need to get paid.
Dr. Babin. OK. And then, Ms. Flowers, these centralized
wastewater recycling technologies have been proven in many
rural infrastructure cases to be cost effective and a
sustainable solution to rural wastewater issues.
How can we better utilize and implement these new
technologies in rural or even urban communities to best
maximize taxpayer dollars?
Ms. Flowers. Well, I think that, first of all, the
technologies that have been used in our communities have not
worked, and I think the first thing we have to do is
acknowledge that we probably need to do something differently.
I was just in Florida where I saw there they are having
problems. They have to remove septic systems because of the
rising sea levels, and the water tables are rising.
I think the technologies that have been created were
created for 20 years ago. We have a new reality now. We have
more rain, and the technologies that the people that I am
dealing with are talking about every time it rains, they are
dealing with sewage coming back into their homes.
So I think one of the big problems that I have found, being
a country girl myself, is that a lot of people that are making
policies have never been to these rural areas. So it is hard to
articulate to someone who cannot even imagine what it is like
to be in a community where your cell phone does not work
because with the signal you will not get it. You know, you
cannot rely on GPS to go to some of these places.
And I have to tell people coming from the cities all the
time you had better write those directions down or you are
going to end up lost.
So the same thing is true when we deal with wastewater. I
think that there has to be a concerted effort, and maybe one of
the ways to address it is to put together a committee that can
actually go and visit these areas and see that these
technologies are simply not working.
Nobody goes to the homeowner who is on the other end when
they fail.
Dr. Babin. You bet.
Ms. Flowers. They go to the people who installed them.
And lastly, I think that the other problem that I have seen
with the funding, the people that get the funding are not
necessarily the people that need it. The business community can
always get the funding. We have an example right now in Lowndes
County where the business community on 65 just got funding to
put in wastewater treatment because they have failed septic
systems, too, but the community is left out.
Dr. Babin. Thank you very much for that, and I appreciate
that.
I want to ask Ms. Taylor something real quickly.
In your testimony, you discuss the dangers of privatizing
water infrastructure, and what do you think is a good balance
between private entities and Government funding when it comes
to water safety and infrastructure?
In addition, if you would, discuss a few policies that
would allow the private sector and the Federal Government to
work together in these areas. If you could, just for a few
seconds.
Ms. Taylor. Profound question because I think all across
America we are all trying to find a way to work with the
Federal Government. Everybody is.
Even in this discussion today, I worry that people are not
really listening. I listened to what Ms. Catherine said.
Private monies coming into public dollars generally means
something bad is going to happen. That is what it means.
This is not rocket science. It is not rocket activities.
All we have to do is to decide that water is a human right, and
if we do that, then we will establish policies and practices to
make it so.
There is something to be said about throwing money at a
problem. People that have money always say you cannot throw
money at it. It will not fix it.
Throw money at me and watch me fix things.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Ms. Taylor, thank you so much.
Dr. Babin. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. The time is up. If you would like, you
can always provide testimony in writing to add to that.
I now recognize Mr. Rouda for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, witnesses, for joining us today. I
appreciate your testimony and information that you are sharing.
My district is the 48th District of California in Orange
County, and we are served by the Orange County Water District
and the Orange County Sanitation District. In fact, in February
2018, the Orange County Water District in Fountain Valley and
the Orange County Sanitation District in Fountain Valley as
well set a Guinness world record title for the most wastewater
recycled to drinking water in 24 hours. They served 2.4 million
residents and have certainly relied on SRFs in the past to help
create world-class operations in Orange County.
But California has about $26 billion of needs in this area,
and I think federally the number is around $270 billion.
Professor, I will start with you.
You have talked about the need for massive amounts of money
to address our water infrastructure needs. Can you talk a
little bit about the impact climate change has on these
calculations?
Because it seems like these calculations are based on
historical information and not really taking into account the
full potential impact of climate change if it is not adequately
addressed in the very near term.
Ms. Heaps. Yes, thank you.
And actually, I have toured that Orange County facility
twice. It is wonderful.
Mr. Rouda. It is quite impressive.
Ms. Heaps. A wonderful facility.
I think you raise an excellent question about are we really
counting cost considering climate change and resiliency for our
water infrastructure. The latest numbers that I have seen from
EPA on the Clean Water Act needs, at least on the Clean Water
Act side, on the drinking water side new numbers came out in
2018, but on the Clean Water Act side the latest numbers are
from 2012.
And that report itself acknowledges it is supposed to be a
20-year estimate, but that actually utilities often look out 5
years. So those numbers are likely very, very low.
And one of the things I would encourage this subcommittee
to do is to connect with EPA and ask when the new numbers are
going to be out and to specifically ask how climate change
resiliency and impacts on climate change for both water and
sewer are going to impact those numbers.
And then also provide guidance to the utilities, to the
local municipalities as they are trying to figure that out and
trying to figure out how those numbers change with new threats
from climate change.
Mr. Rouda. Anybody else on the panel want to speak to the
topic?
Mr. Kricun. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
I am from New Jersey, and so Hurricane Sandy, you know,
that is climate history, and the storms from Houston, Puerto
Rico, et cetera. We have seen that our infrastructure is
already inadequate for how the climate is already. So there is
already a significant infrastructure gap even if climate does
not get any worse. So we have to address that.
But then, of course, many believe the climate change will
get worse, and so that will only widen the gap. So the need for
investment in water infrastructure is more important than ever,
one for replacement of the water infrastructure while we have
it now, but also to provide resiliency especially for
vulnerable communities, from power outages, low lying areas, et
cetera.
So I believe that we must close the water infrastructure
gap while we can since we already see the infrastructure is
inadequate, and we know that gap will only widen.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Turning a little bit, Mayor, to what I believe you talked
about earlier, my neighbor to the north and Los Angles have
plans in place to reclaim the L.A. River and restore it back to
a natural habitat to some degree, and I am certainly intrigued
that we can do the same in my district with the Santa Ana River
because I think you have shown and others have shown that there
is a partnership between man-made infrastructure and natural
habitat.
Can you elaborate a little bit more on the cost
effectiveness of doing so?
Mr. Condon. Absolutely. You can see in number two in my
handout that we took this integration idea all the way
throughout our city, and so now in our community, the Streets
Department used to be part of the city government proper. It is
now part of the Utilities Division, and they pay a franchise
fee for that. But they get to design our street predominantly
around stormwater.
So now our stormwater mitigation people talk about complete
streets or integrated streets. Well, now we look at every
square foot that is not pavement that we did not need because
we used to collect stormwater. We now can infiltrate that.
There are two other things though. There is no money for
integrated projects. So I spoke about it in my testimony, which
was we have to go to many different sources, line those sources
up, and I feel it is dramatic for our rural partners. I have a
whole department that does that.
I am in eastern Washington. We are the largest city in
eastern Washington of a large congressional district, but
working with Congress, if we could have an integrated fund that
actually looks at all of these solutions.
The other is the regulation. Believe it or not, we could
purple pipe everything, but my river has a right to that water.
So we cannot actually remove it from the river and put it into
purple pipe.
And number two is we have health requirements that do not
allow purple pipe to go onto anywhere that is going to have
human contact, i.e., parks. You cannot have purple pipe in
parks. The kids play on it, yet the wastewater standard is
higher than our drinking water standard. Yet health departments
across this country, and perhaps regulatory, do not allow that
to be into public spaces because it might have contact.
So I think you are going down the right path, but really
looking at the regulations that conflict between the different
components of the Federal Government.
And the final piece is we should reward these integrated
projects throughout the system and have a single source for
those projects.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mayor Condon.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Woodall for 5 minutes.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I will pick up, Mayor, where my colleague left off. It
is an amazing thing that you all have done bringing economic
incentives. That is easier to invest $350 million if I can save
$150 million along the way.
I believe there should be a different set of regulations
for the best actors in our community. We are using that same
membrane technology in my suburb north of Atlanta. We are
pumping our water back into our reservoir cleaner than we took
it out just like you are.
Tell me about the efficacy from an executive's perspective
of having a different set of standards for the good actors and
a training wheels set of standards for those folks that we're
still trying to get up to code.
Mr. Condon. Well, thank you because I am not the nerd in
the room. I am not an engineer by any means, but to see it from
my perspective as running a large utility, you hit the nail on
the head, which is to give rewards to those that are
innovative.
I was one of the first in the country to do integrated
planning, where now we are going to have trouble signing a
permit because they are going to try to hold us to a standard
that no technology in this community, in this country can meet.
Rather, we would like to start spending those dollars where
our citizens see it. I passed a street levy, received 77
percent passage because they saw the integrated effectiveness
of that, and they see the real world outcomes from that.
From my handout you see that now our CSO tanks have a
playground from one of our schools. I actually had to come all
the way back here to the Department of Transportation. One of
our infiltration sites is land that the Federal Government owns
along I-90, one of the Federal highways. It originally had been
a place where a considerable amount of vagrancy had happened,
and it was very unsafe for the individuals that were there.
It is now an infiltration site, but the Federal Government
had never allowed this to happen because it was on their
property on an on ramp. But this was how we were to look at
saving that $150 million.
The citizens see that. I come from a part of the country
that is very progressive in environmental standards. But that
being said, they also are very cognizant of the cost, and my
citizens, one of the poorest legislative districts in the
State, and as you see from the ALICE rate, you know, a family
of four is left with $400 or $500 to pay for rent when you have
taken out the utility costs.
So we need to look at these innovative approaches, but also
look at somewhere in the Federal Government where you can have
that integrated approach. We get points for integration, but we
still are applying on multiple different locations or sources
to get those dollars and then lining up the cash flow when
those are due, when they have to be spent by, and it is a
Rubik's Cube that is not plausible for smaller governments.
We are able to do it, but we are about 210,000. I do not
think you could do it for cities that are much smaller than
that.
Mr. Woodall. But for cities north of 210,000, do you think
this is a model that is applicable across the country or you
have the particular leadership and the particular circumstances
that you can make it work when others cannot?
Mr. Condon. I would hope the latter. I would think the
latter, but no.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Condon. The issue is, and that is why when you simplify
it and have grant pools that reward a single location for these
integrated projects, I realize the difficulty. I worked in the
Federal Government for some time, but you have some instances
where this has happened throughout, whether it be at the
Department of Transportation, and the grants that came out that
looked at integrating different projects.
So I think it can be done, especially on the authorization
side, especially when we look at policy of how that could be
rewarded for innovation across this country. Because we can
drop that cost and get real benefits to our citizens.
Believe it or not, most of my citizens, thankfully, when
they flush the toilet, it flushes the same way before we did
$350 million and the same way afterwards. So they have gotten
to see the ability and see the real outcomes, and they have
seen that in their infrastructure in my community and really
have rewarded us and given us that confidence to continue down
this path.
Mr. Woodall. As we have seen water costs in major cities go
up 50 percent over the last 10 years, with Atlanta and Seattle,
your neighbors to the west, the two highest in that measure,
yes, constituents are----
Mr. Condon. I got elected because of water rates.
Mr. Woodall. Is it Mr. Kricun? Am I pronouncing that
correctly?
Mr. Kricun. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodall. Your peer-to-peer sharing idea is really
interesting to me. Who is doing that the best today? Because
sometimes I see my communities compete with one another and so
they do not want a partner to help each other succeed.
Who is doing it well and what can we do to make that more
successful going forward?
Mr. Kricun. Well, thank you.
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies and EPA
and Water Environment Federation are working together to
develop a 50-State peer-to-peer initiative in which utilities
with larger resources would help those with less.
So, for example, the way our regional authority helps
Camden City, Camden City is one of the poorest cities in the
country. Our county is a regional authority with some affluent
communities as well. So we partner with them.
In New Jersey, the commissioner has developed a peer-to-
peer program with eight utilities helping the more challenged
cities across the State. We are hoping to replicate that across
the country.
San Francisco is also doing a lot in the bay area. Actually
the city of Atlanta is very involved in water equity issues as
well with your Commissioner Kishia Powell.
So I mean, there are a lot of examples. The idea is how to
coalesce that into a national initiative since nobody should
have to deal with these issues.
And the thing is, real quickly, in the public sector we are
willing to share the information. So we are glad to share it.
We just need mechanisms to help facilitate that sharing, those
partnerships.
Mr. Woodall. I had many more questions for many more
witnesses, Madam Chair, but I yield back.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Woodall.
I would like to recognize myself now for 5 minutes.
Thank you so much to the witnesses here this morning.
I represent Florida's 26th District. It is, as I say,
ground zero for the effects of climate change, and water is a
daily topic for us. As you can imagine, we have had serious
issues threatening the water infrastructure in my community
dealing with flooding.
The water continues. We have septic tanks, about 90,000
septic tanks in Miami-Dade County. This was done because it was
less costly at the time. So a lot of overdevelopment without
really providing the appropriate municipal infrastructure that
is needed.
You have all seen the algae blooms that we have been
suffering from in both of our coasts. There is also such a
divide in Miami-Dade County. We have some of the highest number
of millionaires that live along the coastal communities, but
then the average income for people living in most of the county
is about $44,000. So you can imagine how costly it is for our
communities to actually invest in the appropriate
infrastructure.
So programs like the Clean Water SRF are crucial, and we
have used the SRF program to obtain low interest loans to move
residents from septic to sewer, constructing treatment systems
to improve the water quality of the nearshore waters and
protecting the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
So I would like to start with Ms. Flowers, something that
you said a little bit earlier. You mentioned that you saw some
creative solutions to the septic tank issues in south Florida.
If you could, please elaborate on that.
Ms. Flowers. Actually I did not see creative solutions, but
I was at the University of Florida recently, and they were
talking about the problems they were having with wastewater
treatment there using septic systems, and they said the problem
is because of the sea level rise and the water tables are
rising, and as a result, the technology is failing and is
leaching into the groundwater and ends up in the rivers and so
forth, which creates the algae bloom and sometimes fish kills.
So what I am hoping will come of this, if I had a magic
wand, I would try to partner with some of the agencies that are
already dealing with innovative technology like NASA for an
example. I am trying to get to NASA because they treat
wastewater in outer space, and people think I am crazy when I
say this, but I believe that we could partner with them and
come up with a way to treat wastewater in an innovative way
that is affordable that you can go to a Lowe's or Home Depot
and buy it like we do with our HVAC system and hire a
technician to go and install it.
But we have to start thinking out of the box. The way we
are thinking is for technology or for a time that was when I
was a child. Now at the age of 60, you know, I never could have
imagined. I remember when we had a party line. Now we have cell
phones, you know. Some people do not even know what I am
talking about.
But anyway, now we have cell phones and we cannot even
imagine what it was like to live without them. I think we can
do the same thing with wastewater, but I think we have to get
to the point where we can start thinking out of the box, and I
think that we have such ingenuity in this country that if we
can galvanize it and through possibly a public-private
partnership and come up with the kinds of solutions that will
help people in Miami, people in Alabama.
In Alabama, they tell us that the best source for treating
wastewater are sandy soils. When I went to Florida, I saw that
was something different.
So we really need to find a way to develop the type of
technologies that do take into account climate change.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Ms. Flowers. I could not
agree more with you.
I think that it is critical to continue to talk about this
topic. That is why this hearing is so important. There is
nothing more important I do not think to any of us than clean
drinking water, access to clean water, even for our coastal
communities so that our children's health is protected. I have
a quick question now for Ms. Heaps.
I am curious. You mentioned the right to water law that was
enacted in California. Can you just briefly comment on what
that entails and how that has worked for California? I am
curious to see if that is something that we can do in Florida
as well.
Ms. Heaps. I am happy to. I see we are almost out of time.
So I am happy to actually put something in writing so I can
address it better, but it basically provides guidance for
implementation of that human right to water across State
agencies that deal with water and also provides guidance for
local utilities as they are making decisions.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. OK. And just lastly, if I am allowed,
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to include in today's
hearing record an article from Bloomberg Business Week, ``Miami
Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First.''
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Article Submitted for the Record by Ms. Mucarsel-Powell
Bloomberg Businessweek
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-29/miami-s-other-water-
problem
Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First
the city has another serious water problem.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A rock lake at the edge of Miami-Dade County.
Photographer: Anastasia Samoylova For Bloomberg Businessweek
One morning in June, Douglas Yoder climbed into a white government
SUV on the edge of Miami and headed northwest, away from the glittering
coastline and into the maze of water infrastructure that makes this
city possible. He drove past drainage canals that sever backyards and
industrial lots, ancient water-treatment plants peeking out from behind
run-down bungalows, and immense rectangular pools tracing the outlines
of limestone quarries. Finally, he reached a locked gate at the edge of
the Everglades. Once through, he pointed out the row of 15 wells that
make up the Northwest Wellfield, Miami-Dade County's clean water source
of last resort.
Yoder, 71, is deputy director of the county's water and sewer
department; his job is to think about how to defend the county's fresh
drinking water against the effects of climate change. A large man with
an ambling gait, Yoder exudes the calm of somebody who's lived with bad
news for a long time.
``We have a very delicate balance in a highly managed system,'' he
said in his rumbly voice. ``That balance is very likely to get upset by
sea-level rise.'' What nobody knows is when that will happen, or what
happens next.
From ground level, greater Miami looks like any American megacity--
a mostly dry expanse of buildings, roads, and lawns, sprinkled with the
occasional canal or ornamental lake. But from above, the proportions of
water and land are reversed. The glimmering metropolis between Biscayne
Bay and the Everglades reveals itself to be a thin lattice of earth and
concrete laid across a puddle that never stops forming. Water seeps up
through the gravel under construction sites, nibbles at the edges of
fresh subdivisions, and shimmers through the cracks and in-between
places of the city above it.
Miami-Dade is built on the Biscayne Aquifer, 4,000 square miles of
unusually shallow and porous limestone whose tiny air pockets are
filled with rainwater and rivers running from the swamp to the ocean.
The aquifer and the infrastructure that draws from it, cleans its
water, and keeps it from overrunning the city combine to form a giant
but fragile machine. Without this abundant source of fresh water, made
cheap by its proximity to the surface, this hot, remote city could
become uninhabitable.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
One of Miami-Dade's many canals, which the county relies on to drain
its flat surface when it rains. Yoder calls the canals ``probably the
most complex'' water management system in the world.
Photographer: Anastasia Samoylova For Bloomberg Businessweek
Climate change is slowly pulling that machine apart. Barring a
stupendous reversal in greenhouse gas emissions, the rising Atlantic
will cover much of Miami by the end of this century. The economic
effects will be devastating: Zillow Inc. estimates that six feet of
sea-level rise would put a quarter of Miami's homes underwater,
rendering $200 billion of real estate worthless. But global warming
poses a more immediate danger: The permeability that makes the aquifer
so easily accessible also makes it vulnerable. ``It's very easy to
contaminate our aquifer,'' says Rachel Silverstein, executive director
of Miami Waterkeeper, a local environmental protection group. And the
consequences could be sweeping. ``Drinking water supply is always an
existential question.''
County officials agree with her. ``The minute the world thinks your
water supply is in danger, you've got a problem,'' says James Murley,
chief resilience officer for Miami-Dade, although he adds that the
county's water system remains ``one of the best'' in the U.S. The
questions hanging over Miami and the rest of Southeast Florida are how
long it can keep its water safe, and at what cost. As the region
struggles with more visible climate problems, including increasingly
frequent flooding and this summer's toxic algae blooms, the risks to
the aquifer grow, and they're all the more insidious for being out of
sight. If Miami-Dade can't protect its water supply, whether it can
handle the other manifestations of climate change won't matter.
The threats to the Biscayne Aquifer are unfolding simultaneously,
but from different directions and at different speeds. In that way,
Miami's predicament is at once unique and typical: Climate change
probes a city's weaknesses much as standing water finds cracks in the
foundation of a house.
Twenty minutes east of the Northwest Wellfield sits the Hialeah
Water Treatment Plant. With its walls built of coral rock in 1924,
Hialeah was Miami's first major water processing facility. The water
drawn from the Northwest Wellfield is piped here to be cleaned along
with water from another cluster of wells that pull from straight
beneath the plant. As climate change worsens, this plant will matter
more and more.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Inside the Hialeah water treatment plant.
Photographer: Anastasia Samoylova For Bloomberg Businessweek
A few blocks from the Hialeah plant, buried beneath what's now a
maintenance yard for the county's Metrorail trains, lies a 1.2-acre
zone that the Environmental Protection Agency has ranked the second-
most hazardous Superfund site in Miami-Dade. From 1966 until 1981, the
land was used by Miami Drum Services Inc., a company that rinsed
containers for an assortment of toxic chemicals, then disposed of the
residue onsite.
County and State officials concluded in 1981 that the operations
were contaminating the aquifer; the EPA later said the space was
leaching arsenic, cyanide, mercury, nickel, lead, cadmium, chromium,
chloroform, and oil into the groundwater. The county forced Miami Drum
Services to abandon the property and spent 2 months removing all
``visibly contaminated soils.''
Until then, water from the Biscayne Aquifer required minimal
treatment: The plant would add lime to soften it and chlorine and
ammonia to disinfect it, then filter out remaining particles. Once
fluoride was added to help prevent tooth decay, the water would be
piped to people's taps. In 1992, in response to the risks posed by
toxins from the Miami Drum Service site and others near it, the county
added a new stage, running the water through ``air stripping'' towers
designed to remove toxic contaminants.
In 2014 an EPA report warned that ``flooding from more intense and
frequent storms'' could push toxins from Superfund sites into
undergroundwater sources like the Biscayne Aquifer. Anna Michalak, a
researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, Calif.,
says climate change means that U.S. cities are ``entering a state that
these systems were not built for.'' She adds: ``As the incoming water
quality becomes either worse or just less predictable, you have to have
more and more systems in place to deal with all of that.''
In South Florida that new state is already here. The amount of
precipitation that falls during the heaviest storms has increased by
about 7 percent in Miami-Dade County since the 1960's, according to
research by Constantine Samaras, an associate professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Although the
disparity might not seem like much, it could mean the difference
between a lot of rain and an outright flood. The Union of Concerned
Scientists estimates that by 2045, as much as 29 percent of Miami Beach
and 26 percent of Key Biscayne could be ``chronically inundated,''
which UCS defines as flooding twice a month.
Earlier this year, Pamela Cabrera, a graduate student at Harvard,
mapped the Superfund sites in Miami-Dade County and their proximity to
wellfields. Her hypothesis was simple: Increased flooding could
dislodge the toxic chemicals that remain on Superfund and other
industrial sites, pushing them into the aquifer. According to Cabrera's
map, the Miami Drum site is 750 feet from the Hialeah Wellfield. A
dozen other Superfund sites are scattered throughout the county. More
severe flooding or rainstorms could overwhelm Hialeah's controls or
move toxins through the aquifer in new ways, sending them into one of
the wellfields not equipped with the same controls.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Beneath this patch of ground is Miami-Dade's second-most polluted
Superfund site, which was contaminated with arsenic, mercury, and
cyanide. The site was turned into a maintenance yard for the county's
Metrorail system.
Photographer: Anastasia Samoylova For Bloomberg Businessweek
In 2014 a storage tank in West Virginia leaked methylcyclohexane
methanol, a chemical used to process coal, into the Elk River just
upstream from Charleston's water intake center. The spill rendered the
city's water undrinkable, leaving 300,000 people with no water for
days. ``It's extremely important for everybody to look upstream of
their drinking water systems and protect them,'' says Gina McCarthy,
who ran the EPA under President Obama and now directs the Center for
Climate, Health & the Environment at Harvard. She cites Charleston, as
well as Toledo, Ohio, which had to shut down its drinking water supply
later in 2014 because of an outbreak of cyanobacteria, as evidence of
how a shock to the drinking water supply can thrust a city into chaos.
Miami-Dade has regulations and testing procedures in place to
prevent or detect contamination of the aquifer. Asked about the risk,
Yoder chooses his words carefully. ``I think it's a fair question to
ask,'' he says, but adds that the county at least has a history of
dealing with those threats, noting its experience with the Miami Drum
Services site.
Michalak warns that's too easy. ``Invariably,'' she says, ``we
discover that we're not quite as clever as we thought.''
In 1997 the State approved large-scale limestone mining on the
border between Miami-Dade and the Everglades. Pulling the rock out of
the ground entails blasting holes in the aquifer, which almost
immediately fill with groundwater to become dusty blue pools. Locals
refer to them as ``rock lakes,'' although they're not the kind that
draw families for weekend picnics.
The mines happen to surround the Northwest Wellfields. The same
conditions that made the area suitable for water wells--vast open space
with no development in sight--also made it ideal for massive rock pits.
Environmentalists have warned that the rock lakes act as a superhighway
for pollutants from the mining, driving them straight to the heart of
the aquifer. In 2005 one of the Northwest wells registered five times
the Federal limit for benzene, a chemical used to blast out rock that's
been linked to leukemia, according to the American Cancer Society. The
county ordered the well, along with four adjoining ones, temporarily
shut down. Yet regulators never successfully identified the source of
the benzene, and the mining continued.
Yoder pulled over beside a rock lake that was lined by gravel roads
and surrounded by swamp. The photographer with us made a half-hearted
joke about alligators and then got out. Yoder and I stayed in the
truck; the air outside was dusty and hot, and neither of us was
particularly keen to take our chances with whatever might crawl out of
the ditch.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Yoder at the Hialeah treatment plant. He says the county's drinking
water infrastructure ``is very likely to get upset by sea-level rise.''
Photographer: Anastasia Samoylova For Bloomberg Businessweek
The decision to surround the county's most pristine wellfields with
rock mines reflected a compromise, Yoder said. The Miami-Dade Limestone
Products Association Inc., which represents some of the area's biggest
mining outfits, insists mining has no effect on the aquifer. Better
that than to surround the wellfields with houses, Yoder said, adding:
``More developed areas had higher contaminants.''
More worrisome than the mining itself is the whole vast world of
toxicity to which the mining has opened up the aquifer. ``The rock belt
is going to become a place where contaminants can enter and move
deeper,'' says Philip Stoddard, the mayor of South Miami, one of the
cities in Miami-Dade County that's most exposed to sea-level rise. As
flooding and rainstorms get worse, Stoddard warns, they'll move surface
water around the county in increasingly unpredictable ways. ``You've
always been able to count on the water going west to east,'' drawing
runoff away from the water supply, he says. ``What happens when it
starts going back toward the wellfield? You don't have to be a genius
to figure out it could be a bad thing.''
The Sea's Slow Creep Inland Threatens Freshwater Wells
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Data: U.S. Geological Survey, EPA, OpenStreetMap
Then there's the feces. As developers built out Southeast Florida,
they found that instead of connecting each new home to the local sewer
system, it was often easier to install septic tanks. Miami-Dade has
about 90,000. ``It was the magic carpet for quick, cheap development in
Florida,'' says Brian Lapointe, a research professor at Florida
Atlantic University who focuses on the role of septic tanks in water
contamination. These tanks are typically used in rural areas where
homes are too far apart to justify connecting them to a central sewage
system--but also in places where residential construction happens
faster than municipal infrastructure development. Septic tanks trap
solid waste, which is supposed to be pumped out, while the liquid stuff
drains into the soil, where gravity and time filter out bacteria and
whatever else is in it before it reaches groundwater. In Southeast
Florida, that groundwater is especially close to the surface--and
rising.
The State requires at least two feet of dry soil between the bottom
of the drainage field and the top of the water table, but Lapointe says
that during the wet season, the groundwater in parts of southern
Florida already comes above that two-foot threshold. More intense
flooding and rainstorms will swell the water table further, on top of
the gains caused by sea level rise, sending partially treated human
waste into the aquifer. That waste can contain E. coli bacteria, which
cause diarrhea, vomiting, and even kidney failure. High levels of
nitrates, another component of untreated waste, cause what's called
blue baby syndrome, in which infants' blood can no longer carry
sufficient oxygen.
Lapointe adds that one of the ways researchers track septic-tank
contamination is by tracking the levels of acetaminophen in the
groundwater. ``People's medications are coming with that septic-tank
effluent.'' The wonders of the human digestive system are many and
varied, containing any number of other bacteria and viruses--``all
these other organic compounds that may or may not be affected by the
treatment at the utility plant,'' he says.
How long does Miami have before the water table overwhelms the
septic system? Officials, including the South Miami mayor, worry that
the point of failure is closer than people realize. Says Stoddard,
``I'm convinced that some of those septic systems are working by force
of habit rather than by the laws of physics.''
The slowest-moving threat to Miami's drinking water is also the
most sweeping: As the ocean rises, salt water is being pushed into the
limestone, forming a wall of brine that's creeping inland along the
aquifer's floor. The county's wells are essentially giant straws
drawing water from 60 feet to 80 feet beneath the ground. As the
saltwater front advances westward across the aquifer, reaching each of
those intake valves and enveloping them in saline water, it risks
rendering them useless in succession--a sort of Sherman's March in
reverse, as prosecuted by the sea.
How Salt Water Gets Into the Biscayne Aquifer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Not to scale
Data: U.S. Geological Survey
Projecting the pace of saltwater intrusion is fantastically
complicated, all the more so because the State and Federal Governments
are still debating whether and how to proceed with a massive, still-
unfunded pledge to restore the Everglades. Doing this could increase
the flow of fresh water into the aquifer and thus slow the salt line's
inland creep, but the uncertainty means the county's plans extend only
through 2040, by which point Yoder and others officials say they should
still be able to use all but one of their current wellfields.
Regardless of the pace of seawater incursion, the Northwest Wellfield,
almost 20 miles inland, will be one of the last to succumb; short of
cutting into the Everglades, there's no farther to go.
Except farther down. In 2013 a new facility west of the Hialeah
treatment plant began pulling brackish water up from 1,000 feet beneath
the surface, below the Biscayne Aquifer, then pushing that water
through a series of plastic membranes, a desalination process called
reverse osmosis. The process requires as much as 200 pounds per square
inch of pressure, which consumes about 5,000 kilowatt-hours of
electricity per million gallons of water.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Reverse-osmosis equipment inside the desalination plant in Miami-Dade
County. As sea levels rise, the county will have to get more of its
drinking water from brackish sources.
Photographer: Anastasia Samoylova For Bloomberg Businessweek
Though far from perfect, desalination may one day be Miami's only
option. Climate advocates fret that the increased need for desalination
will accelerate global warming. For the county, there's a more urgent
concern: Reverse osmosis is enormously expensive. Water from the plant,
built by engineering company AECOM for $55 million, costs two and a
half times as much to process as water from the Biscayne Aquifer.
Hypothetically, most of the challenges climate change poses to
Miami's drinking water could be solved with money. Homes with septic
tanks could be connected to the sewer infrastructure, a process Yoder
estimates would cost from $2 billion to $3 billion. The soil at
Superfund and other industrial sites could be dug out or better
encased. Real-time monitors could be installed to warn of unexpected
seepage. Still more advanced technology could be installed at water-
treatment plants. But those projects would need funding. And there's
already a long line.
In 2008 the Florida legislature passed a law dictating that the
State's water utilities stop discharging sewage into the ocean by 2025;
complying with that timeline could cost as much as $5 billion, Yoder
says. Then, in 2013, Miami-Dade entered into an agreement with the EPA,
which had found the county unlawfully discharged more than 28 million
gallons of untreated wastewater into Biscayne Bay. The county promised
to upgrade its wastewater collection and treatment facilities at a cost
of $1.6 billion.
In its latest capital budget, Yoder's department estimated that
$13.5 billion would be required for these and other future
infrastructure projects, of which $9.5 billion would be funded by
bonds. But last November, Moody's Corp. warned that the county's
creditworthiness depends on ``future annual rate increases to meet
escalating debt service requirements''--saying, in effect, that the
county's elected officials who must approve rate increases had better
be willing to accept the political pain associated with ratcheting up
their voters' water bills. If not, the county's credit rating could
fall, necessitating higher interest payments on its bonds--and even
higher water bills to cover them.
The county's crush of climate-related spending requirements goes
beyond protecting drinking water. Add to that the cost of pumps and sea
walls as rising seas turn the area's gravity-reliant drainage canals
back on themselves. ``Anything that this county relies on that is
gravity-based is in jeopardy with sea-level rise,'' says Wilbur
Mayorga, head of environmental monitoring and restoration at the
county's Department of Environmental Resources Management. ``We've been
lucky all this time. The time will come that it may not be so easy.''
Spending on that scale is hard for any county to manage on its own.
The challenge is greater here: Despite pockets of extreme wealth--one
study estimated that the Miami metro area has the nation's eighth-
highest number of millionaires--the county overall is poor. Its median
household income of $44,224 is almost one-quarter lower than that of
the country as a whole.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
New construction in Miami-Dade County.
Photographer: Anastasia Samoylova For Bloomberg Businessweek
Asked if the State would help Miami-Dade protect its drinking water
from climate change, Governor Rick Scott's office directed questions to
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which said in a
statement that it ``continues to work to protect the resiliency of our
coastal ecosystems and shoreline communities.'' But Jose Javier
Rodr!guez, a Democrat who represents Miami in Florida's Republican-held
senate, says his city is unlikely to get bailed out by the State. It's
not a question of believing in science. ``The massive political and
institutional resistance to taking action, in my view, is not largely
ideological,'' he says. ``It's not largely even political. It's a
question of being intimidated by the price tag.'' As the low-tax State
struggles against a revolt among school districts protesting meager
budget increases and a $28 million prison funding deficit, there's no
appetite for funding the solutions to future crises, even when the
future is almost here.
The obvious solutions would cause problems of their own. Why not
stop mining near the wellfields, for instance? Because the limestone
from those mines goes into the concrete used to construct sea walls and
build higher off the ground around Florida's coast. There's little
disagreement about the need to get rid of the septic tanks, but which
homes get help first? If a coastal neighborhood will have to be
abandoned anyway, is it worth spending money on new sewers?
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rock lakes. The county rests on the Biscayne Aquifer, which is so
shallow the water seeps up through the ground.
Photographer: Anastasia Samoylova For Bloomberg Businessweek
Now pull the lens back further. Miami's drinking water problems are
merely one facet of the still-accumulating effects of climate change
that officials must identify, decipher, and combat. These include new
diseases such as Zika, more frequent toxic algae blooms, disappearing
beaches, heat waves, the growing threat of a real estate crash, and the
eventual need to relocate people away from the coast. Protecting the
aquifer isn't the end of adapting to climate change; it may not even be
the hardest part. It's simply the price the city will have to pay to
keep trying.
That leaves the cruelest lesson of climate adaptation: The costs of
saving Miami will mostly fall on the people who live here--testing how
much they're willing to pay for the privilege, a sort of free-market
Darwinism for the life of whole cities. ``There will always be drinking
water here,'' says Virginia Walsh, a hydrogeologist with Yoder's
department. ``It's just a question of how much you want to pay for
it.''
Stoddard, the South Miami mayor, says the people who already have
homes here will accept almost any price to stay. But those who would
otherwise come to South Florida will start looking at the growing cost
of protecting it--measured in water rates, in property taxes, in
insurance premiums, in uncertain future home sales--and go elsewhere.
``People will hang on with their fingernails to keep what they've
got,'' Stoddard says. ``But who's going to move here? And that's what's
going to kill us.''
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Graves for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today
and appreciate your testimony.
Mayor, first, it really is impressive to see some of the
cost savings and some of the forward-leaning efforts that you
took in working together with EPA on integrated planning, and
so first I want to commend you. I want to commend you for the
cost savings. I want to commend you for thinking forward and
working through a voluntary relationship with EPA on the
integrated planning approach that has apparently yielded good
outcomes for your community. And I have family there so that is
important.
But I am curious. As you may know, we did enact integrated
planning law last year, and I believe you may have some
thoughts about what we got right and maybe what we have left
out and can improve on in a second generation bill.
Do you care to share any perspective on that?
Mr. Condon. Absolutely. Like I shared in my opening
comments, integrated planning was literally just a thought, and
we acted on a memo. I still have the memo that came at the time
from Nancy Stoner.
And so as you look at the integrated planning and the way
it was passed, thank you for doing that. We are very happy at
the U.S. Conference of Mayors that that became law.
There are a couple of pieces as we look at integrated
planning going forward, and that is especially across this
country, in order to meet the regulatory requirements, EPA has,
I believe, five different ways that you can meet those
standards, and one is a variance.
Believe it or not, that is not universally done across the
United States. The State of Washington, in my understanding,
has never done a variance to meet a, in my opinion,
unreasonable requirement of, in this case, seven parts per
quadrillion of PCBs. We cannot even measure that.
And so as we look at this in integrated planning, you
really need to go back and look at the regulatory framework
after those plans are accepted. If those plans are accepted as
the right way to do, and again, this was not without green
infrastructure, but that is to be said how does then the
regulatory environment meet with the integrated planning.
So I would ask especially this committee in their oversight
at the EPA and of the delegated States that it is actually
implemented the way it was intended. So I was very excited to
hear the chairwoman talk about the oversight role of this
committee.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Great. Thank you. I appreciate it.
And as we move forward, again, I fully expect that through
oversight and through perhaps a second generation bill, version
2, we will come back, and so if you do have any additional
thoughts, I would appreciate you sharing those with us on how
we can further improve our build upon.
Mr. Condon. Integrated funding would be another key issue.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Great. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Kricun, again, I want to commend you for some of the
efforts that you have undertaken. It appears some of the cost
savings you have provided under some of the work that you have
done has been impressive.
Could you talk a little bit about how replicable you think
that is? Because, as you have heard from the panel, there are
sort of mixed messages about whether this is a funding issue,
an implementation issue, and I am just curious of your
perspective on how replicable it is and how we could do a
better job from here helping to empower other communities to
achieve some of the low rates that you have been able to
achieve.
Mr. Kricun. Thank you, Congressman.
I think in a way our county is sort of a microcosm of the
whole country in that we have this very economically distressed
community with an average median income of only $26,000, and
yet we have some affluent communities as well.
So I believe that it is completely replicable for any
utility if the State Revolving Fund is there. Without the State
Revolving Fund, we could not have done it. We would have had to
have raised rates, and we would have been forced to raise rates
on our economically distressed community. So that would have
been a real problem.
But because of the State Revolving Fund and because of
internal efficiencies, we were able to upgrade our
infrastructure as it needed to be, but also hold the rate. I
definitely believe it is replicable.
I think though for some utilities or municipalities which
lack resources, you know, whether it be economically stressed
communities, cities, rural areas, I think that is where our
peer-to-peer efforts, especially from the State Revolving Fund,
may be getting circuit riders getting out there to help them
with the State Revolving Fund because what I found in Camden
was that they lacked resources to apply for the funding, and
then when the funding was available, they had to get much
higher interest rates when they could afford it because they
did not have the funding to go through the SRF program.
So one thing I would really recommend is support for
economically distressed communities, small or rural or urban
areas that do not have the internal capacity to apply for these
fundings.
There are two things. One, making the funding available.
Continue to make it, expand it as much as possible. It is a
loan that has to be paid back, but then also provide some
assistance for those that need it to apply for it and go
through the program.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. All right. Thank you. I am out of
time.
Ms. Taylor, I wanted to ask you a question. All I could
think about when I heard you talking about the money issue,
that quote that people who say money cannot buy you happiness
do not know where to shop.
But I do have some followup questions with you, and we will
submit those in writing if you do not mind responding.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano [presiding]. Thank you, sir, for your
testimony.
Mr. Delgado, you are recognized.
Mr. Delgado. Thank you, Chairwoman.
I want to thank the panel and, of course, especially thank
Mr. Mokszycki for making the trip from upstate to tell the
folks here in DC about the needs of rural communities.
Eleven counties, that is how many counties are in New York
19. I represent the third most rural district of any Democrat
in this body, the Eighth, both Republicans and Democrats.
As you have articulated, Greenport is one of the many
communities in New York 19 where residents are not only
struggling to pay their water bills due to increasing rates,
but also have seen an increase in property taxes to pay for
vital infrastructure projects.
It is for this reason that I am glad to support the WATER
Act, which creates a water trust fund to be used by the Clean
and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loan funds. Legislation
would also create new grant programs to help rural communities
improve their water and sewer systems.
Now, you have talked about technical assistance for small
and rural communities and how important it is to help with
complying with the Clean Water Act and assessing the State's
revolving funds.
Can you explain how this works specifically? And how has
Greenport, and I know you talked about this earlier, this
$85,000 grant, has benefitted from technical assistance?
Mr. Mokszycki. OK. Thank you.
Yes, we work with Rural Water quite a bit. They have helped
us with our Clean Water Revolving Fund loans. They have helped
us with contacts with people. They have helped guide us on how
to pursue this.
We are a small rural community. We do not have anyone on
staff who does this. We either have to hire an engineer or we
have to go to someone like Rural Water to help guide us through
it, and we have a lot of the same problems that the large
communities do where you do have to go to a number of different
funding sources and see if you can get funding in order to be
able to do your projects.
And, you know, without the money from the revolving loan
fund, we could not do a lot of these projects. We just simply
could not afford them. With the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act money that we received for our wastewater
plant, we were under a consent order. We were looking at a
$9\1/2\ million bill.
If we had self-financed it, we would have spent $17 million
over the 30 years of the loan. We were fortunate. We are going
to end up spending roughly around $4 million for that same
plant, which made it something that our community was able to
afford. We would not have been able to afford it without that
help.
We were very fortunate to get a zero-interest loan. We were
extremely fortunate to get half loan forgiveness. That also
allowed us to turn around and do another water project
afterwards that badly needed to be done. We had 50 water breaks
a year. That work needed to be done. There is no way we would
have been able to do both. It just would have been impossible
for our community. We cannot afford it.
We still have a lot of work left to do. We need to upgrade
our pump system. We need to upgrade our transmission system.
There is a lot of money still left on the table, and hopefully
with the SRF money, we will be able to do that.
We have been raising rates. We have been trying to keep
them from getting too extreme because our residents just cannot
afford it. We have a lot of seniors. We used to have a lot of
industry in our area.
Mr. Delgado. Yes.
Mr. Mokszycki. And that is basically what paid for most of
the infrastructure to go in in the first place, but most of
that is gone now.
Mr. Delgado. Right.
Mr. Mokszycki. And the businesses that we do have are not
the type that really participate in the community in the same
way that the industry and the factories that were there before
used to participate. It is a lot of retail, a lot of small
stores, but they do not have the kind of resources and funds to
support the infrastructure like some of the larger businesses
that we had in the past did.
Mr. Delgado. Yes, and I appreciate all of that and the
followup. To piggyback on a comment or a question from one of
my colleagues earlier on the distinction between public and
private action and the role that some might believe private
actors are better suited for in terms of addressing these
scenarios.
And I have often found that absent a population center, a
dense population center that can function as a basis for
achieving profit in some way, shape, or form, rural communities
are marginalized as a result because private actors do not have
the incentive to invest in these communities.
And one would, therefore, hope that in promoting the
general welfare and promoting the public good, as is our
responsibility as detailed in the Constitution, that the
Government would at that point deem it appropriate to leave no
one behind.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Mokszycki. I would agree with that.
Mr. Delgado. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony, sir.
Mr. Palmer, you are recognized.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mayor Condon, a lot of States and localities are using
life-cycle cost analysis to determine the appropriate materials
for a particular project. Given the limited resources
particularly of municipalities, would more frequent use of a
life-cycle analysis help these funds go farther?
Mr. Condon. Yes, definitely, and that is the approach we
took as we went to integration across our city. Like I spoke
earlier, in my graphic number 2 there, we now look at our
streets as part of the life-cycle cost, i.e., we used to go in
and look at, and especially since they were all stove piped
just like most governments, stormwater, wastewater, and water
all had different motivations. Now they want to retain less
stormwater in some cases, in some sections of our streets that
we want to redo, saved nearly $1 million from treatment by
redesigning the streets to take into account stormwater
collection.
What I always say is old is new again. We used to have
parking strips. We got rid of those in the 1970s and 1980s. We
are now back to those. We call them swales, but at the end of
the day, especially in my part of the country, that is where
the snow goes and that is where the stormwater goes. So
definitely life cycle is key.
Mr. Palmer. You said something in your testimony that
caught my attention. This is an issue that has been brought up
in other committees that I have served on, and that is the
regulatory standards that are being imposed, sometimes the
technology does not exist to achieve those.
And plus, even if you do a life-cycle analysis and you get
what you think is more than adequate, the standards change so
rapidly that even before you fully paid for what you just did,
you are having to do it over.
Mr. Condon. That is exactly our request for a variance, and
my citizens are paying $200 million in green bonds for the next
17 years. That was a 20-year bond cycle, which is quite
conservative in this country, as we are going to 30-, 40-, 50-
year bonds, but our citizens should, as they mortgage this
green infrastructure, have the benefit at least on that
contaminant.
And if I could finish, most of our regulatory environment
is on quantity not quality. If we were truly to look at the
quality of our river, our citizens, very environmentally
minded, would use their resources for other contaminants rather
than going after the first one on the list that we have done a
major investment on, but now the standard had moved on us in
the middle from start of integrated planning to the end of
integrated planning when I'm supposed to sign a permit before
the end of the year.
Now they're saying it went from 170 parts per quadrillion
now down to 7. So what am I supposed to do as we finish one of
the most innovative projects in the country and now the
regulation shifted on me?
Mr. Palmer. Well, what they have done is they have created
regulations, and they say that it is black box technology.
Well, there is nothing in the box, and it is putting an
enormous burden on cities.
I grew up in rural northwest Alabama, and it has potential
to bankrupt cities. Mr. Mokszycki, you mentioned the consent
order that you are under. I represent most of Jefferson County,
and that was the largest municipal bankruptcy in the history of
the country until Detroit, and that began with a consent decree
dealing with our storm sewers.
I know that is not the subject of this hearing, but I have
done a tremendous amount of work on this about creating a
database transparency, and I am proud to say that every
Democrat, all of my Democratic colleagues voted for this, to
bring transparency to this issue so that when someone gets
elected mayor or Governor or city council, they know what they
are under and have an opportunity to have some kind of
mitigation for that.
You did not elaborate on it, but what you are really saying
is that you have lost control of the ability to correct the
situation because it is under the control of a Federal judge or
a control group or a special master.
Mr. Mokszycki. Well, yes, you have a plan for how you want
to proceed with your problems, and suddenly all of the money
gets shifted to a separate problem because of the consent
order. It is work that needs to be done, but it also impacts
all of the rest of the infrastructure that you have to take
care of.
You know, in the small rural communities, we do not have a
lot of resources to help us. It is usually just a few guys, and
you know, you are not only dealing with wastewater and water.
You are dealing with stormwater. You are dealing with parks.
You are dealing with streets. You are dealing with everything
together, and when you get a consent order and so much money
and focus has to go to that consent order, all of the other
utilities suffer for it.
And unfortunately, we do not have the resources to combine
everything and do everything at once, and we do not have the
people to go out and look for these grants, look for these
loans, and pursue that. We need to get help from outside in
order to be able to do that.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I thank the witnesses for their
attendance today, and I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, sir.
Mrs. Craig, you are recognized.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman.
As you know, each of you, nonpoint source water pollution
is a big problem across the country. It comes from multiple
sources, and unlike point source pollution, that can be traced
back to industrial and sewage treatment plants.
Under EPA's 319 program, States receive grants to help
develop and administer their own programs to address nonpoint
source pollution. As each of you may know, I have worked with
my Republican colleague, Representative Brian Mast of Florida,
and we have introduced a bill that would reauthorize this
program for the first time since it was established.
So I would like to start with perhaps Mr. Kricun and
perhaps Professor Heaps and ask you: How important is it for
Congress to continue to reauthorize and appropriate funds for
this program?
And tell me how it can address these nonpoint sources of
pollution.
Mr. Kricun. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Yes, I mean, it is incredibly important, and thank you to
you and to your Republican colleague and others who are
supporting this bill.
The 319(h) grant program is a very important funding
program. We have been talking about the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. That really is helpful,
but 319(h) is a program that offers assistance for things that
are not eligible for the State Revolving Fund program.
So we have been using 319(h) funding in Camden County for a
lot of that green infrastructure, some of it that did not have
a combined sewer nexus, like building bioswales along
riverfronts, brownfield cleanups, et cetera, things that were
not related to our sewer system itself.
So it is a great supplement and assistance for even in an
urban area, but especially in rural areas. So I really support
it and hope that it goes forward.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you.
Ms. Heaps. Thank you.
Yes, I would like to echo what Mr. Kricun said. In the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, there has been a phenomenal
cooperation between Federal, State, local governments to try to
clean up the Chesapeake Bay, but stormwater is the one area of
pollution that continues to grow, and 319 grants are critical
to address those.
In rural Vermont, agricultural pollution is a problem, and
319 grants are used to help farmers put in important
conservation practices to reduce their runoff pollution as
well.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much.
Ms. Flowers, I just want to start this next question to
you, but I want to first say thank you for your work with EJI.
I had the opportunity to visit your State and your city here
this past weekend with Congressman John Lewis and walk across
the Edmund Pettus Bridge with him in Selma.
So it was stunning, frankly. I come from a suburban, half
suburban, half rural district in Minnesota where we have been
investing in certain things, and to see the inequities and
disparities in your community, every American should see that,
and I think it would make such an incredible difference.
So, Ms. Flowers, in your testimony you noted that the U.S.
census once captured information regarding whether homeowners
were served by municipal treatment or septic systems, but the
question was taken off after the 1990 census.
Can you speak a little more to what kind of data that
collection would be useful to properly assess the wastewater
infrastructure needs in the country?
Ms. Flowers. Well, thank you for asking that question, and
thank you for coming to the area this weekend.
That information, we cannot solve the problem without
understanding and quantifying what the problem is. Actually one
of the observations that I have made since I have been working
in rural communities is that after the census stopped going
from door to door, I think a lot of rural communities were left
out.
You cannot do a qualitative analysis of people in rural
communities by just looking at addresses. For an example, in
Lowndes County, there may be one address and five homes there.
But that is not going to be counted.
And whenever funds are distributed or they design projects,
they look at that kind of data, and I think in that data there
are gaps in rural communities.
We have what we call a rural lexicon, and what the rural
lexicon means is that a lot of the policies are written in such
a way that it excludes rural communities. For example, it says
it is a municipality of so many people. That automatically
excludes a whole lot of rural communities.
So we think that in terms of the census, the data that
could be collected by finding out how many people are on rural
wastewater systems or septic systems will help us work on the
solution a lot better because I think right now when people
look at it, because we are in the news, they think if they
solve the problem in Lowndes County, Alabama, it solves it in
America. That is not true.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much.
And I yield the balance of my time, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mrs. Craig.
And I will yield to my cochair for the rest of the
questioning.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you both.
My part of northern California is the area that includes
what is known as the Camp Fire in what was Paradise,
California, as well as many other fires. We had the Car Fire in
Redding, California, as well.
The damages that are being attributed to the Camp Fire are
being estimated at $16.5 billion at this point, which would be
the largest disaster anywhere in 2018 in terms of cost.
Nineteen thousand structures, fourteen thousand of them
being homes, residents trying to determine if they are going to
come back to the area. There is a good cleanup phase going on
right now, and things are going reasonably well in that regard,
but the intention is to rebuild the town, and where many of us
are committed to seeing that it is done.
But we need an improvement in the process there. It is one
of the largest towns anywhere that was nearly entirely on a
septic system, and we know what kind of problems there are with
compliance and all that, and so it needs to come back with a
good sewer system on that, especially for the main spine area
of the town and branching out where it is practical.
So the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and other
wastewater grants all require a local match. So I guess my
question, and I will ask Mr. Condon and Mr. Mokszycki what they
think about this; the local match for a place where basically
not very many people live right now. The population of about
30,000 is decimated. You may have a few hundred living in the
town, and it will take a while to rebuild that.
But should we rebuild the same old infrastructure? Should
we improve at this time when you have unfortunately, but
indeed, I guess there is opportunity, to rebuild with better
infrastructure?
They are talking new underground on the power lines, but
indeed, coming back with a sewer system, you have got it torn
up. You might as well do it right.
Outside of asking FEMA for additional money, what can be
done for a community that has been devastated like this, since
they do not presently have the tax base to do so right now?
So you two gentlemen, please.
Mr. Condon. Well, I will start.
Of course, we are a larger city, but of course, we are in
the middle of rural America in eastern Washington, northern
Idaho area, and it is becoming more and more this way, that the
Federal and State government requires the matching funds, which
is very difficult.
I alluded earlier. I come from the Fifth Congressional
District, represented by Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, but
formerly by Speaker Foley, and at that time, there was $100
million, $5 million a year to eliminate our septic tanks in the
region because we are on a single source aquifer. That was the
grant.
So that went over a 20-year period. We had an innovative
program in the region to deal with that. So as you look at
these programs, it really gets back to, especially for the
smaller communities, grants, low interest loans. But as soon as
you start putting in the match requirement, it becomes much
more difficult, to say the least, especially since there are
multiple sources that we usually have to go after to get these
dollars.
So where does the match count? And whose match counts
where? And what percentage of that match? And it becomes even a
more bureaucratic Rubik's Cube to put these funding sources
together. So it becomes even more difficult for the smaller
communities, definitely.
So the more you can simplify it, the more you can look at a
single source for integrated projects, someone, you know, as
they go to rebuild an entire town, where are the dollars that
come from many different sources, but you only have to apply to
a single grant account at the Federal level or at the State
level rather than making these communities go across multiple
different funding sources?
Thank you.
Mr. Mokszycki. Thank you.
Yes, I agree. The other thing is that, you know, obviously
your situation is a particularly difficult situation, and there
needs to be something in the program that allows for these
difficult situations.
It makes sense to do these projects now. It will be much
more cost effective to do it now, and you know, the money
should be set aside so that it does help the people that are
most in need, and I would think that this situation should be
something that should qualify for it.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. I am sure if, you know, the population
was there, they would be willing to have that discussion on how
to come up with a match. But we need something unique in this
and other disaster situations.
So what kind of regulatory changes can we make to reduce
the cost of delivering these systems, since the projected need
over the coming next 20 years is almost triple what has been
invested in the last 50 years?
So would you touch on that please, Mr. Mokszycki?
Mr. Mokszycki. Well, I think one of the biggest things as
far as regulatory is to, you know, rather than having the
entities try to use enforcement to force people to do upgrades
without having any sort of financing to back that up or some
help for the local communities to do it, to try to use the best
technologies out there and try to fund that and make
improvements, not necessarily just solve the problem, but try
to solve the problem long term.
We want to try to make permanent solutions, not just get
out from underneath an enforcement.
Mr. LaMalfa. Right.
Mr. Mokszycki. We want something that is going to last,
something that is going to be long term, something that we do
not have to come back and redo.
So funding needs to be adequate to allow communities to be
able to fix their problem and put something in that is going to
last.
Mr. LaMalfa. Modernize it, but at the same time we have to
be cost effective in doing that and hope there are less
roadblocks and unneeded costs and hurdles.
So I had better yield back. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Westerman [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from California, Mr. Lowenthal, for 5 minutes.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I had two sets of questions. One has to do with the NPDES
permitting process, and the other one about what I believe is
the critical need to capitalize the State Revolving Fund, and I
am going to ask about that.
But the first one is about a year ago, maybe a little less,
after a hearing in this subcommittee, Congressman Garamendi and
myself wrote a letter to the committee saying that we wanted to
follow up that hearing on the need to modernize the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting process, the
NPDES permitting process, by allowing States who have a
delegated authority to administer the permitting process to
issue permits for up to 10 years rather than just 5 years.
And it gets to what Mr. Woodall said. It would not be
mandatory. We do not request mandatory moving it up, but that
we reward good actors really and those that are trying to
comply by actually allowing them to do the work that they need
to do.
So I am wondering, first from the mayor, Mayor Condon, and
also, I think, Mr. Kricun, what is your experience? How
important? Is this a good step?
Should this committee really be working on something like
that, setting in legislation so that those actors who are good
actors have an opportunity to extend it?
And how important is that to extend it?
So I ask you.
Mr. Condon. In two words, very important. To give certainty
to our ratepayers, to give certainty to local governments to
implement these regulations, I use the example in our case
where we have prudently bonded some $200 million of a $350
million project. There are 17 years left in that payment.
For that regulation, now, mind it: one of only hundreds if
not thousands of regulations on this issue. We should be
granted a variance to the best science that was available, the
best equipment that is available; that that downpayment by my
community has been made.
And so how do we then go through the permit process to give
that security to our citizens?
Technology is phenomenal, and we spend inordinate amounts
of money getting to the best technology. The good actors should
be rewarded with that. And so the movement to 10 years would be
phenomenal, or the technology or the investment that would have
been made.
I would further that with and encourage this committee in
your oversight that it is universally applied across the
country, especially in delegated States. My State has never had
a variance based on the regulations created both here in
Congress and then also those that are at the agency level.
I cannot say this enough: that the good actors get rewarded
even in the case where there are delegated States. And although
I believe in the States' rights and that ability, but also a
real reality of what is happening across this country.
Mr. Kricun. Thank you, Congressman.
First of all, I applaud you and your colleagues for the
thoughtful way of looking at this NPDES permit situation.
To me, I think that the length of the permit cycle is not
as critical as the ability to be able to modify the permit
should technology or external conditions change. If there is
less rigidity, then the permit duration does not really matter.
My concern, as an environmentalist as well as a water
utility manager, is that good actors and bad actors are
sometimes determined by the leadership, and so a utility is not
monolithic. So you might have a good actor, but then the
leadership might change, and it may not be a good actor. And so
you have to be careful about that.
But I think there needs to be flexibility within the
permitting system. For example, blending is a really good
example of that. If our permit was more flexible, we could
actually take more stormwater flow at our treatment plant and
reduce combined sewage flooding and overflows if we were
allowed to mix the flow in in a different way.
It is more of a permanent rigidity, which is hard to
explain in a short time, but the point is I think greater
flexibility is the thing that really good actors need, and that
would be my recommendation, sir.
Dr. Lowenthal. Yes. And just quickly, Mr. Kricun, you know,
in your testimony earlier, I think, how the SRF loans allowed
your agency to keep water rates down, can you expand? How does
it affect affordability?
I know in Orange County, we have used it a tremendous
amount. It has been extremely successful in our groundwater
replenishment system.
But tell me how does it? I know it needs to be briefly,
just a few seconds.
Mr. Kricun. Basically the State Revolving Fund allows us to
upgrade the equipment in a way. So the new equipment has lower
maintenance cost, lower energy cost because it is newer. So the
operations and maintenance savings are greater than the annual
debt service cost because of the low interest rates.
That is how we are able to upgrade the performance, protect
the environment and the public health, and hold the rates down.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Westerman. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman
from Puerto Rico, Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
And thank you for the opportunity, all of the members of
the panel.
And I think I will go in the same line Mr. LaMalfa, my
friend from California, just made because of the disasters in
California, and I thank you for taking the opportunity to
explain what happened with Hurricane Sandy.
And we in Puerto Rico, and I am the only representative for
the 3.2 million American citizens living there, and one thing
is before the hurricane and another one after the hurricane.
In our case, we are dealing with different situations as
well. We do have an Oversight Board on the island that limits
and actually just capped to 50 percent the capital investments
in infrastructure for the next 6 years, and when we identify
and the Government of Puerto Rico identifies more than $769
million needed just to repair the water infrastructure on the
island, and now that it is just capped to $13 million every
year for 6 years, we will never recover from that.
So we have got different experiences that I want to ask for
your advice here. One thing is the money that we receive from
FEMA in order to repair a lot of these water systems. The other
one is that we are also under the pressure of restructuring the
debt of the island, and that limits our opportunities to
actually access a lot of the funds and matching the
requirements for the communities.
We have got more than 170 community separate water systems
that attends more than 89,000 people on the island as well.
The main issue right now that as, Mr. LaMalfa was talking
about, we may have been OKed the money by a discount resident
to fix a lot of the failures or infrastructure damage by the
hurricane. And actually this committee recommended to pass an
amendment that I was pushing for that the staff wrote in order
to build back better, not the way it was before.
But right now, we have gotten a memo from FEMA saying that
that will cost more money immediately, and that will just fix
what was there before the hurricane, and that was not the
intention of the law.
So my question for the panel here, and the mayor as well,
is: How do we find a balance to build back better, because the
community needs it, in terms of the access to not just drinking
water?
Actually we are in a drought right now. So there are water
restrictions in Puerto Rico in some areas as we speak today
because there is a lot of investment that needs to be done, and
we just paid our debt with the revolving systems just February
20th.
So we are showing the real need of getting more access to
that money. How do we make changes? How can this Congress
directly make changes in order for communities to match that 20
percent, connecting the FEMA when disasters are happening, even
by another law of Congress in our case, the Oversight Board, to
make that infrastructure better?
I think the whole point of this hearing is how we can get
better infrastructure in water services, clean water and
wastewater as well.
So any recommendations would be highly appreciated.
Mr. Kricun. Well, thank you, Congresswoman.
I have spoken with Pete Lopez, the EPA Regional
Administrator. New Jersey and Puerto Rico are in the same
region, along with New York.
And our wastewater treatment plant is almost exactly the
same size as PRASA's largest treatment plant. So he asked me to
speak with PRASA because what we are doing to get off the grid
and develop a microgrid for Camden City's most vulnerable
facilities, like hospitals' drinking water plant, fire, police,
schools, the jail, et cetera, could be replicated in Puerto
Rico. In fact, I think it could be done more effectively
because of the water-energy nexus is an even greater
opportunity in Puerto Rico because of your high energy costs.
So I have been talking with PRASA, and I would be glad to
speak with you afterwards, but I think there is a tremendous
opportunity to do a project that would take your water, your
sewage and sludge, and turn it into energy, underground,
resilient energy, which then could be used to protect the
island against power outages from storms like last summer.
I think there is a tremendous opportunity there. Also, food
waste conversion into energy, and it is definitely affordable,
and the energy savings would pay for the facility costs. I have
already looked at it.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I know I am running out of time, but
if we can amend or even have reading recommendations, I will be
more than welcome to have it.
And we never talk here about generators. Six months after
the hurricane we were drinking water because we use generators
in our power plants, and we still do it in some areas.
So thank you, and I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano [presiding]. Reclaiming my time, thank you,
Mr. Westerman.
He has to depart.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Carbajal is on.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all of you for being here and sharing your
testimony with us.
Mr. Kricun, thank you for your willingness to advocate in
support of much needed water and wastewater infrastructure
resources for local government.
I served in local government for many years. So I really
appreciate you more than ever today.
In your testimony, you mentioned Hurricane Sandy in New
Jersey and hurricanes in Houston, Florida, and Puerto Rico. You
used these examples as evidence of how ill-equipped our
existing water infrastructure is to deal with these extreme
events and climate change.
I represent the central coast of California. Last winter,
our region experienced a devastating wildfire season followed
by a very, very heavy rainfall event, which triggered a deadly
debris flow that claimed the lives of 23 of my constituents and
ruptured the main water line on Montecito.
This left many of my community stranded and without access
to clean drinking water for days. Based on your experience in
local government, what are the pros and cons of creating a
dedicated Federal program to help communities strengthen the
resiliency of the water and wastewater infrastructure against
these threats, one?
And, two, what are the challenges that local governments
experience in trying to fund some of these water resiliency
projects?
Mr. Kricun. Thank you, Congressman.
For the first question, it is an absolute must. I mean, we
have already seen, and I know there is a difference of opinion
between whether climate change is real or not. Put that aside.
Climate history has shown that our infrastructure as it is now
is wholly inadequate for how the climate is now.
So we must build resiliency, and then there is a quite a
bit in the body of science that shows that the climate will
only worsen and that problem will only be exacerbated. So I
think it is critical to have resiliency funding for vulnerable
communities, both in arid communities or in areas where there
is too much water.
And I could not support that more and hope that the
Congress will support that.
In the meantime, we must look for opportunities. If you are
in an area where there is too much water, like in the East
where we have flooding issues, or in Puerto Rico or Florida,
Houston, we need to upgrade our infrastructure. We need to
expand it. We need to build for rising river level issues.
Green infrastructure is very important, and that should be
funded. Our State does fund it, but not all States do. They
fund it through the SRF.
To soak up the stormwater in arid States, you know, there
are measures that need to be taken as well. I mean, I think
that we are doing the future of our country and our children
and grandchildren a disservice if we do not plan for this now
and try to fund to protect, you know, the vulnerable
communities in our country.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Carbajal.
Seeing as there are no other questions from the Members of
Congress, we will go to a second round if you do not mind. This
is a very important issue, and we want to give it as much light
as we can.
So I will start with a question for Mayor Condon.
One of the things that you mentioned was the integration of
your streets to collect more water. Would you mind elaborating
on that?
I think that is an important thing for us to know, and some
of my cities are doing it, but I would like to know more about
it.
Mr. Condon. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Yes, several years ago we took this integrated idea and
took it throughout our city. We now look at our streets as
three dimensional, as what is important underneath is just as
important as what is on top, and we functionally went through
the process of handing our Streets Department from the
operational government over to the utilities side of our
operation, meaning that those same engineers that design our
water, sewer, stormwater system now design our streets.
We used to have that all done separately. Not only that,
but you can think of it, and those of us in local government,
we get notified when they see a brandnew street. A year or two
later the Utility Division is out there cutting it open to put
in new water mains or new sewer mains.
It took us 3 years in transition, but now a lot of our
street redoes are done based off of what the infrastructure
underneath needs to be done, saving all the money from
reconstructing that street after utility; not only that, but
now our investor-owned utilities are lining up their capital
projects with ours so that they are redoing their capital at
the same time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I'm glad to know that because at one
point I had asked when I was mayor of a city why the utilities
did not inform us when they were going to break the streets up.
Guys, we could channel all of that energy and save money and do
it right.
But now that it is happening, maybe more people will take
notice of that.
Thank you very much for the answer.
Mr. Mokszycki, the Clean Water Act once authorized grants
for water infrastructure, but switched primarily to loans
through the Clean Water SRF. You suggested our SRFs should be
allowed to use grants in the form of loan forgiveness and zero
interest.
I agree with that. Can you expand upon the point?
Mr. Mokszycki. Well, yes. Well, all I know is that for us,
if we did not have the loan forgiveness and the zero-percent
interest, we would not have been able to construct a plant that
would have completely solved our problem as far as discharging
wastewater to the local creeks.
So it is very important, especially for the small rural
communities. They just do not have the resources to fund
adequately what they need to do in order to solve the problem
long term.
What we are looking to do is, you know, we need the zero-
interest loans. We need these grants to be in place for the
most vulnerable communities. We were fortunate to get that
money, and it allowed us to do some of the other work that we
needed to do with our water lines.
More to the point, we had the same problem with our Highway
Department, and our water and sewer utilities are separate, and
there is nothing more disturbing to a highway superintendent
than going out and watching us put a nice, big hole is a
brandnew paved road because the water lines are so inadequate
and they fail so often, but they just could not wait to repave
the road and, you know, 1 week later, 2 weeks later, you are
out there digging these roads up.
Stuff does need to be coordinated, but we also need to be
able to afford it, and without the Clean Water Act funds and
without the grants and the zero-interest loans, there is just
no way these small communities can afford it.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Kricun, you suggested the SRF is a proven successful
resource for water utilities to replace and upgrade the
infrastructure while keeping the rates affordable. Please
expand upon that point.
Mr. Kricun. Thank you, Congresswoman, Chair.
So we have used the State Revolving Fund since its
inception in 1987 and borrowed about over $1 billion in
funding. Much has been paid back; still borrowing more.
We have rebuilt our entire wastewater treatment plant,
upgraded Camden City's combined sewer system to the extent that
we will be able to eliminate combined sewage flooding, the same
kind of flooding Ms. Flowers talked about. We will be able to
eliminate that in Camden for up to the 1-inch storm by the end
of 2020, plus using that SRF funding to be off the grid and
less vulnerable to power outages, all without raising rates.
Our rate was only $337 in 1996 per household per year. It
is $352 today. So in 23 years, it has only gone up by $15 per
year because of the SRF. So that is proof that the SRF works.
We are paying the loan back, but because of the loans, we
were able to upgrade our system without raising rates. And like
I said before, Camden City has a median income now of $26,000.
They cannot afford a raise, but yet they deserve clean water
and they deserve freedom from sewage in their basements. So
that is how the SRF works.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lynch, you are recognized.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate you
holding the hearing, and the ranking member. I appreciate your
holding this hearing on a very important issue.
And I want to thank the witnesses. You have been very, very
helpful in developing our response.
I represent a district in Massachusetts on the Atlantic
Coast that stretches from the city of Boston, one of the oldest
cities in the United States, down to Quincy and Weymouth, down
all the way down the south shore to towns like Cohasset and
situated on the Hull that are impacted regularly by climate
change.
And there are also some infrastructure issues on their
water supplies because of the age of those systems. It is
heartening to hear the concern and the commitment to the State
Revolving Funds.
We have done quite a bit of work in Massachusetts. We have
funded the Deer Island water-sewage treatment facility. Up
until that point, since the days of Massachusetts Bay Colony,
they were basically flushing their wastewater out into Boston
Harbor, and so that has dramatically changed.
Now, a couple of years ago at Easter sunrise service at
Castle Island in South Boston, it is a beautiful area
overlooking the harbor, and if there were not 900 people there,
no one would believe it, but we actually saw a small school of
harbor dolphin going just offshore, and that is the clearest
sign that we have ever seen. Never in my lifetime has that been
the case.
But it shows you how clean that water is getting because of
the investment. It largely has been a State and local and a
municipal investment though, and so we have got some of the
highest water rates in the country, you know. Maybe because we
have been doing the wrong thing for so long.
But the investment on the Federal side is so important to
us, and you know, that has been reflected in all of your
testimonies. Ms. Taylor, you hit the nail on the head. You
know, if we invest in this, do it the right way, and we have
got ratepayers out there.
You know, some aspects of our Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, because of the public mission, they will
never make money, but this can pay for itself. If we just get
some help, just some very, very low-interest funding, you know,
bonding, you know, we can pay this over time.
But we are dreadfully behind schedule on some of these
improvements, and you know, Congress has to take note of this.
We cannot leave this for the next generation. This is something
that has happened on our watch.
And I really appreciate the mayor of Spokane coming here
because you are dealing with it, you know, right at ground
zero, and it is real to our mayors, and that is who I am
hearing from.
I have meetings with the EPA and others with my mayors to
try to resolve this city by city and town by town. So we could
surely use your help.
Madam Chair, I am glad that you have been such a champion
on this as well, and I know that your passion is shared by
Chairman DeFazio. And I think we are at a good place,
Republican and Democrat on this committee and in Congress,
about the importance of providing that support for our water
systems and critical infrastructure.
So I am very happy to hear your perspectives. I think it is
very important that you came here today and shared those
visions with us.
And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman Lynch.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will go back to the question I was doing before, and I
know we never got enough time to answer. So, Mayor Condon, can
you talk about what other measures can be taken in order to
reveal not the way it was before, but in a better way?
And I will combine that question. I was looking into your
ALICE form, and I would like to know how do you deal with
people that are under the poverty level line. Because in Puerto
Rico, the household median income annually is $19,000.
So our public deliveries rose to 43 percent, which is
higher than even Mississippi. So how do you manage that and how
do you apply using lower income from communities as well?
Mr. Condon. Quickly, I wrote down your Build Back Better. I
like that alliteration.
So first of all, ALICE is done across the country, every
community, and so it is eye opening when you really see that
budget, what it means, and there have been comments about, you
know, your base rate use versus your utilization rate,
especially on the water side.
I was elected primarily because of water rates going up
double digits on the consumption side. I do give some credence
to the idea that the base rates if they go to high, people
cannot negate that.
I would also suggest though if it is in our case so overtly
on the utilization side, imagine who is using more water, those
people that cannot afford brandnew, to be honest with you,
things like toilets, brandnew appliances that use dramatically
less water, and so your families, your senior citizens, your
low income inadvertently use more water.
Those growing their own food at their house, some of my
areas that voted for me because of that water rate increase,
our senior citizens that have large gardens. So they are doing
exactly what we want, reducing food deserts, using natural
foods.
So when you go to water consumption only rates, it also
causes a problem, and so as we go down this path, I would
suggest that we look at that. It is a whole picture.
The second is, and I go back to it again, is the idea
especially as you build back an entire community, is to look
across the Federal agencies and look at opportunities where
those dollars can be utilized together, but not necessarily put
that burden on the localities to figure out where in Federal
Government that they can get dollars, but rather look across
the Federal Government and truly authorize an account that is
for integrated projects from streets to utilities. This is
basic infrastructure.
And done together, our private sector and our public sector
will do the right thing. Now we have, Chairwoman, as a mayor,
you probably saw this. We have people coming together in city
government that said, ``You know what? If I had authority over
the entire right-of-way, look what I can do.''
And my citizens are getting walking paths they never got
before. They are getting pervious pavement trails, and that all
remove stormwater from the system rewarding our stormwater
utility because it is not coming into the treatment plant.
The previous plan was a total gray solution, spend
millions, hundreds of millions on the sewage treatment plant.
Now we did not have to spend as much because less in does not
need to be then treated.
And so really looking at integrated solutions, but for the
Federal Government to reward that with, yes, funding for
integrated projects and also permits that allow this sort of
innovative thinking.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. When you are using new technology, is
there any legal barrier to improvise or improve, if I may say,
technology that you use in water systems?
Mr. Condon. Not that I am aware of. I will ask our experts,
and I can submit that for the testimony.
One of the more recent ones we are using now is satellite
imagery for leakage, where rather than literally today, there
is a truck that goes out in Spokane some 60 square miles of a
city, and they listen to the street for water, and that is the
current technology.
They have a picture of me listening to the street. It never
popped up on social media, but a giant stethoscope because they
listen for certain sound waves.
Now the technology we are literally just testing out, one
of the first in the country, is using satellite imagery to look
at leakages. So phenomenal possibilities in technology.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
One more question I have for Ms. Flowers.
One of the things that we talk about is the pollution of
our water, and we have not even scratched the surface on
industrial, farm runoff, and drugs/opioids. But essentially, we
have got to deal with the first problem we have, which is
dealing with delivery of water, clean water, potable water to
residents.
What would you ask us to do?
Ms. Flowers. Well, I think we just partnered with the
Alabama Rivers Alliance, and we partnered because they have
found at least on the State level where the big polluters are
getting away with polluting the rivers and the streams.
And as I mentioned in my testimony, homeowners were being
criminalized for having failing septic systems and no septic
systems at all.
So I think one of the ways in which we could deal with that
is to try to find a way to fund or get funds to those small
areas that do not have access to the finances to put
technologies in place to treat wastewater.
In our area, I know everybody has talked about the match
that is required. There is no tax base. So, therefore, there is
no match, and they will not be able to apply and receive
funding.
So there should be something that will allow for those
parts of America that have been marginalized for so long to be
prioritized where they can have access to these funds as well
because to make them available and then people do not have
access to it is not going to clean up our rivers and streams.
We are going to still have the same problems that we have right
now.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Taylor?
Ms. Taylor. We believe that it is the Federal Government's
responsibility to guarantee access to clean water and
sanitation. And given that priority, everything else is about
best practices, and I have heard the mayor, my colleagues on
this end. I have written a million notes. I am going to take
all those things back. The bottom line is that our folks are
drinking water that is not clean in Detroit and Highland Park,
and other places we do not even have dirty water to drink.
So this is the Federal Government's responsibility to find
a way to make this happen, and I trust with all of these smart
people here, we can do this. We can do this.
Mrs. Napolitano. They need to share best practices.
Ms. Taylor. We can share best practices. I am prepared to
send over to pick anybody up and bring you to Detroit so we can
talk about this. Because we can do this.
Mrs. Napolitano. We can if we all work together.
Ms. Taylor. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Heaps.
Ms. Heaps. I would echo what my colleagues up here have
already said. We need for polluters to be held accountable. We
need resources for communities.
Just to answer Mr. Lowenthal's question, I was not asked,
but I think 10 years on an NPDES permit is a terrible idea. I
would have told Mr. Lynch that in Gardner, Massachusetts, the
sewage treatment plant there had its permit expire in 2014, and
it still does not have a new permit yet.
So I would say that also Mr. Kricun mentioned we do not
know who the good guys and the bad guys are because we have too
much turnover in these organizations.
So I would support everything that has been said here and
oppose 10-year permit conditions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you very much, panel. You have
been very enlightening, and it certainly is a pleasure hearing
from people who are affected. It is important for us to have
those testimonies in the record.
The need for action, the need for more funding, investment
in underserved communities, all of us working together can help
address the critical issue of water, infrastructure, and
potable water.
In closing, I ask unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions to be included in the
record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank you, witnesses, again. Thank you very
much.
I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15
days for any additional comments and information submitted by
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing
And Miss Gonzalez-Colon has information on Puerto Rico she
would want us to have included in the record?
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. That is correct.
Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered, without objection.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to thank you, again, very
much. You have been very kind, and it has been a long hearing,
but thank you again.
If no other Members have anything to add, our committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased that the Chairman is holding this hearing today, as it
allows us to discuss the urgent need for federal investment in order to
modernize water infrastructure and make communities more affordable.
The CWSRF assists communities by providing low-cost financing for a
wide range of wastewater, stormwater, reuse, and other pollution
control projects. Recent streamlining of the program provides year-
round funding as projects are included in the CWSRF Intended Use Plan.
Through Fiscal Year 2018, the program has committed approximately $8.7
billion for projects across my home state of Texas.
As the world's population continues to grow and urbanize, advanced
water treatment and sanitation will be ever more essential. We must get
the water equation right if we have any hope of sustaining the world's
growing populations and urbanization.
But our water infrastructure doesn't just need funding, it needs
reinvention. In our nation, it is no secret that our water
infrastructure is struggling to keep up with current demands, much less
meet tomorrow's needs. Issues such as the water crisis continuing to
plague the city of Flint, Michigan, where children are being poisoned
by lead in the water supply, elevate the need for urgent and swift
action.
I have been an advocate of water infrastructure by supporting
projects such as the Bois d'Arc Lake project--the first major reservoir
to be constructed in Texas in 30 years. I continue my support for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and their mission of Flood Risk Management
and Life Safety in DFW and the surrounding areas. Of note, the Dallas
Floodway, which enhances Flood Risk Management for the city of Dallas
by raising levy heights and constructing interior pump stations, and
the Dallas Floodway Extension, that provides new levies for parts of
south Dallas and restores some of our precious wetlands.
I have also supported the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when a
negative article was published about the Lewisville Dam. We worked
together as the Corps finished the Dam Safety Modification Study and
started the Dam Safety Modification Project. This partnership resulted
in a project that started a full two years ahead of schedule and was
fully funded.
The reality is that we need to repair, replace, and extend our
water infrastructure, and that we need more money to do it, especially
at a state and local level. But it's not just a matter of finding the
money. We also need to think strategically about what we put the money
toward. It is time we target those investments for needs today and
tomorrow.
The easy course would be to repair, rebuild, and extend our water
infrastructure using the technologies in use today. Engineers know how
to design and build it, vendors can make money selling components
they're comfortable making, and operators know how to run it. But will
it equip us to handle the water needs that communities will face twenty
years from now, fifty years from now? That is the question we must
address.
Thank you. I yield back.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano for Hon. David Condon
Question 1. Your testimony highlights the water and wastewater
affordability challenges in communities that I represent. In addition
to the integrated planning law and Clean Water State Revolving Fund
reauthorization which I have pushed for, I also contend that the
Federal government can do more to help individual households address
water affordability concerns. I understand that you have personal
experience with the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program,
or LIHEAP.
In your view, could a similar concept work in addressing low-income
household affordability challenges for water and wastewater?
Answer.
A. The history of federal financial assistance to local government
for water and sewer has gone from construction grants (80% Federal, 20%
local), to low interest State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans (Cities pay
the loans back with interest), to WIFIA credit support (which is also
additional long term debt carried by cities). All of these financing
mechanisms highlight the Congressional retreat from cities. The
question must be asked regarding how does an additional annual
appropriation that is greatly uncertain address the fundamental problem
with the Clean Water Act regulations and the declining ability of large
portions of the population to afford services that comply with a strict
set of requirements?
B. The actual history of a LIHEAP type approach related to
residential heating and cooling does not signal that applying it to
water and wastewater will provide the needed aid to the right
households, or enough households. For example, the LIHEAP programs, as
implemented in the states, often rely on a lottery system in an effort
to stretch limited resources among a pool of households, so the aid
does not get extended to all who need it.
C. Another concern is that authorizations do not equal
appropriations, and the uncertainty of continuous funding provides some
members of Congress a sense of having solved the affordability problem
by kicking the pay-for can down the road to the appropriators, but
ultimately the consumer.
a. One east coast city within 100 miles of Washington, DC can
serve as an example of how much subsidy is needed in a LIHEAP type
program for wastewater to make low income households on par with cost
per household for wastewater at no more than 2 percent of actual
household income.
b. Table 1 examines:
i. How 2% Median Household Income (MHI) impacts all income
levels in this city; and,
ii. The level of subsidy required to limit household
wastewater charges to 2 percent of actual household income.
c. 2% MHI in this city roughly matches the income group making
$42,500/year. Some 30 percent of Households spend more than 2% of their
annual household income for wastewater services: the lowest income
group would be required to spend 9.43 percent of their annual income
for wastewater services.
d. In this case, wastewater charges annually are $650.
e. The annual subsidy required to limit cost per household to 2
percent of actual annual income would cost $9.7 million.
f. Table 2 examines:
i. How 4.5% MHI impacts all income levels in this city, (4.5%
is related to the EPA expectation that households should spend 2% of
their income on wastewater service and 2.5% of income for drinking
water); and,
ii. The level of subsidy required to limit household
wastewater and drinking water charges to 4.5 percent of actual
household income.
g. 4.5% MHI in this city roughly matches the income group making
$30,000/yr;
h. Some 30 percent of Households spend more than 4.5% of their
annual household income for wastewater services: the lowest income
group would be required to spend 13.0 percent of their annual income
for wastewater and drinking water services.
i. In this case, wastewater and drinking water charges annually
are $1,300.
j. The annual subsidy required to limit cost per household to
4.5% percent of actual annual income would cost $45.8 million.
D. In Spokane, LIHEAP energy assistance is available once per
heating season per household as long as funding is available. Grants
are based on income, heat usage, number of people in the household, and
housing type. A family of four needs to make $30,000 or less to qualify
for help. The process to get an appointment is cumbersome, and it can
take weeks to get an appointment.
We believe that affordable rates provides a more equitable and easy
way to assist our families. Bureaucratic processes and costs would not
be necessary, and more families would receive help.
Question 2. Do you have recommendations on how Congress could
create a Federal grant assistance program to address house-hold
affordability in a way that provides communities with the flexibility
to tailor that assistance to address their unique needs?
Answer. Given the concerns that were just outlined in the answer to
question 1, we have no further recommendations regarding creating a
Federal grant assistance program that addresses household
affordability. We would recommend additional federal assistance to
communities to help pay for water infrastructure, particularly in the
form of grants either through the SRF process or another means. We
would also recommend a robust application of Integrated Planning (IP)
for communities facing costly unfunded mandates. Both of these would
assist in the bottom line costs to the community so that rates could
remain more affordable.
Related to Integrated Planning, we encourage this Congress to be
mindful about authorizing new rules and regulations without appropriate
funding that will ultimately impose additional costs to citizens that
will only exacerbate the current affordability problem.
We recommend Congress to be aware regarding EPA's work on
developing a new Financial Capability and Affordability guidance and
weigh in if appropriate. This document will be used to determine what
communities and citizens can afford to pay and will be used for future
regulatory negotiations.
Question 3. As you know, in recent years, the annual appropriations
bill for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) has carried
specific language requiring States to distribute a percentage of their
funds to communities, not as traditional loans, but with additional
subsidizations (e.g. negative interest loans or principal forgiveness)
or grants.
Has this authority provided a benefit to communities to address the
local costs of wastewater assistance?
Answer. The simple answer is yes. The problem sometimes is to
convince the states to actually implement it. That is why the language
Congress chooses is so important. Requiring a state to provide a
certain percentage is much better than simply allowing a state to do
it.
Question 4. Do you believe this requirement should be made
permanent in the Clean Water Act?
Answer. Yes.
Question 5. In the fiscal year 2019 appropriation for the Clean Water
SRF, States are required to distribute 10 percent of funds for
additional subsidizations (e.g. negative interest loans or principal
forgiveness) or grants, and not loans. However, in the Conference of
Mayors Priorities for the 116th Congress, the Conference recommends 50
percent of the funds go out as grants arid an additional 30 percent be
used for no-interest loans.
Can you describe your rationale for this change?
Answer. As mentioned in Answer 1, the Federal government has walked
away from its original commitments to water and wastewater
infrastructure funding. From the grants of the 1970s, the Federal
government has now moved ultimately to loans that communities have to
pay back. As a result, local governments are spending 98% of annual
investments in municipal water and wastewater infrastructure, including
capital as well as operations and maintenance. The last census numbers
released for 2016 indicate that local government spent more than $123
billion for water and wastewater alone. Given the tremendous needs in
our communities, many have reached their limits in bonding capacity.
Other communities are too small or too disadvantaged to pay these loans
back. It would help if Congress would require more of the money they
give to States to be used as negative interest loans and principal
forgiveness. By doing this, these loans would, in fact, act like much-
needed grants to communities who desperately need them. This would be a
positive step by Congress to demonstrate its recommitment to funding
water and wastewater infrastructure.
Table 1: Level of Subsidy Required to Make Wastewater Cost per
Household Affordable
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table 2: Level of Subsidy Required to Make Wastewater and Drinking
Water Cost per Household Affordable
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano for John Mokszycki
Questions 1 and 2. During the hearing, in response to a question about
opportunities for the ``private sector to bring solutions'' to local
water quality challenges, you noted that you did not ``see how that
would work.'' You also noted that it was likely that such solutions
``are going to be a little more expensive if private entities come into
the picture because they need to get paid.''
Can you expand upon this answer?
Can you describe your experiences with private sector companies'
involvement in providing local wastewater services?
Answer. Regarding privatization of water infrastructure and public-
private partnerships, NRWA has not opposed water supply privatization
in principle. However, corporate water (profit generating companies or
companies paying profits to shareholders/investors) should not be
eligible for federal taxpayer subsidies. Private companies argue that
they have to comply with the same regulations. However, the distinction
in mission between public and private is the core principle that should
be considered. Public water utilities were and are created to provide
for public welfare (the reason why public water continues to expand to
underserved and nonprofitable populations). Any federal subsidy that is
provided to a corporate water utility can't be separated from
subsidizing that company's profits.
Regarding private or commercial funding as a source for investment
in the country's water infrastructure, please know that there is
currently no limitation on private or commercial investments in water
utility infrastructure projects. Many water utilities currently rely on
commercial or private investors (i.e. a local bank) for certain
projects.
However, many water infrastructure water projects would become
unaffordable if they were to rely solely on commercial or private
financing. This means that the ratepayers would not be able to afford
their water bills if the total cost of the project were financed by the
ratepayers. This dynamic is especially acute in low-income communities
with expensive water utility infrastructure needs.
Congress has determined that there is a federal interest in
subsidizing some of these water infrastructure projects based on need--
the community's lack of ability to afford the project combined with the
public health or environmental urgency of the project. Congress
appropriates finite water funding subsidies and communities compete
based on need for these limited federal subsidies.
We have concerns with proposals to extend new subsidies or tax
preference to the private investment sector to support a new national
infrastructure initiative: (1) For private or commercial funding
instruments to be able make projects more affordable by lowering
interest rates, the federal government would have to offer some type of
subsidy or tax-break to the private sector. This will have a cost to
the federal government in decreased tax revenue or direct
appropriations. If this cost is used to support the private sector it
will result in a transfer or circumvention of public (taxpayer)
subsidies from the public (local governments under the SRFs, USDA,
etc.) to the commercial or corporate sector. We believe that federal
water project subsidies should be used for the public/governmental
sector water infrastructure projects determined to be a federal
priority worthy of public subsidy. (2) Private infrastructure financing
does not require the prioritization of projects based on need
(economical and environmental) like the current government water
programs. It is in the interest of the private financing sector to fund
the projects that would have the highest return on investments.
Therefore, if additional federal subsidies were used to subsidize the
private sector, if would have the effect of redirecting federal
subsidies from the projects with the greatest need (economical, public
health and environmental) to the projects with least need.
Federal water infrastructure subsidies should only be available to
benefit the public--local governments who can't finance water projects
on their own, and then the limited federal subsidies should be
prioritized to communities in the greatest need. The current federal
water infrastructure initiatives including the SRFs and USDA are
required by statute to accomplish these public policy objectives and we
have not witnessed any new private funding proposals that retain these
objectives.
Questions 3 and 4. In recent years, Congress has included a 20 percent
set-aside in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for green
infrastructure projects in its annual appropriations bill for this
program.
Do you think this authority should be retained, and should it be
made permanent?
Has this authority been helpful in assisting local wastewater
infrastructure become more resilient and more energy efficient?
Answer. All U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water
funding programs should be primarily dedicated to compliance with EPA's
federal mandates or standards. Currently, the Safe Drinking Water Act
and Clean Water Act are creating a tremendous financial burden on small
and rural communities. The funds provided by Congress, however, are not
consistently applied to communities that are experiencing the greatest
burden as a result of federal compliance. Communities experiencing
economic burden resulting from federal Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act compliance should be the priority in targeting all
EPA water funding subsidies.
Federal water infrastructure subsidies should only be available to
benefit the public--local governments who can't finance water projects
on their own, and then the limited federal subsidies should be
prioritized to communities in the greatest need.
Under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
state revolving funds' (SRFs) application processes require the
prioritization of funding awards based on a meritorious needs-based
evaluation conducted by the states. Under the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) water infrastructure funding program, communities
must demonstrate they don't have the ability to obtain commercial
credit (the ``credit elsewhere'' test) and then they are only
subsidized by the amount to make the project affordable to that
specific community based on a ratio of water rates and local median
household income. There are never enough federal subsidies to fund
every project.
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano for Andrew Kricun, P.E., BCEE
Questions 1 and 2. The Clean Water Act construction grants program and
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) authorities both have an
innovative/alternative program that allowed more favorable financial
packages for innovative projects in order to encourage utilities to try
new approaches by reducing the associated costs.
Within the context of the Clean Water SRF, how has the green
infrastructure/water or energy efficiency improvements/other
environmentally innovative activities set-aside, annually extended
through the appropriations bills, encouraged utilities to try such
innovations?
Have there been any quantifiable benefits of this authority, and if
so, please describe?
Answer. The NJ State Revolving Fund includes provisions for
principal forgiveness for both green infrastructure projects and for
green energy projects. These provisions have been extremely helpful to
the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority. Specifically, we have
benefited from the principal forgiveness provisions in the NJ SRF to
green over 100 acres in Camden City, capturing 100 million gallons of
stormwater, and correspondingly reducing the potential for combined
sewage overflows and combined sewage flooding in the streets and homes
of Camden residents. In addition, we have leveraged the 100 greened
acres and created 240 green internships for at-risk young men and
women, aged 17-25, to help maintain and preserve the green
infrastructure. None of this could have happened without the State
Revolving Fund, and the principal forgiveness component of the Fund was
especially helpful.
In addition, the NJ SRF also has provided us with principal
forgiveness for our green energy project. This project will enable us
to convert our biosolids into electricity and, therefore, be entirely
off the electric grid by June 2020, thereby reducing our vulnerability
to power outages and severe storms. As a result, our wastewater
treatment plant will be able to continue to protect the public health
and environment, even if there is a power outage in Camden City. And,
we will be able to do this without raising rates to any of our
customers. Again, we could never have been able to accomplish this
project, without implementing a significant rate increase, if not for
the low interest loans offered by the State Revolving Fund. With a
median household income of $26,000, Camden City residents cannot afford
rate increases. Yet, I strongly believe that every person in the United
States, urban and rural, deserve safe drinking water and protection
from sewage overflows and flooding. Thanks to the State Revolving Fund,
the Camden County MUA has been able to provide Camden's residents with
full clean water service, without raising rates.
Question 3. Should this authority be made permanent, and if so, at
what level?
Answer. For these reasons, I strongly recommend that this authority
be made permanent. It represents a tremendous opportunity to provide
all citizens with innovative environmental solutions, while reducing
the risk to the utility trying the innovation, and also, preventing a
significant rate burden on the ratepayers.
Question 4. Would you recommend any additional changes to this set-
aside to encourage additional innovation?
Answer. My only recommendation would be that if additional funding
for these authorities could be made available, it would encourage
further replication. In addition, perhaps the innovative uses of the
SRF could be more widely documented by EPA and disseminated through the
Regions and States, again to encourage replication by other utilities.
Most of the innovations that our utility implemented were borrowed and
adapted from good ideas from other utilities. Thankfully, our
membership in the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
gains us access to such innovations. However, there are many smaller
cities and towns that are not networked in the same way so I believe
that it would be very helpful to these smaller utilities to hear about
the SRF-funded innovations that are being implemented in the water
sector.
Question 5. During the hearing, there was discussion on how certain
small or rural communities lack the resources or personnel to oversee
certain utility management responsibilities.
Can you further explain the benefits of peer to peer assistance,
regionalization, or public private partnerships in addressing these
challenges?
Answer.
A. Peer to Peer Initiative--Most wastewater and drinking water
utilities face similar challenges and, in the public sector, at least
water practitioners are very willing to share information and
experiences with those challenges. It makes no sense for our smallest/
most economically distressed communities to face challenges in silos,
especially when solutions are readily available in the sector. I
mentioned the advantage of belonging to trade associations like NACWA
and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) but there are many ''non-
networked'' utilities and municipalities that do not have access to
these water networks.
This is why I strongly believe that a nationwide peer to peer
initiative, in which utilities with greater resources assist those non-
networked utilities/municipalities with fewer resources. Peer to peer
assistance can be provided in a variety of ways, such as knowledge
sharing, resource sharing, etc. I am very glad that the USEPA, NACWA
and WEF are working together to create a 5O-state peer to peer
initiative. And, I am very proud that the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection is taking the lead to pilot the initiative.
Thus far, in New Jersey, we already have 13 clean water and drinking
water utilities who have volunteered to work with fellow utilities and
municipalities who may need help with various challenges, such as
applying for the State Revolving Fund, asset management, procurement,
technical assistance, etc.
B. Regionalization--Camden County has 37 municipalities, including
Camden City. It used to have 53 wastewater treatment plants, all of
which were in non-compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act. Camden
County created our utility, the Camden County Municipal Utilities
Authority, to regionalize wastewater treatment in Camden County. We
eliminated all 53 treatment plants, constructed a new wastewater
treatment plant, designed to treat all of the sewage flow generated in
Camden County to the levels required by the Clean Water Act, and then
built a regional sewer system to convey flow from the 37 municipalities
to the regional sewage treatment plant. As a result, the interior
streams of Camden County were cleaned up almost immediately. Within one
year of completion of this project, the fecal coliform (bacteria)
levels in these streams dropped by 95 to 99%. In addition, the total
cost to ratepayers dropped significantly when the 53 treatment plants
were consolidated into one new plant. And, the new regional approach
allowed us to provide assistance to Camden City, one of the most
economically distressed communities in the United States, so that every
citizen in Camden County is getting the benefit of advanced wastewater
treatment.
C. Public Private Partnerships--I believe that the ideal set of
circumstances, in most cases, is for the public sector utility to adopt
the private sector model of efficiency, and then harness that
efficiency to the public good. In this way, the public gets the best of
both worlds--an efficient utility that has been created for the public
good, not for profit.
However, there are several instances where there are
opportunities for public-private partnerships, especially in instances
where tax incentives that are available to the private sector, but not
to the public sector, can be shared by both parties. For example, the
Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority entered into a power
purchase agreement with a private entity to construct solar. panels at
our treatment plant. The solar panels provide 1 Megawatt of electricity
at a much lower price than the electric company and are also more
resilient in the case of a power outage. Because of tax incentives
available to the private sector, the private company was able to
design, build, own, operate and maintain the panels at NO COST to
Camden County, while charging a rate that was over 60% less than the
electric company.
On a similar note, we are working with a nearby private
operator of trash to steam incinerator to send them clean effluent from
our treatment plant, to be used as cooling water in the incinerator,
while, in turn, the incinerator will provide our utility with 11
Megawatts of green, resilient, electricity that we will then transmit,
through a microgrid, to the most important, vulnerable, infrastructure
in Camden City, such as the drinking water plant, hospitals, fire,
police, schools, etc.
In summary, while I do believe that an efficient public utility
best serves the public, there are definitely opportunities for mutual
benefit from public-private partnerships, as evidenced by the examples
provided above.
Question 6. On the topic of affordability, several witnesses expressed
support for the concept of additional Federal assistance to help local
household rate challenges, but urged Congress to provide States and
communities with flexibility on how that assistance would be provided.
In your opinion, if Congress were to structure an affordability
assistance program within the Clean Water Act, how should it be
structured to both provide the flexibility for regional variation, as
well as ensure rate relief to low income customers?
Answer. Affordable safe drinking water and clean water services
should be provided to all United States citizens, regardless of their
zip code. I believe that drinking water and clean water utilities
should be allowed, on a permissive, not mandatory, basis, to develop
affordability programs that would help them to charge a fair rate to
all of their customers, on the basis of the ability to pay. In this
way, utilities could charge the rates they need to maintain their
infrastructure without the need for Federal and State assistance,
without imposing an unsupportable burden on the poorest customers.
I believe that the ability to implement an affordability program is
really essential for clean water and drinking water utilities to
maintain and upgrade infrastructure as needed to protect the public
health and the environment without unduly burdening our most
economically distressed citizens. I also believe that, safe drinking
water and clean water are essential needs for our citizens, in the same
way that heat is during the winter time. Therefore, if the Congress
could implement a Low-Income Assistance program for drinking water and
clean water customers, that would also help water utilities provide
needed services to our customers without unduly burdening our most
vulnerable customers.
Question 7. The current and projected impacts of climate change on
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure include sea level rise, storm
surge, extreme precipitation, decreased water quality, flooding,
increased water treatment requirements and costs, and higher energy
demand for treatment plants.
How could an increase in Clean Water SRF funding help your
community make its infrastructure more resilient to these impacts?
Answer. After Hurricane Sandy in 2013, utilities in New Jersey are
very concerned about climate history, and how the climate has already
changed beyond the capacity of our infrastructure as it currently
stands. If/ As climate change worsens over time, then this
infrastructure gap will only worsen correspondingly.
We see three key challenges, and corresponding opportunities, that
must be met in the face of climate change:
green energy projects to reduce the vulnerability of
treatment facilities to power outages. During Hurricane Sandy, billions
of gallons of raw sewage were discharged into nearby rivers and streams
due to power outages and plant failures. It is essential that our
nation's water and wastewater treatment plants continue to operate to
protect the public health and the environment, even in the face of
severe storms and resulting power outages. Also, wastewater treatment
plants use 4% of the nation's energy so converting as much of that
usage to green energy also helps to reduce carbon footprint as well.
green infrastructure to reduce the potential for
flooding, even in the face of more severe storms. This is especially
important in combined sewer areas where extreme storms can lead to raw
sewage overflows and flooding into basements, streets and parks
protection against river level rise is also needed to
protect our clean water infrastructure
The State Revolving Fund currently funds all of these types of
projects and, as stated above, is a real difference maker, especially
for economically distressed communities like Camden City, to be enable
utilities to be able to construct the infrastructure needed to protect
the public health and the environment, while also maintaining
affordable rates. As previously mentioned, thanks to the State
Revolving Fund, the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority has
undertaken projects that will (1) get our plant off the electric grid
by June 2020 and (2) eliminate combined sewage flooding in Camden City,
for up to the 1-inch storm by the end of 2020, all without raising
rates to our customers. That would have been a complete impossibility
without the help of the State Revolving Fund. Because it is a loan
program, it is not a hand out, but it is definitely a very significant
hand up.
Question 8. What barriers have you experienced in using or trying
to use SRF funds to implement green/natural infrastructure projects?
Answer. We have been very lucky in New Jersey in that there have
been no barriers to our using SRF funds for green infrastructure
projects. My only recommendation is to make sure that there is
sufficient funding in our State, and across the United States, to fund
all of the green infrastructure projects that are possible. This is
especially true in urban areas like Camden City where the green
infrastructure sites are often contaminated, brownfield, sites as well.
As long as sufficient funding is available, there is an opportunity for
a significant ''win-win'' to convert brownfield sites, which have
environmental and public health impacts, into cleaned green
infrastructure sites that provide stormwater benefits and public green
space access benefits.
Question 9. Research shows that green or nature-based solutions offer a
wide range of social, economic, and environmental advantages that
conventional infrastructure does not provide.
Does your community make it a priority to implement green/natural
infrastructure as part of its wastewater and stormwater management
efforts?
Answer. Yes, the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority has
greened over 100 acres in Camden City in order to reduce combined
sewage flooding and overflows. In addition to capturing over 100
million gallons of stormwater, it also provides green amenities to our
residents and, as mentioned above, provides opportunities for green
jobs to at-risk youth in our community who then maintain the green
infrastructure for us, while also receiving full pay and life skills
training as well. For all of these reasons, green infrastructure is a
very important, necessary, component of our program to control
stormwater and combined sewage flooding and overflows in Camden City.
Question 10. What are your thoughts on how we can use natural
infrastructure to protect communities and strengthen our overall
infrastructure investments?
Answer. For the reasons described above, any community that faces
the challenges associated with combined sewer systems should definitely
implement green infrastructure as a key component of their stormwater
control program. If they do not, then their customers are really
missing out on the many social, environmental and economic benefits
associated with green infrastructure. This is not to say that grey
infrastructure projects should be ignored. On the contrary, it is
unlikely that a 100% green infrastructure approach is feasible, due to
lack of available space. The optimal solution is a judiciously chosen
mixture of green and grey infrastructure, funded with the help of the
State Revolving Fund. As previously mentioned, the Camden County
Municipal Utilities Authority has been able, thanks to the help of the
NJ State Revolving Fund, to implement a program of grey and green
infrastructure projects in Camden City which will eliminate combined
sewage flooding and overflows, for up to the one-inch storm, by the end
of 2020, all without raising rates for our customers.
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano for Jill Witkowski Heaps
Question 1. In your testimony, you touched on the ways in which the
Federal government can assist communities that may not have the means
or access to affordable drinking and wastewater services. You suggested
that ``Congress should create a federal block grant program to directly
assist households in paying water and sewer bills'' and that it could
be modeled off of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP).
In your opinion, do you believe that it should be a priority for
Congress to assist low income individuals and households who may not be
able to afford clean water and sewer services--and what do you think is
the most effective way to accomplish that?
Answer. Yes, I believe it should be a Congressional priority to
ensure that everyone living in the United States of America has clean,
safe running water and sanitation in their homes. I think there are
several steps to accomplish this effectively.
First, I believe Congress should recognize water as a human right.
This can be done in a resolution, in stand-alone legislation, in a
preamble to new legislation, or as substantive requirements in new
legislation. Although it would be best if it was included in direct
legislation, even preamble language can be powerful. The Congressional
intent stated in the Clean Water Act has been a powerful tool in
protecting and restoring our Nation's waters.
Second, Congress should use existing funding and new funding
mechanisms to direct federal funds to address the issue. Increasing
both the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) and Safe Drinking Water
SRF will make more funding available for localities to address water
infrastructure issues, but that funding is not designed to reach
individuals and families in need. New funding sources to help utilities
design customer assistance programs can support better systems with
equitable and affordable rate structures. A new funding program
structured like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
could direct federal funds to organizations that directly support
families and individuals who need help paying their water and sewer
bills.
Most importantly, to truly address our nation's water affordability
issues, Congress must prioritize poverty-reduction strategies. The
connection between water affordability and poverty was highlighted to
me by a participant designing the City of Buffalo's water affordability
program, who at one point exclaimed with exasperation: ``We can't be
responsible for fixing Buffalo's poverty problem!'' Utilities alone
cannot address poverty issues across the country. For this reason, I
urge Congress to support a suite of legislative measures necessary to
reduce poverty. These include: (1) raising the minimum wage to a living
wage of $15 per hour, as included in the Raise the Wage Act of 2019,
H.R. 582, (2) taking efforts to ensure affordable housing (potentially
a rent relief bill, like the Rent Relief Act of 2018), and (3)
undertaking national action to make childcare affordable so that
parents can afford to work (such as through the Child Care for Working
Families Act of 2019, S. 568 or the Universal Child Care and Early
Learning Act of 2019).
Question 2. In your testimony, you mention that you serve as vice-chair
of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, a federal
advisory committee to the EPA. I understand you chaired the workgroup
which wrote a report ``EPA's Role in Addressing the Urgent Water
Infrastructure Needs of Environmental Justice Communities.''
Has the report been finalized and has EPA released it publicly?
Answer. The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
report ``EPA's Role in Addressing the Urgent Water Infrastructure Needs
of Environmental Justice Communities,'' report has been finalized, but
my understanding is that it still being routed to Administrator Wheeler
and has not yet been made public.
Question 3. Could you please provide the Committee with a copy of
that report?
Answer. It is attached. However, I request that it be kept
confidential until Administrator Wheeler has received the report and it
is publicly available. I would be happy to inform Subcommittee staff as
soon as that occurs.
[The report was provided to the committee, and it is retained in
the committee files.]
Question 4. Could you briefly describe the findings of your report?
Answer. The NEJAC recognized that there are significant water
infrastructure issues that impact environmental justice communities.
The NEJAC recommends that the EPA take action to further eight goals
related to drinking water, sewage, and stormwater infrastructure,
investment and pollution control. The eight goals are:
1. Change government culture and policies to reflect water is a
human right;
2. Request Congress to allocate more funding to help communities
with infrastructure building, oversight and public health protection;
3. Promote affordable water and wastewater rates;
4. Prioritize issues in EJ communities;
5. Involve EJ communities meaningfully in infrastructure decision-
making;
6. Build community capacity in water systems;
7. Support innovative technologies;
8. Be accountable and rebuild public confidence and trust.
The report continues: ``We recognize that EPA currently lacks the
resources to carry out fully our recommendations. For this reason, our
primary recommendation calls for the EPA to build a coalition of
federal, state, local, and community stakeholders to work collectively
on these recommendations. The top priority should be to secure more
funding from Congress for clean water infrastructure investments and
programs, then allocate them first to environmental justice
communities. We believe many of the recommendations outlined here can
be acted upon today and such actions should not be delayed.'' (emphasis
in original).
The report also recommends that EPA should prioritize the following
actions to achieve clean, safe, accessible, and affordable drinking
water and sanitation services for all Americans:
Urge Congress to appropriate more federal funding for
water infrastructure grants and loans, prioritizing environmental
justice communities;
Encourage water utilities to diversify funding mechanisms
for water infrastructure design and improvement;
Target meaningful outreach in environmental justice
communities;
Develop policies and protocols with state water quality
regulators to ensure that a ``Flint crisis'' never happens again;
Conduct detailed infrastructure assessments, especially
in vulnerable environmental justice communities;
Establish a household action level for lead in drinking
water;
Identify inadequate enforcement of the Clean Water Act,
Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Lead and Copper Rule where states and
local regulators fail to do so;
Work with federal and state agencies after a disaster to
provide immediate potable water in larger quantities to meet emergency
needs and maintain public health;
Encourage and support efforts to build local water system
capacity including training operators and sharing best practices; and
Work directly with residents in environmental justice
communities to educate communities about water infrastructure issues.
Question 5. In your testimony, you suggest that Congress ``massively
increase federal government investment in water infrastructure.'' You
also note that the current needs assessment is out of date.
In your opinion, at what level should Congress be funding the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund?
Answer. In my opinion, Congress should fund the Clean Water SRF at
$6 billion per year. This funding level would restore funding levels to
those during the Reagan Administration.
Question 6. How should we go about setting funding levels for the
SRF as we move forward?
Answer. The Clean Water Act SRF should be set at a funding level
sufficient to support a significant portion of the rising costs of
drinking water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure, particularly at a
time when communities are becoming more vulnerable to severe weather,
including droughts and floods, that accompany climate change. Congress
should rely on biennial need updates from the EPA. EPA should estimate
needs based not only on direct input from utilities and municipalities,
but also on feedback from academics and organizations such as the
American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Water Works
Association, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the
Natural Resources Defense Council, and Earthjustice. EPA's estimates
should be conservative, assuming that water, stormwater, and sewer
service providers will underestimate long-term costs or will fail to
respond to the survey. Additionally, EPA should offer guidance and
assistance to those providing cost estimates to help them understand
modifications necessary to their systems to help them become resilient
in the face of a changing climate.
Question 7. What do you suggest Congress do in order to get a
current assessment of need?
Answer. Congress should clarify to EPA its expectations for
receiving cost updates for both clean water and drinking water needs.
EPA, in partnership with states, territories and the District of
Columbia, conducts the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey every four
years.\1\ EPA explains on its website, ``Congress requires EPA to
conduct the [survey] under sections 205(a) and 516 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S Code Sec. 1375).'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``About the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey,'' https://
www.epa.gov/cwns/about-clean-watersheds-needs-survey-cwns.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Section 516 of the Clean Water Act mandates EPA ``shall
make. a detailed estimate, biennially revised, of the cost of
construction of all needed publicly owned treatment works in all of the
States and of the cost of construction of all needed publicly owned
treatment works in each of the States.'' 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1375(b)(1)(B).
The Act directs that the EPA Administrator ``shall submit such detailed
estimate and such comprehensive study of such cost to the Congress no
later than February 10 of each odd-numbered year.'' 33 U.S.C. Sec.
1375(b)(1).
The plain language of the statute directs EPA to submit cost
estimates of Clean Water Act compliance for sewage and stormwater
discharges every other year. Having frequently updated cost estimates
provides Congress with much-needed data in order to make informed
decisions about appropriations. I would suggest that Congress ask EPA
to explain why it conducts a survey every four years and point out that
the most recent numbers provided to Congress were from a 2012
survey.\3\ I would also suggest that Congress direct EPA to comply with
the Clean Water Act's statutory language requiring detailed estimates
to be provided by February 10 of each odd-numbered year. I understand
that providing detailed estimates may be a significant undertaking for
the agency. If EPA does not have the current resources to perform the
statutory-required biennial estimates, Congress should increase EPA's
funding so that the Agency can fulfill its statutory duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Safe Drinking Water Act requires a needs assessment every
four years. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300j-12(h). The 2015 Drinking Water Needs
Assessment was submitted to Congress in March 2018.
Question 8. Do you think the amount currently appropriated for the
CWSRF is sufficient to help communities incorporate resiliency
strategies into their long-term wastewater infrastructure investment
plans?
Answer. As recent flooding in Nebraska painfully highlights, much
of our current water infrastructure is inadequate to deal with our
current climate, let alone predicted increases in severe weather.\4\
While Clean Water SRF funds have been used to build climate-resilient
infrastructure, those efforts have been primarily after a storm event
devastated a community. For example, Clean Water SRF funds were used to
rebuild resilient water infrastructure after Hurricane Sandy. But EPA
awarded $474 million for rebuilding only when emergency funds were
appropriated through the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Grist, ``Climate Change is Overwhelming Our Crappy Water
Infrastructure,'' https://grist.org/article/climate-change-nebraska-
flooding-is-overwhelming-our-crappy-water-infrastructure/.
\5\ Clean Water State Revolving Fund, FY 2014 Environmental
Benefits Report, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/
documents/cwsrf_2014_environmental_
benefits_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There needs to be a better way to financially support long-term,
climate-resilient water infrastructure before disaster strikes. The
Natural Resources Defense Council recognizes that our SRFs permit
communities to use the funds for projects that promote resiliency and
has offered suggestions on how to better use the Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water SRFs to build climate-resilient communities.\6\
Additional appropriations to these SRFs will allow more communities to
take advantage of the funds for resiliency purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NRDC, ``Using State Revolving Funds to Create Climate-Resilient
Communities,'' https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/state-
revolving-funds-IP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason more communities may not be taking advantage of the SRFs
for resiliency is because their engineers may not be incorporating
climate change risk management into longterm planning. One issue is
that many engineers designing our nation's wastewater systems rely on
current engineering practices, which use historic data to design
infrastructure (known as stationarity). Further, since the nature of
climate science makes it impossible to predict the exact changes that
will happen in any given location, engineers have difficulty grappling
with the uncertainty. To address these issues, the American Society of
Civil Engineers suggests incorporating future climate trends into
infrastructure design and adopt low-regret, adaptive approaches.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ American Society of Civil Engineers, ``Adapting Infrastructure
to a Changing Climate,'' https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
adapting-infrastructure-to-a-changing-climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much funding do we need to support climate-resilient water
systems in all of our communities? A 2010 report from the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies estimated the adaptation costs for
drinking water and sewage facilities to be between $448 billion and
$944 billion through 2050.\8\ I have been unable to find EPA estimates
of resiliency costs for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater
systems. Neither the 2012 Clean Water Needs Survey results nor the 2015
Drinking Water Needs Survey (results provided to Congress in March
2018) mention the words ``climate change,'' though the Drinking Water
Needs Survey provides that some of the projects included in the cost
estimate may be needed for resiliency. Further, EPA relies on self-
reporting from utilities and communities to compile those estimates. If
the engineers communities and utilities relied on for cost estimates
are not planning for climate resiliency, those communities and
utilities will not have cost estimates for resiliency projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Association of Clean Water Agencies, ``Confronting
Climate Change: An Early Analysis of Water and Wastewater Adaptation
Costs,'' https://www2.nacwa.org/images/stories/public/2009-10-
28ccreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to understand the magnitude of investment necessary to
build climate-change resilient infrastructure, we need to ensure our
engineers are incorporating risk-management and resiliency into long-
term water planning that addresses not just wastewater infrastructure
alone, but our entire water system, including drinking water and
stormwater, while also addressing the increasing possibility of
flooding and drought. The American Society of Civil Engineers and has
resources to assist engineers and utilities in planning for resilient
infrastructure,\9\ and EPA has guidance about financing resilient
infrastructure.\10\ But it will take a shift in the mindset of our
engineers to change how they design and plan so we can have a better
idea of overall costs of a resilient water system, and it will take a
shift in the mindset of utilities and municipalities to be asking
engineers for help building resilient systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Bilal Ayyub ``Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: Adaptive
Design and Risk Management,'' https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/
9780784415191.
\10\ EPA's Water Finance Center, ``Financing Resilient and
Sustainable Water Infrastructure,'' https://www.epa.gov/
waterfinancecenter/financing-resilient-and-sustainable-water-
infrastructure.
Question 9. During your testimony, you mentioned that the Environmental
Protection Agency's clean water needs survey is outdated and may not
reflect any needs communities may have to prepare for climate change or
to make their infrastructure more resilient.
Do you have any recommendations for Congress to address those
needs?
Answer. Based on my comments above, I recommend that Congress
should work with EPA and the states to put in place more incentives or
even mandates for communities and the technical experts they rely on to
put climate change adaptation and resilience as a priority in
infrastructure planning.
The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 was a step in the right
direction of supporting resilient infrastructure in our
communities.\11\ That law includes the following sections, which
support rebuilding facilities in a more resilient way and also sets
aside some pre-disaster mitigation funding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.fema.gov/disaster-recovery-reform-act-2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Hazard
Mitigation (Section 1234): Authorizes the National Public
Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation fund which will be funded as a 6
percent set aside from disaster expenses, to allow for a greater
investment in mitigation before a disaster.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for Resilience (Section
1235a): Ensures Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding increases
resilience to future damage, hardship, loss or suffering.
Public Assistance 406 Codes and Standards (Section
1235b): Authorizes FEMA to provide Public Assistance funding to replace
and restore disaster damaged facilities to the latest published
editions of relevant consensus-based codes and standards to ensure that
facilities are restored in a manner that allows them to be resilient.
Another suggestion is for Congress to revisit the utility of
separate Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water SRFs. While the funds were
initially created in each separate statute to assist with statutory
compliance, more and more of our communities are shifting to integrated
water planning, addressing drinking water, sewage, and stormwater
together. In testimony on March 7, 2019, Mayor Condon and Mr. Andrew
Krichun lauded the virtues of integrated water planning. Yet our
primary federal mechanism to fund projects developed during integrated
planning is still separated into Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water.
In a conversation with the City of Buffalo on March 26, 2019, sewer and
water officials relayed that because the city has a combined sewer
system, they have no trouble accessing Clean Water SRF funds to support
priority sewer projects. But the city cannot access Safe Drinking Water
SRF funds to prevent problems from existing lead pipes because that
process prioritizes funding to communities already in drinking water
crisis, leaving no funding left for communities trying to prevent a
looming crisis. We need to better support our communities that are
planning to avoid or prevent a catastrophe, instead of waiting until
systems are devastated by extreme events and only then providing
meaningful financial support to rebuild systems.
Question 10. During the hearing, the issue of extending the term of
Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits
from five to a maximum of ten years was briefly discussed. You
mentioned this was a bad idea.
Could you please expand upon that?
Answer. There are several reasons why a ten-year NPDES permit term
is a bad idea. Congress considered these reasons when it passed the
Clean Water Act. First, the permitting system is the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System. The whole purpose of the 5-year permit is
to effectuate the technology forcing components of the Act while moving
toward the Act's goal of the elimination of discharges of pollutants
into out our Nation's waterways by 1985. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 (a)(1).
We should never retreat from that fundamental principle, nor should we
wait for ten years to make technical improvements based on new
developments. For example, if we developed a new way to take mercury
out of wastewater, extending the time for permits to ten years would
mean that it would be over a decade in many cases before the new
technology was actually utilized.
Similarly, under Clean Water Act Section 303(c), water quality
standards are to be revised every three years. A ten-year permit would
mean that discharges would generally go many years before they were
revised to take into account the new science. In theory permits could
be reopened to take advantage of the new standards but in fact, new
standards are practically never considered until permits come up.
Additional Testimony, Provided in Response to Questions During the
Hearing or Clarification of my Original Testimony
California's Human Right to Water Law has had a positive impact in
California.
Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 685 into law on September 25, 2012.
The law establishes that it is the law of the state that ``every human
being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water
adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.'' The
law requires state agencies to consider the policy when adopting and
implementing regulations.
The law's adoption led to the following actions and changes in
California so far: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Circle of Blue, ``Timeline of California's Human Right to
Water,'' https://www.circleofblue.org/2017/world/timeline-california-
human-right-water/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Governor Brown declared a drought state of emergency on January
17, 2014. The Governor sought voluntary conservation and later mandated
25% water use reductions.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Governor Brown Declares Drought State of Emergency,''
https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2014/01/17/news18368/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In April 2014, the State Department of Water Resources released
the report, ``Californians Without Access to Safe Water and
Sanitation'' as part of the California Water Plan Update.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/
programs/enviro_justice/ej_
docs/2_20_15ca_wo_safewater_san.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The state transferred oversight of drinking water from the
Department of Public Health to the State Water Board on July 1, 2014.
4. In September 2014, Governor Brown signed into law the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, exercising tighter control over
groundwater pumping and quality.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Governor Brown Signs Historic Groundwater Legislation,''
https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2014/09/16/news18701/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In November 2014, California voters approved Proposition 1, a
$7.1 billion bond measure for water projects, including funding for
poor communities.
6. California law directs the State Water Board to establish the
Office of Sustainable Water Solutions to provide technical solutions to
communities struggling to provide clean drinking water.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ AB 92, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0051-
0100/ab_92_bill_
20150327_chaptered.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The State Water Board released a Safe Drinking Water Plan in
June 2015.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/publications_forms/
publications/legislative/docs/2015/sdwp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In 2015, two important state laws pass. One grants the State
Water Board the authority to force failing water utilities to merge
with a better-functioning neighboring utility.\18\ The other mandates
that the State Water Board design and implement a state-wide water
affordability program.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ SB 88, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB88.
\19\ AB 401, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160
AB401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In 2016, the State Water Board adopted a resolution affirming
that the human right to water is a ``top priority'' and a ``core
value.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/
resolutions/2016/rs2016_0010.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The State Water Board in 2017 unveiled the Human Right to
Water portal, a website focusing on drinking water system
compliance.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/hr2w/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California's Human Right to Water Law is included in its entirety
here:
the people of the state of california do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 106.3 is added to the Water Code, to read:
106.3. (a) It is hereby declared to be the established policy of
the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean,
affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption,
cooking, and sanitary purposes.
(b) All relevant state agencies, including the department, the
state board, and the State Department of Public Health, shall consider
this state policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies,
regulations, and grant criteria when those policies, regulations, and
criteria are pertinent to the uses of water described in this section.
(c) This section does not expand any obligation of the state to
provide water or to require the expenditure of additional resources to
develop water infrastructure beyond the obligations that may exist
pursuant to subdivision (b).
(d) This section shall not apply to water supplies for new
development.
(e) The implementation of this section shall not infringe on the
rights or responsibilities of any public water system.
Spokane, Washington is facing complex pollution issues from legacy
PCBs. The fact that compliance with health-based water quality
standards is difficult does not mean the standard should be changed.
Mayor Condon of Spokane, Washington shared with the Subcommittee
his frustrations over the state of Washington's stringent pollution
requirements for PCBs--7 parts per quadrillion--and how that
requirement impacts water utilities. However, Mayor Condon's testimony
did not explain the scope of the pollution problem in the Spokane River
and across Washington, the impact that pollution has on vulnerable
communities, and opportunities to use new and emerging technologies to
demonstrate compliance with health-based pollution standards.
A. PCB pollution is a significant environmental justice issue in
Washington.
Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) are persistent, bioaccumulative
carcinogen and endocrine disruptor.\22\ PCBs were used from 1929 until
1976, when the federal government banned their use under the Toxics
Substances Control Act.\23\ In the Spokane River, there are a plethora
of ``legacy'' sources of PCBs, including oils, light ballasts,
caulking, building materials, transformers, along with inks and
dyes.\24\ PCBs bio-magnify in the aquatic food chain and collect in
toxic levels inside the fish that people catch and eat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ U.S. EPA, ``Learn about PCBs,'' https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/
learn-about-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs.
\23\ Washington State Department of Ecology, ``PCBs,'' https://
ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Reducing-toxic-chemicals/Addressing-
priority-toxic-chemicals/PCBs.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Spokane River is currently listed as ``impaired'' for PCBs and
the Department of Health has issued Fish Consumption Advisories warning
people to not eat fish from the Spokane River.\25\ Fish contamination
is a significant environmental justice issue in the Spokane River.\26\
PCBs occur in nearly every species of fish occurring in the Spokane
River basin and pose a threat to anyone who consumes these fish.
Alarmingly, these chemical pollutants in the river continue to all but
preclude fish consumption on the part of tribal nations downstream.\27\
Twenty nine treaty tribes of Washington State have been working closely
with the EPA to address this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Washington State Department of Health, ``Mobile Fish
Advisories,'' https://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/
HealthDataVisualization/MobileFishAdvisoriesFreshwaterAreasMap.
\26\ National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, ``Fish
Consumption and Environmental Justice,'' https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-02/documents/fish-consump-report_
1102.pdf
\27\ See Wendee Nicole, ``Meeting the Needs of the People: Fish
Consumption Rates in the Pacific Northwest,'' https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3855506/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Indigenous peoples have historically relied on fish as a staple in
their diet. PCB pollution has threatened their way of life.
The Spokane Indian Reservation lies on the Spokane River,
downstream of the City of Spokane. Indigenous people fished up and down
the Spokane River, on and off current reservation boundaries, and
historically consumed nearly 385 grams per day. Because of fish
consumption advisories, indigenous fish consumption has dwindled to
historic lows, which has devastating effects on the cultural heritage
and the health and wellbeing of tribal members. In 2013, the Spokane
Tribe promulgated their own water quality standard of 1.3 pg/L in the
waters below the city of Spokane to address the PCB contamination
issue.\28\ The EPA has acknowledged that ``in Washington, many tribes
hold reserved rights to take fish for subsistence, ceremonial,
religious, and commercial purposes, including treaty-reserved rights to
fish all usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations in waters
under state jurisdiction, which cover the majority of waters in the
state.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Spokane Tribe Water Quality Standards, https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/spokane-tribe-wqs.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, Washington State approved a Water quality standard based
on Human Health Criteria for PCBs that was woefully inadequate. The
Human Health Criteria was based on a Fish Consumption Rate of only 6.5
grams of fish per day. Later that same year, the EPA stepped in and
promulgated scientifically based, legally defensible, health-based
Water Quality Standard for PCBs that protect the public and tribal fish
consumption.\29\ This new Water Quality Standard was based on a Fish
Consumption Rate of 175 grams of fish per day, which is half of
traditional consumption levels. This adjusts a water column Water
Quality Standard for PCBs of 7 parts per quadrillion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Fact Sheet: Revision of Federal Human Health Criteria
Applicable to Washington, https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2016-11/documents/washington_hhc_
final_rule_fact_sheet_508c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Condon stated in his testimony that there is currently no
test to detect PCB levels that low. Where current test methods cannot
detect those low levels of PCBs, there are two approaches to this
issue. First, the utility can demonstrate compliance with the standard
by using the most sensitive PCB test available and achieving a ``not
detect'' result. The state could then assume compliance with the
standard. Second, the new low standard will then drive innovation,
encouraging companies to develop a test now that there is a market to
test for ultra-low levels of PCBs. Finally, just because a standard is
difficult to achieve does not make it wrong. The whole point of water
quality standards is to protect human health, aquatic health, and the
uses of our waters. For this reason, Washington's PCB standards are
well-justified and should be maintained.
clarification on the extent of the water affordability problem
In my March 7, 2019 testimony, I referred to a Michigan State
University study estimating the number of households likely struggling
to pay their bills.\30\ It has been brought to my attention that there
has been some criticism of the methodology used in that study, in
particular that the ``quantitative and spatial assessments in this
study are not well grounded, leaving the dimensions of the `burgeoning
crisis' of water affordability proclaimed by the authors still quite
hazy.'' \31\ Results from a water affordability study published March
8, 2019 ``indicate that low-income households must spend an average of
9.7% of their disposable income and/or work 9.5 hours at minimum wage
to pay for basic monthly water and sewer service but also that these
values vary considerably across the country.'' \32\ This variability
means that while in some communities water and sewer rates may be very
affordable, in other places water affordability is an urgent problem
for many households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Mack, Elizabeth, Wrase Sarah (2017) ``A Burgeoning Crisis? A
Nationwide Assessment of the Geography of Water Affordability in the
United States.'' PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169488.
\31\ See Critique by NRDC, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
article/comment?id=10.1371/annotation/d37f215d-0c6a-43d4-ac39-
23bc867c4836
\32\ Manuel Teodoro, ``Water and sewer affordability in the United
States,'' AWWA Water Science, March 8, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on this
important issue.