[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

SUSTAINABLE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE:
MEASURES TO PROMOTE RESILIENCY AND CLI-
MATE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION

=======================================================================

(117-13)

REMOTE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

APRIL 21, 2021

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC 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
45-096 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Puerto Rico SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
Vacancy

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California,
Chair
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOHN KATKO, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
MIKE BOST, Illinois ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
DOUG LaMALFA, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia,
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas Vice Chair
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
Puerto Rico GREG STANTON, Arizona
NANCY MACE, South Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) District of Columbia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

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. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of
North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, opening statement................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 75
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 75

WITNESSES

Howard M. Neukrug, P.E., Executive Director, The Water Center at
the University of Pennsylvania, oral statement................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Kishia L. Powell, P.E., Chief Operating Officer and Executive
Vice President, DC Water, oral statement....................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Robert C. Ferrante, Chief Engineer and General Manager, Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts, oral statement............ 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Kim H. Colson, Director, Division of Water Infrastructure, North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, testifying on
behalf of the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities,
oral statement................................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Kevin Robert Perry, FASLA, Fellow, American Society of Landscape
Architects, oral statement..................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Rebecca Hammer, Deputy Director of Federal Water Policy, Natural
Resources Defense Council, oral statement...................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 39

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano:
Statement of Gary Belan, Senior Director, Clean Water Supply
Program, American Rivers................................... 9
Statement of Patricia Sinicropi, Executive Director,
WateReuse Association...................................... 76
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio:
Letter of May 19, 2021, from Jeffrey Soth, Legislative and
Political Director, International Union of Operating
Engineers.................................................. 77
Letter of May 20, 2021, from Sean McGarvey, President, North
America's Building Trades Unions........................... 80

APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Deirdre Finn, Executive
Director, Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities...... 83
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Rebecca Hammer, Deputy
Director of Federal Water Policy, Natural Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 90

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

April 16, 2021

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Sustainable Wastewater
Infrastructure: Measures to Promote Resiliency and Climate
Adaptation and Mitigation''
_______________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will hold a
hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2167, and
via Zoom, on sustainable wastewater infrastructure. The purpose
of this hearing is to provide Members with additional
information on policies and practices to encourage greater
resiliency and sustainability of wastewater utilities in
meeting the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act. Witnesses will
include representatives of academia, wastewater utilities, and
other wastewater stakeholders who will testify on the benefits,
capabilities, and considerations on the adoption of sustainable
wastewater infrastructure practices.

BACKGROUND

America's wastewater infrastructure is in significant need
of increased financial investment, as detailed in the Summary
of Subject Matter for the February 23, 2021, hearing of the
Subcommittee, entitled ``Building Back Better: The Urgent Need
for Investment in America's Wastewater Infrastructure.''
As a brief recap and update, according to the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2021 Report Card for
America's Infrastructure, the grade for wastewater treatment
infrastructure has remained at a D+ since the 2017 report, and
the new category of stormwater infrastructure has received a
grade of D.\1\ In addition, according to the most recent needs
survey from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
(2012), communities have documented at least $271 billion of
investment over the next 20 years to bring their systems to a
state of good repair; yet, as this assessment is almost a
decade old, the current need may be higher.\2\ However, the
country's urgent wastewater infrastructure needs also present a
major opportunity to upgrade, modernize, and increase the
efficacy and sustainability of the nation's water-related
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/infrastructure-
categories/.
\2\ https://www.epa.gov/cwns/clean-watersheds-needs-survey-cwns-
2012-report-and-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUSTAINABLE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

In 2011, the EPA approved a Clean Water and Drinking Water
Sustainability Policy that called for ``increasing the
sustainability of water infrastructure in the U.S. and the
communities it serves.'' \3\ This statement of policy
establishes that ``Federal investments, policies, and actions
should support water infrastructure in more efficient and
sustainable locations to best support existing communities,
enhance economic opportunities, and promote affordable
neighborhoods,'' and highlights the importance of cost-
effective, life-cycle planning, the efficient use of resources,
the utilization of natural or green infrastructure systems, and
addressing potential climate change impacts in achieving
utility sustainability.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/
clean-water-and-drinking-water-infrastructure-sustability-policy.pdf.
\4\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In furtherance of its sustainability policy, the EPA has
highlighted four factors for the ``Path to Sustainable Water
Infrastructure'': (1) water and energy efficiency, (2) asset
management, (3) wastewater treatment clearinghouse, and (4)
alternative technologies and assessment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/building-
sustainable-water-infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WATER AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Energy use can account for as much as 10 percent of a local
government's annual operating budget.\6\ A significant amount
of this municipal energy use occurs at water and wastewater
treatment facilities. With pumps, motors, and other equipment
operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, water and
wastewater facilities can be among the largest consumers of
energy in a community--and thus among the largest contributors
to the community's total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See U.S. EPA, ``Energy Efficiency in Water and Wastewater
Facilities: A Guide to Developing and Implementing Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Programs'' (2013).
\7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationally, the energy used by water and wastewater
utilities accounts for 35 percent of typical U.S. municipal
energy budgets.\8\ Electricity use accounts for 25 to 40
percent of the operating budgets for wastewater utilities and
approximately 80 percent of drinking water processing and
distribution costs.\9\ Drinking water and wastewater systems
account for approximately 3 to 4 percent of overall energy use
in the United States, equivalent to approximately 56 billion
kilowatts, and a cost of $4 billion, and resulting in the
emissions of more than 45 million tons of GHGs annually.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See id.
\9\ See id.
\10\ See id. See also, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-
infrastructure/water-and-energy-efficiency-utilities-and-home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the EPA, utilities can reduce the economic
costs and environmental impacts of wastewater treatment by
improving the energy efficiency of wastewater facilities'
equipment and operations, by promoting the efficient use of
water, and by capturing the energy in wastewater to generate
electricity and heat.\11\ Improvements in energy efficiency
allow the same work to be done with less energy and cost. The
EPA estimates that, by incorporating energy efficiency
practices into their water and wastewater plants,
municipalities and utilities can save 15 to 30 percent on their
operating costs, saving thousands of dollars with payback
periods (or the amount of time required to pay back the cost of
the upgrade through potential cost savings resulting from the
upgrade) of only a few months to a few years.\12\ Improvements
in water use efficiency reduce demand for water, which in turn
reduces the amount of energy required to treat and distribute
water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See id. See also, https://www.energy.gov/eere/slsc/wastewater-
infrastructure, which notes that, according to the U.S. Department of
Energy, wastewater contains about five times more energy than is needed
for its treatment in terms of untapped thermal energy, which can be
captured and used to generate energy.
\12\ https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/energy-
efficiency-water-utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and wastewater facilities around the country are also
adopting renewable energy technologies, including combined heat
and power, sludge digester methane use, solar panels
installation, and wind turbines. For example, capturing the
energy in wastewater by burning biogas from anaerobic digesters
in a combined heat and power system allows wastewater
facilities to produce some or all of their own electricity and
space heating, potentially turning them into ``net zero''
consumers of energy.
Local governments can also reduce energy use at water and
wastewater facilities through measures such as water
conservation, water loss prevention, reduction of stormwater
into wastewater collection and treatment systems, and sewer
system repairs to prevent ground water infiltration. Measures
to reduce water consumption, water loss, and the creation of
wastewater can lead to reductions in energy use, and result in
savings associated with recovering and treating lower
quantities of wastewater and treating and delivering lower
quantities of potable public water.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See id at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Asset management is a technique wastewater utilities can
use to manage costs and make sure that planned maintenance can
be conducted and capital assets (pumps, motors, pipes, etc.)
can be repaired, replaced, or upgraded on time.
Asset management allows a utility to optimize management of
infrastructure capital assets and minimize the total cost of
owning and operating these assets while delivering the desired
service levels. Many utilities use asset management to pursue
and achieve sustainable infrastructure. A high-performing asset
management program includes detailed asset inventories,
operation and maintenance tasks, and long-range financial
planning to cover operational, maintenance, and capital
costs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/
asset-management-water-and-wastewater-utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASTEWATER TREATMENT CLEARINGHOUSE

As required by section 4102 of the America's Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, EPA created a wastewater technology
clearinghouse to provide utilities with information and
resources on the cost-effectiveness and performance of
innovative, alternative, and reuse technologies for
wastewater.\15\ As communities continue to invest in our
nation's wastewater infrastructure, the clearinghouse is
intended to help fill a critical information gap on adopted
innovative, alternative, and reuse technologies that can inform
local utilities on potential wastewater management
alternatives, particularly for communities with small, midsize,
and decentralized wastewater systems.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ P.L. 115-270.
\16\ See https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/wfc/f?p=259:1:10842554757134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND ASSESSMENT

The fourth element suggested by the EPA for greater
sustainability is selecting the right solution to meet an
identified wastewater need, including the evaluation of
different alternatives, such as new technologies, an evaluation
of centralized versus decentralized wastewater treatment
systems, and the utilization of green infrastructure approaches
to local water quality challenges.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/
alternative-technologies-and-assessment-water-and-wastewater#green.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 502 of the Clean Water Act defines green
infrastructure as `` . . . the range of measures that use plant
or soil systems, permeable pavement or other permeable surfaces
or substrates, stormwater harvest and reuse, or landscaping to
store, infiltrate, or evapotranspirate stormwater and reduce
flows to sewer systems or to surface waters.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Section 502(27) of the Clean Water Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the EPA, green infrastructure can frequently
provide a cost-effective, resilient approach to managing wet
weather impacts that provides many community benefits.\19\
While single-purpose gray stormwater infrastructure--
conventional piped drainage and water treatment systems--is
designed to move urban stormwater away from the built
environment, green infrastructure--such as downspout
disconnections, green roofs, bioswales, and green streets--
reduces and treats stormwater at its source while delivering
environmental, social, and economic benefits.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-
infrastructure.
\20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stormwater runoff is a major cause of water pollution in
urban areas.\21\ When rain falls on roofs, streets, and parking
lots in cities and their suburbs, the water cannot soak into
the ground. Stormwater drains through gutters, storm sewers,
and other engineered collection systems and is discharged into
nearby water bodies. The stormwater runoff carries trash,
bacteria, heavy metals, and other pollutants from the urban
landscape. Higher flows resulting from heavy rains also can
cause erosion and flooding in urban streams, damaging habitat,
property, and infrastructure.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See id.
\22\ See id. See also https://www.nrdc.org/stories/green-
infrastructure-how-manage-water-sustainable-way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green infrastructure is designed to use vegetation, soils,
and other elements and practices to restore some of the natural
processes required to manage water and create healthier urban
environments.\23\ At the city or county scale, green
infrastructure is a patchwork of natural areas that provides
habitat, flood protection, cleaner air, and cleaner water. At
the neighborhood or site scale, stormwater management systems
that mimic natural systems can soak up and store water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLIMATE RESILIENCY

In addition to the four factors identified by the EPA for
sustainable wastewater infrastructure, a growing concern is the
resiliency of water and wastewater utilities to extreme weather
events and the challenges posed by changing climate conditions.
In 2017, a working group of water and wastewater experts,
co-chaired by EPA, found that natural disasters are among the
most significant risks to the nation's drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure.\24\ Those natural disasters include
acute disasters related to extreme weather events, such as
floods and hurricanes, and chronic hazards related to climate
change, such as drought and sea level rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Water and Wastewater Sector Strategic Roadmap Work Group,
``Roadmap to a Secure and Resilient Water and Wastewater Sector''
(2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, a 2009 study by a global engineering company
reported that failure to plan for the potential impacts of
climate change may lead to loss of water and wastewater
treatment services for homes, municipalities, and industry with
consequences to human health and the economy.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See CH2M Hill, Inc., ``Confronting Climate Change: An Early
Analysis of Water and Wastewater Adaptation Costs'' (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) completed a study of the resiliency of water and
wastewater utilities to climate change.\26\ GAO recommended
that: (1) EPA work with utilities to incorporate climate
resilience into infrastructure projects, and (2) Congress
should consider requiring that climate resilience be considered
in planning for federally funded water infrastructure
projects.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. GAO, ``Water Infrastructure: Technical Assistance and
Climate Resilience Planning Could Help Utilities Prepare for Potential
Climate Change Impacts'' (GAO-20-24).
\27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATED TO SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE

In the past two decades, Congress has enacted several
amendments to the Clean Water Act to promote the implementation
of sustainable wastewater infrastructure.
In 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) \28\ to stimulate the U.S.
economy and address a range of other policy objectives. The
Recovery Act provided $4 billion for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (SRF) for wastewater infrastructure projects. In
addition, the Recovery Act authorized the so-called ``green
reserve,'' which required states to use not less than 20
percent of Recovery Act grants ``to the extent there are
sufficient eligible project applications . . . for projects to
address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency
improvements or other environmentally innovative activities.''
The green reserve has been carried forward each year since 2009
through enactment in the annual appropriations bills for the
Clean Water SRF.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Pub. L. 111-5.
\29\ In fiscal year 2021, the green reserve required states to
utilize ``not less than 10 percent'' of Clean Water SRF funds for
``projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency
improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities''. See
Pub. L. 116-260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2014, Congress amended the Clean Water Act, to encourage
further adoption of sustainable wastewater infrastructure
practices by publicly owned utilities.\30\ For example,
Congress amended the requirements for utilities that receive
funding from the Clean Water SRF to: (1) require that utilities
certify they have selected alternatives that maximize the
potential for efficient water use, reuse, recapture, and
conservation, and energy conservation; \31\ (2) require that
utilities develop and implement a fiscal sustainability plan;
\32\ (3) allow states to offer financial incentives for the
implementation of technologies to address water-efficiency,
energy-efficiency, and sustainable projects; \33\ and (4)
authorize the expenditure of Clean Water SRF funds for projects
to reclaim or recycle wastewater and stormwater, to implement
water conservation, efficiency or reuse, to increase the
resiliency of wastewater utilities to extreme weather events
and sea-level rise, and to reduce the energy consumption needs
of wastewater utilities.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Pub. L. 113-121.
\31\ Section 601(b)(13) of the Clean Water Act.
\32\ Section 603(d)(1)(E) of the Clean Water Act.
\33\ Section 603(i)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act.
\34\ Sections 122 and 603(c) of the Clean Water Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 116th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure approved H.R. 1497, the Water Quality Protection
and Job Creation Act of 2019, by voice vote, and similar
legislation was passed by the House as part of H.R. 2, the
Moving Forward Act. These bills would have reauthorized and
increased the authorized level of federal appropriations for
the Clean Water SRF program at levels more commensurate with
local water infrastructure needs, as well as reauthorized
several existing Clean Water Act grant authorities. In
addition, these proposals would have extended the existing
green infrastructure reserve; \35\ established a new grant
authority to promote increased resilience of wastewater
utilities; established set-asides of federal resources for
rural and small communities; codified set-asides for Indian
tribes and U.S. territories; and included several provisions to
address the cost of wastewater service to low-income customers
and households. No further action was taken on these proposals
in the 116th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The Green Reserve in H.R. 1497/H.R. 2 would have required
states, to the extent that there are sufficient projects or activities
eligible for assistance, to utilize not less than 15 percent of their
Clean Water SRF capitalization grant for projects to address green
infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other
environmentally innovative activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITNESSES

LHoward Neukrug, P.E., Executive Director, The
Water Center at the University of Pennsylvania
LKishia L. Powell, COO and Executive Vice
President, D.C. Water
LRobert C. Ferrante, Chief Engineer and General
Manager, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
LKevin Robert Perry, FASLA, PLA, Fellow, The
American Society of Landscape Architects
LKim H. Colson, Director, Division of Water
Infrastructure, North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, on behalf of the Council of Infrastructure Financing
Authorities (CIFA)
LRebecca Hammer, Deputy Director of Federal Water
Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council

SUSTAINABLE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE: MEASURES TO PROMOTE RESILIENCY
AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION

----------

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2021

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in
2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Grace F.
Napolitano (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Garamendi, Mr.
Stanton, Ms. Norton, Mr. Kahele, Mr. Rouzer, Dr. Babin, Mr.
Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Westerman, and Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
Members present remotely: Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Huffman, Mr.
Lowenthal, Mr. Malinowski, Mr. Delgado, Ms. Bourdeaux, Mr.
Carbajal, Mr. Katko, Mr. LaMalfa, and Mr. Mast.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
Today's hearing will focus on sustainable wastewater
infrastructure and measures to promote resiliency in climate
adaptation and mitigation.
Let me begin by asking unanimous consent that the chair be
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's
hearing.
And without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
And without objection, so ordered.
As the chair of today's hearing, I will make a good-faith
effort to provide every Member experiencing connectivity
issues--and I just did--an opportunity to participate fully in
the proceedings. Please let committee staff know as soon as
possible if you are experiencing connectivity issues or
technical problems.
It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition
to unmute their microphone prior to speaking.
To avoid any inadvertent background noise, I request that
every Member keep their microphone muted when not seeking
recognition to speak. Should I hear any inadvertent background
noise, I will request that the Member please mute their
microphone.
And finally, to insert a document into the record, please
have your staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
Now for my statement.
Today is a good day to do this. We will continue to discuss
the need to renew the Federal commitment to fund our clean
water infrastructure challenges.
In our first subcommittee hearing of this Congress, we
discussed legislative proposals to close the gap between local
wastewater and stormwater needs and current levels of Federal
investment, as well as to ensure these critical investments are
sufficient to help these communities address local water
quality challenges.
The first of these proposals, approved by this committee
last Congress, and ultimately approved by the House in H.R. 2,
the Moving Forward Act, would have provided robust funding for
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund known as SRF, but it
ultimately stalled in the Senate.
This Congress I joined with Chairman DeFazio and
Congressman Fitzpatrick in introducing H.R. 1915, the Water
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021, a proposal
that received unanimous support from the witnesses at our
February hearing on ``building back better.'' The robust
funding levels in this bipartisan proposal are critical to
addressing the $270 billion backlog over the next 20 years,
according to the U.S. EPA, in wastewater and stormwater
upgrades identified by States and our communities.
Similarly, in his American Jobs Plan, President Biden
further stressed the importance of water and wastewater
investment, not only for the number of jobs it will create, but
also for how these investments in safe, efficient, and
sustainable water infrastructure are critical to the health and
the well-being of every American.
So let's be clear: no one who has ever had a sewer backup
in their community or home, or who has gotten sick from
swimming in a contaminated river, lake, or beach, or who has
questioned the safety and/or reliability of the water coming
out of their faucet would ever say that water infrastructure is
not infrastructure.
Tomorrow marks the 51st anniversary of Earth Day that is
celebrated. In recognition of this anniversary, it is fitting
we continue to focus on meeting our clean water infrastructure
needs, but also highlight how the resilient and sustainable
approaches we utilize to make this investment can both meet the
goals of the Clean Water Act, but do so in a way that increases
the overall protection of human health and the health of our
environment.
At this moment we are witnessing generational changes in
how wastewater utilities are meeting the wastewater challenges
facing our Nation.
As our witnesses will testify, many communities are leading
the way in increasing the resiliency and sustainability of the
wastewater utilities.
From converting wastes to energy, to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions of water utilities, to investing in natural and
nature-based green infrastructure alternatives to relieve
pressure on existing sewer systems, to recapturing and reusing
wastewater and stormwater for both the nonpotable and drinking
water needs of local communities, many utilities are leading by
example on how to create the so-called utility of the future.
In fact, some communities have used the need to upgrade
their wastewater infrastructure as an opportunity to reinvent
themselves--using wastewater and stormwater practices to
increase the livability of cities and suburbs, while also
addressing local water challenges.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to reveal and explore
some of these innovative and cost-effective alternatives to
traditional wastewater infrastructure solutions. We must
research and invest in these technologies, and share the
information on development and benefits amongst water agencies
so that we are not reinventing the wheel.
Today's hearing also presents us with the opportunity to
discuss some of the challenges that are preventing wider
awareness or utilization of these sustainable alternatives to
address local water quality needs, especially in rural, Tribal,
and economically disadvantaged communities.
As I mentioned earlier, we all know that the documented
wastewater and stormwater needs facing our Nation are great and
require a renewed and robust Federal commitment to help address
them. However, the country's urgent wastewater infrastructure
needs also present a major opportunity to upgrade, modernize,
and increase the sustainability of the Nation's water-related
infrastructure.
Of course, this presents a great challenge, and it is a
great challenge, of how to both increase the Federal investment
in wastewater infrastructure, and to make sure that these
investments maximize the resiliency and sustainability of our
wastewater utilities.
I look forward to continuing the discussion here this
morning, and at this time, I am pleased to yield to my great
colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rouzer,
for any thoughts he may have.
[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
Today, we continue to discuss the need to renew the federal
commitment to fund our clean water infrastructure challenges.
In our first subcommittee hearing of this Congress, we discussed
legislative proposals to close the gap between local wastewater and
stormwater needs and current levels of federal investment, as well as
to ensure these critical investments are sufficient to help these
communities address local water quality challenges.
The first of these proposals, approved by this committee last
Congress, and ultimate approved by the House in H.R. 2, the Moving
Forward Act, would have provided a robust funding for the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund, but ultimately stalled in the Senate.
This Congress, I joined with Chairman DeFazio, and Congressman
Fitzpatrick, in introducing H.R. 1915, the Water Quality Protection and
Job Creation Act of 2021--a proposal that received unanimous support
from the witnesses at our February hearing on ``Building Back Better.''
The robust funding levels in this bipartisan proposal are critical
to addressing the $270 billion backlog over the next 20 years according
U.S. EPA in wastewater and stormwater upgrades identified by the states
and our communities.
Similarly, in his American Jobs Plan, President Biden further
stressed the importance of water and wastewater investment--not only
for the number of jobs that it will create, but also for how these
investments in safe, efficient, and sustainable water infrastructure
are critical to the health and well-being of everyday Americans.
Let's be clear--no one who has ever had a sewer backup in their
community or home; or who has gotten sick from swimming at a
contaminated river, lake, or beach; or who has questioned the safety or
reliability of the water coming out of their faucet would ever say that
water infrastructure is not infrastructure.
Tomorrow marks the 51st anniversary of Earth Day.
In recognition of this anniversary, it is fitting that we continue
to focus on meeting our clean water infrastructure needs, but also
highlight how the resilient and sustainable approaches we utilize to
make this investment can both meet the goals of the Clean Water Act,
but do so in a way that increases the overall protection of human
health and the health of our environment.
At this moment, we are witnessing generational changes in how
wastewater utilities are meeting the wastewater challenges facing our
nation.
As our witnesses today will testify, many communities are leading
the way in increasing the resiliency and sustainability of their
wastewater utilities.
From converting wastes to energy to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions of water utilities, to investing in natural and nature-based,
green infrastructure alternatives to relieve pressure on existing sewer
systems, to recapturing and reusing wastewater and stormwater for both
the non-potable and drinking water needs of local communities, many
utilities are leading by example on how to create the so-called
``utility of the future.''
In fact, some communities have used the need to upgrade their
wastewater infrastructure as an opportunity to reinvent themselves--
using wastewater and stormwater practices to increase the livability of
cities and suburbs while also addressing local water challenges.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to reveal and explore some of
these innovative and cost-effective alternatives to traditional
wastewater infrastructure solutions. We must research and invest in
these technologies and share the information on development and
benefits amongst water agencies, so that we are not reinventing the
wheel.
Today's hearing also presents us with the opportunity to discuss
some of the challenges that are preventing wider awareness or
utilization of these sustainable alternatives to address local water
quality needs, especially in rural, tribal, and economically
disadvantaged communities.
As I mentioned earlier, we all know that the documented wastewater
and stormwater needs facing our nation are great and require a renewed
and robust federal commitment to help address them.
However, the country's urgent wastewater infrastructure needs also
present a major opportunity to upgrade, modernize, and increase the
sustainability of the nation's water related infrastructure.
That is our challenge--how to both increase federal investment in
our wastewater infrastructure, and to make sure that these investments
maximize the resiliency and sustainability of our wastewater utilities?
I look forward to continuing that discussion here this morning.

Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Chair Napolitano, for holding this
hearing today. And thank you to our witnesses for being here to
provide their experiences and thoughts on actions designed to
encourage greater resiliency and sustainability of wastewater
utilities. Specifically, we will hear how these can help in
meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
In particular, I would like to thank Mr. Kim Colson,
director of the Division of Water Infrastructure in my home
State, at the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality. Mr. Colson is also the current president of the
Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities, so he is in a
great position to provide insight on the needs of communities,
not just from the State of North Carolina, but for the country.
In February----
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. DeFazio is on?
Mr. Rouzer. In February we held a hearing on the broader
topic of replacing and updating our Nation's wastewater
infrastructure. Today we are going to get a little more
specific, and look at the energy challenges facing wastewater
infrastructure.
It certainly makes sense for wastewater utilities to want
to be as efficient and resilient as possible. According to the
EPA, for many municipalities, drinking water and wastewater
facilities are their largest users of energy, often consuming
30 to 40 percent of their energy totals.
EPA also notes that drinking water and wastewater
operations account for 2 percent of the country's overall
energy use. And it is fairly easy to see why. These facilities
often use very large machinery, including pumps, drives,
motors, and other equipment which operate 24 hours a day.
Additionally, many facilities were designed and built in an era
when energy costs were not as big a concern.
So clearly, it makes sense to discuss energy use at these
facilities. EPA has noted that if municipalities incorporate
energy efficiency practices into their water and wastewater
plants, utilities can save 15 to 30 percent.
But you also have to consider the opportunity cost,
especially for small municipalities. An important part of
today's hearing is learning more about why a utility may not
have an incentive to implement such measures.
In addition to wastewater utility energy use, we are also
going to hear about resiliency and mitigation of natural
disasters. As municipalities grapple with hurricanes, flooding,
earthquakes, and other disasters, we need to think about this.
Today we are going to hear a lot about green
infrastructure, referring to measures that use plant or soil
systems or permeable surfaces to manage wet weather impacts.
Under current Federal law, all Clean Water State Revolving Fund
programs must use a portion of their Federal grant for projects
that address green infrastructure, water and energy efficiency,
or other environmental activities.
While these practices and technologies may very well
benefit some communities, it is essential that these programs
do not take a one-size-fits-all approach. Some communities,
especially small and rural communities, may not have the means
or the need to utilize these specific practices in their
communities. Small and rural communities often have difficulty
using the green infrastructure reserve and identifying projects
in this category that can be successfully implemented in their
communities. For example, while permeable pavement and other
surfaces may be important to combat stormwater runoff in a
large city, is it really the best use of funding for a
community of the few thousand?
Now, this is not necessarily suggestive of an opinion, but
just a question, I think, that needs to be answered. I also
look forward to hearing more about these issues from our panel
of experts here today.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
[Mr. Rouzer's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment
Thank you, Chair Napolitano, for holding this hearing, and thank
you to our witnesses for being here today to provide your experiences
and thoughts on actions designed to encourage greater resiliency and
sustainability of wastewater utilities. Specifically, we'll hear how
these can help in meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
In particular, I'd like to thank Mr. Kim H. Colson, Director of the
Division of Water Infrastructure at the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality. Mr. Colson is also the current President of the
Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities (CIFA), so he is in a
great position to provide insight on the needs of communities, not just
from the State of North Carolina, but also for the country. Thank you
for taking the time to appear here and provide your expertise today.
In February, we held a hearing on the broader topic of replacing
and updating our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. Today we're going
to get a little more specific and look at the energy challenges facing
wastewater infrastructure.
It certainly makes sense for wastewater utilities to want to be as
efficient and resilient as possible. According to the Environmental
Protection Agency, for many municipalities, drinking water and
wastewater facilities are their largest users of energy, often
consuming 30 to 40 percent of their energy totals. EPA also notes that
drinking water and wastewater operations account for two percent of the
country's overall energy use. It is fairly easy to see why.
These facilities often use very large machinery, including pumps,
drives, motors, and other equipment which operate 24 hours a day.
Additionally, many facilities were designed and built in an era when
energy costs were not a major concern. So, clearly it makes sense to
discuss energy use at these facilities.
EPA has noted that if municipalities incorporate energy efficiency
practices into their water and wastewater plants, utilities can save 15
to 30 percent. But you also have to consider the opportunity cost--
especially for small municipalities. An important part of today's
hearing is learning more about why a utility may not implement such
measures.
In addition to wastewater utility energy use, we are also going to
hear about resiliency and mitigation of natural disasters. As
municipalities grapple with facing hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes,
and other disasters, we need to think about this.
Today we are going to hear a lot about ``green infrastructure,''
referring to measures that use plant or soil systems, or permeable
surfaces, to manage wet weather impacts. Under current federal law, all
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) programs must use a portion of
their federal grant for projects that address green infrastructure,
water and energy efficiency, or other environmental activities.
While these practices and technologies may benefit some
communities, it is essential these programs do not take a ``one-size-
fits-all'' approach. Some communities, especially small and rural
communities, may not have the means or the need to utilize these
practices in their communities.
Small and rural communities often have difficulty using the green
infrastructure reserve and identifying projects in this category that
can be successfully implemented in their communities. For example,
while permeable pavement and other surfaces may be important to combat
stormwater runoff in a large city, is it really the best use of funding
for a community of a few thousand?
I look forward to hearing more about these issues from our panel of
experts here today.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer. At this time I am
pleased to yield to our wonderful chairman of the full
committee, Mr. DeFazio, for any thoughts he may have.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Chair Napolitano, and thanks for
holding this hearing. It is particularly auspicious that we are
here the day before Earth Day to discuss the sustainability of
the Nation's wastewater infrastructure.
I remember when the Willamette River in Oregon was an open
sewer. It is now a source of drinking water, and it is a
fabulous recreational amenity. And we are finally opening up my
largest city down to the river with a fabulous new waterfront
park, which will be heavily utilized. But in the old days, you
wouldn't have wanted to go down there.
Other parts of the country have a long way to go, but they
have made some progress. In DC, they used to have signs saying
if you made contact with the water or fell into the water, you
needed to go to the hospital. It is not so bad today, but it is
still nowhere near where it needs to be, or wants to be to turn
the Potomac and the Anacostia into similarly fabulous
recreational opportunities for the community, and fishing, and
other things.
We have documented the needs through the EPA, $270 billion
over the next 20 years to bring the Nation's wastewater systems
up to a state of good repair, and adequate resilience to deal
with future events. That is $14 billion per year,
approximately.
And obviously, there is a question of can local communities
do this on their own, and the answer is no. The Federal
Government used to be a good partner. When I was a county
commissioner, we got a 75-percent Federal match because
polluted water does not observe either city, State, county, or
even international boundaries. So it is a problem that needs to
be dealt with, with a national strategy.
And as the ranking member pointed out, some of the
ambitious programs to clean the water are burdens on small
communities, and we need to partner with those communities and
help them to meet these challenges. Last year, the
appropriators, they put into the Clean Water SRF $1.6 billion.
That would be somewhere around 10 percent, 12 percent of the
annual need. So we are nowhere near where we need to be.
We held the hearing in February, where we documented the
fact that many local communities can't do this--again,
especially small, rural, economically disadvantaged. They just
don't have revenues. They don't have a sufficient number of
ratepayers to bear the costs and the burdens. So if we remain
committed, then the only way we can get there is with a new,
robust Federal commitment to cleaning up our wastewater.
And at the same time as we do it, we have great
opportunities to transform and modernize. We had testimony in
the last Congress, in January or February, from a wastewater
district in New Jersey that had to rebuild their system.
Electricity is really expensive in New Jersey. They are
capturing their methane--a horrendous greenhouse gas, way worse
than CO2--to generate electricity, to run the plant, saving
them a tremendous amount of money, and selling energy onto the
grid.
So how about that? We are dealing with climate change, a
horrible pollutant, methane. We are lowering costs for
ratepayers. That seems like a win-win-win for everybody. And
that is something that we should look at replicating as these
systems are rebuilt.
Right now the EPA and the Department of Energy have shown
that treatment of drinking water and wastewater is about 4
percent of our Nation's energy use. That is about $4 billion,
an average cost across the country. It results in 45 million
tons of greenhouse gases, that is 10 million cars a year.
And there is way more methane in the wastewater and
escaping from the wastewater than we need for the treatment,
and as I said, it could be trapped, and could become a
generation for electricity, and reduce the destructiveness of
the methane in the atmosphere. The EPA estimates that doing
actions like this could save 10 to 40 percent of operating
costs for utilities around the country.
The other issue is, of course, the resilience of these
facilities. Severe weather events, floods, overtopping
submerging systems, sea level rise, challenging systems in
coastal areas. In 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability
Office studied the resiliency of water and wastewater
utilities, and one of their recommendations to us, to Congress,
was that we should consider requiring that climate resilience
be considered in the planning for any federally funded
wastewater or water infrastructure projects.
We don't want to pour money into outdated, inefficient
infrastructure, infrastructure that is not going to meet the
challenges of the future. Instead, we need, as we do in surface
transportation, we need to begin to build out a 21st-century
wastewater/drinking water infrastructure to better meet the
needs and the health of the American people and the economy.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Tomorrow is Earth Day, so it is fitting we are here to discuss
innovative ways to address the resiliency and sustainability of our
nation's wastewater infrastructure.
Today, we will continue to discuss the importance of robust
investment in our nation's wastewater infrastructure, which, like so
much of our nation's infrastructure, is in serious need of
modernization. Specifically, today's hearing is an opportunity to
explore in more depth some of the issues raised at our February hearing
on the nation's clean water needs.
At that hearing, we underscored the consequences to everyday
Americans from Congress's failure to invest in our water-related
infrastructure systems.
As already noted, according to the most recent Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Needs Survey, states and
communities have documented wastewater infrastructure needs of over
$270 billion over the next 20 years--which means that local communities
have already identified over $14 billion in specific wastewater
infrastructure projects that need to be carried out every year for the
next 20 years.
Yet, the last annual federal appropriation for the Clean Water SRF
program was a fraction of that--about $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2021.
We simply are not meeting our nation's wastewater infrastructure
needs when we provide just a little more than 10 percent of the federal
funds necessary to close the identified infrastructure gap.
We also learned at our Subcommittee hearing in February that local
communities simply cannot address their wastewater infrastructure
challenges on their own.
Too many communities, especially those that are small, rural, and
economically disadvantaged, simply do not have the revenues and
ratepayers to address these needs alone.
So, if we remain committed to cleaning up our nation's rivers,
lakes, and streams, and if we remain committed to protecting human
health and the environment, the only way we can get there is through
renewing a robust federal commitment to addressing our wastewater
infrastructure needs.
Yet, in the same way we are trying to transform and modernize our
nation's highway system and move it out of the Eisenhower era, we have
an equal opportunity to transform the way we invest in our nation's
wastewater infrastructure network.
Both EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy have shown that
approximately 3 to 4 percent of the nation's energy use is consumed by
drinking and wastewater treatment facilities. This energy use is
equivalent to 56 billion kilowatts annually--costing roughly $4
billion--and results in annual emissions of more than 45 million tons
of greenhouse gasses. That's the equivalent of about 10 million cars
driven for a year.
Similarly, the Department of Energy estimates that wastewater
contains roughly five times more energy than is needed for its
treatment in terms of untapped thermal energy. Many utilities,
including some of the witnesses here today, have demonstrated the
potential to reclaim this untapped energy and reduce their overall
energy costs as well as releases of greenhouse gasses.
EPA has also estimated that, by incorporating energy efficiency
practices into water and wastewater utilities, municipalities can save
between 15 to 40 percent on their operating costs, saving thousands of
dollars and potentially paying for energy efficiency upgrades solely
through cost savings in a matter of months to a few years.
Finally, a growing concern for many utilities is the resiliency of
water and wastewater utilities to extreme weather events and the
challenges posed by climate change. In 2020, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) completed a study of the resiliency of
water and wastewater utilities to climate change and recommended that,
among other things, Congress should consider requiring that climate
resilience be considered in the planning for federally funded water
infrastructure projects.
As this committee considers legislation to reinvest in our nation's
infrastructure, including our wastewater infrastructure, it is critical
that these investments maximize the sustainability of our
infrastructure.
It is foolish to keep pouring taxpayer dollars into outdated,
inefficient infrastructure. Instead, we need to meet the climate
challenge head-on by reducing emissions and building more resilient
infrastructure.
We have an administration that wants to do just that--and put
people to work at the same time--by enacting a large infrastructure
package. In his American Jobs Plan, President Biden lays out an
ambitious plan that create jobs and prioritizes investment in water and
wastewater infrastructure.
Given the opportunity, we should not only direct investment toward
getting our infrastructure into a state of good repair, but we should
also focus on preparing our infrastructure for the next generation of
challenges.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding today's hearing. I look forward
to hearing from the witnesses.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will now ask unanimous consent to add the testimony for
the record from American Rivers.
And without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]

Statement of Gary Belan, Senior Director, Clean Water Supply Program,
American Rivers, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
On behalf of American Rivers' 300,000 members and supporters, thank
you for holding the hearing Sustainable Wastewater Infrastructure:
Measures to Promote Resiliency and Climate Adaptation and Mitigation.
American Rivers applauds the Committee for spotlighting the need for
more federal infrastructure investment to stimulate the economy and
meet clean water needs and requests that this written testimony be
included in the official hearing record.
This moment in time offers a unique opportunity for Congress to put
forth a new vision for water. The historic weather extremes we have
experienced over the past two years, the pandemic and resulting
economic challenges, have highlighted the importance clean water plays
in our society and how critical it is that we invest in smart water
infrastructure. The State Revolving Fund is one of the primary vehicles
the federal government uses to support state water infrastructure, and
when fully funded, it has historically helped to maintain water
infrastructure. However, the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF
programs, as currently structured, are not accomplishing the large-
scale improvements needed in water infrastructure to meet the twin
challenges of climate change and economic and racial inequality. Large
cities do not typically use the SRF programs, because they can more
easily use the private bond market. When they do, they can monopolize
the funds as they have more resources to develop proposals and work
within the SRF application systems. Small communities do not have the
capacity to take on a loan or they do not have the staff capacity to
even apply. Huge deficiencies in water infrastructure needs remain in
communities across the country, the result of a historic lack of
investment. Furthermore, natural infrastructure needs to be a core
component of any infrastructure plan moving forward to help communities
more quickly adapt to increasingly intense and regular weather
extremes. The Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF programs continue to
serve a vital purpose in supporting clean water infrastructure, and as
such, the need to be fully funded and updated so that they can more
effectively address these challenges.
We urge the Committee, and Congress as a whole, to direct more
funding to both the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds, ensure that the Clean Water SRF incentivizes natural
infrastructure practices, and both provide more options for communities
with fewer resources to access SRF funds as grants. Climate change is
impacting our water systems more significantly than ever and having up-
to-date water infrastructure with natural infrastructure components are
our best change at adapting to this new normal. Specifically, our
recommendations are:
1. Support $10 Billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
and $10 Billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund over the
next five years, in order to ensure water infrastructure is repaired
and maintained.
2. Require climate resilience be incorporated into the planning of
all drinking and wastewater projects that receive federal financial
assistance/support, including both SRF programs.
3. The green project reserve portion of the Clean Water SRF
program should be increased to 20%, and water management strategies,
like green infrastructure, should be given higher priority than energy
efficiency measures.
4. Fund a national study to identify how broadly Clean Water SRF
funds are being distributed to low-income communities and communities
of color and how effective SRF funds have been at providing low-income
communities needed clean water infrastructure.
5. Congress should change the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF
subsidization caps, and base it on a 10-year rolling average of state
SRF contributions, instead of its current requirement of 30% of EPA's
annual capitalization grant. This would increase the ability of cities
with need to subsidize projects beyond the 30% cap while continuing to
maintain a reasonable limit on subsidization to maintain the revolving
fund nature of the SRF program.
U.S. Water Infrastructure is Crumbling . . . and So is Funding
As the Committee is well aware, America's water infrastructure is
at a crisis point. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers
Report Card on America's Infrastructure, wastewater systems now receive
a grade of D+ while stormwater infrastructure receives a D.\1\ The
nation's more than 16,000 wastewater treatment plants are steadily
reaching their design capacities, while 15% have already reached or
exceeded it.\2\ With growing urban environments and populations, the
number of wastewater treatment plants at or beyond capacity will
steadily increase. Meanwhile, the impervious pavement and hard surfaces
that cause stormwater pollution and flooding continue to grow. Between
1982 and 1997, urbanized land increased by 47 percent, while the
nation's population grew by only 17 percent.\3\ While sprawl growth
appears to have slowed somewhat since 2000, it still appears to be
growing.\4\ This continued spread of pavement and hard surfaces
continues to create billions of gallons of stormwater water, which not
only causes its own pollution, but often causes sewer overflows as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Society of Civil Engineers, Report Card for America's
Infrastructure, accessed online Apr 8, 2021 https://
infrastructurereportcard.org/
\2\ ibid
\3\ Fulton, William, Rolf Penall, May Nguen, and Alicia Harrison.
The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Who
Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S. July 2001
\4\ Barringtin-Leigh, Christopher and Adam Millard-Ball,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A century of sprawl in
the United States. July 7, 2015 https://www.pnas.org/content/112/27/
8244
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, we continue to lose crucial elements of our
natural clean water system--headwaters streams, wetlands, forests, and
natural floodplains. Climate change is already making the problem
worse, and scientists predict more frequent and severe droughts and
floods as the planet warms.
Since 2002, federal clean water funding has declined significantly,
leaving states and local governments to fill the gap. In 2005 states
and municipalities spent $82 billion on sewers and drinking water.\5\
By 2019, local governments invested a record $125.5 billion in public
water and sewer infrastructure, resulting in local governments being
responsible for 95-98% of total water and sewer infrastructure
spending.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Anderson, Richard, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Local Government
Investment in Water and Sewer, 2000-2015. Accessed April 8. 2021
https://bit.ly/2QaKNjy
\6\ Durr, Sara, The United States Council of Mayors, Local
Government Makes Record-High Investments in Public Water & Sewer
Infrastructure. November 26, 2019 Accessed April 14, 2021 https://
bit.ly/3djPC2V
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pandemic and the resultant economic challenges have
significantly impacted local investment in water infrastructure. The
American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) estimate that drinking water
utilities will experience a negative financial impact of $13.9
billion--or 16.9 percent--by 2021, due to revenue losses and increased
costs as a result of the pandemic.\7\ The National Association of Clean
Water Agencies (NACWA) estimates the financial declines for wastewater
utilities will be approximately $16.8 billion, including a 20 percent
drop in sewer revenues.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies(AMWA), The Financial Impact of the COVID-19
Crisis on U.S. Drinking Water Utilities (AWWA, April 14, 2020), https:/
/www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/Communications/AWWA-AMWA-COVIDReport_2020-
04.pdf.
\8\ National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA),
Recovering from Coronavirus (NACWA), https://www.nacwa.org/docs/
default-source/resources---public/water-sector-covid-19-financial-
impacts.pdf?sfvrsn=98f9ff61_2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local funding is the primary revenue source for clean water
infrastructure, and if it experiences a decline, it is likely we will
see a resulting increase in water quality problems. Even before the
pandemic we needed a national commitment to clean water
infrastructure--the pandemic only exposed the need is greater and more
urgent.
The Benefits of Natural Infrastructure
Not only is more funding for water infrastructure needed, the
funding needs to be directed towards more adaptable natural
infrastructure. Natural infrastructure refers to a variety of practices
that protect, restore, or mimic natural water systems. Examples include
restoring or increasing urban trees to soak up and clean polluted
stormwater and prevent flooding or protecting source water streams that
provide drinking water to our communities. These climate resilient
natural solutions efficiently safeguard and manage water in ways that
improve quality of life--all at lower cost than traditional ``gray''
infrastructure.
Climate change has rapidly changed traditional precipitation
patterns and is causing wide volatility. The National Climate
Assessment, a federally supported and expert reviewed summarization of
climate impacts in the United States, indicates that weather patterns
are moving to more extremes across the country.\9\ Since 1991,
rainstorms have been increasingly more intense and have regularly been
significantly above average. This increase in intensity has been
greatest in the Northeast, Midwest, and upper Great Plains, where they
are more than 30% above their mid-century average. Flood events have
increased in the Midwest and Northeast where the most significant
increases in rain amounts and intensity have occurred.\10\ As climate
change reduces snow packs and increases droughts, reservoirs as large
as Lake Mead, the drinking water source for 30 million Americans, are
drying up.\11\ Building more dams, as Atlanta and many other metro
areas are proposing, won't work unless it rains (in the right place),
and won't address unsustainable water use. More severe storms are
already increasing sewer overflows and flooding, and it is not
physically or fiscally possible to enlarge underground stormwater
tunnels enough to hold it all. Experts predict that these extreme
hydrologic swings will only increase with global warming.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Climate Assessment, Precipitation Change. Accessed on
April 9, 2021 https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-
climate/precipitation-change#intro-section-2
\10\ National Climate Assessment, Heavy Downpours Increasing.
Accessed on April 9, 2021 https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-
changing-climate/heavy-downpours-increasing
\11\ James, Ian, The pie keeps shrinking: Lake Meads low level will
trigger water cutbacks for Arizona, Nevada. AZCentral.com, Aug 15, 2020
https://bit.ly/3255oIG
\12\ Kundzewicz, Z.W et al. ``Freshwater Resources and Their
Management.'' Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
M.L. Parry et al. Eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
173-210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these problems, we need more than just increased
investment in water infrastructure; we need investment in natural
infrastructure and we need it in the communities that have historically
been left out of water infrastructure investments. Tackling America's
water infrastructure needs presents us with a unique opportunity to
grow the economy and foster positive transformation in our communities.
The solution is equitable investment and encouraged implementation of
natural infrastructure. While investments in traditional or ``gray'',
infrastructure will be essential moving forward, natural infrastructure
is a critical complement to protecting our drinking water and reducing
sewer overflows, polluted stormwater, and community flooding.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ American Rivers, Naturally Stronger March 19, 2017 https://
medium.com/naturally-stronger
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray water infrastructure that depends on pipes and treatment
facilities to move stormwater, wastewater, and drinking water from one
place to another can be affordably improved by investing in natural
infrastructure. By protecting or mimicking natural water systems, we
eliminate some of the strain on traditional infrastructure. For
example, wetlands located in areas upstream of communities naturally
absorb and hold floodwater; rain gardens in urban areas provide a
similar function. These systems, which are cheaper to build than
concrete pipes or holding ponds, retain and infiltrate water into the
soil and take the burden off the existing piped water system.
We cannot eliminate engineered systems, such as pipes, treatment
plants, and levees. Nor should we. They are important elements of our
clean water system, and many are in desperate need of repair or
replacement. But relying on fixed engineering solutions alone will not
solve our future needs. Instead, we should optimize the mix of green
infrastructure as a ``first line of defense'' complemented with state-
of-the-art engineered technology.
To facilitate the use of natural infrastructure, climate resilience
and risk should be considered and incorporated into projects that
received federal financial assistance and funds. According to the GAO,
such a federal requirement could influence the consideration of future
climate risks industry practice within the drinking water and
wastewater sector.\14\ Furthermore, the GAO also found that
incorporating climate resiliency into drinking water and wastewater
projects would likely reduce future fiscal expenditures of the federal
government and help enhance the resiliency of drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GAO, Water Infrastructure: Technical Assistance and Climate
Resilience Planning Could Help Utilities Prepare for Potential Climate
Change Impacts, January 2020, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-24.pdf
\15\ ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural infrastructure strategies are an essential component to
climate resiliency plans and are a valuable practice in the management
of flood risks, build resiliency to drought, reduce urban heat island
effects, reduce the energy needed for water treatment, amongst many
other benefits.\16\ By requiring climate resilience and risk assessment
be incorporated into federally supported infrastructure projects,
including through the SRF program, risks to and future costs of water
management can be reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ EPA, Green Infrastructure and Climate Change: Collaborating to
Improve Community Resiliency August 2016, https://bit.ly/3d6cH9o
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Revolving Fund and Green Project Reserve
Funding for natural infrastructure has been built into the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund program since 2009, when it was incorporated
into the program as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009. That bill appropriated $4 billion to the Clean Water SRF
program with the requirement that ``to the extent there are sufficient
eligible project applications, not less than 20 percent of the funds
appropriated herein for the Revolving Funds shall be for projects to
address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements
or other environmentally innovative activities'' \17\ At that time the
20 percent set-aside, also referred to as the Green Project Reserve
(GPR), was groundbreaking because it represented the first step in a
much needed shift toward incentivizing more flexible, natural
infrastructure solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ United States Congress (February 17, 2009). American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, Public Law 111-5. Viewed April 11, 2021 http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/pdf/PLAW-111publ5.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Green Project Reserve has been a very successful program since
its inception. Shortly after it was created, the 20 percent requirement
was met by all 50 states, and 47 of them, including Puerto Rico, funded
beyond the 20 percent requirement. These funds in turn generated
thousands of jobs and other economic and environmental benefits.\18\
The resulting increase of projects was a result of states using the GPR
as an opportunity to reach out to new Clean Water SRF applicants and
fund new types of projects. The existence of the GPR encouraged many
states to evaluate traditional projects and successfully identify
existing natural infrastructure practices or opportunities to add
natural infrastructure practices to traditional projects.\19\ As a
result, the EPA estimates that on average each green infrastructure
project funded through the program reduces stormwater runoff by 22
million gallons and each water efficiency project is estimated to save
over 200 million gallons per year.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ US EPA, ARRA Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Green Project
Reserve Report, June 2012. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2015-04/documents/arra_green_project_
reserve_report.pdf
\19\ ibid
\20\ US EPA, Estimated Environmental Benefits Associated with ARRA-
Funded Green Project Reserve Projects. November 22, 2011. https://
bit.ly/2Rwbm3r
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, there are areas that continue to need improvement. Funding
from the GPR tends to lean heavily towards energy efficiency programs.
After its initial implementation, GPR funding consisted of
approximately 38 percent energy efficiency projects compared to 18
percent natural infrastructure projects.\21\ While energy efficiency is
a critical environmental goal and there is a strong water-energy nexus,
in many cases, it is not clear what direct water quality benefits, if
any, were realized through these projects. We urge that federal clean
water funds from the GPR not be used for basic energy efficiency
purposes, so additional funds are utilized for natural infrastructure
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ American Rivers, Putting Green to Work: Economic Recovery
Investments for Clean and Reliable Water, 2009 Viewed April 15, 2021
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-02/documents/us20.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One reason natural infrastructure may be funded at lower levels may
be because revenue streams to repay Clean Water SRF loans for natural
infrastructure projects are not as readily available. Natural
infrastructure is often used to supplement stormwater management, which
typically does not have dedicated municipal funding, like the fee
systems wastewater treatment plants have. Increasing subsidization or
grant programs for natural infrastructure under the GPR, or
establishing alternated loan payback requirements for them, are
possible solutions.
The success of the Clean Water SRF Green Project Reserve over the
years demonstrates its continued importance to the advancement of
natural infrastructure, and it should not only continue to be funded,
but increased to 20 percent.
State Revolving Fund and low-income communities
The State Revolving Fund programs play a crucial role ensuring
water infrastructure in mid to small sized cities. The EPA estimates
that between 1997 and 2018 approximately 35 percent of Drinking Water
SRF funds were utilized by cities with a population of 10,000 or
less.\22\ In 2020, approximately 20 percent of Clean Water SRF funds
were utilized by cities of 10,000 or less.\23\ However, there are
several challenges to paying for infrastructure in smaller to midsize
cities, particularly ones that are experiencing a population decline.
According to the GAO, midsize cities (populations from 50,000 to
99,999) cities with declining population had a higher poverty and
unemployment rate and lower median income than cities with growing
populations.\24\ The GAO found that cities in this position have paid
for water infrastructure needs through rate increases and have tried to
set up customer assistance programs for those who can't afford the rate
increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 2018 Annual Report.
EPA 816-R-19-009, July 2019. Viewed April 15, 2019 https://bit.ly/
32hZ1BR
\23\ EPA, Clean Water SRF Program Information National Summary,
1997-2020.
\24\ GAO, Water Infrastructure: Information on Selected Midsize and
Large Cities with Declining Populations, GAO-16-785, September 2016.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-785.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some of these cases, the cities even used vacant land for
natural infrastructure.\25\ Cities in this situation are able to use
the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF programs to provide additional
subsidies for water infrastructure needs, however there are limits to
this approach, as funds often still require repayment. Furthermore,
there is evidence that SRF funds are not equitably distributed across
communities.\26\ Several factors exist for why small or low-income
communities are less likely to receive federal funding for water and
wastewater infrastructure: communities with limited technical and
financial capability find it difficult to apply for funds (even when
funds are designated for such places); smaller and lower-income
communities face higher financial risk when securing loans of any type;
and states may be hesitant to make investments in communities they
think may compromise the viability of the SRF programs.\27\ \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ibid
\26\ Balazs, Carolina and Isha Ray, The Drinking Water Disparities
Framework: On the Origins and Persistence of Inequities in Exposure,
April 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025716/
\27\ Hansen, Katy, Environmental Policy Innovation Center, Are SRF
Allocation across communities equitable? Viewed April 12, 2021 http://
policyinnovation.org/are-srfs-equitably-allocated-across-communities
\28\ Daley, Dorothy, Megan Mulling, Meghan Rubado, State Agency
Discretion in a Delegated Federal Program: Evidence from Drinking Water
Investment. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Volume 44, Issue 4,
Fall 2014, pgs 564-586. Published August 31, 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some of these factors have been identified, research has
primarily focused on the Drinking Water SRF. Little analysis has been
done on the Clean Water SRF to determine how equitable fund
distribution and project implementation is across communities within
cities that use these funds. This is largely due to the differences
between drinking water and wastewater utility structures. Therefore,
more research is needed to better identify how Clean Water SRF funds
are being distributed, how and if they are impacting low-income
communities, and how the program can be improved to ensure funds are
better making it to communities with water infrastructure needs.
SRF and subsidized assistance
In both the case of natural infrastructure and low-income
communities, Drinking Water and Clean Water SRF funds are being
utilized, but not to the extent that the funds are needed or available.
Current federal law places a 30 percent cap on subsidization.\29\ This
cap was originally put in place to restrict states from giving away too
much funding in the early years of the program. This would have
undermined the sustainability of the SRF programs in their early
years.\30\ However, now that the SRF programs have been in place for
over twenty years and are currently well capitalized, the cap as
currently constructed is making it more difficult for natural
infrastructure projects to be constructed and for lower-income
communities to access funds. Instead of the 30 percent cap, states
should instead have a subsidization cap based on the amount of funding
they are contributing beyond their 20 percent annual match. Under
current law, if a state wishes to provide a higher level of subsidized
assistance than allowable, they have to create a separate state-
financed water infrastructure program.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ United States Congress (June 10, 2014). Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014, Public Law 113-121. Pg 133 Viewed April
12, 2021 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-113publ121/pdf/PLAW-
113publ121.pdf
\30\ NRDC, Go Back to the Well: States and the Federal Government
are Neglecting a Key Funding Source for Water Infrastructure. IP:18-04-
A, May 2018. Viewed April 9, 2021 https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/
files/state-revolving-fund-water-infrastructure-ip.pdf
\31\ ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an increasing need for access to water infrastructure
financing for natural infrastructure and low-income communities, and
the current grant programs available, while helpful, are insufficient
for the need. The SRF program is an important and valuable addition to
the sources of funding for natural water infrastructure and must
continue to be improved to keep up with the need and circumstances of
our time. The subsidization cap is still important to ensure the
continued long-term viability of the SRF, particularly with the
continued need for long-term water infrastructure funding. However,
this cap may be inhibiting state efforts to fully deploy their SRF
funds and restricting the ability to fully fund the need for natural
infrastructure and reducing the impact for communities in most
need.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should change the way the cap on subsidized assistance is
calculated for states that regularly invest their SRF's. The cap should
be based on a 10-year rolling average of state SRF contributions,
instead of a set percentage based on annual federal funding. Doing this
would assist states that are expanding their SRF programs, increasing
their ability to provide subsidization, while still ensuring that the
SRF remains sustainable into the future. Based on current state
contributions and calculating the subsidized assistance cap based on a
10-year average would allow at least 20 states the ability to
distribute significantly more funding as subsidized.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
This moment in time offers a unique opportunity for Congress to put
forth a new vision for water. In much the same way that we need to
invest in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies to fuel our
economy in the 21st century, we need sufficient and innovative funding
for water infrastructure. Both the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF
programs have been a bedrock of funding for water infrastructure, and
the green reserve requirement within the Clean Water SRF has been an
effective incentive for innovative and flexible approaches. The SRF
programs are one of only a few legislative approaches to get water
infrastructure funding to communities in need while providing funds for
natural water infrastructure practices. But both the Clean Water and
Drinking Water SRF's need further support and changes to ensure that
the continue to be the strong pillar of water infrastructure funding
they have been in the past.
American Rivers appreciates the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee's consideration of our views.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, everybody. That was excellent,
Mr. DeFazio. I think you covered it all. We will now proceed to
hear from our witnesses, who will testify.
Thank you for being here, and much welcome to everybody. On
today's panel we have Howard Neukrug, executive director of the
Water Center at the University of Pennsylvania; Kishia Powell,
COO and executive vice president, DC Water; Mr. Robert
Ferrante, chief engineer and general manager, Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts; Kim Colson, director, Division of
Water Infrastructure, North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, testifying on behalf of the Council of
Infrastructure Financing Authorities, CIFA; Kevin Robert Perry,
fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects; and Rebecca
Hammer, deputy director of Federal water policy, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, NRDC.
And without objection, your prepared statements will be
entered into the record. All witnesses are asked to limit their
remarks to 5 minutes.
And Mr. Neukrug--am I pronouncing it right?
Mr. Neukrug. You got it the last time, you got it very
well.
Mrs. Napolitano. Welcome. If I murder it, I am not that
good at names sometimes. Welcome, and you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF HOWARD M. NEUKRUG, P.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE
WATER CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; KISHIA L.
POWELL, P.E., CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, DC WATER; ROBERT C. FERRANTE, CHIEF ENGINEER AND
GENERAL MANAGER, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS; KIM
H. COLSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, TESTIFYING ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING AUTHORITIES;
KEVIN ROBERT PERRY, FASLA, FELLOW, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS; AND REBECCA HAMMER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
FEDERAL WATER POLICY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Mr. Neukrug. Well, thank you very much, Chairwoman, and
thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member, for your great
opening statements. And good morning. Thank you for holding
this important hearing on the role of sustainable wastewater
infrastructure, and promoting resilient cities. I am Howard
Neukrug, I am the executive director of the Water Center at
Penn.
The Water Center is a nonprofit applied research arm of the
University of Pennsylvania. Our primary purpose is to find
solutions to the challenges facing our urban and rural water
systems, the watersheds that support them, and the communities
that rely on them. Our work builds heavily on the concept of
integrated water systems and the values of equity, justice, and
community resilience.
America's water infrastructure requires significant renewal
and upgrade. I think we all know about the American Society of
Civil Engineers Report Card with grades of C-minus, D-plus, and
D. Speaking as a professor from an Ivy League university, I can
tell you that these are not good grades. These are the grades
of systems that are highly vulnerable to partial or complete
failure. This has to change. If America cannot afford to
provide clean and safe water to all of its citizens, what
nation can?
The last major Federal funding program for water
infrastructure came with the Clean Water Act's Construction
Grants program in the 1970s and 1980s. The program was a huge
success, and improved our Nation's water quality dramatically.
But much more needs to be done now.
Our vision is for fishable, swimmable, drinkable,
accessible, attractive, and safe water that supports community
health and sustainability, enhances economic opportunities, and
promotes affordable and resilient neighborhoods. Our goal is to
rebuild our Nation's water systems with new innovations and
technologies that will take our 19th- and 20th-century
infrastructure, which is what is in place today, and secure it
for at least through the 21st century.
Today, the Nation's wastewater facilities are moving from
being a major user of energy to a net-zero or even a net-
positive energy facility. That is, water systems are generating
enough energy in-house to not just run its operations
independent of the energy grid, but enough to sell back excess
to the community.
We are achieving this by reducing the amount of stormwater
that infiltrates, or inflows, into our sewers. We are using
more energy-efficient equipment and pumps. We are also
investing in advanced digitization and artificial intelligence
to better monitor and optimize our systems. And we are even
producing renewable energy by using wind turbines, floating
photovoltaic solar cells in our reservoirs, and optimizing
methane gas generation and recovery and reuse.
We are also beginning to recover other resources from the
waste stream: phosphorous, microplastics, carbon, rare earth
materials, fertilizers, and even the thermal heat resident in
water. And perhaps most significantly is the recovery of the
water itself. We can now treat wastewater to a level
appropriate for reuse, even to the level of direct potable
reuse.
Increasingly, clean water utilities are becoming leaders of
sustainability in their communities. This June, Philadelphia
Water will hit a milestone, its 10th anniversary of the
groundbreaking Green City, Clean Waters initiative. In just 10
years, Philadelphia has greened previously impervious land area
sufficient to prevent 3 billion gallons a year of combined
sewage overflow from entering its streams and rivers. But
Philadelphia is just 25 percent of its way towards its ultimate
discharge reduction goal, and the next 15 years will require an
even greater influx of money and innovation.
In summary, the renewal and upgrade of our Nation's water
infrastructure will be extensive and expensive. While great
strides have been made to make the water sector more efficient,
more resilient, more sustainable, and more equitable, still
more resources are needed.
The Clean Water SRF has been a tremendous lifeline for all
parts of our water sector, and thank you for that. But our
water challenges will only continue to increase. An increase in
Federal appropriations under the Clean Water SRF program would
help bring the water sector and the country closer to 21st-
century standards and our Nation's expectations for resiliency
and sustainability.
So thank you for Congress' continued support of funding the
SRF system. I look forward to a growing partnership, moving
forward. And by working together we could ensure safe,
reliable, and affordable water services for every citizen.
Thank you, this concludes my remarks.
[Mr. Neukrug's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Howard M. Neukrug, P.E., Executive Director, The
Water Center at the University of Pennsylvania
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and the
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee members. I am Howard
Neukrug, Executive Director of the Water Center at Penn. The Water
Center is a nonprofit applied research arm of the University of
Pennsylvania. Our primary purpose is to find solutions to the
challenges facing urban and rural water systems, the watersheds that
support them, and the communities that rely on them. Our work builds on
the concept of integrated water systems and the values of equity,
justice, and community resilience.
I have worked in the water industry for over 40 years, my first job
as a staff engineer for drinking water quality and treatment at
Philadelphia Water and continuing with the utility as its Director of
Planning and Technical Services, the Office of Watersheds founding
Director, Deputy Commissioner for Planning and Environmental Services,
and finishing my career as the utility's CEO and Water Commissioner.
Philadelphia Water is a municipal water, wastewater, and stormwater
utility serving over two million people in the Philadelphia
metropolitan area with an annual combined (capital and operating)
budget of over $1 billion, 2000 employees, three drinking water
treatment facilities, three wastewater resource, and recovery
facilities, and over 6000 miles of water and sewer pipes.
I have served as the Chair of the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) Water Utility Council and its Technical Advisory Group, co-
founded the U.S. Water Alliance, and served on the boards of the Water
Research Foundation, and the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies (NACWA) boards. Each of these organizations has provided
inspiration and a real learning experience for me. I mention this
because I believe that our professional organizations are where you
have the best opportunity to nurture new ideas and create the change
that is so urgently needed for our nation's water infrastructure.
Since my retirement in 2016, in addition to founding the Water
Center at Penn, I started an environmental consulting business (CASE
Environmental LLC), was appointed a Professor of Water Practice at the
University of Pennsylvania, and became the senior advisor of the Global
Water Leader's Group and Chair of its Leading Utilities of the World
CEO Network. I teach courses on ``Global Water Business for the 21st
Century'' and ``The Role of Water in Sustaining Resilient Cities.''
Thank you for holding this critical hearing concerning Sustainable
Wastewater Infrastructure and our efforts to promote resilient cities
(and water systems) and climate adaptation and mitigation. I look
forward to working with the subcommittee on its efforts to help address
the growing challenges and needs brought on by a changing set of
climate, economic and social realities.
The Time Is Right for Investment in Water Infrastructure
It is a matter no longer up for debate--America's water
infrastructure systems--drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater--
require significant renewal and upgrade. The American Society of Civil
Engineer's (ASCE) Report Card for Water (2021) gave our nation's water
systems grades of C-, D+, and D, respectively. Speaking as a professor
from an Ivy League university, I can tell you that these are not good
grades. These are the grades of systems that may be functional but are
highly vulnerable to partial or complete failure at any time. This has
to change. If America cannot afford to provide clean and safe water to
all of its citizens, what nation can?
There are many reasons why the current state of disrepair has
gotten to the point it has. But the first step to recovery is simply
acknowledging the problem and its root causes: deferred maintenance,
inadequate revenues through tariffs, aging facilities, increased
regulations, emerging contaminants, and more frequent and intense
natural and anthropogenic crises.
To help us on this path toward recovery, appreciation is growing by
the water utility sector and the public that yes, we should be able to
swim in the water and eat the fish AND live in an adaptive, resilient,
and sustainable community. Perhaps the last time this kind of public
interest has occurred on a wholesale level was during the 1970s and
1980s when pollution got so bad that the Clean Waters Act (CWA) was
signed into law and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
launched.
During that time, the CWA's Construction Grants Program kicked in.
It changed water resource protection and management completely in the
U.S. by upgrading wastewater treatment systems. By the turn of this
century, our nation's wastewater treatment facilities were successfully
treating much of the gross pollution of the 1970s. But much still needs
to be done.
It is important to note that this last major push to clean up our
nation's waters came when the federal government supported the water
sector through the provision of significant grant funding.
Today, the water sector is continuing its march toward new and
innovative technologies designed to reduce costs, increase energy
efficiencies, manage its existing asset base, address the next 50 plus
years of a changing climate, and support sustainable and green
communities. The goal? Fishable, swimmable, drinkable, accessible,
attractive, safe, just, equitable, and affordable water that supports
community health and sustainability, enhances economic opportunities
and promotes affordable neighborhoods. But all of this requires the
availability of more funding when revenues are falling due to more and
more households finding themselves unable to pay the water bill.
New Attitudes and Innovation Are Changing Water Resource Recovery
Despite the doom and gloom highlighted above concerning the state
of U.S. water infrastructure, many significant innovations are gaining
traction and are at various degrees of implementation throughout the
U.S. and in the global water sector.
What is in a name? In the 1950s, they were called Sewage Treatment
Plants (STPs); in the 1970s, they were Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs); in the 1990s, Water Pollution Control Plants (WPCPs). Today
they are being renamed as Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRF).
Yes, they still treat sewage, are largely publicly owned, and still
control pollution. But the mission has grown significantly.
For an industry that has been called the largest municipal user of
electricity, more and more systems have become ``Net Zero Energy''
facilities. Through the availability of more energy-efficient equipment
(think pumps and membranes) to strategic changes in utility operations
and water and stormwater conservation, treatment facilities have been
reducing electric demand for decades.
Add to this the innovations from the field of renewable energy--
photovoltaic solar cells floating on reservoirs, methane gas
generation, and recovery for use in cogenerating heat and electricity,
and wind turbines. More and more utilities produce enough energy to
manage their operations and sell the excess to nearby communities and
industries.
Innovations are happening within all aspects of the treatment of
what we once referred to as ``waste'' water; for example, the recovery
and reuse of elements within the ``waste'' stream--phosphorous,
microplastics, carbon, rare earth materials, and even the thermal heat
resident within the water.
And perhaps the most significant innovation is in the recovery of
the water itself. Most treatment plants in the U.S. and worldwide treat
their wastewater to a level suitable for discharge into a nearby water
body. Today, water-scarce areas are treating their wastewater to a
level appropriate for reuse, even to the level of direct, potable
reuse.
Blue, Green and Grey Infrastructure Address Multiple Climate Issues
This June, Philadelphia Water will hit a milestone--its 10th
anniversary of the groundbreaking Green City, Clean Waters initiative.
In just ten years, Philadelphia has greened previously impervious land
area sufficient to prevent 3 billion gallons a year of combined sewage
overflow (CSO) into its streams and rivers. This was no easy task, but
the benefits of green water systems throughout a city provide
additional benefits including improving public spaces, reducing urban
heat island effects, reducing GHG emissions, and creating a more
livable and healthier environment.
I mention blue and grey infrastructure in the section title because
all forms of water management are needed to successfully protect water
resources and life and property from floods, droughts, and other water
disasters.
The biggest concern of the Green Infrastructure ``movement'' has
been that while there are many, many ``co-benefits'' to say, planting a
tree or building a rain garden, the water sector has not, to date,
gotten many ``co-funders'' to participate in the cost-side of these
projects. A big thank you to Congress and the EPA for ensuring that
there is the opportunity for a set-aside in the SRF funding formula to
support green infrastructure.
Increasingly, clean water utilities are becoming leaders of
sustainability in their communities. I urge Congress to explore
incentives and remove barriers so that other entities--electric
utilities, the health care industry, and agencies that represent our
roads, housing, and even litter--can work more closely with the water
utilities to create co-benefits through green infrastructure. The water
sector needs Congress' help in educating, incentivizing, and leveraging
these groups to increase support of multi-faceted green solutions to
water and other environmental challenges.
Funding and Policy Changes Are Needed To Meet 21st Century Water
Challenges
Clearly there is controversy over the cause of climate change, but
few would argue that there has been an historic shift in weather
patterns that is showing no signs of letting up. Given that, it is my
hope that Congress and the federal government will continue to work
with the water sector to protect life and property from the risks of
flood, drought, extreme storm events, and sea level rise. Perhaps no
industry is better positioned to adapt its facilities AND the
communities it serves, than the water sector. But while the water
sector is making a lot of progress in building resiliency and
sustainability, it can make more progress faster with more support.
What kind of support is needed?
Undoubtedly, the current state of the water industry is
unacceptable. More funding is needed, but we are near the affordability
limit of many American households, the principal source for water
revenues. While great strides have been made to make the water sector
more efficient, more resilient, more sustainable, and more equitable,
still more resources are needed for the reasons described earlier. The
Clean Water SRF has been a tremendous lifeline for all parts of the
water sector. Thank you. But our water challenges will only continue to
increase as will the urgency to address those challenges. So, I provide
you with a short list of legislative actions that would be supportive
of the health of our communities and the water environment:
Increasing the general authorization level for federal
appropriations under the CW SRF program to bring the water sector
closer to 21st century standards and expectations
Supporting water utility programs that assist low-income
households to maintain water service
Supporting SRF set-asides for:
+ Rural and small communities
+ Innovative environmental projects that promote sustainability
and resilience, such as Green Infrastructure
Providing funding to eliminate or minimize two legacy
infrastructure challenges in the U.S.:
+ Combined sewer overflows
+ Lead service lines
Increasing support for research to make water systems
more efficient, resilient and sustainable
Conclusion--Water Can Unite Us
Our nation's drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater
infrastructure renewal and upgrade is extensive and expensive. But the
broad support for improving our nations' water infrastructure, ensuring
the safety of our drinking water and keeping our waterways clean gives
me hope. Please take advantage of this rare common ground by providing
the necessary funding to ensure that the U.S. can provide safe,
reliable and affordable water services for every citizen. In doing so
we will be able to move our nation's water infrastructure securely into
the 21st century and increase our nation's resiliency and
sustainability at the same time.
Thank you for Congress' continued support in funding the SRF system
and I look forward to a growing partnership moving forward.
This concludes my introductory remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions or provide additional material for the committee.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Neukrug. Now I
recognize Representative Norton to introduce Ms. Powell.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this important
hearing, and for inviting our own chief operating officer of DC
Water. I am pleased to introduce Kishia Powell, who has been
the authority's chief operating officer since May of 2020. She
is leading our authority's initiatives to develop water equity
as a roadmap, and she is, importantly, leading measures to
operationalize climate resilience.
She is well qualified as a graduate of the Clarence
Mitchell School of Engineering. She is a professional engineer,
and is vice president of the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies.
We welcome Ms. Powell to this hearing.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Powell, you may proceed.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. You have got to unmute. Unmute. There you
go.
Ms. Powell. Thank you, Ms. Norton, for the introduction,
and good morning and thank you, Chairs DeFazio and Napolitano,
Ranking Member Rouzer, and all members of the subcommittee, for
the invitation to testify before you today on behalf of DC
Water, our board of directors, and CEO David Gadis on
sustainable wastewater infrastructure.
My name is Kishia Powell, and I am the chief operating
officer of DC Water, which provides essential drinking water
and wastewater service to over 672,000 residents, schools, and
businesses in the District, as well as wastewater treatment
service for 1.6 million people across the District and
neighboring communities in Maryland and Virginia. I also serve
as vice president of the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies, or NACWA, representing more than 330 public clean
water utilities nationwide.
We commend the committee for focusing today's hearing on
modernizing and replacing the country's aging water and
wastewater infrastructure, which remains a pressing concern. In
fact, adapting and improving infrastructure to meet changing
climate trends may be the Nation's most glaring public works
need. And we must not forget that no community is resilient
without affordable, accessible water.
We also applaud the Biden-Harris administration for its
demonstrated commitment to water infrastructure investment.
Both the President's infrastructure proposal and his proposed
budget to Congress are historic, significant, and critical to
protecting the health and well-being of every American. These
investments reflect the critical role that water infrastructure
will play in building back better and addressing climate
change.
While the causes of climate change relate to air pollution,
the impacts of climate change--increasingly volatile
precipitation patterns, droughts, floods, intensifying storms,
rising sea levels, and coastal erosion--are almost all related
to water. And that means water utilities will be front and
center in addressing these growing challenges.
Utilities nationwide are keenly aware that making their
communities more resilient to climate change is also an equity
and environmental justice issue. At DC Water, our belief is
that we cannot achieve resilience without water equity, making
sure that all communities are resilient in the face of a
changing climate and, likewise, share in the economic, social,
and environmental benefits of the systems we manage, and the
infrastructure investments that are made.
At the heart of DC Water's efforts to modernize wastewater
infrastructure is our DC Clean Rivers Program, a $2.7 billion
investment which uses both traditional gray and green
infrastructure to reduce combined sewer overflow volume,
flooding, and manage stormwater runoff. Yet even an investment
of this scale can be susceptible to extreme events like the
September 10th flash flood, where 3 inches of rain fell on the
District over a 2-hour period, leaving more than 300 residents
impacted by sewer backups and surface flooding.
These types of extreme storms are not unique to the DC
region. They are occurring throughout the country with
increasing frequency and intensity, straining public clean
water utility infrastructure and threatening regulatory
compliance.
More than a decade ago, NACWA and the Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies released a report detailing the
potential impact of climate change and the estimated adaptation
costs for critical water and wastewater facilities of between
$448 to $944 billion through 2050. These costs underscore the
importance of the committee's work on the recently introduced
Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021.
This timely bill authorizes substantially increased
funding, including grants for wet weather and resiliency pilot
projects, bridging the growing gap in the Federal cost share of
water infrastructure, which is currently less than 5 percent.
This funding will allow communities to maintain and improve
local infrastructure, ensure water quality, support water
equity, and protect public health.
But we are not only working to adapt to climate change.
Clean water utilities around the country are also contributing
to climate mitigation measures through renewable energy
projects that achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
and, ultimately, contribute to carbon neutrality goals.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you and
for the work you are doing on behalf of the public clean water
sector. DC Water's motto is, ``Water is Life.'' Today we
urgently ask Congress to align funding levels with this basic
truth, and ensure that water infrastructure allocations are
proportionate to or greater than other infrastructure sectors.
This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer
any questions the committee may have. Thank you.
[Ms. Powell's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kishia L. Powell, P.E., Chief Operating Officer
and Executive Vice President, DC Water
Good morning and thank you, Chairmen DeFazio and Napolitano,
Ranking Member Rouzer, and all members of the Subcommittee for the
invitation to testify before you today, on behalf of DC Water, our
Board of Directors and our CEO David Gadis, on sustainable wastewater
infrastructure.
My name is Kishia Powell, and I am the Chief Operating Officer of
DC Water, which provides essential drinking water and wastewater
services to over 672,000 residents, schools, and businesses in the
District, as well as wastewater treatment service for 1.6 million
people across the District and neighboring Maryland and Virginia
suburbs. DC Water is proud to have provided these services without
interruption during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I also serve as Vice President of the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, or NACWA, which represents more than 330 public clean
water utilities nationwide, including DC Water. NACWA's public utility
members are on the front lines of environmental and public health
protection every day to ensure their communities have reliable and
affordable clean water services.
I commend the Committee for focusing today's hearing on an
increasingly urgent topic. No community is resilient without
affordable, accessible water. Modernizing and replacing the country's
aging water and wastewater infrastructure, is an increasingly important
concern. In fact, adapting and improving infrastructure to meet
changing climate, precipitation, and water use trends, may be the
nation's most glaring public works need.
I also applaud the Biden-Harris Administration for its demonstrated
commitment to water infrastructure investment. Both the President's
infrastructure proposal and his proposed budget to Congress are
historic, significant, and critical to protecting the health and
wellbeing of every American. These investments reflect the critical
role that water infrastructure will play in building back better and
addressing climate change.
The reality is that climate change is all about water. While the
causes of climate change relate to air pollution, the impacts of
climate change--increasingly volatile precipitation patterns, drought,
floods, intensifying storms, rising sea levels and coastal erosion--are
almost all related to water. And that means water utilities will be
front and center in addressing these growing challenges.
At the same time, utilities nationwide are keenly aware that making
their communities more resilient to climate change is also an equity
and environmental justice issue. In a recent discussion with our Board
of Directors we discussed Water Equity and Resilience and acknowledged
that we cannot achieve resilience without water equity--that
intersection of water management, Equity and Resilience, making sure
that all communities are resilient in the face of a changing climate
and likewise share in the economic, social, and environmental benefits
of the systems we manage and the infrastructure investments that are
made. Our households that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate
change, are often low-income families of color, with many living in
flood-prone areas and without the financial resources to afford the
costs related to clean-up and restoration. This is where we see
environmental justice and climate justice are inextricably linked and
where opportunities for equitable approaches become evident and timely.
Utilities are already helping communities adapt to, and manage,
extreme storm events, and DC Water is a national leader in this
respect. However, these resilience measures often require costly new
investments to protect and adapt the billions of dollars of public
investment in water infrastructure already in the ground. This can
create severe financial challenges for ratepayers, and particularly
unjust and disproportionate impacts on low- and moderate-income
customers.
Climate Adaptation
At the heart of DC Water's efforts is our Clean Rivers Project, an
ongoing effort to reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to the
District's waterways. DC Clean Rivers is a $2.7 billion infrastructure
program designed to capture and treat wastewater during rainfalls
before it reaches local waterways. The program's investments have
already delivered a 90% reduction in system wide CSO volume for the
Anacostia River, and an economic impact of 41,850 jobs (direct and
indirect) over the life of the program, just to highlight a few
benefits.
Clean Rivers uses both traditional gray, and green, infrastructure
strategically around the city to reduce flooding and manage stormwater
runoff, including increased precipitation from climate change. Yet even
an investment of this scale can be susceptible to extreme events. As an
example, an unusually intense rainstorm on September 10, 2020 dumped
almost three inches of stormwater on the District over a two-hour
period. The impact on the city's sewer infrastructure was immediate.
During this event, sewer and stormwater pumps throughout the system
were pushed to their maximum pumping capacity. Within 25 minutes the
new Anacostia Tunnel System filled to its capacity of 100 million
gallons. The flow to our Blue Plains plant spiked and our new wet
weather treatment facility was pressed into service. It too quickly
reached capacity. Across the city, our existing sewers performed as
designed but were insufficient to handle the amount of stormwater
generated.
These types of extreme storms are not unique to the DC region--they
are occurring throughout the country with increasing frequency and
intensity, straining public clean water utility infrastructure and
threatening regulatory compliance. In other jurisdictions, increased
drought conditions are creating a different set of challenges for water
and wastewater systems. In both cases, it will require a significantly
increased investment to ensure safe, reliable, and compliant water
supplies for all Americans.
These concerns are not new, but they are growing. More than a
decade ago, NACWA and the Association of the Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA) released a report detailing the potential impact of
climate change on wastewater and drinking water utilities. This report
estimated the adaptation costs for these critical facilities to be
between $448 billion and $944 billion through 2050. In the decade plus
since that report, climate change has proven to be an even greater
challenge to public clean water and drinking water utilities.
These costs underscore the importance of the Committee's work on
the recently introduced Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act
of 2021, H.R. 1915. This timely bill authorizes substantially increased
funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), Sewer
Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants, as well as grants for
wet weather and resiliency pilot projects. I emphasize grants as they
are particularly beneficial for struggling communities that cannot take
on more debt financing to meet these challenges.
These funds are an important first step to bridge the growing gap
in the federal cost share of water infrastructure, which is currently
less than five percent. This funding represents a lifeline for
communities to maintain and improve local infrastructure, ensure water
quality, support water equity, and protect public health in the face of
climate change.
Climate Mitigation
Clean water utilities around the country are also contributing to
climate mitigation measures through renewable energy projects that
achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately help
reach carbon neutrality goals. As the single largest power consumer in
the District, DC Water's operations offer significant green energy
potential from thermal energy recovery supplying 100% of our heating
needs at HQO, our LEED Platinum certified headquarters, an estimated 13
MW of on-site combined heat and power at Blue Plains to solar project
implementation and the potential to generate power from food waste.
Systemwide, we have roughly a 200 MW equivalent of thermal energy in
our sewers; something unique to us in the District and yet untapped.
DC Water's Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant was the
first project to use thermal hydrolysis in North America and was the
largest such facility in the world when it was commissioned in October
2015. The clean, green renewable energy created through this process is
enough to power one-third of the Plant's energy needs. Based on our GHG
emissions modeling from 2007 to 2017, our Thermal hydrolysis process
(Cambi/digestion/combined heat and power (turbines) project) reduced
our carbon footprint by roughly \1/3\. More recently, the Authority has
completed the installation of a solar lighting array to capture
additional clean power, which could further reduce our reliance on the
power grid.
Though DC Water's energy opportunities were identified several
years ago, we recently reinvigorated our focus on developing an
actionable project portfolio that aligns collaborators and expedites
funding from investors, for the purpose of achieving the District's
Carbon & Equity Goals. DC Water understands that implementation of
innovative clean energy projects can result in operational savings and
allow DC Water to invest those savings in other critical infrastructure
needs while maintaining affordable rates.
Closing
In closing, I would like to thank the Committee again for the
opportunity to testify before you today on this important issue and for
the work you are doing on behalf of the public clean water sector.
At DC Water, our motto is `Water is Life.' Today, we urgently ask
Congress to align funding levels with this basic truth, and ensure that
water infrastructure allocations are proportionate to, or greater than,
other infrastructure sectors.
We in the public clean water sector firmly believe that this is the
moment for Congress to act to address the nation's growing water
infrastructure crisis and transform a generational problem into a
multigenerational solution.
That concludes my testimony and, I would be happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Ms. Powell, that is
very good. We certainly do need to focus on aging
infrastructure and the new methodology.
I am pleased to introduce Mr. Robert Ferrante, who is the
general manager of L.A. County Sanitation Districts. The
sanitation districts are an incredible leader in water
recycling, food waste recycling, and alternative waste disposal
opportunities, and I know them very well, I have visited them
several times.
I thank you, Mr. Ferrante, for testifying today. You may
proceed.
Mr. Ferrante. Good morning, and thank you for that
introduction, Chair Napolitano. Good morning also to Chair
DeFazio, Ranking Member Rouzer, members of the subcommittee,
and staff. My name is Robert Ferrante. I am the chief engineer
and general manager of the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts. It is my great pleasure to participate in this
hearing this morning on behalf of the sanitation districts, and
to speak to you about the important topic of climate resiliency
and the role that wastewater agencies can play in it.
I would like to begin by stating my agency's support for
H.R. 1915, the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of
2021. We thank you for bringing this very important legislation
forward.
As a matter of background, the sanitation districts were
formed in 1923, and today we provide wastewater and solid waste
services to about 5.6 million people, 78 cities, and
unincorporated Los Angeles County. Many of our customers live
in disadvantaged communities, and have been hit hard by COVID-
19.
Our facilities are not waste treatment or disposal sites.
They are resource recovery facilities that support the goal of
a more circular economy. And over the last 50 years, the
sanitation districts have been the Nation's largest producer of
recycled water.
In recent years, the need, though, to develop additional
local recycled water supplies and the need to seek out more
greenhouse gas reductions has become more apparent than ever,
as we experience the impacts from climate change.
With this as a backdrop, I would like to highlight two
major projects that we have undertaken.
First, we are partnering with the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, which serves nearly 19 million
people through 6 southern California counties, on a regional
recycled water project. Discussions for this project started in
2010. And in 2019, a $17 million, 500,000-gallon-per-day
demonstration facility began operation.
The potential full-scale regional project would produce up
to 150 million gallons per day, or enough to serve 500,000
homes, or, in context with Metropolitan's supply need, about 10
percent of Metropolitan's water supply need for the southern
California region. Purified water from the advanced treatment
system would be delivered through 60 miles of pipeline to the
region's groundwater basins, replenishing them, and also to two
of Metropolitan's water treatment plants.
In November of the past year, the boards of directors of
both agencies approved moving forward with the environmental
review, preliminary engineering, and public outreach, which are
anticipated to take 2 to 3 years. The project is estimated to
cost $3.4 billion, and while most of the cost will be paid by
ratepayers, we will be looking for financing through Federal
programs in order to help keep drinking water costs affordable
for southern Californians.
The other project I would like to talk about is a food
waste-to-energy project, and we have developed this--since we
have both a solid waste and wastewater infrastructure, it
really makes a lot of sense for us to be involved in this. It
is a perfect fit for us. And California here, as many of you
know, has an extensive set of State laws to support greenhouse
gas mitigation, increased use of renewable energy, and
diversion of waste, especially organic waste from landfills.
So we have embarked on a food waste diversion for
codigestion at our main plant. And following 4 years of
research and pilot testing, we have initiated the large
program, working with a number of private haulers that are
serving local cities, and we currently receive about 300 tons
per day of food waste. And we have the potential to double that
amount over the next few years.
And as I think Chairman DeFazio mentioned, and others,
about generating additional gas and energy, we use that biogas
in two ways. We use it at an onsite powerplant, making the
whole treatment plant energy self-sufficient, and exporting
power to the grid. And we also use that, and convert that gas
into vehicle fuel, which displaces not only, of course----
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Ferrante, would you mind wrapping up a
little bit?
Mr. Ferrante. Sure. It displaces fossil fuel use and
avoided landfill gas emissions.
I hope these projects serve as good examples. And with
that, I would like to thank the subcommittee for allowing me to
testify. Thank you.
[Mr. Ferrante's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Robert C. Ferrante, Chief Engineer and General
Manager, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking
Member Graves, and Ranking Member Rouzer, members of the Subcommittee
and staff. My name is Robert Ferrante, and I am the Chief Engineer and
General Manager of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, where I
have worked for 28 years. It is my great pleasure to participate in the
hearing this morning on behalf of the Sanitation Districts to speak to
you about the important topic of climate resiliency and the role that
wastewater agencies can play in it. I would like to begin by stating my
agency's support for H.R. 1915, the Water Quality Protection and Job
Creation Act of 2021, which would authorize $50 billion over five years
for water infrastructure investments. We thank you for bringing this
legislation forward. We appreciate your recognition of the critically
important need for a strong federal commitment to invest in our
Nation's clean water infrastructure, and that there are ways in which
those investments can be put to work to not only protect water quality
in our rivers, lakes and oceans, but also to help communities become
more resilient to the effects of climate change.
Background
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts were formed in 1923,
and today consist of 24 independent special districts that provide
wastewater and solid waste services to about 5.6 million people in 78
cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County. Many of our
customers live in disadvantaged communities and have been hit hard by
COVID-19. To maximize efficiency and reduce costs, the 24 Sanitation
Districts work cooperatively with one administrative staff
headquartered near the City of Whittier. Each Sanitation District has a
Board of Directors consisting of the mayor of each city served, and the
Chair of the County Board of Supervisors for unincorporated territory.
Each Sanitation District pays its proportionate share of administrative
costs.
The Sanitation Districts protect public health and the environment
through innovative and cost-effective wastewater and solid waste
management, and, in so doing, convert waste into resources such as
recycled water, energy, and recycled materials. Our facilities are not
waste treatment or disposal sites, they are resource recovery
facilities and support the goal of a more circular economy. In addition
to managing about one-quarter of the County's municipal solid waste, we
operate and maintain a regional wastewater collection system, that
treats about half the wastewater in Los Angeles County. Collectively,
the Sanitation Districts treat about 400 million gallons of water per
day, which is enough to fill the Rose Bowl nearly five times a day.
Over the last 50 years, the Sanitation Districts have been the nation's
largest producer of recycled water. Our service area spans about 850
square miles, and to cover this large area, we have several distinct
wastewater systems. Seventeen of the Sanitation Districts in the
metropolitan Los Angeles area are served by a regional, interconnected
system of facilities known as the Joint Outfall System (JOS). The JOS
consists of seven wastewater treatment plants. Six upstream water
reclamation plants (WRPs) capture low salinity, high-quality wastewater
and produce a drought-resistant water resource: disinfected recycled
water that is ready to use in a variety of applications without further
treatment. Downstream, the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, or
Joint Plant, uses secondary treatment to treat two-thirds of the
wastewater in the JOS along with the solids removed at the upstream
plants.
The Sanitation Districts manage separate wastewater systems in the
Santa Clarita Valley and the Antelope Valley. Each of these valleys is
home to two WRPs that provide important sources of water for wildlife
habitats and for municipal and agricultural reuse.
Water Recycling
We embarked on our modern water recycling program in 1949 when it
was determined that upstream water reclamation plants would allow us to
both handle wastewater generated by the burgeoning post-war development
in our service area, and to produce recycled water, which even then was
anticipated to become a critical resource in our semi-arid and drought-
prone climate. The Sanitation Districts' first water reclamation plant,
Whittier Narrows, began operation in August 1962 and nearly every drop
of recycled water produced by that facility has been put to beneficial
use since then, mainly for groundwater replenishment and later also for
irrigation of nearby urban parks and green areas. Whittier Narrows was
the first plant in the nation to be built solely for the purpose of
water recycling. We subsequently built other water reclamation plants,
and these plants now collectively supply approximately 95 million
gallons per day (or 100,000 acre-feet per year) of recycled water to
over 900 sites through partnerships with over 30 local water suppliers
for a variety of uses, including industrial use, agricultural use,
groundwater replenishment, and landscape irrigation.
In recent years, the need to develop local recycled water supplies
as a means to be more climate-resilient has become more apparent than
ever as we experience impacts from climate change. These include
drought, extreme weather events, earlier snow melt, and sea level rise.
This includes impacts in northern California where water is transported
to other parts of the State via the State Water Project, as well as
impacts in the Colorado River Basin, which is another source of
imported water for Southern California. Climate change is reducing the
snowpack and affecting the timing of snow melt, both of which reduce
water availability. Other factors driving interest in developing new
recycled water projects include the need to plan for the possibility of
a major seismic event along the San Andreas fault, which could disrupt
imported water supplies for months and the extremely limited options
for development of new sources of water.
Regional Recycled Water Project
With this as a backdrop, I would like to highlight a major new
project that we are partnering on with the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, which serves nearly 19 million people in six
Southern California counties. The Regional Recycled Water Project first
began with early planning and a pilot project in 2010. A $17 million,
500,000 gallon per day demonstration facility at the Joint Plant was
approved in 2015 and began operation in October 2019. The potential
full-scale regional recycled water program would treat about 180
million gallons per day in order to produce up to 150 million gallons
daily, or enough to serve more than 500,000 homes. Purified water from
the advanced treatment facility would be delivered through 60 miles of
new pipelines to the region's groundwater basins, industrial facilities
and two of Metropolitan's treatment plants. In November 2020, the
boards of directors for both agencies approved moving forward with
environmental review, preliminary engineering, and public outreach,
which are anticipated to take two to three years.
This project, which could become the largest of its type in the
world, will replenish local groundwater basins, and has the potential
to pursue direct potable reuse by delivering the recycled water to two
raw water treatment facilities operated by Metropolitan for
incorporation into the wholesale water supply system. The State of
California is currently working on the development of regulations for
direct potable reuse, which are anticipated to be completed in 2023.
This project would have the ability to produce roughly 10% of
Metropolitan's annual water supply need and be a reliable new source
especially when imported water is curtailed or cutoff by natural
disaster or climate change. The Regional Recycled Water Project is
estimated to cost $3.4 billion, and while most of the cost will be paid
for by the ratepayers, we will be looking for federal financing through
programs such as the Clean Water SRF, WIFIA, Title XVI, and/or the
Alternative Water Source Management Program, in order to help keep
drinking water costs affordable for Southern Californians. All of these
funding programs are essential not just to our project but for water
recycling projects all over the country.
Food Waste to Energy Project
I would now like to turn to another major initiative we are
developing to turn some of the 4,000 tons per day of food waste
generated in Los Angeles County into energy by using both our solid
waste and wastewater infrastructure. California has an extensive set of
state laws to support Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and Short-Lived Climate
Pollutant (SLCP) mitigation, increased use of renewable energy and
diversion of waste from landfills. Because the Sanitation Districts
manage both solid waste and wastewater, food waste diversion for co-
digestion at the Joint Plant was a project that makes perfect sense for
us. Following research and pilot testing, a four-year demonstration
project was conducted in partnership with the private company, Waste
Management, in which up to 60 tons per day of preprocessed food waste
slurry was injected directly into a test digester. Based on the success
of the demonstration project, we have initiated a very large-scale
codigestion program, and Phase I of an energy strategy for the
additional biogas. We are developing a diversified set of sources for
food waste slurries from private sector suppliers, as well as from our
own food waste preprocessing facility installed at the Puente Hills
Materials Recovery Facility in 2018. We currently receive about 300
tons per day of food waste slurry at the Joint Plant, and we have the
potential to increase the amount accepted to about 600 tons per day.
The biogas is used in two ways. Some is sent to the Joint Plant's
20-megawatt power plant where the biogas is converted into electricity
that runs the treatment plant, which is virtually self-sufficient. The
remaining biogas is sent to a gas purification system to make fuel-
grade renewable natural gas. The purification system can produce the
renewable natural gas equivalent of 2,000 gallons of gasoline per day.
This renewable natural gas is dispensed at the Sanitation Districts'
nearby compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station that is open to the
public. By fueling cars, buses and trucks with renewable natural gas,
this program produces a low carbon fuel that both reduces GHG/SLCP
emissions through avoided landfill emissions and avoids fossil fuel
use. We are still evaluating future options for use of the additional
biogas that will be produced as the program grows, including production
of additional renewable electricity for sale to the grid and injection
of biogas into the natural gas pipeline system.
Conclusion
I hope that these projects can serve as examples of innovative
projects that can be done right now at our nation's wastewater
utilities to foster water resilience and to mitigate climate change by
reducing GHG/SLCP emissions. These projects are converting wastewater
treatment plants into resource recovery facilities where clean water,
energy, vehicle fuel, and soil amendment are generated which supports a
circular economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. H.R. 1915 and
this Committee's leadership can assist the Sanitation Districts' and
the nation's wastewater facilities achieve a more resilient and
reliable future.
In conclusion, I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to be
here today to share information about our projects. If you have any
questions, I would be happy to answer them.
attachments
1. Metropolitan Water District and Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts, ``A New Source of Water for Southern California:
Regional Recycled Water Advanced Purification Center,'' January
2021.
[This document is retained in committee files and is available
online at the House of Representatives Document Repository at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW02/20210421/112472/HHRG-117-PW02-Wstate-
FerranteR-20210421-SD001.pdf]
2. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, ``Food Waste Recycling,''
January 2021.
[This document is retained in committee files and is available
online at the House of Representatives Document Repository at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW02/20210421/112472/HHRG-117-PW02-Wstate-
FerranteR-20210421-SD002.pdf]

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferrante. Those
are great projects, and I have visited most of them.
Mr. Colson, you are next. You may proceed.
Mr. Colson. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, Chairwoman Napolitano, and Ranking Member Rouzer, my
name is Kim Colson, and I am director of the Division of Water
Infrastructure for the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality. I am also president of the Council of
Infrastructure Financing Authorities, and today I am speaking
on behalf of CIFA, whose members manage the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Thank you for engaging
the SRF community in this important conversation about the
future of the Clean Water SRFs.
The Clean Water SRFs provide a sustainable and perpetual
source of funding for clean water infrastructure. Because the
SRFs are subsidized loan programs, Federal and State funding is
used over and over again to fund water infrastructure forever.
We are still using the initial Federal investment in the Clean
Water SRF from 1989.
The numbers tell an incredible story of success. In 2020,
Congress provided $1.6 billion in annual funding for the Clean
Water SRFs, but the SRFs were able to provide $7.6 billion in
assistance to communities, nearly five times the Federal
appropriation. Over the life of the program, $47 billion in
Federal funding has generated $145 billion in total investment
in clean water infrastructure. Today, $60 billion--$15 billion
more than the total Federal funding--remains revolving in the
Clean Water SRFs for new loans. And those new loans are funding
important water infrastructure projects that may never have
been built with a conventional grant program.
Maintaining the integrity of the SRFs as a loan program is
essential. Every dollar provided in principal forgiveness and
grants is permanently removed from the SRFs, which means less
funding for water infrastructure for future generations. These
aspects are carefully considered at the State level.
The Clean Water SRFs are a national model for
infrastructure investment, because States can customize their
program within a broad Federal framework to meet diverse and
often unique needs of their communities. Understanding the
impact of Federal policies on these State-run programs is
important to maintaining and strengthening the effectiveness of
the SRFs.
Many States are focused on specific types of green
projects, and some are more focused on small communities,
depending on their State's specific situation. Energy
efficiency projects are typically funded, as many utilities are
exploring reducing their energy footprint and have established
revenue streams to repay the loans. Water recycling projects
are a priority in States where water scarcity is a major
concern, such as California, Florida, and Texas. Stormwater
projects, such as permeable pavement and roof gardens, can be a
great solution in urban areas.
But these type of projects may not be the immediate
priority in small communities, and I know our small communities
in North Carolina are struggling just to maintain their
infrastructure. More Federal mandates may have the unintended
consequence of turning these proven, effective, State-run
programs into a one-size-fits-all Federal program.
Small and rural communities like Tabor City, North
Carolina, with a population of 4,000, face very different
challenges than cities and urban centers like Los Angeles,
California, with a population of 4 million. Large utilities are
more likely to have the professional staff to comply with
Federal mandates. Small communities are more likely to have to
hire an outside contractor to comply, and can struggle with
organizational and financial capacity. All treatment works,
whether a significant overhaul or a simple pipe replacement,
have the same Federal requirements under current law.
So on behalf of the borrowers, please consider how current
and new Federal mandates might impact the communities we serve.
Specifically, consider their capacity to comply, and the cost
benefits.
In addition, please consider ways Federal policies can be
implemented with State programs to meet the same Federal goals,
just like the SRFs already do with environmental review.
Thank you again for your support, and for asking the SRF
community our thoughts on the future of the Clean Water SRFs.
Thank you.
[Mr. Colson's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kim H. Colson, Director, Division of Water
Infrastructure, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
testifying on behalf of the Council of Infrastructure Financing
Authorities
On behalf of the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) across
the nation, thank you for the opportunity to share the thoughts of the
SRF community on measures to promote sustainable and resilient water,
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. My name is Kim Colson and I
am the Director of the Division of Water Infrastructure for the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, which manages both the
Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs. Today, I am speaking on behalf of
the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities (CIFA) whose
members manage the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs in 48 states.
The Clean Water SRFs are the nation's premier programs for funding
water infrastructure that protects public health and the environment.
Since they were established by Congress more than 30 years ago, the
Clean Water SRFs have funded more than 40,000 water infrastructure
projects in communities around the country, providing clean water to
support healthy ecosystems, livable communities and robust economies.
Although these proven programs have been around for more than three
decades, the SRFs have evolved significantly during that time. Our
portfolio of infrastructure has grown well beyond traditional brick-
and-mortar wastewater treatment plants and sewer pipes to an array of
innovative projects that are solving the most complex water challenges
of our day. To help communities build water infrastructure that is
sustainable and resilient, our programs offer a range of assistance,
including engineering, environmental, project planning and accounting
services.
The SRFs have also matured into sophisticated financial
organizations. Each SRF develops their below-market interest rate,
their criteria for affordability and additional subsidy, and their loan
conditions based on the needs and priorities of their state. Each SRF
employs a variety of tools to fund water infrastructure projects,
including direct loans, purchase of debt, linked deposits, and
additional subsidy in the form of grants and principal forgiveness.
Several SRFs leverage their programs in the bond market, which requires
additional finance expertise.
Today, SRFs are dynamic organizations that are responsive to the
needs of their communities in a fast-paced, ever-changing world.
Because they are state-run programs, SRFs can--and must--adapt quickly
to meet multiple challenges, including natural disasters such as
drought or hurricanes, health crises like the coronavirus pandemic,
emerging contaminants such as PFAS, economic downturns that impact
affordability and capital investment, and competition from incredibly
low interest rates in the public finance market.
SRFs fund an array of projects that promote sustainable and
resilient water systems. Under current law, Clean Water SRFs can fund a
range of water infrastructure projects that build sustainability and
resiliency, including wastewater treatment, water reuse and recycling,
stormwater management, decentralized wastewater treatment, green
infrastructure, energy efficiency, water conservation, agricultural
best management practices, climate mitigation and adaptation measures,
increased security and cybersecurity, environmental restoration and
pollution prevention. The ability to fund this wide array of projects
allows SRFs to support new initiatives, such as integrated planning.
A top priority for many SRFs is ensuring wastewater is treated to
stringent water quality standards so it can be safely reused or
returned to nature. Replacing leaky sewer pipes and rehabilitating old
or outdated treatment facilities remain the most effective ways to
maintain adequate levels of protection and prevent catastrophic crises
that endanger public health or cause lasting, costly damage to the
environment. However, more and more grey infrastructure projects are
incorporating green technologies and approaches, either in whole or in
part, to increase resiliency of water systems, water quality and water
supply.
Here are a few pioneering projects recently funded by Clean Water
SRFs to strengthen water sustainability and resiliency.
The California Clean Water SRF funded expansion of 30
million gallons per day for the Orange County Water District
Groundwater Replenishment System to be used as a new source of
replenishment for the Orange County groundwater basin.
The Rhode Island Clean Water SRF conducted a statewide
climate vulnerability study to determine infrastructure projects that
wastewater treatment facilities need to undertake to mitigate the
impact of flooding from rain and rising sea levels.
The Arizona Clean Water SRF funded a forest management
project in Flagstaff to protect against catastrophic wildfires that
create the conditions for dangerous mudslides during monsoon season
which cause significant impacts to water quality.
The Minnesota Clean Water SRF, in partnership with the
Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary in Louisiana, funded
implementation of pollution prevention practices to reduce nutrient
runoff that flows down the Mississippi River to the sensitive coastal
ecosystem.
The Missouri Clean Water SRF funded construction of
wastewater bio solids handling equipment in Webb City that produces
fertilizer from nutrients in wastewater, which is applied mine-scarred
land as part of a stabilization and habitat restoration project.
The Kansas Clean Water SRF funded the purchase of
equipment to plant cover crops to reduce nutrients in Wetmore.
The Florida Clean Water SRF funded installation of solar
facilities in Marianna, which reduced energy consumption by more than
90%. Loan repayments are funded with just two months of savings with
the remaining ten months of savings available to maintain affordable
rates.
The Virginia Clean Water SRF, in partnership with The
Nature Conservancy, funded the purchase of a conservation easement for
60,000 acres of forests, increasing protection for drinking water
supplies as well as the natural habitat for more than 150 species of
fish and mussels.

The SRFs provide a sustainable, renewable, protected source of
funding for clean water infrastructure--forever. Since the program was
created, federal funding of $47 billion has generated a total
investment of $145 billion for clean water infrastructure. Because the
SRFs are subsidized loan programs, nearly $60 billion of state and
federal funding remains revolving in the program today--$13 billion
more than the total amount provided over three decades of federal
funding. All funds revolving in the SRFs are state funds.
Today, Americans are realizing the real-world benefits of
establishing the Clean Water SRFs as revolving loan programs more than
30 years ago. In 2020, Congress appropriated $1.6 billion in funding to
the Clean Water SRFs but the SRFs were able to provide nearly $7.5
billion in funding to communities--nearly five times the amount of
annual federal funding. Thanks to Congress' foresight, water
infrastructure projects are being built today that may never have been
built if the SRFs were established as a federal grant program.
SRF subsidize loans save money and keep utility rates affordable.
Savings from SRF subsidized loans allow utilities to improve wastewater
and stormwater service while keeping rates affordable for consumers.
While additional subsidy (grants and principal forgiveness) tends to be
the focus of financial assistance provided by the SRFs, significant
savings are already being generated through the SRF's below-market,
subsidized interest rates.
In 2020, the average interest rate for a Clean Water SRF loan was
1.5% or about 50% of market rates. SRF subsidized loans, on average,
cut interest payments in half and reduce the cost of infrastructure by
$180 million for every $1 billion in loans. Additionally, investments
in wastewater infrastructure can reduce the cost of operations. These
combined savings can be passed onto consumers with more affordable
utility rates.
While SRFs provide a permanent, perpetual source of funding, more
federal funding is needed to meet the growing need for clean water
infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), the need for capital investment for water infrastructure was
$129 billion for 2019, while actual total spending on capital
investment in water infrastructure was $48 billion, leaving a gap of
$81 billion or nearly twice the amount of actual spending. If this
trend continues, this gap is expected to grow to $434 billion by 2029.
CIFA's members fully support increased authorizations and
appropriations for the Clean Water SRF. However, some SRFs have
expressed concern about their ability to meet the 20% state match
requirement if funding is increased five-fold within the near future.
Other SRFs have expressed concern about the ability to ensure the high-
priority projects are funded if timelines remain the same or are
shortened, as they were under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009.
Greater flexibility for the SRFs is also needed. The Clean Water
SRFs are effective because Congress allowed states to customize their
program within a broad federal framework. This flexibility, which is a
hallmark of the SRF state-federal partnership, has allowed SRFs to meet
the diverse, and often unique, needs of communities across the nation--
from urban centers, such as Los Angeles, California, with a population
of nearly four million, to small communities like Tabor City, North
Carolina, with a population of 4,000.
However, continued federalization of the Clean Water SRFs
diminishes our ability to efficiently and effectively respond to the
needs of our communities. Federal mandates, while incredibly well-
intentioned, have had the unintended consequence of complicating the
program, which discourages and slows the pace of investment in clean
water infrastructure.
Increased federal mandates add complexity to program management.
Unlike the bond market which provides financing only, SRFs shepherd
projects through the project pipeline--from pre-development to planning
and design through engineering and environmental reviews to procurement
to construction. Hiring, training and retaining staff to implement,
monitor and enforce compliance with the growing number of federal
mandates is a challenge.
The federal mandate for additional subsidy reduces the leveraging
power of SRFs immediately and permanently reduces the source of
recurring revenue for water infrastructure projects in the future.
Since 2010, Congress has required the Clean Water SRFs to use a percent
of the annual capitalization grant for additional subsidy in the form
of grants, principal forgiveness or negative interest loans. While
additional subsidy is an important tool, SRFs believe it should only be
used when absolutely necessary because it permanently reduces funding
for water infrastructure in the future.
Additionally, there is an inverse relationship between additional
subsidy and leveraging. SRFs can use the capitalization grant as
security for a bond or pledge loan repayments to repay a bond. The more
funding used for additional subsidy, the less funding that is available
to leverage the program. Less leveraging results in fewer water
infrastructure projects.
Current law allows SRFs to use up to 30% of the capitalization
grant for additional subsidy for communities that meet affordability
criteria and for certain projects, such as stormwater mitigation.
Allowing each SRF to determine how much additional subsidy is
necessary, up to this cap, ensures states are balancing the need to
invest in water infrastructure today with the ability to meet future
needs for water infrastructure. It also recognizes that many states
provide significant funding for water infrastructure grant programs
which are used to supplement projects funded by the SRFs.
The federal mandate for green projects can displace other water
infrastructure projects that provide greater protection for public
health and the environment. The current mandate, called the Green
Project Reserve, requires SRFs to use at least 10% of the
capitalization grant for water and energy efficiency projects, green
infrastructure projects and other environmentally innovative
activities. To meet the mandate, SRFs are encouraged by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to change their scoring, interest rates
and additional subsidy criteria, which impacts the ranking and funding
of projects that might be higher state priorities.
All SRFs fund green projects but not all green projects can qualify
for loan. Utilities that implement water and energy efficiency projects
have a revenue stream to qualify and repay a loan, and the energy
efficiency projects often pay for themselves in lower operating costs.
However, green infrastructure projects, such as installing permeable
pavements or green roofs, often don't have a revenue stream to qualify
and repay a loan.
Even with robust and concerted efforts to identify and fund green
projects, SRFs may not be able to achieve the mandate, year-in-and-
year-out. Take the recent experience of Oregon, which is at the
forefront of funding innovative, sustainable green projects. In State
Fiscal Year 2020, the Oregon Clean Water SRF executed a record number
of loans and had more than $6.8 million in green projects on their
Intended Use Plan. However, none of those projects were ready to
proceed to construction and, as a result, Oregon couldn't meet federal
mandate for green projects in that fiscal year.
Additionally, transformational green infrastructure projects can
take more time to develop and build than other projects, including both
conventional wastewater projects and smaller green projects. Given the
need to meet the green mandate annually and the urgency to disburse
federal funding expeditiously, there is no incentive to pursue these
large-scale, environmentally significant projects. When they are
funded, credit toward the mandate is only allowed in the year when the
loan was executed, not when funding is disbursed. For example, Oregon
is financing a multi-year, multi-phased riparian restoration project
along eight miles of creek near the City of Ashland. Funding for the
project will be disbursed over 15 years but Oregon will only get credit
for the project in the year the loan is executed.
Allowing SRFs to earn credit for green projects over multiple years
or measuring funding for green projects over a rolling three-year
average would ensure investment in green projects is recognized and
transformational green projects are realized.
Fewer federal mandates on SRF loan recipients can promote
investment in sustainable and resilient water infrastructure. According
to a recent survey of the SRFs, the number one challenge to increasing
investment in water infrastructure is the cumulative impact of all
federal mandates. Today, federal mandates dictate the way communities
select their engineer, the wages paid to mechanics and laborers on
their construction project, and the materials and technologies used in
construction of their project. None of these requirements existed a
decade ago.
Too often, these one-size-fits-all federal mandates increase
paperwork and process without providing additional protection for
public health, the environment or taxpayer funds. Many federal mandates
are duplicative of state requirements, creating twice the work without
any significant additional benefit. Many federal requirements apply to
projects funded by state funds.
Compliance with federal mandates increases the cost of water
infrastructure, particularly for small communities who can least afford
it. Many small and even some medium-sized communities don't have the
professional staff to comply with the myriad of federal rules and
requirements. As a result, communities are hesitant, even reluctant, to
undertake investment in water infrastructure.
The federal mandate requiring SRFs loan applicants to demonstrate
compliance with federal prevailing wage laws is very prescriptive.
Paying the prevailing government wage for SRF funding water
infrastructure is not an issue. Often, workers are paid more than the
prevailing federal wage to be competitive with other construction
projects, particularly in growing communities with robust economies.
The problem is the prescriptive paperwork and process required to
demonstrate compliance, even when workers are paid more than the
federal prevailing wage.
The compliance burden is particularly onerous in states with a
state prevailing wage law. In the 26 states and the District of
Columbia that have a state prevailing wage law, SRFs, loan recipients
and contractors must comply with two sets of compliance procedures,
doubling the workload without providing any additional financial
benefit for workers.
Adopting state prevailing wage laws for water infrastructure (which
is routine for highway construction projects) and allowing compliance
with state prevailing wage laws to be accepted in lieu of federal
compliance procedures would alleviate the burden while maintaining fair
wages for workers.
The federal mandate requiring SRF loan recipients to use the
federal procurement process for engineering services has a significant
impact in some, but not all, states. The Water Resources Development
Act of 2014 requires SRF loan recipients that receive federal funding
from the capitalization grant to use of the federal procurement process
for selecting engineering services. Under the federal procurement
process, engineers must be selected based solely on qualifications.
This federal mandate has little impact in about two-thirds of
states that have a procurement process similar to the federal
procurement process; these state laws are often referred to as a
``mini'' Brooks Act. However, this federal mandate has had a
significant impact on SRF loan applicants in other states whose state
procurement laws conflict with the federal requirements. For example,
the Massachusetts SRF no longer funds engineering services with federal
funds; two separate loan agreements are executed for the same project--
one for engineering services funded by state funds and one for
construction funded by federal funds.
The federal mandate requiring SRF loan recipients to make specific
certifications increases the cost of water infrastructure, especially
for small and rural communities. The Water Resources Development Act of
2014 mandates that all SRF loan recipients certify that they conducted
a cost-and-effectiveness analysis and have selected the activity that
maximizes the potential for water and energy efficiency. The law also
mandates that all SRF loan recipients certify that they have developed
a funding plan to maintain assets built using SRF funds and will
implement water and energy conservation efforts as part of the plan.
While many large utilities can comply with these requirements using
in-house staff, smaller communities must hire an outside consultant to
meet these requirements which increases the cost of water
infrastructure. Additionally, many small communities, particularly
those with shrinking populations and limited revenue, lack the
professional capacity to ensure continued compliance with the
certifications. As a result, plans are often shelved shortly after
construction is completed.
States need a reliable source of funding to ensure robust
participation in the Clean Watershed Needs Survey. States, including
many SRFs, are responsible for collecting data and documentation for
the Clean Watershed Needs Survey but many don't have adequate financial
resources or staff to dedicate to the effort. Allowing states to use
\1/2\% of their capitalization grant would guarantee funding for
participation in the survey.
Small, rural, disadvantaged and underserved communities need
technical assistance. The Drinking Water SRF has the ability to use 2%
of their annual capitalization grant to provide technical assistance to
communities that serve a population of 10,000 or fewer. Providing the
same financial resources for projects funded by the Clean Water SRF
would provide significant assistance to communities that lack the
professional resources to plan and build these important projects.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share these thoughts with
you. The SRF community looks forward to working with you to strengthen
the state-federal partnership that has proven its effectiveness in
funding water infrastructure that protects public health and the
environment.
If you would like more information about the SRFs or our policy
recommendations, please visit. www.cifanet.org or
www.MoreProtectionLessProcess.org, or contact our Executive Director,
Deirdre Finn, at dfinn@cifanet.org.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Colson, that was
very insightful.
Mr. Perry, you may proceed.
Mr. Perry. Well, thank you, Chair Napolitano, Ranking
Member Rouzer, and members of the subcommittee, for the
opportunity to testify on the valuable work being done by
landscape architects in the water and stormwater management
space. My name is Kevin Robert Perry, and I am a licensed
landscape architect and internationally recognized leader in
successfully integrating stormwater management with high-
quality urban design. I work as a senior landscape architect at
Toole Design Group, and I am also the founder of Urban Rain
Design, a small design studio based in both California and
Oregon.
I am here today on behalf of the American Society of
Landscape Architects, or ASLA, where I have been a fellow since
2017. ASLA believes that water quality is essential to our
economy, communities, and environment. By working to protect
it, our membership of landscape architects plays a critical
role in sustainability and public health. Unsustainable
development practices and continued expansion of paved surfaces
increases stormwater runoff, carries pollutants into waterways,
prevents groundwater recharge, and drastically reduces the
landscape's ability to respond to everyday storm events, much
less the current and future challenges of climate change.
While the United States has generally had success in
protecting water quality, EPA research has found that nonpoint
source pollution remains the leading cause of water quality
problems.
This is where landscape architects are stepping up and
playing a key role. We are at the forefront of developing
innovative design strategies that promote sustainability,
resiliency, and a balanced vibrancy between our built and
natural environment. We plan and design nature-based systems
that reduce the impacts of urbanization, integrate these
solutions seamlessly into our cities and towns, and, in
general, are a multifunctional design approach that allows for
less destructive human relationship with the natural
environment.
Landscape architecture practices also provide a key equity
and environmental justice solution. One such practice is
performing meaningful community engagement during the design
and planning process. Often the communities that stand to
benefit the most from our work are the low-income and racially
diverse communities that have been damaged by years of
underinvestment and disinvestment. This includes communities
located in small towns, large cities, and all areas in between.
ASLA and its members are committed to utilizing our trade to
directly improve the lives of underinvested communities.
Green infrastructure also leads to job creation. According
to the national organization Green for All, a $188 billion
investment in stormwater management would generate $265 billion
in economic activity, and create nearly 1.9 million jobs.
Furthermore, green infrastructure is good for small businesses,
as many landscape architects work for or run their own small
firms.
It is important to also know that green infrastructure can
be implemented across a wide range of scale: resilient
coastlines, riverfronts, regional parks, and interconnected
green streets can be realized at the citywide scale, while rain
gardens and a robust use of street trees can grace nearly any
neighborhood space. With thousands of our schools, roads,
parks, and other civic space infrastructure either breaking
down or inefficiently designed, there is an incredible
opportunity to boldly retrofit our built environment with long-
lasting green infrastructure strategies.
And one avenue of green infrastructure that is starting to
take root on the west coast is the design-build concept of the
tactical green infrastructure. This unique student practitioner
partnership identifies, designs, and constructs expedited green
infrastructure projects within a couple of months, and directly
involves the local community through the process. While
originating in Oregon and California, we believe that a
coordinated tactical green infrastructure program could be
expanded to every State within the United States.
ASLA and its members appreciate the committee's support for
legislation promoting green infrastructure, including the Water
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021.
We also appreciate the committee's support for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, and specifically the green project
reserve, which mandates that at least 10 percent of funds are
used by States for green infrastructure projects. Many
landscape architecture projects would not be possible without
the help of this program.
For these reasons, ASLA is supportive of increased funding
to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, making the green
project reserve permanent, increasing its minimum percentage,
and allowing funding for the long-term maintenance of green
infrastructure projects.
With that, I would like to thank the committee for the
opportunity to testify today.
ASLA looks forward to working with you and your colleagues
to ensure that Congress leverages the field of landscape
architecture when striving for its climate adaptation and
sustainability goals. Thank you.
[Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kevin Robert Perry, FASLA, Fellow, American
Society of Landscape Architects
American Society of Landscape Architects and Urban Rain Design
Thank you Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of
the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the valuable work
being done by landscape architects in the water and stormwater
management space.
My name is Kevin Robert Perry and I am a licensed landscape
architect and an internationally recognized leader in successfully
integrating stormwater management with high-quality urban design.
I work as a Senior Landscape Architect at Toole Design Group with a
specific expertise in intertwining green infrastructure with innovative
multimodal streetscape design. I am also the founder of Urban Rain
Design, a small design studio based in both California and Oregon that
specializes in using Tactical Green Infrastructure to rapidly implement
simple, cost-effective, and beautiful public space stormwater projects.
I am here today on behalf of the American Society of Landscape
Architects (ASLA), where I have been a Fellow since 2017.
ASLA believes that water quality is essential to our economy,
communities, and environment. By working to protect it, our membership
of landscape architects plays a critical role in community
sustainability and public health.
Landscape architects address water quality through ecologically-
based practices that help reduce or remove pollutants in urban, rural,
and conservation areas. To help protect water quality and conserve
valuable water resources, ASLA encourages planning, design management,
and policies that are science-based, collaborative, creative, and
equitable.
The Value of Green Infrastructure
Ample clean water supplies are necessary to help preserve health,
sustain quality of life, support economic stability, and maintain
environmental quality.
Unsustainable development practices, poorly designed
infrastructure, population growth, and other factors continue to
threaten water quality and emphasize the need for the wiser and more
creative use of resources. Urban sprawl and the expansion of paved
surfaces increases volume and speed of storm flows, carries pollutants
into streams, prevents groundwater recharge, and drastically reduces
the landscape's ability to respond to everyday storm events, much less
the current and future challenges of climate change.
In much of the country, especially in older cities and towns,
stormwater is funneled into our wastewater systems. During intense rain
events, these systems can become overwhelmed resulting in stormwater
overflow being released into nearby waters--along with all of the
untreated sewage, debris, pesticides, and anything else caught in the
underground pipe system.
While the United States has generally had success in protecting
water quality, EPA research has found that nonpoint source pollution,
the type of water pollution I just described, remains the leading cause
of water quality problems.
This is where landscape architects are stepping up and playing a
key role. We are at the forefront of developing innovative design
strategies that promote sustainability, resiliency, and a balanced
vibrancy between our built and natural environment. By incorporating
cost-effective and innovative green infrastructure methods into our
projects, we plan and design landscaped-based systems that reduce the
impacts of flooding, contain the movement of pollutants and other
debris, help infiltrate stormwater on-site, increase biodiversity, and
integrate these nature-based solutions seamlessly into our cities and
towns.
In areas where drought and inadequate water supply is of top
concern, green infrastructure may also be a viable solution, helping to
replenish local groundwater reserves and recharging aquifers. We also
promote and incorporate the use of sustainably-designed greywater
systems and other water capture measures to help reduce the need for
external water sources.
In general, the landscape architect's multi-functional, multi-
purpose design solutions allows for a less destructive human
relationship with the natural environment.
Landscape architecture practices also provide a key equity and
environmental justice solution. One such practice is performing
meaningful community engagement during the design and planning process.
Often, the communities that stand to benefit the most from our work are
the low-income and racially diverse communities that have been damaged
by years of underinvestment and disinvestment. This includes
communities located in small towns, large cities, and all areas in
between. ASLA and its members are committed to utilizing our trade to
directly improve lives in underserved communities; and community
engagement and green infrastructure can be important tools to aid in
this effort.
Green infrastructure also leads to job creation. According to Green
For All, a national organization working to build an inclusive green
economy, a $188.4 billion investment in stormwater management would
generate $265.6 billion in economic activity and create close to 1.9
million jobs. Furthermore, green infrastructure is good for small
businesses, as many landscape architects work for or run their own
small firms, as I have for nearly a decade.
Green Infrastructure Across Scales
One of the greatest benefits of using green infrastructure is that
it can be implemented across a wide range of scale and community
contexts. Resilient coastlines/riverfronts, regional parks, and
interconnected green transportation corridors can be realized at the
large citywide-scale; while rain gardens, pervious paving, and a robust
use of street trees can grace nearly any neighborhood-scale space. With
thousands of our schools, roads, parks, and other civic space
infrastructure either breaking down or inefficiently designed, there is
an incredible opportunity to boldly retrofit our built environment with
long-lasting green infrastructure strategies.
Tactical Green Infrastructure
One avenue of green infrastructure that is starting to take root on
the West Coast is the concept of Tactical Green Infrastructure. While
many infrastructure projects can take years to be fully implemented,
Tactical Green Infrastructure is a specialized design-build methodology
that allows professional design practitioners, students, and/or
volunteers to work together to identify, design, and construct
expedited green infrastructure projects at public schools, parks, and
even some street locations. These small-scale projects convert either
existing paved or underutilized green space into highly functional rain
garden landscapes within a couple of months--and directly involve the
local community through the process. This kind of low-cost, effective,
and quickly built Green Infrastructure can be a simple national model
but with near-term and tangible results realized at the neighborhood
level. While conceived in both Oregon and California, we believe a
coordinated Tactical Green Infrastructure approach, led by landscape
architects, has immense potential to expand throughout the United
States.
The Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021
ASLA and its members appreciate the committee's support for
legislation promoting green infrastructure, including H.R. 1915--the
Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021, which would help
states and local communities fund green infrastructure projects that
protect water.
We are also appreciative of the committee's support for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, and specifically the Green Project Reserve,
which mandates that at least 10% of funds are used by states for green
infrastructure projects. Since states and localities typically do not
have their own funding mechanisms to keep their water infrastructure
safe, up to date, and within the requirements of the Clean Water Act,
many landscape architecture projects would not be possible without the
help of this program.
For these reasons, ASLA is supportive of increased funding to the
Clean Water SRF, as well as making the Green Project Reserve permanent
and increasing its minimum percentage. To make projects even more
sustainable and resilient, the Clean Water SRF should also be adjusted
to allow for the funding of long-term maintenance projects as well.
Conclusion
With that, I thank the committee for inviting me to testify today.
ASLA looks forward to working with you and your colleagues to ensure
that Congress leverages the field of landscape architecture when
striving for its climate adaptation and sustainability goals.
addendum
Tactical Green Infrastructure: A Pacific Rim Superstudio March 2021
(Brochure)
[This document is retained in committee files and is available
online at the House of Representatives Document Repository at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW02/20210421/112472/HHRG-117-PW02-Wstate-
PerryK-20210421-SD001.pdf]

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Perry. It was
very interesting, because there are several in my area that I
have visited, and they are very nice. We move on to Ms. Hammer.
Ms. Hammer, you may proceed.
Ms. Hammer. Thank you, Chair Napolitano, and good morning,
Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Rouzer, and members of the
subcommittee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify today. My
name is Becky Hammer, and I am the deputy director of Federal
water policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
NRDC is an international, nonprofit organization working to
protect public health and ensure a safe, sustainable
environment for all people. And that includes clean water.
Everyone in America should have access to wastewater and
stormwater infrastructure that works. No matter where they are
located, these systems should provide communities with clean
waterways, effective sanitation, and protection from urban
flooding. That is not the reality for far too many people.
Across the country, polluted runoff and sewage degrade our
sources of drinking water, while rainwater floods our streets
and homes. And of course, climate change is only making matters
worse, as Ms. Powell already described so vividly. And the
impacts of failing infrastructure and our changing climate fall
disproportionately on low-income communities and communities of
color, who already bear the burden of unaffordable water and
sewer costs.
In light of these threats, wastewater and stormwater
systems must take steps to become more resilient and
sustainable, as so many are already doing.
One of the best ways to do that is by using green
infrastructure, which manages water by capturing it where it
falls, using vegetation, soils, and permeable surfaces. Green
infrastructure reduces stormwater volumes, leading to cleaner
waterways, reduced wastewater treatment needs, less flooding,
and increased groundwater supplies. It is adaptable, and it is
cost effective.
And critically, unlike single-purpose, hard infrastructure
that is designed solely to move stormwater away from the built
environment, green infrastructure provides multiple benefits to
communities. It helps build resilience to flooding and other
climate impacts, and it also provides climate mitigation
benefits by storing carbon and reducing energy demand. And
because many of green infrastructure's benefits are hyper-
local, project implementation can be geographically targeted to
enhance equity and improve access to green space in underserved
areas.
The Federal Government should use every tool at its
disposal to encourage the use of green infrastructure,
including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund's green project
reserve, a significant source of funding for green
infrastructure and water and energy efficiency projects that
has, nonetheless, been underutilized. Since the establishment
of the green project reserve in 2009, only 11 percent of total
Clean Water SRF assistance has gone to green reserve projects,
with less than 3 percent going to green infrastructure,
specifically.
Up until now, the green project reserve has been enacted
year to year in appropriations bills, and the amount allocated
to it has fluctuated over time. This approach makes potential
applicants uncertain about whether the reserve will be
available to support their projects in future years. This
uncertainty depresses long-term demand for funds.
Congress can help the green project reserve function more
effectively by codifying it in statute, making it a permanent
and stable source of funding. Ideally, 20 percent of the annual
SRF capitalization grant would be set aside for green projects.
Just as importantly, Congress should provide significantly
more money for the Clean Water SRF, as a whole, at least the $8
billion per year that is proposed in H.R. 1915. Our communities
have hundreds of millions of dollars in need, with costs
increasing, and the pandemic stressing utilities' finances.
Increasing the total amount of Federal investment would make
more funding available for all projects, including green
projects.
At the same time, Congress should increase the proportion
of that new funding that is provided as additional
subsidization. In other words, grants and principal
forgiveness. Additional subsidization is a lifeline for project
applicants that cannot afford to take out a traditional, low-
interest loan. But green projects compete for subsidy with
projects that serve disadvantaged communities, and there isn't
enough to go around.
Another barrier to the green project reserve is the fact
that many potential project applicants simply aren't aware that
it exists, while others lack the expertise to complete the
application materials. Congress can reduce this obstacle by
providing the States with more resources for outreach and
technical assistance.
Of course, the green project reserve isn't the only
mechanism available to promote sustainable water
infrastructure. Congress should set up new grant programs to
diversify funding options for water resiliency efforts. And it
should require climate change information to be considered in
the planning of all clean water infrastructure projects as a
condition of providing Federal assistance.
Last, but certainly not least, Congress should establish a
permanent, low-income water and sewer assistance program, and
adopt other reforms to improve water affordability. This would
allow utilities to implement resilience projects and other
upgrades without imposing burdens on their low-income
customers.
I would be happy to discuss any of these recommendations in
more detail. Thank you.
[Ms. Hammer's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Rebecca Hammer, Deputy Director of Federal Water
Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council
Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Subcommittee Chair
Napolitano, Subcommittee Ranking Member Rouzer, and members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the need to
ensure the resilience and sustainability of our nation's clean water
infrastructure. My name is Rebecca Hammer, and I am the deputy director
of federal water policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC). NRDC is an international, non-profit environmental organization
working to protect the world's natural resources, improve public
health, and ensure a safe and sustainable environment for all.
Summary of Testimony
Our nation is facing a moment of tremendous opportunity. As leaders
in Congress and the administration propose new investments in America's
infrastructure, we have a once-in-a-generation chance to meet the
enormous financial need our wastewater and stormwater systems have
accrued over the decades. Now is the time to think big: to provide
every person in this country with first-class clean water
infrastructure, to ensure the long-term viability of that
infrastructure in a changing environment, and to lift up families and
communities who struggle to bear the burden of unaffordable water and
sewer costs. In my testimony, I will focus on the importance of
promoting resilient, sustainable solutions as part of this increased
investment, with a particular emphasis on multi-beneficial green
infrastructure practices.
To achieve this goal, NRDC recommends:
Making the Green Project Reserve (GPR) a permanent
feature of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) by codifying it
in statute.
Significantly increasing overall CWSRF funding to $10
billion per year.
Increasing the proportion of CWSRF assistance provided as
additional subsidization.
Providing more resources for outreach and technical
assistance to potential GPR applicants.
Requiring increased transparency around the effectiveness
of the GPR.
Taking additional actions beyond the GPR to promote
sustainable and resilient clean water infrastructure, including:
+ Authorizing and funding new grant programs for clean water
resiliency projects;
+ Adopting a low-income water and sewer assistance program and
promoting equitable local rate structures;
+ Requiring climate change information to be considered in the
planning of clean water infrastructure projects as a condition of
receiving federal assistance; and
+ Requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt
regulations fully implementing the green project provisions in the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA 2014).
America's Wastewater and Stormwater Systems Face Vulnerabilities That
Threaten Their Ability to Deliver Clean Water, Thriving Communities,
and a Healthy Environment.
All people in America should have access to wastewater and
stormwater infrastructure that works. No matter where they are located,
these systems should provide communities with clean waterways,
effective sanitation, and protection from urban flooding.
Yet in many areas, our nation's infrastructure is not up to the
task of meeting those objectives. Pipes, septic tanks, and treatment
facilities have exceeded their intended lifespans and are breaking
down. Fifteen percent of wastewater treatment plants have already
reached or exceeded their design capacity.\1\ Stormwater systems are
not capable of handling the increasingly vast quantities of runoff
generated by sprawling development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Society of Civil Engineers, 2021 Report Card for
America's Infrastructure: Wastewater, https://
infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wastewater-
2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, sewage spills foul our waterways, polluted stormwater
degrades once-productive ecosystems, and rainwater floods our streets
and homes. The American Society of Civil Engineers rated the nation's
wastewater infrastructure a D+, and its stormwater infrastructure a D,
in its 2021 infrastructure report card.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Society of Civil Engineers, 2021 Report Card for
America's Infrastructure, https://infrastructurereportcard.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, climate change is adding further stress to these
systems. Heavy precipitation events and extreme storms are growing more
frequent, increasing disruptive flood events in communities across the
country. Our infrastructure is struggling to keep up. Most stormwater
systems are designed to handle the ``10-year'' or ``100-year'' storm,
concepts that climate change has rendered obsolete. Urban flooding
already results in $9 billion in damages each year, a figure that is
certain to grow unless we take swift action to adapt and modernize our
infrastructure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
Framing the Challenge of Urban Flooding in the United States (2019),
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/
25381/framing-the-challenge-of-urban-flooding-in-the-united-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased flooding frequency also poses a threat to wastewater
service. Wastewater treatment plants are typically located at low
elevations and along coastlines, which makes them particularly
susceptible to floods and sea level rise. When tanks and pipes are
inundated, these facilities can discharge raw sewage into nearby
communities and waterways. In 2017, flooding from Hurricane Harvey
caused 40 wastewater treatment facilities to become inoperable and led
to the release of 23 million gallons of untreated wastewater.\4\ Even
smaller flooding events, if they occur more often, can impose
significant costs, such as frequent pumping to keep parts dry and a
reduced lifespan of components exposed to water. Worryingly, a recent
study estimated that four million people in the U.S. could lose access
to municipal wastewater services with 30 centimeters (around 1 foot) of
sea level rise; this estimate rises to 31 million people if sea level
rise reaches 180 centimeters (around 6 feet).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Sanitary Sewer
Overflows from Hurricane Harvey, https://www.tceq.texas.gov/response/
hurricanes/sanitary-sewer-overflows; Hurricane Harvey: Status Summary
of Impacted Public Drinking Water and Wastewater Systems, https://
www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/response/hurricanes/hurricane-harvey-
tracking-summary.pdf.
\5\ Michelle Hummel et al., ``Sea Level Rise Impacts on Wastewater
Treatment Systems Along the U.S. Coasts,'' Earth's Future (2018),
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-site decentralized wastewater treatment systems, such as septic
systems, are also threatened by climate change.\6\ Higher temperatures,
increased heavy precipitation events, and sea level rise affect the
performance of these systems by reducing the volume of unsaturated soil
and oxygen available for treatment, which may result in system
failure.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Sarah Kaplan, ``Battling America's `Dirty Secret,' ''
Washington Post, December 17, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/
climate-solutions/2020/12/17/climate-solutions-sewage/.
\7\ Jennifer A. Cooper at al., ``Hell and High Water: Diminished
Septic System Performance in Coastal Regions Due to Climate Change,''
PLoS ONE (2016), https://journals.plos.org/
plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changing precipitation is driving changes in water quality as well.
As more intense precipitation leads to increased runoff, more
stormwater pollution is washed into our waterways: sediments, nitrogen
from agriculture, disease pathogens, pesticides, herbicides, and more.
Combined sewer systems in cities such as Philadelphia and Richmond are
already experiencing more frequent overflows as their treatment
capacity is overwhelmed during large storms.\8\ This pollution imposes
steep costs on communities, including increased treatment costs for the
two-thirds of America's drinking water that comes from rivers, streams,
and lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Frank Kummer, ``The Secret Scourge of Climate Change? More Raw
Sewage in Philadelphia's Waterways,'' Philadelphia Inquirer, September
13, 2019; Daniel Berti, ``More Rainfall, A Consequence of Climate
Change, Expected to Make Sewage Overflows Worse,'' Virginia Mercury,
April 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some regions, climate change is also exacerbating water
scarcity. Yet many wastewater and stormwater systems fail to adopt
measures that could combat scarcity through wastewater recycling and
stormwater capture for reuse.
The impacts of failing infrastructure and our changing climate
often fall the hardest on low-income communities and communities of
color. In many cities, historically redlined neighborhoods are exposed
to a higher risk of flooding than other areas.\9\ Black communities in
Lowndes County, Alabama and Tribal communities in the Southwest have
faced disproportionate challenges in access to sanitation. Making
matters worse, low-income families and people of color often bear the
heaviest burden of rising water and sewer costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Kriston Capps and Christopher Cannon, ``Redlined, Now
Flooding,'' Bloomberg CityLab, March 15, 2021, https://
www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-flood-risk-redlining/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of these threats, wastewater and stormwater systems must
take immediate steps to become more resilient and sustainable so that
they can continue to serve their communities effectively and
affordably, now and in the future.
Green Infrastructure Can Increase the Resilience of Wastewater and
Stormwater Systems While Providing a Wide Array of Other Benefits.
In the context of municipal water management, green infrastructure
means mimicking nature by capturing rainwater where it falls. Practices
that incorporate vegetation, soil, and permeable surfaces help to
maintain and restore natural hydrology by infiltrating water into the
ground, soaking it up with plants, and harvesting it for reuse. Green
infrastructure practices include bioretention, trees, green roofs,
permeable pavements, and cisterns. Landscape-scale practices such as
wetland restoration and floodplain protection can function in tandem
with smaller neighborhood-scale projects.
Green infrastructure reduces stormwater volumes and pollutant
loads, leading to cleaner waterways, reduced wastewater treatment needs
for combined sewer systems, reduced flooding, and increased groundwater
recharge. Although still considered novel by some practitioners, green
infrastructure practices have been in use for decades. They are proven
and predictable technologies and should no longer be viewed as
``alternative treatments'' to hard or gray infrastructure. Rather,
utilities should consider green infrastructure a core strategy for
achieving their water quality, flood control, and public health
objectives.
Because they are so varied and adaptable, green infrastructure
practices are an extremely flexible tool. They can be integrated into
nearly any development project, including surface transportation
projects.\10\ They can also be implemented in concert with traditional
gray infrastructure approaches to enhance the sustainability of
wastewater treatment and collection systems.\11\ When full life-cycle
costs are considered--including long-term operations and maintenance--
green infrastructure is frequently more cost-effective than gray
infrastructure.\12\ As a result, it can reduce the costs of water
quality compliance and flood control for communities and ratepayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See NRDC, After the Storm: How Green Infrastructure Can
Effectively Manage Stormwater Runoff from Roads and Highways (2011),
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/
afterthestorm.pdf.
\11\ See World Bank, Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next
Generation Infrastructure (2019), https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/
feature/2019/03/21/green-and-gray.
\12\ Environmental Protection Agency, Green Infrastructure Cost-
Benefit Resources, https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/green-
infrastructure-cost-benefit-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critically, unlike single-purpose hard infrastructure designed
solely to move stormwater away from the built environment, green
infrastructure provides multiple benefits for communities. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified a wide range of
environmental, social, and economic benefits provided by green
infrastructure beyond its core stormwater management functions,
including improved air quality, reduced urban heat island effect,
wildlife habitat, energy efficiency, access to green space, reduced
traffic noise, enhanced social interaction and recreation, improved
community aesthetics, and reduced crime.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ EPA Office of Research and Development, Healthy Benefits of
Green Infrastructure in Communities (2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-11/documents/green
infrastructure_healthy_communities_factsheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green infrastructure is a powerful tool for addressing climate
change. Not only does it help communities adapt to the impacts of
climate change by reducing flooding, augmenting groundwater supplies,
and cooling the air, it also provides climate mitigation benefits by
storing carbon and reducing energy demand.\14\ Implementation of small-
scale, distributed green practices can easily be scaled up or down when
conditions change. This provides a key advantage over hard
infrastructure, which is ``locked in'' after construction and not
readily adaptable to new rainfall patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Center for Neighborhood Technology, The Value of Green
Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and
Social Benefits (2010), https://www.cnt.org/sites/default/files/
publications/CNT_Value-of-Green-Infrastructure.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because many of green infrastructure's benefits are hyperlocal,
project implementation can be geographically targeted--through
meaningful engagement with community members--to enhance equity and
improve access to green space in underserved areas.\15\ Finally, green
infrastructure investment supports local, sustained jobs that boost
regional economies.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Megan Heckert (West Chester University) and Christina
Rosan (Temple University), Creating GIS-Based Planning Tools to Promote
Equity Through Green Infrastructure (2018), https://
www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2018.00027/full.
\16\ See Jobs for the Future, Exploring the Green Infrastructure
Workforce (2017), https://mikenowak.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/
Exploring-the-Green-Infrastructure-Workforce.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government should use every tool at its disposal to
promote and encourage the use of green infrastructure in wastewater and
stormwater systems around the country.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund's Green Project Reserve Is an
Important Source of Funding for Green Infrastructure and Other
Beneficial Projects, But It Has Been Underutilized.
The largest source of federal funding and financing for clean water
infrastructure projects, including green infrastructure, is the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund. Since its inception, the CWSRF has provided
$145 billion in assistance, most which has been in the form of low-
interest loans.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ EPA, Clean Water SRF Program Information: National Summary
(2021), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-02/documents/
us20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For its first two decades, the CWSRF did not fund many green
infrastructure projects. According to the EPA, many states had ``little
or no history'' of funding green projects because their programs
focused on traditional infrastructure, or because state law presented
obstacles.\18\ Then, in 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ARRA provided supplemental appropriations for
the CWSRF and required that states allocate at least 20 percent of
these new funds as a Green Project Reserve (GPR) for green
infrastructure, water efficiency, energy efficiency, and other
environmentally innovative projects. It also made GPR projects eligible
for ``additional subsidization'' (grants, negative interest rate loans,
or principal forgiveness).\19\ Since 2009, Congress has extended the
GPR in appropriations acts each year, though starting in FY2012 the
requirement was reduced from 20 percent to 10 percent of the state's
annual CWSRF capitalization grant.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ EPA, ARRA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Green Project
Reserve Report (2012), p. 8, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2015-04/documents/arra_green_project_reserve_
report.pdf.
\19\ American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5
(123 Stat. 169).
\20\ See Congressional Research Service, ``Greening'' EPA's Water
Infrastructure Programs through the Green Project Reserve (2016),
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IN10540.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The establishment of the Green Project Reserve led many states to
fund green infrastructure projects with CWSRF resources for the first
time. Over the past twelve years, the GPR has funded hundreds of these
projects across the country--everything from urban reforestation and
wetlands preservation to green roofs and roadway retrofits.
Additionally, the GPR has supported energy efficiency and water
efficiency projects that advance clean water objectives by upgrading
the efficiency of pumps and motors, powering clean water facilities
with renewable energy from on-site resources, and reducing both
customer and facility water use. Decentralized wastewater treatment
solutions in areas lacking access to sanitation are also eligible for
the GPR in the ``environmentally innovative'' category.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPA, ``2012 Clean Water State Revolving Fund 10% Green Project
Reserve: Guidance for Determining Project Eligibility,'' pp. 11-12,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2015-04/documents/green_project_reserve_eligibility_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, however, the CWSRF has been underutilized as a funding
source for green projects. Since the establishment of the Green Project
Reserve in 2009, EPA data indicate that only 11 percent of total CWSRF
assistance has gone to GPR projects ($8.6 billion out of $78 billion),
and less than 3 percent of total CWSRF assistance over that time period
has gone to green infrastructure specifically ($2 billion out of $78
billion).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA, Clean Water SRF Program Information: National Summary
(2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that these proportions are not necessarily inconsistent with
the requirement for each state to allocate 20 percent or (after FY2012)
10 percent of its annual capitalization grant to GPR projects. The
amount of total CWSRF assistance that a state provides to applicants
each year comes from a pot of money that includes not only the annual
capitalization grant from the federal government but also state
matching funds, loan repayments, leverage bonds, and investment
earnings. Thus a state's investment in GPR projects could surpass 10 or
20 percent of its capitalization grant while making up a smaller
percentage of the overall assistance the state disburses to projects
that year. The Congressional Research Service found that states
allocated 26 percent of their capitalization grants to GPR projects
between 2009 and 2016.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Congressional Research Service, ``Greening'' EPA's Water
Infrastructure Programs through the Green Project Reserve (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green infrastructure has received less CWSRF investment than other
Green Project Reserve categories, despite the fact that green
stormwater projects have been found to have ``the most secondary
benefits'' of all GPR project types.\24\ However, it is difficult to
determine the exact allocation among the four GPR categories because of
known data-quality issues in EPA's GPR database. An EPA-sponsored study
in 2013 found that the database includes inconsistencies, such as
project costs being double-counted for projects that meet more than one
of the GPR eligibility categories.\25\ With that caveat, EPA's database
indicates that 37 percent of Green Project Reserve funds have gone to
energy efficiency projects, 25 percent to water conservation projects,
22 percent to green infrastructure projects, and 16 percent to other
environmentally innovative projects.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ EPA & Major Partners' Lessons Learned from Implementing EPA's
Portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Factors
Affecting Implementation and Program Success (2013), p. 45, https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/lessons-learned-
arra-green-project-reserve.pdf.
\25\ Id., p. 19.
\26\ EPA, Clean Water SRF Program Information: National Summary
(2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given their many benefits, why haven't Green Project Reserve
projects received more CWSRF funding? Several factors may contribute to
their relatively small piece of the CWSRF pie. Many potential project
applicants are not aware that GPR funding is available to them and
therefore do not apply.\27\ Others may lack the expertise and resources
to complete the application materials or decide that the hassle is not
worth it for a small-scale green infrastructure project. The bigger
utilities that look to the CWSRF for assistance still tend to focus on
traditional hard infrastructure projects. And in some states, every
project on the CWSRF project priority list receives funding each year,
so integrating green elements into projects to qualify for GPR funds
offers little benefit to applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See EPA, Financing Green Infrastructure: A Best Practices
Guide for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (2015), p. 3, https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/
final_gi_best_practices_guide_12-9-15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the existing Green Project Reserve requirement, states do not
have adequate incentives to educate potential applicants about the
benefits of green infrastructure projects and the availability of GPR
funding, nor to assist them with their funding applications. The
current 10 percent requirement only applies to the extent that a state
receives ``sufficient eligible project applications.'' \28\ EPA has
interpreted this rule to require a ``good faith solicitation effort''
by the state to identify eligible GPR projects, but the state's annual
open solicitation for CWSRF projects is deemed to meet the requirement,
even if the state does not conduct any outreach on the Green Project
Reserve specifically.\29\ This interpretation largely takes the burden
off the state CWSRF program to actively solicit potential GPR projects.
As a result, states often fail to meet the GPR requirement. For
example, last year Florida fell short of the requirement because it did
not receive sufficient project applications.\30\ Oregon did not fund a
single GPR project last year.\31\ Missouri is three years behind on
awarding its GPR dollars.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021, p. 329, https://
www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr133/BILLS-116hr133enr.pdf.
\29\ See EPA, Procedures for Implementing Certain Provisions of
EPA's Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations Affecting the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs, p. 3, https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/
final_fy12_srf_guidelines_1.pdf.
\30\ Florida Department of Environmental Protection, CWSRF 2020
Annual Report, p. 13, https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/
CWSRF%20Annual%20Report%202020.pdf.
\31\ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Annual Report, September 2020, p. 7, https://
www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/Documents/cwsrf
AnnualRep2020.pdf.
\32\ Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Clean Water State
Revolving Fund 2020 Annual Report, pp. 7, 9, https://dnr.mo.gov/env/
wpp/srf/documents/2021-02-02-fy-2020-clean-water-srf-annual-report-
final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the amount of funding that Congress requires states to
allocate to the Green Project Reserve has fluctuated over time and has
never been codified in statute, making potential applicants uncertain
about whether GPR funds will be available for their projects in future
years. This uncertainty depresses demand for CWSRF funds.
Congress Should Take Action to Make the Green Project Reserve Function
More Effectively.
A few key legislative reforms could help the Green Project Reserve
live up to its potential as a robust funding source for green
infrastructure and other beneficial projects that build community
resilience.
1. Congress should make the GPR permanent.
First, Congress should end the process of inserting the Green
Project Reserve requirement into annual appropriations bills and codify
it permanently in statute. As described above, fluctuating federal
mandates create uncertainty and depress demand for funding.
A statutory Green Project Reserve is needed to ensure that the
state CWSRF programs have a continued mandate to fund green projects.
As pre-2009 history shows, without the GPR requirement it is likely
that fewer green projects will receive CWSRF assistance. Decades of
implementation have proven that these projects offer significant
benefits to utilities, ratepayers, the environment, and public health.
Congress should affirm its durable support for them by writing the GPR
into law.
The permanent requirement should be established at 20 percent of
the capitalization grant at a minimum. As explained above, because
states provide CWSRF assistance from a fund that includes other sources
of income beyond the capitalization grant, GPR projects' proportion of
total assistance is lower than their proportion of the capitalization
grant alone. In order to increase the percentage of overall CWSRF
assistance for green projects beyond the small share they receive
today, Congress should set the statutory requirement higher than the
current level of 10 percent of the capitalization grant.
2. Congress should significantly increase overall CWSRF funding.
Second, Congress should authorize and appropriate significantly
more money for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund as a whole.
Increasing the total amount of federal investment would make more
funding available for all CWSRF projects, including Green Project
Reserve projects.
Our communities face a dire need for more resources. In 2012, the
EPA estimated that we need to invest $271 billion in maintaining and
repairing our clean water infrastructure over the next twenty years
just to meet current environmental and health standards--a figure that
is now outdated and is almost certainly an underestimate.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Watershed Needs
Survey 2012 Report to Congress, https://www.epa.gov/cwns/clean-
watersheds-needs-survey-cwns-report-congress-2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure costs have risen steeply in recent decades as
communities have worked to implement important water pollution control
and flood mitigation projects. Yet according to Congressional Budget
Office data, federal funding for water and wastewater utilities has
decreased fourfold since 1980.\34\ Per capita federal spending on water
infrastructure has fallen from $76 per person in 1977 to $11 per person
in 2014.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Congressional Budget Office, Public Spending on Transportation
and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2014 (2015), https://www.cbo.gov/
sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/
49910-infrastructure.pdf.
\35\ Id.; see also Value of Water Campaign, The Economic Benefits
of Investing in Water Infrastructure (2017), p. 5, http://
thevalueofwater.org/sites/default/files/Economic
%20Impact%20of%20Investing%20in%20Water%20Infrastructure_VOW_FINAL_pages
.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of this decline, state and local governments have been
left to pick up the tab. A recent survey of stormwater utilities found
that an estimated total of $18-24 billion is spent annually by
municipal governments on stormwater programs and infrastructure.\36\
Only 30 percent of survey respondents indicated that they did not need
funding beyond their existing budgets. The analysis estimated the
annual stormwater funding gap to be $8.5 billion.\37\ Assessing the
need more broadly, the Value of Water Campaign has estimated the annual
funding gap for all water infrastructure (drinking water, wastewater,
and stormwater) to be $82 billion. If this need is left unaddressed,
the gap will continue to grow; it could rise to as high as $153 billion
by 2040 as needs from prior years accumulate.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ WEF Stormwater Institute, 2020 National Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Needs Assessment Survey Results, https://
wefstormwaterinstitute.org/programs/ms4survey/.
\37\ Id.
\38\ Value of Water Campaign, The Economic Benefits of Investing in
Water Infrastructure (2017), p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On top of existing budgetary shortfalls, the COVID-19 pandemic has
further stressed the finances of wastewater and stormwater utilities.
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies has estimated that
clean water utilities will lose billions of dollars in revenue due to
declines in industrial and commercial water use and increased bill
delinquencies from COVID-19 related job losses.\39\ Finally, none of
these need estimates include the amount needed to adapt to climate
change, which utilities say could add hundreds of billions of dollars
in additional water infrastructure funding needs through the middle of
the century.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Recovering from
Coronavirus: Mitigating the Economic Cost of Maintaining Water and
Wastewater Service in the Midst of a Global Pandemic and National
Economic Shut-Down (2020), https://www.nacwa.org/docs/default-source/
resources---public/water-sector-covid-19-financial-impacts.pdf.
\40\ National Association of Clean Water Agencies & Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies, Confronting Climate Change: An Early
Analysis of Water and Wastewater Adaptation Costs (2009), https://
www2.nacwa.org/images/stories/public/2009-10-28ccreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should fund the Clean Water State Revolving Fund at $10
billion per year to help close the clean water investment gap. Although
this would represent a large increase over current levels, the money
would not go to waste. The Council of Infrastructure Financing
Authorities' SRF Project Pipeline identifies over $47 billion in
specific clean water infrastructure projects across the country that
could be commenced within the next two to three years if funding is
provided.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Council of Infrastructure Funding Authorities, S.A.F.E. Water
Infrastructure Action Plan and SRF Project Pipeline (2020), available
at https://www.cifanet.org/economic-stimulus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significantly increasing federal funding for water infrastructure
would not only support public health and the environment, it would also
generate hundreds of billions of dollars in much-needed economic
activity and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.\42\ Research by
BlueGreen Alliance has found that by investing $105 billion over ten
years, we could improve our drinking and clean water systems to a ``B''
grade and create 654,000 job-years across the U.S. economy.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Value of Water Campaign, The Economic Benefits of Investing in
Water Infrastructure.
\43\ BlueGreen Alliance, Water Works: The Job Creation Potential of
Repairing America's Water Infrastructure (2020), https://
www.bluegreenalliance.org/resources/water-works-the-job-creation-
potential-of-repairing-americas-water-infrastructure/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alongside this large influx of funds, Congress should provide
additional resources to EPA and the state CWSRF administrators so they
can build capacity to handle the increased number of projects. Congress
should also consider waiving at least a portion of the 20 percent state
match requirement so that states are able to access these new
resources. States that produce their 20 percent match by issuing bonds
or using interest from a state infrastructure fund may not be able to
ramp up their contribution quickly enough to meet the matching
requirement for a much larger capitalization grant. Congress recognized
this difficulty in 2009 when it waived the state match requirement for
the supplemental funds provided in ARRA. It should do so again if a
waiver would help get money out the door quickly.
3. Congress should increase the amount of CWSRF funding provided as
additional subsidization.
Additional subsidization--grants, principal forgiveness, and
negative interest loans--are an important source of CWSRF funding for
project applicants that cannot afford to take out a normal low-interest
loan. However, under current law, a state may not use more than 30
percent of the amount of its annual capitalization grant for additional
subsidization.\44\ While there is no statutory obligation for states to
use any CWSRF funds for additional subsidization at all, annual
appropriations bills since 2010 have imposed a minimum requirement; the
FY21 Appropriations Act directed states to use 10 percent of their
capitalization grant for this purpose.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1383(i)(3).
\45\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021, p. 330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, the availability of additional subsidization is quite
limited. EPA's 2019 CWSRF annual report states that additional
subsidization made up only 4% of total assistance that year ($260
million out of $6.2 billion in total assistance).\46\ This equates to
14% of the annual capitalization grant ($260 million out of $1.9
billion in federal capitalization).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ EPA, Clean Water State Revolving Fund 2019 Annual Report:
Building the Project Pipeline, p. 7, https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2020-10/documents/2019_cwsrf_annual_
report_9-10.pdf.
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Project Reserve projects, including those proposed by
underserved applicants, must compete for these scarce funds with all
other projects that serve disadvantaged communities.\48\ Communities
struggling with affordability challenges must have access to additional
subsidization in order to ensure that clean, safe water and protection
from flooding are enjoyed by all people everywhere, not reserved as
privileges for affluent jurisdictions. For example, unsewered
communities in rural and low-income areas often cannot afford to fix
their failing on-site systems without additional subsidization; this
lack of accessible funding perpetuates an ongoing humanitarian
crisis.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1383(i)(1).
\49\ See Inga T. Winkler & Catherine Coleman Flowers, `` `America's
Dirty Secret': The Human Right to Sanitation in Alabama's Black Belt,''
Columbia Human Rights Law Review (2017), http://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/
files/2018/01/IngaTWinklerCatherineCole.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should increase the amount of CWSRF funding provided as
additional subsidization so that both GPR projects and projects serving
disadvantaged communities have access to the resources they need. At
least 20 percent of the annual capitalization grant should be provided
to disadvantaged communities as additional subsidization, and this
minimum requirement should be written into statute rather than left to
the vagaries of the annual appropriations process. In addition,
Congress should raise the cap on additional subsidization beyond 30
percent to make more funds available for all eligible projects,
including GPR projects. Raising the cap would allow states to decide
for themselves how much subsidy to provide, commensurate with the need
within their jurisdictions.
While deploying a higher percentage of funds through additional
subsidization does decrease the proportion of the annual federal grant
remaining to capitalize the states' revolving loan funds, a big boost
in overall CWSRF appropriations would ensure that the amount of money
replenishing those funds remains steady or even increases in absolute
dollar terms. Proving the workability of this approach, ARRA both
increased the amount of money flowing to the CWSRF and required that at
least 50 percent of the new funds be used as additional
subsidization.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5
(123 Stat. 169).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Congress should provide more resources for outreach and technical
assistance.
When states fall short of the Green Project Reserve minimum
requirement, it isn't because there are no possible green projects for
communities to implement. According to the EPA, many potential GPR
applicants are simply unaware of the funding opportunities
available.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ EPA, Financing Green Infrastructure: A Best Practices Guide
for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (2015), p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States can address this knowledge gap through marketing and
outreach, but they need resources in order to do so. Moreover, small
and disadvantaged communities need technical assistance to develop
projects and complete applications. This assistance requires resources
as well. Congress should set aside more funding for states to build
awareness and expertise among potential GPR applicants, with the goal
of ensuring that no state ever falls short of its minimum Green Project
Reserve requirement due to a lack of eligible project applications.
5. Congress should increase transparency around the effectiveness of
the GPR.
With no publicly accessible centralized database of GPR projects,
and state-level data available only sporadically on hard-to-find
webpages, it is difficult to gather information on the results of the
Green Project Reserve. Indeed, even the EPA does not seem to know what
the program is achieving; the agency's own inspector general has
faulted it for failing to assess the economic or environmental benefits
of GPR projects.\52\ No nationwide estimate of GPR benefits has been
developed since a post-ARRA report ten years ago.\53\ This dearth of
information contributes to the lack of awareness, discussed above, that
results in underutilization of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ EPA Office of Inspector General, EPA Needs to Assess
Environmental and Economic Benefits of Completed Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Green Projects (2016), https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/20160502-16-p-0162.pdf.
\53\ Eastern Research Group (for EPA), Estimated Environmental
Benefits Associated with ARRA-Funded Green Project Reserve Projects
(2011), https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2017-03/documents/
estimated_environmental_benefits_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should require EPA to develop a routine process for
collecting GPR data and reporting that data to the public. Such a
requirement would improve EPA's ability to oversee, manage, and monitor
this substantial investment of public funds. It would also be
consistent with existing federal policies requiring agencies to assess
the results of government programs.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See EPA Office of Inspector General, EPA Needs to Assess
Environmental and Economic Benefits of Completed Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Green Projects (2016), p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better data transparency would arm communities across the country
with information that could help them make the case for increased
investment in green infrastructure on a cost-benefit basis. Half of the
respondents in a nationwide survey of stormwater utilities indicated
that they need access to more resources and technical information on
the valuation of green infrastructure's benefits.\55\ A new reporting
requirement could be implemented with little burden on GPR recipients
if Congress provides adequate resources for data collection and directs
EPA to gather and aggregate the information itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ WEF Stormwater Institute, 2020 National Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Needs Assessment Survey Results, https://
wefstormwaterinstitute.org/programs/ms4survey/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress Should Take Additional Actions Beyond the Green Project
Reserve to Promote Sustainable and Resilient Clean Water
Infrastructure.
The Green Project Reserve, while important, is not the only
mechanism available to promote resilience measures in wastewater and
stormwater systems.
Congress should authorize and fund new grant programs to diversify
funding options for clean water infrastructure resilience projects. For
example, legislation pending in the Senate would establish a Clean
Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Program providing
grants to increase the resilience of publicly owned treatment works to
natural hazards and cybersecurity threats.\56\ The same bill would also
establish a grant program for the construction, refurbishing, and
servicing of individual household decentralized wastewater systems for
low- and moderate-income households, helping to resolve ongoing human
rights concerns and address climate vulnerabilities.\57\ Last Congress,
the Clean Water Through Green Infrastructure Act would have established
grant programs for green stormwater control infrastructure,\58\ and the
Natural Infrastructure and Resilience Act would have made certain green
infrastructure projects eligible for surface transportation block grant
funding.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021, S.
914, 117th Cong. Sec. 205 (2021), https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/
s914/BILLS-117s914is.pdf.
\57\ Id.
\58\ Clean Water Through Green Infrastructure Act, H.R. 4266, 116th
Cong. (2019).
\59\ Natural Infrastructure and Resilience Act, H.R. 5871, 116th
Cong. (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should also establish a permanent low-income water and
sewer assistance program and promote local rate structures that
equitably increase local revenues. Improving the affordability of
water, wastewater, and stormwater service would allow utilities to
implement resilience projects and other upgrades without imposing
burdens on their low-income customers. Water and wastewater utility
bills have increased at more than three times the rate of inflation
over the past decade.\60\ Yet as of 2016, the majority of water and
wastewater utilities offered no customer assistance program.\61\ Two
recent COVID-19 relief bills provided some funding for a temporary low-
income water and sewer assistance program at the Department of Health
and Human Services, but a long-term program at higher funding levels is
necessary in order to meet the nationwide need. Additionally, Congress
should incentivize the adoption of equitable rate structures and other
local affordability programs by making them eligible uses of CWSRF
funds, providing increased technical support for such programs,
directing additional funding incentives to states that take steps to
promote such programs, and requiring states and utilities to report
annually on key affordability metrics such as rate schedules and water
shutoffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ David Harrison, ``Why Your Water Bill Is Rising Much Faster
Than Inflation,'' The Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2018, https://
www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-paying-to-fix-outdated-
water-and-sewer-systems-you-are-1521106201.
\61\ EPA Office of Wastewater Management, Drinking Water and
Wastewater Utility Customer Assistance Programs (2016), https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/
dw-ww_utilities_cap_combined_508-front2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, Congress should require climate change information to be
considered in the planning of all clean water infrastructure projects
as a condition of providing federal assistance. The Government
Accountability Office recommended this policy in a report last year
after it was endorsed by a majority of experts.\62\ By limiting future
risk exposure, this requirement could save the federal government
billions of dollars in post-disaster recovery financial assistance. It
is critical that such a requirement be accompanied by technical support
and the best available data. Most planning and design standards are
currently based on outdated assumptions about the occurrence of extreme
precipitation events, with many states relying on precipitation
statistics that have not been updated in decades.\63\ Some states, like
Illinois, have taken it upon themselves to update their precipitation
statistics and require their use for infrastructure design, but those
states are the exception to the rule.\64\ The federal government must
not only provide state and local governments with updated statistics
but also integrate future projections of rainfall so we can begin to
design our stormwater and wastewater systems appropriately. Tools like
EPA's CREAT will be critical in providing continuing support for
assessing the impacts of climate change on water infrastructure.\65\
Communities will rely on these systems into future decades; we must
stop designing them for the conditions of the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Water Infrastructure:
Technical Assistance and Climate Resilience Planning Could Help
Utilities Prepare for Potential Climate Change Impacts (2020), https://
www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-24.pdf.
\63\ Jim Morrison, ``As Rainstorms Grow More Severe and Frequent,
Communities Fail to Prepare for Risks,'' Washington Post, April 9,
2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/
climate-environment/2021/04/09/climate-change-rainfall/.
\64\ See Tiffany Jolley, The Impact of Bulletin 75, Prairie
Research Institute, University of Illinois, July 8, 2020,https://
blogs.illinois.edu/view/7447/2024148035.
\65\ EPA, Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT)
Risk Assessment Application for Water Utilities, https://www.epa.gov/
crwu/climate-resilience-evaluation-and-
awareness-tool-creat-risk-assessment-application-water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Congress should require EPA to adopt regulations
implementing the provision of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 directing CWSRF recipients to maximize
water and energy conservation in all projects.\66\ The interpretive
guidance EPA has thus far provided for complying with this requirement
largely repeats the language of the statute and does not provide
specific criteria or guidelines for evaluating and incorporating cost-
effective conservation practices. Enhancing the effectiveness of this
cross-cutting requirement through meaningful regulations could have an
impact comparable to an increase in the GPR itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1382(b)(13)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. NRDC looks forward
to working with the Subcommittee on solutions to strengthen the
resilience and sustainability or our nation's clean water
infrastructure.

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Ms. Hammer. We will
now proceed with Member questions.
We want to thank all the witnesses for all the testimony,
and the questions that will arise. We will use the timer to
allow 5 minutes for each question from each Member. If there
are additional questions, we may have additional rounds, as
necessary and as time permits.
And I will recognize Mr. DeFazio for the first round of
questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To Ms. Hammer, who just testified to this, and Mr. Perry
also, do you believe that we need a codified and explicit--and
I think you have already answered this, but I want to get it
fully on the record--program for green reserve?
And why would it have to be a separate program? Wouldn't
States just utilize the SRF money to implement these sorts of
programs? The Senate bill totally omits the green reserve.
So if each of you can answer that question, why it needs to
be codified, it would be great.
Ms. Hammer. Yes. Thank you, thank you for that question.
So, as I mentioned in my testimony, the fact that the green
project reserve is not codified in statute has generated
significant uncertainty amongst potential applicants who would
be accessing those funds to carry out projects. And that
depresses long-term [inaudible]. So if we put it into the
statute, it will become a more reliable source of funding.
And part of the issue is that it takes a while to plan
these projects. So if we are talking about a source of funding
that may be available this year or maybe not, depending on what
the Appropriations Committee puts into their bill that year, if
I am someone who is thinking of carrying out a green
infrastructure project, I might not be able to depend that that
money is going to be there in 5 years when I need it.
And I think as history shows, before the green project
reserve was adopted in 2009, when it is not there, these
projects don't tend to get funded, because the resources aren't
available.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Mr. Perry, do you want to----
Mr. Perry. Absolutely. I definitely agree with Ms. Hammer.
I am actually probably more well-versed in the design aspects,
rather than policy.
But I can say, from one perspective, that I know that a lot
of municipalities are really counting for a solid piece of
funding to not only go through design and implementation, but
it is really the maintenance end where you see a lot of
communities very, very nervous about implementing green
infrastructure at the wide, wide scale.
And so being able to, again, have a solid chunk of funding
that is there and is permanent is, I think, critical for local
communities to accept more widely green infrastructure
approaches.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. And to Ms. Powell and Mr.
Ferrante, if we have time, these innovative technologies that
you have put in place, were these good, hard business
decisions?
I mean, these have penciled out, saved the ratepayers money
in the long term, and will be amortized in a relatively short
period of time?
Ms. Powell. Thank you for the question, Mr. DeFazio. Yes,
and our team looks at the cost benefit, as well as other
measures, when we are making decisions about projects that we
will implement.
So, for instance, when we look at the implementation of
solar projects, and when we looked at the implementation of
thermal hydrolysis, the team looked at how much that would
ultimately save our ratepayers, in terms of operating costs
that we could then reinvest in other critical infrastructure
investments.
Mr. DeFazio. Good. So--and to Mr. Ferrante, same question.
Is there a real solid business case for these sorts of projects
that penciled out in favor of the ratepayers?
Mr. Ferrante. Thank you for the question. Yes, Chair
DeFazio. Especially, I can talk about the--for example, the
food waste recycling project definitely pencils out with
respect to allowing our main wastewater treatment plant not
only to be energy self-sufficient, to avoid having to pay the
utility for all the power, but allowing us to export to the
grid, to generate revenue from that way, and also to cost
effectively generate--convert that gas into vehicle fuel, and
allow not only our vehicles, other Government vehicles to be
fueled by it, but it is also open to the public. So passing on
that benefit to the public, and it is charged at the same rate
as conventional natural gas, so it does pencil out for us, and
the savings are passed on to our ratepayers. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Just a quick question, and my time will have
expired, but I assume the end product is a sort of a composted
material. What do you do with that?
Mr. Ferrante. So we have the actual solids that are
digested. It is a material. We partner with private composters
that take the material, they compost it with agricultural waste
in most cases, and then they market that product. And it is
used as a soil amendment for agricultural fields.
And also, some of it is actually sold to the general
public, as well. But it is a product that is usable, and it
displaces chemical fertilizers in terms of being used in
agricultural fields.
Mr. DeFazio. Excellent. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My time has expired.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Rouzer, you are next.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really enjoyed
listening to the testimony of all of our witnesses. And this
has been hinted at, or alluded to previously, but I think the
fundamental question is, how do we make these infrastructure
improvements and get the best value for the taxpayer and the
ratepayer.
In fact, that is really the fundamental question for all
things that Congress considers.
Mr. Colson, I know you, obviously, have great experience in
this arena. And I just wanted to give you an opportunity to
talk about what is taking place in North Carolina, as far as
promoting sustainability and resiliency. We have some pretty
good-sized cities in North Carolina, and we have some very
small towns, as you alluded to in your testimony. So talk to us
a little bit about what North Carolina is doing.
Mr. Colson. Thank you for that question. In 2017, North
Carolina developed a master plan to meet our water
infrastructure needs. And it is not just funding goals, it is
developing organizational capacity, developing financial
capacity in our utilities, and that will lead to sustainable
infrastructure and infrastructure management.
Part of that focus is also focusing on our small
communities across the State. We have identified over 100
utilities that are really struggling financially with their
water and sewer systems, and we have made a concerted effort to
help those utilities become viable utilities, because that is
so important in meeting their sustainability.
And we have also been focusing on changing our priority
system as a result of our hurricanes that we have had, and
trying to move some of the infrastructure out of the flood
plains, and making it more flood resilient, as well. Of course,
this changed significantly from 2007, when we were funding a
lot of reclaimed water, because at that point we were in a
drought. And of course, that is part of the benefit of the
SRFs; we have that flexibility to adapt to these changing needs
in our communities.
Mr. Rouzer. With all those small towns, can you talk a
little bit about how--particularly any specific cases that come
to mind--Federal mandates create additional cost complexity
that really is unnecessary, in terms of achieving the end goal?
Mr. Colson. Thank you for that question. All Federal
mandates require paperwork to document that you are meeting the
mandate. And, of course, for some of our projects, particularly
in our small communities, if they have a gravity sewer system
that simply needs to be replaced because it is broken, they
have to fix it. The question is, do they have to document water
efficiency and energy efficiency in a project, in
infrastructure that uses no energy?
So that is an example of where the paperwork and the goal
don't really quite match what is going on in the small
communities.
Mr. Rouzer. Obviously, there is a strong incentive, I
think, among most to move to green energy practices. Perhaps 10
years ago, 15 years ago, certainly 20 years ago you could make
a, I think, a much stronger case for mandates if you want to
look at it from that perspective. But today a lot of people are
naturally trying to move that way anyhow. Do you want to
comment on that a bit, and your observations, what you are
seeing around the State and elsewhere?
Mr. Colson. Sure. Recently we funded several energy-type
projects at some of our urban areas. For example, the city of
Raleigh, they recently did a similar project that Mr. Ferrante
described, where they changed their digesters from aerobic to
anaerobic generated methane.
Their particular case, they had a natural gas pipeline on
their property. They came to an agreement with the natural gas
company. They put the methane into the natural gas line, drew
it back out in downtown Raleigh to power their bus fleet. And
so that specific case study was developed at the local level,
and the business case made sense, and we put $50 million into
that project. So that was a project where we far exceeded our
green project reserve requirement.
One of the issues with the green project reserve is the
next year we didn't have any projects that we closed on, so we
didn't meet it, but we didn't get any credit for carryover from
that significant investment from the year before.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I note that my time has almost expired, so I
yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Rouzer. I will
begin the questioning from my side, and this is directed to Mr.
Ferrante.
As many water agencies across the country and the globe are
developing water recycling projects, your agency is rare for
having 60 years of experience in water recycling. How has water
recycling changed over the years, and how do you see this
important water supply opportunity growing in the future?
How are water agencies across the globe sharing information
on water recycling?
Mr. Ferrante. Thank you. Thank you for that question, Chair
Napolitano.
I will answer the first part first. With respect to water
recycling, over the last 50 to 60 years, we have seen a
fundamental greater understanding from the public with respect
to water recycling. I think a big part of that is that we
couldn't do these programs without public outreach, without not
only tours of the facility so people understand and can have
confidence in the treatment of the water that they are seeing,
but also programs in schools for kids to learn about water
recycling and the benefits of it to the environment. Those have
been key things.
And obviously, we have seen, especially over the last 20 to
30 years, a strong demand, an increase in water recycling. And
what is interesting is we have also seen the success of water
conservation, especially over the last 15 to 20 years. And
actually, our flows have dropped about 20 to 25 percent over
the last 15 years. So it shows that the public is really
understanding, when given the information, they understand
water issues.
One other thing that we are having to do is balance water
recycling with habitat protection, as well. We need to maintain
the habitats in our local rivers and creeks, and we can't just
take all that recycled water and reuse it without maintaining
that habitat.
For the future I see continued partnerships. I talked about
the Met project, and that is our main partner. But we are
partnering with all of our local cities, groundwater basins,
L.A. County Public Works out here, and more and more I am
having discussions as a wastewater agency with water purveyors
and stormwater entities, too, that we really are looking at
water in a complete sense.
And obviously, the drought that is occurring in California
is making a big impact on water resiliency. And I think water
recycling needs to be, in these stressed areas, a core
component of the portfolio, specifically so that you can bank
water in good times and then use that water when the drought
really hits and you don't get your allocations.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for that. I know that we used to
say recycled water was toilet-to-tap, and we changed it to
showers-to-flowers. And there is no new landfill in L.A.
County. The city has 4 million, and the county has 12 million,
so it is a lot of people to recycle water.
Can you discuss the biodigesting program, and how do you
recycle food waste?
Mr. Ferrante. Yes, I can expand a little bit on that. That
really started as a partnership and demonstration between us,
as a wastewater treatment agency and a solid waste agency, with
local, private, solid-waste haulers that are collecting from
cities. They have franchise agreements with the cities to pick
up their waste.
And also, here in California, there is regulation moving
towards diversion of organics from landfills. So these
municipalities have to comply with this requirement, in terms
of diverting up to 75 percent of the organic waste from
landfills.
And wastewater treatment plants, as Mr. Colson mentioned
and others mentioned, we have anaerobic digesters, and we have
excess capacity often that can be utilized. We have that
infrastructure in place that can be utilized to take additional
organic material. And food waste, in particular, is high in
energy. It really translates into producing a great deal of
digester gas that can be used beneficially.
And as I mentioned, we use it in a variety of ways, not
only in our existing powerplant. It makes over 20 megawatts of
energy, making our largest wastewater treatment plant
completely energy self-sufficient. We sell some excess power
into the grid, and we still have more to convert into pure
natural gas, essentially, renewable natural gas for vehicle
fuel. So that is the program kind of in a nutshell.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. I had a question for
Ms. Hammer, but I will submit it in writing, because my time is
up.
Mr. Babin, you are next, you may proceed.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Babin?
Voice. He is not here.
Mrs. Napolitano. All right. Mr. Garamendi, you may proceed.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garret Graves?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam
Chair, I have to commend the rhyming that you had going on in
your line of questioning. If you evaluate your next career,
perhaps a poet, or even a rapper would be a good path for you.
Nice to see you.
I want to thank all the witnesses today. It has been very,
very informative. And obviously, with all the recent discussion
on infrastructure, this is a very important time for us to be
very thoughtful about the Federal Government's role in
infrastructure, how to improve the project development delivery
process, how to properly prioritize projects, and, of course,
there is always this discussion on balance of utilization, of
green versus gray, how to use the best tool in the toolbox most
effectively to achieve the best outcome.
One of the questions that I have asked myself a lot over
the past few weeks is what I stated, ``What is the Federal
Government's role in infrastructure?'' And certainly in this
committee you can make an excellent case for: the Federal
Government has a role in interstates, it has a role in the
National Highway System, it has a role in dealing with
waterways that traverse various States and serve as major
navigation channels for international commerce.
When you get beyond there, the question starts getting a
little bit more challenging. One of the things about the
Federal Government's role in highways or interstates, for
example, is that there is a user fee mechanism. You go and you
pay a tax for every gallon of gas you buy. The more gas you
burn, because you have an inefficient vehicle and you drive
more miles, the more of a user fee you pay.
In the case of water systems, there is a similar user fee
mechanism, but that is collected entirely at the local level. I
am just curious, and please, don't--this isn't an attack on
you, but I am just curious in your response, both the DC and
the L.A. systems. Give me your pitch as to why this is a
Federal responsibility for us to jump in and pay this whenever
you have a user fee mechanism in place.
Maybe, Ms. Powell, I will start with you.
Ms. Powell. Yes, and thank you for the question. We believe
that one way for the Federal Government to partner with
localities and local utilities is to increase the amount of
funding for water infrastructure, because it is infrastructure,
it supports the built environment, and it supports essential
services in every community. And I think that someone said that
no community can be without it.
Obviously, we are here in DC, and it can be seen as a
national security issue if you don't have safe, clean drinking
water and wastewater services because of the customers that we
provide services to.
And I think that, again, the Federal Government providing
the levels of funding that is consistent with other modes,
other infrastructure sectors, is a start for us in DC. We
believe that there should be a Federal fair share contributed
to the infrastructure that was turned over to the District to
manage, which was undersized when it was turned over to the
District. And that is something that we will be looking into
more.
And then the last way I would say is to implement, in a
sustainable way, a low-income water assistance program. As Ms.
Hammer said, it is important for everyone to have access to
safe, clean drinking water, and there are many that cannot
afford it. There are some States that don't have enabling
legislation for customer assistance programs. And we have a
number of projects that we have to implement to be in
compliance with Federal regulation. So it is important to make
sure that we have funding to implement those projects without--
--
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. I want to make sure we
have time for Mr. Ferrante to answer, as well. I just--I want
to make note, I believe that Washington has one of the lowest
rates in the Nation, in regard to water rates. And I am just
not sure I understand this divorce between user fees and
Federal Government investment.
Mr. Ferrante, I just have about 30 seconds left. Would you
care to answer?
Mr. Ferrante. Sure, just----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. And perhaps more specifically, why
should people in Louisiana and Arkansas pay for L.A.'s water
system?
Mr. Ferrante. Sure. The issues we are facing with respect
to drought covers more than just California. It covers the
Southwestern United States. So it is really an interstate
issue.
And obviously, with greenhouse gas emissions, the
reductions that can occur in California benefit not only to the
people on the east coast and Louisiana, but across the world.
So it is a global issue. It is a national issue, at a minimum.
So the reductions that we can achieve here and the reductions
that they can achieve benefit us, as well. And that is why I
think we could use user fees, but we want to use these moneys
in an equal way and a uniform way across the country, attacking
global issues or interstate issues, especially with respect to
water and climate change.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you both for your answers.
Madam Chair, I want to thank you. I just think we need to
be very thoughtful as we move forward in losing this alignment
between ratepayers and infrastructure, because I think that you
have incentives aligned. When you start divorcing it, there is
no longer an incentive for people to be efficient with water
usage and things like that. So I think, as we move forward,
think about that. Thank you, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Garret Graves. It is
interesting that you say that, because California has always
been a donor State in many areas, so I kind of take exception
to that.
Mr. Garamendi, you are on. You may proceed.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. I have to find the right microphone here.
Thank you.
Mr. Graves, you are at the outfall of the Nation's largest
sanitation system, otherwise known as the Mississippi River. I
am sure that you would want to have the upstream users
delivering clean water into that system.
With regard to the issues, this is a question for Mr.
Ferrante and Ms. Powell. The testimony thus far has indicated
that these are very complex systems it takes a long time to
engineer and to build. The current NPDES program is for a 5-
year authorization, at which time the project is neither
completed or probably even started. So I have introduced H.R.
1881, which would provide for a 10-year permit, rather than a
5-year permit.
So, Mr. Ferrante, is this useful to you in getting your
projects built?
And the same question for Ms. Powell.
Mr. Ferrante. Thank you for that question, Representative
Garamendi.
Yes, the concept of providing the State with authority to
issue a permit, but not only the authority, but the flexibility
to issue a permit longer than 5 years, but not more than 10
years, is----
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Westerman is next.
Mr. Ferrante [continuing]. Something that makes sense. Our
current system of permitting fails to recognize the life cycles
of technologies. As I mentioned earlier, you know, the project
that we are involved in with Metropolitan has been in the
planning stages for 10 years, construction will take up to 6 to
7 years. We are looking at the early 2030s. They are very
complex.
But I do want to emphasize that extending the State's
authority would not preclude revisions to a permit if new and
important information were to be revealed impacting water
quality standards. And I think that is important. We want to
ensure the continued confidence and trust from the public that
we serve, that the proper level of oversight is being provided,
especially as we embark on new, advanced technologies and new,
recycled water treatment systems.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Ms. Powell, would you like to
add, or just say that it is a great idea to have 10 years,
rather than 5 years?
Ms. Powell. Representative Garamendi, we support any tool
or approach that allows for flexibility in meeting what are
complex requirements in our permits as we work to implement the
necessary improvements that are more expensive and more time-
intensive to implement.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. We will continue to pursue H.R.
1881, and perhaps find it in additional legislation.
I want to go back to Mr. Ferrante and the discussions that
you have had.
But first of all, a big shout out to what you have been
able to accomplish. Indeed, California is in the midst of
another drought. And I have often said that the fifth biggest
river on the west coast or the Western Hemisphere are the
sanitation plants in southern California. Probably 1 million
acre-feet of water can be secured for southern California with
the complete utilization of recycling. And the efforts made by
the sanitation district and Metropolitan Water District is
extraordinarily important to California, as it is to other
Western States, and probably States in the East, such as
Georgia, that also has periodic droughts and problems.
And so I want to just raise the issue that the programs
that we are authorizing in this legislation must and should
include recycling, as well as the capture of methane and gases
from the sanitation facilities.
So the other piece of this for southern California is that
there is a place to put the water, the recycled water, and that
is in the underground aquifers of southern California, which,
taken together, have a larger capacity than the largest
reservoir, Shasta.
Mr. Ferrante, would you care to take a few moments to
further comment?
And also, if you would pick up the chairwoman's long-held
view that title 16 of the Reclamation Act provides money for
recycling?
Mr. Ferrante. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to comment
on this. I think you have correctly pointed out, with respect
to drought, especially in southern California, and people are
starting to use the terms ``mega-drought,'' and ``permanent
drought'' for the way of looking at our current situation. That
recycled water, it has got to be part of the core portfolio for
the water systems here, probably throughout the southwest of
California.
And specifically, it can be used, as you mentioned, with
groundwater replenishment in order to be able to--I use the
term ``bank,'' or replenish those groundwater supplies during
good years, when you have a little bit of excess, and then,
when you have those years such as what we are potentially
facing this year and in the next few years, where you are not
going to get the allotments, especially for southern
California, whether they be in the imported water--and I know
some of our neighbor States are facing the issues with the
Colorado River--when you don't get those allotments, then you
can take that groundwater out, and hopefully make you
resilient.
In our case, I mentioned earlier, you mentioned the
Metropolitan project we are working on. That could supply 10
percent of the water need that Metropolitan usually provides.
So that is a big part of it.
Switching gears, you mentioned the methane----
Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry, the time is up. Would you wrap
it up----
Mr. Garamendi. Oh, thank you, Mr. Ferrante, thank you very
much. I really look forward to working with you and with the
chairwoman on the other piece of it, which is title 16, which
does provide money for reclamation.
My final point is that it was Richard Nixon that decided
that the Federal Government had a role in cleaning up our
sanitation systems.
So with that, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. I am asking in a
bill to increase title 16 to $500 million. That is how serious
I am about it.
Mr. Westerman, you may proceed.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
ranking member.
And Madam Chair, I just want to say again thank you for--
what a privilege it was to work with you in the last Congress
as ranking member on this subcommittee, and to be able to do
the good work we did with WRDA and other issues, and I
appreciate your continued efforts on this subcommittee.
Madam Chair, if you remember, I have talked to you about a
project going on in my district that we were going to try to go
see, but COVID interrupted that. But we have got an agriculture
water utility in my district that takes nutrient-laden water
from the Arkansas River.
They formed a crop irrigation district. And to participate
in that, farmers stopped pumping water out of the Sparta
aquifer, which is high-quality drinking water that serves six
different States out of that aquifer, and they use the
groundwater which--the crops actually act as a filter that
cleans the water, takes the nutrients out, and releases clean
water back into the Arkansas River, which eventually gets down
to Representative Graves' district in the Mississippi River.
And we know we have got issues with nutrient-laden water down
there. So it is a real winner of a project.
And I know, Mr. Colson, in your written testimony you
talked about an Orange County, California, project that was
conserving groundwater. And my question to you is would you
agree that this type of innovative utility project that EPA
states--should this type of project be funded through SRF
funding, regardless of whether public or privately owned?
Mr. Colson. Thank you for that question. It is important to
note that many of these projects are case-specific to the
locality to meet a specific need, and utilities at the local
level are developing the business case for these projects. And
SRFs need to be flexible to meet these local needs. And that is
what we are really focused on.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, so it seems like, since it is
accomplishing the purpose of cleaning water and conserving
groundwater, it would be a great project for SRF funding.
And Mr. Colson, while I am talking to you, the methane you
were talking about coming--or capturing that, how do you
transport it?
Mr. Colson. In that particular case, there was a natural
gas pipeline that was already on the wastewater treatment plant
property, and that pipeline went up through into downtown
Raleigh. So there was a transportation mechanism already there
that the utility was able to utilize. And of course, that
really helped the business case for the utility to implement
that type of project.
Mr. Westerman. It was another instance of how a pipeline
actually helps with the environment in safe and efficient
transport of a biogas there.
And back to the idea of SRF, I want to just open this up
for any of the witnesses, and ask if you know if any private
entities are eligible for funding under the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund. In the case of addressing source pollution and
integrated watershed management, actually, they are eligible
for that funding. But what can Congress do to encourage more
private-sector action to protect critically designated
groundwater aquifers, and reduce nutrients like the project I
was talking about, where they enter the Mississippi River
Basin?
And maybe also what about State-based nutrient trading
programs? And I believe North Carolina has one of those.
Mr. Colson. That is correct, North Carolina does have a
nutrient trading program, and it is utilized by many of our
municipalities to help protect our estuaries.
Mr. Westerman. Would any other panelists like to address
that?
Well, I am running short on time, so I--actually, I was in
a hearing this morning on the Natural Resources Committee with
the Indigenous People of the United States Subcommittee. I
heard a testimony there, a witness answered a question by Mr.
Young. And actually, when it was my turn to ask questions, I
went back and had the witness restate the answer, because it
was just so shocking. But she stated that, up in Alaska, in
this one particular area, that the utility connection fee is
$350,000 to $700,000 per home. And in asking her to explain
that in more detail, she said a lot of it is the regulatory
process that has to be gone through to actually build these
projects, and connect them, which--you know, I am a
professional engineer, I know we have got other engineers on
the Zoom today. That cost is almost unbelievable. But the
witness stated that is the actual cost.
Are there things we can do to relieve the regulatory
burden, so that we can build out these much-needed water
infrastructure projects, and do it with common sense and at a
much lower cost?
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Your time is up, Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Well, if anybody would like to submit an
answer to the record, I would much appreciate that.
And thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Malinowski, you may proceed.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the
witnesses. Like many other parts of the country, my district in
New Jersey has been affected in recent years by harmful algal
blooms. We have seen them in a couple of lakes in Morris
County, Lake Hopatcong, Budd Lake, a bunch of smaller ponds. We
expect they are going to reemerge this summer.
They have forced, in some cases, the temporary closure of
lakes and ponds to recreation, to swimming, to boating, put an
added strain on local economies that are dependent,
particularly in the summer, on those activities. And of course,
toxins from HABs can also harm drinking water treatment, also
contaminate drinking water treatment facilities, as I am sure
you are all aware.
The most recent WRDA bill that was signed into law----
Mrs. Napolitano. Has Mr. Mast returned?
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. Created a demonstration
program to detect, prevent, treat, and eliminate these HABs
associated with water resources development projects. And New
Jersey was designated as a focus area for the program, which is
good news for us.
But there is a lot more work to be done. We know that both
wastewater discharge and climate change are contributing
factors, and we are working to address both of those in this
committee.
Ms. Hammer, I wanted to see if you might be willing to
address this question, and let us know what are some of NRDC's
recommendations to Congress on how best to address the problem.
What strategies should be adopted at the State and local level
to treat outbreaks?
Are there any research gaps that still need to be closed?
What more can we do?
Ms. Hammer. Thanks for the question. So we know that
nutrient pollution is the primary driver of harmful algal
blooms, and that nutrients come from both agricultural sources,
like animal and mineral fertilizers, urban runoff, sewer system
discharges, wastewater treatment facility discharges.
NRDC actually has a website dedicated to this issue that
tracks how well States are monitoring algal blooms and reports
that information to the public. So I would encourage anyone to
check that out who is interested in how their State and local
government are managing this issue.
As you said, we also know that climate change makes algal
blooms worse, between rising temperatures, more intense
precipitation.
In terms of solutions, a lot of things we are talking about
today--green infrastructure can be a really important tool in
reducing nutrient runoff from the urban environment. So can
wetlands preservation, ensuring that wetlands are fully
protected by the Clean Water Act, since wetlands can filter out
the kinds of nutrients that cause algal blooms, as well as
water conservation, making sure we are not withdrawing too much
water from water bodies, because when they get stagnant, that
is one condition in which algal blooms can occur.
Congress can help with all of this by increasing funding
for water infrastructure, especially green projects, so that
communities can implement projects that reduce nutrient
pollution.
Mr. Malinowski. Great, thank you. So switching gears a bit,
we all know that foreign adversaries of the United States use
cyber operations to try to damage physical and digital
infrastructure in our country. And earlier this year, as I know
you are all aware, a water treatment plant in Oldsmar, Florida,
was hacked. The intruders attempted to dramatically increase
the amount of sodium hydroxide in the water treatment process.
It was a near miss that could have proved catastrophic.
A lot of experts have testified to this, former assistant
director Chris Krebs, cybersecurity experts from the FBI and
other agencies. Every State has been a target, to some degree.
In New Jersey, our statewide IT system faces, actually,
millions of attempted cyberattacks every single day, according
to our State Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.
So I maybe pose this to some of the State and local
representatives, and ask you all, how are you working to secure
your systems against intrusions?
Do you have the personnel and resources you need?
Is there anything else that you would want to share with
us, in terms of how the Federal Government can do more to help?
Ms. Powell. Representative Malinowski, this is Kishia
Powell, if I may.
DC Water certainly looked at the incident in Florida, and
did another assessment on our systems. We are continuously
monitoring. We are fortunate enough to have cybersecurity
personnel that are constantly monitoring our systems, which are
critical systems, and our distribution system and wastewater
treatment process. That also takes additional funding to
maintain that infrastructure, and to make sure that we are
resilient against any potential attacks.
As the former commissioner of the city of Atlanta's
Department of Watershed Management, I had to live through
managing that system through the attack in early 2018 that the
city of Atlanta experienced, so I would say that this is a very
critical issue for all water and wastewater systems that
certainly need to have the appropriate funding to make sure
that we can not only hire the right people, but also have the
right systems and security measures in place.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Malinowski, your time is up, sir.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Ms. Powell. We go on
to Mr. Mast.
You may proceed.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, ma'am, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate
it.
This has been spoken about at length. I want to just
reiterate the need to update the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund. It is so important for so many different States across
the country. It has been spoken about in length, and I just
want to reiterate my support for that, as well. I know we had a
hearing back in February, I want to say, where we spoke quite a
bit about this issue, as well.
I want to speak a little bit about leadership for our
country at this point. And as we talk about water management,
and our Federal agencies, let's talk about this a little bit at
30,000 feet. If I were to ask any of you, as our witnesses, to
complete the sentence, could you complete it for me: Lead by .
. .
Go ahead.
Mr. Ferrante. Lead by example.
Mr. Mast. Lead by example. Anybody disagree with that?
You think you would all complete that sentence in that way,
``Lead by example''?
And here is where I am going with this. As the Federal
Government looks at water management, whether it is wastewater,
or whether it is algal blooms, or anything else, we have these
siloed Federal agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
or the EPA, or others, and we will have the EPA make statements
and determinations and conduct studies that our own Federal
agencies won't adhere to. That is a major problem. That is not
leading by example. That is an example of the left hand not
talking to the right hand.
And as I look at that as a situation, if we are going to
have the EPA, and put all this these resources--and let the EPA
go out there and say, ``This needs to happen in this way, we do
not recommend you, State, that you do this, or you, person with
a farm or a ranch, that you do this, or you, person with a
business, that you do this,'' how in God's name do we allow
other Federal agencies to do what one of the other Federal
agencies is telling everybody else not to do?
I don't really know why that is allowed to occur, but I
would love to give--you are witnesses--a chance to sound off a
little bit on that, as a statement, you know, I agree, I
disagree, pound sand, whatever, you know. But if you would like
to sound off on that, I would love to hear it, and have a
little discussion on that.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Unmute, please.
Mr. Neukrug. Thank you. Howard Neukrug from the Water
Center at Penn and, you know, we are dealing with these issues
everywhere, and you are absolutely right about the siloed
activities that are going on at the agencies. And part of it is
because the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act are
siloed also, and they kind of created that kind of situation.
Unfortunately, that siloing has gone down into the water
utility.
But when you look at this, when you really look at this, it
is bigger than that. You are not just looking at a silo, the
issue of the day [audio malfunction] but you are really looking
at a community, you are trying to figure out what is best for
this community. There is only so much money, and there are so
many priorities, and they differ from block to block and from
neighborhood to neighborhood.
And I think the real secret here is how do we identify what
the community needs, what their priorities are, and then how do
we get the Federal Government agencies to assist those
communities in what they need, whether it is a enforcement
against an industry, or whether it is some funding, or whatever
it may be. So it is a----
Mr. Mast. I would love to pause you right there. I think
you said something extremely important that has to be the goal
of Congress: What does the community need? How are we of the
people, by the people, for the people?
And my time is running dry, but I think the important part
of what you said there, one of the important parts of what you
said there was--that I would read into in this way. No
community needs the Federal Government to go out there and
poison them.
I don't know of one community across this country that
says, yes, I need the Corps of Engineers or some other arm of
the Federal Government to come in and mess up a part of my
community.
And with that I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Mast, very much, for your
testimony and your question.
Mr. Carbajal, you may proceed.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Ferrante, as part of America's Water Infrastructure Act
of 2018, Congress established a Drinking Water System
Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Program at EPA.
This was based on legislation I worked on called the Water
Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Act, also known as
WIRSA. The program's purpose is to help small drinking water
systems make their infrastructure resilient to natural hazards,
including those associated with climate change and extreme
weather.
Do you believe it is important to also advance policies to
ensure the Nation's wastewater infrastructure is similarly
prepared to withstand the effects of climate change and extreme
weather?
And what sort of resilience and adaptation challenges are
you facing at your utility?
Mr. Ferrante. Thank you for that question, and thank you
for your leadership on the issue. And to answer your question
is, absolutely, wastewater treatment plants and utilities need
to be included.
We do have our own unique challenges when it comes to
climate change, and we are seeing a number of impacts. I think
some of the other speakers before talked about infiltration and
inflow into sewer systems that occurs during rainfall events.
And what we are seeing here, and even in southern California,
we are seeing less rain, but when it rains, it rains very
powerfully, very locally, and can inundate sewer systems.
And we have had also, even though our overall flow is down,
as I mentioned before, because of water conservation, we are
seeing some of these big storms can really tax our whole
system. And that is one reason why we have really had to look
at our overall capacity, as well. So there is a number of
issues there.
And then, of course, we all know the number of people that
live in coastal communities around not only in California, but
around the country. And those areas are not only seeing, you
know, potentially, the effects of sea level rise, but storm
surges are becoming more and more significant. And when you now
couple a flooding event, flooding a sewage pumping plant that
is along the coast, now you have really created a bad problem
and made it worse when you have mixed in, unfortunately,
wastewater. So there are a number of activities.
We have started looking and doing our own assessments at
our treatment plants. We are going to try and do our complete
system here in the next couple of years, in terms of what we
have to do. But by all means, if there could be an incentive
and funding for wastewater utilities to do that, especially the
smaller ones that don't have the expertise in-house to do it,
that would be very helpful because, obviously, now these
systems are so integrated, too, when you talk about recycled
water, that it is not just the wastewater, it could be
something that is a new supply and a recycled water, and leads
to drinking water. So they are linked----
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Ferrante. I am trying to get
in a second question.
Ms. Hammer, I represent a coastal district in California,
and we have seen our fair share of extreme weather events due
to climate change. Apart from addressing the climate crisis,
what steps should wastewater systems be taking, steps to
prepare their infrastructure and operations, to withstand the
effects of climate change and extreme weather?
And two, can you discuss the importance of a standalone
grant program for clean water resilience projects that you
discussed in your testimony?
Ms. Hammer. Thanks for the question. There is a lot that
wastewater and stormwater utilities can be doing to build
resilience to climate impact. You know, distributed green
infrastructure throughout their service area is one way to
reduce the amount of water that is entering the system, which
can be incredibly helpful in combined sewer systems.
Of course, that is not going to solve every problem that
faces wastewater utilities. A lot of wastewater treatment
plants, as you know, are located in low-lying and coastal
areas, because that is where they need to discharge their
effluent. And so those facilities are extremely vulnerable to
sea level rise. There was a study recently that showed how many
millions of Americans could lose wastewater treatment with even
a modest amount of sea level rise. So those facilities will
need to consider longer term hardening their facilities, or,
ideally, relocating them to higher ground.
In terms of a grant program, we strongly support the grant
program that you have proposed that would enable utilities to
take some of these measures. So thank you. Thank you for your
support.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. I ran out of time, I
yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Carbajal, we very much
appreciate it.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you are next. You may proceed.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all,
thank you for holding these continued hearings that are so
vital for health, safety, and the future economic recovery of
our communities. And I think wastewater management is an
essential part and a component in developing the housing
industry without which a community cannot survive, much less
grow.
In that sense, extreme weather will impact wastewater
infrastructure. Many treatment plants lie in flood risk areas
and locations that will be at risk because of the sea level
rise. And this, of course, requires that any infrastructure
initiative consider there will be conditions in the future on
how those natural disasters that are periodic may now
intensify.
In that sense, that is why, in our disaster relief bills in
the past two Congresses, we included provisions to allow Build
Back Better processes. And these must be part of any program,
since by building to improve standards we can have an
infrastructure that is more resilient and can handle emergency
situations better.
And again, resilient does not mean that infrastructure is
going to be indestructible, it is that we may recover fast
about those emergency situations.
Just in the case of Puerto Rico, the main water utility,
PRASA, in the aftermath of the disaster of 2017, the wastewater
infrastructure suffered over $680 million in immediate damages
under FEMA emergency categories. An additional $3.7 billion
allocation for all water and wastewater operations has been
announced by FEMA.
Of course, securing those priorities of the funding for the
wastewater sector, especially for economically disadvantaged
areas, needs the attention of this committee on where the money
is going to come from. We must consider those communities that
do not have the cash or the resources for matching, or even in-
kind, in order to benefit from any infrastructure rebuilding
initiative.
I think it is important that this committee have the
testimonies of representatives of EPA, and the Army Corps of
Engineers, and other Federal agencies that could actually
oversee important infrastructure. There is many, many funds
that have been approved by FEMA, by the Stafford Act in many
instances, not just in hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding areas
across the Nation. How those Federal agencies are managing with
the local communities and with the local governments in order
to maximize the resources that have been approved, and not
having the same mistakes by investments that are not being
resilient.
So in that sense, I think the expertise of people of the
panel, I just can ask Mr. Colson, Ms. Powell, what will you say
are the specific areas within the wastewater infrastructure
that will increase Federal participation that will make the
greatest impact?
I know we may not have the money for all. Which do you
understand will make the big difference?
Ms. Powell. This is Kishia----
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Whoever on the panel--Ms. Powell, Mr.
Ferrante----
Ms. Powell. Yes, this is Kishia Powell. I agree with
everything that you said, and thank you for the question. It is
critically important that, first, we protect our wastewater
treatment facilities. Blue Plains is the largest advanced
wastewater treatment plant in the world, and we are taking
measures to protect that facility with a flood wall. We are
making that investment with support and grant funding from
FEMA.
It is also important that we protect the pump stations, and
it is important that we invest in the sewers that convey flows
to the treatment plant, and making sure that, where possible,
we are providing additional capacity in our sewers. Much of the
District's sewer system is a combined system, which happens to
cover the most vulnerable communities in the District. And as I
said, when we had a major flash flood event, more than 300
homes were impacted by sewer backups and surface flooding.
So it is important that we make the investments to improve
our wastewater infrastructure so that we don't have continued
impacts to vulnerable communities, which are most often
communities of color, and those that can ill afford the costs
of cleanup and restoration.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Ms. Powell.
I know my time has expired, so I will submit the rest of my
questions to the record. Thank you, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, and we
will proceed with Mr. Stanton, followed by Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding
this important hearing about the need for innovative
investments to ensure our wastewater infrastructure is
resilient against the impacts of climate change.
The Southwest is rapidly changing and growing, and nowhere
is it more evident than in my State of Arizona. In 2019,
Arizona ranked third in population growth, with many of our
communities growing significantly faster than the national
average.
We are also facing extended drought and extreme heat, and
last summer was Arizona's hottest on record. These facts make
our water needs both serious and urgent. To sustainably welcome
and provide for the millions of people who call our region
home, we must invest in our water infrastructure and secure our
water future. And those investments need to be partnerships, as
well, partnerships at the local, State, and Federal level
between urban, rural, and Tribal communities.
As the former mayor of Phoenix, I know firsthand that local
leaders must be innovative when it comes to addressing our
infrastructure and planning for our water future. And frankly,
we can't afford the alternative. We know that the future of our
residents and our economy depends on how well we anticipate,
plan, and respond to our water-related challenges and the
continuing impacts of climate change.
In Phoenix, we have long recognized the need to adapt to
climate change, and this has only become more urgent in the
last 20 years, as prolonged drought has taken a significant
toll on the Colorado River, which supplies the city with nearly
40 percent of its water. As mayor, we established the Colorado
River Resiliency Fund to set aside capital dollars specifically
for investment in resiliency efforts along the Colorado River.
This fund has not only ensured the city has the water supplies
necessary to meet its growing needs, but that water will be
available in uncertain times of drought and climate change.
Arizona has also led the way in the use of reclaimed water.
The city of Phoenix reclaims wastewater and uses artificial
wetlands to improve its quality after it leaves the plant. The
Cities of Mesa and Chandler in my district, they partner with
the Gila River Indian Community to reclaim wastewater and
deliver it to the Tribe, where it is used for non-food-crop
agriculture. For every 5 acre-feet delivered, Mesa and Chandler
receive 4 acre-feet of Colorado River water that can be used to
meet potable demands. The partnership has helped the Gila River
Indian Community access additional water, and at the same time,
Mesa and Chandler benefit by converting reclaimed water into a
potable supply.
These investments are necessary, but they are costly,
especially for smaller communities that do not have the
population base to support major investments at levels that are
affordable. Local governments are doing their part, but now it
is critical that, here in the Federal Government, we do our
part to support and incentivize water reuse and recycling
projects through robust investment in the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund.
My first question is for Mr. Ferrante. How important is
water reuse and recycling to ensuring our infrastructure is
resilient and sustainable, particularly as we continue to
experience prolonged drought in the Southwest and the Colorado
River Basin?
Mr. Ferrante. Thank you for that question. And I think I
have mentioned it before, but I will reiterate it. I think the
water recycling is a must as we move forward with respect to
being resilient to climate change and the drought.
The last drought here a few years ago in southern
California took the groundwater basins to near record-low
levels. And that has significant impacts. Not only does it eat
up whatever supply or buffer you had against a prolonged low
period, but it increases pumping costs, makes pumping more
difficult out of those groundwater basins, too. That affects a
whole population, everybody across the board here.
So water recycling has to be a core endeavor. All of these
systems are intertwined, too. southern California, as you are
well aware, depends on the Colorado River, as well, as well as
the State aqueduct system here, too. And all the recycling that
we can do here means this region needs less of that water, and
allows more of the water to stay locally. So it is a must, not
only for our area, but also for the benefit of the overall
Southwest region.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much. My time is up. I yield
back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Stanton. And with that we
will go to Mr. Katko, followed by Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Katko is next. I am sorry, Ms. Norton,
that was Mr. Stanton. Mr. Katko is next. Is Mr. Katko
available?
Mr. Katko. Yes, I am. Yes, I am. Thank you very much, Madam
Chair, and thank you, all the witnesses, for joining us today.
Given the focus of this discussion on improving the
efficiency, adaptability, and resiliency of our water
utilities, I would like to hear from the panel on how the
deployment of smart water technologies can help achieve these
goals.
As we know, these tools can help utility operators rapidly
identify inefficiencies, blockages, or potential water loss
points across treatment collection and distribution systems.
Additionally, expanding the deployment of innovative sensors
can assist with the proactive identification of environmental
hazards, as well as resiliency and risk mitigation efforts
focused on long-term vulnerabilities.
Finally, these increased efficiencies and decreased costs
on the provider side translate to real savings and more
affordable water for ratepayers.
Lastly, I introduced the ARPA-H2O Act to expand Federal
investments in innovative water technologies, and I look
forward to working with the committee to continue advancing
these priorities this year.
Mr. Neukrug, what successful use cases for smart water
technologies have you observed in your research?
Mr. Neukrug. Well, thank you for that question. Certainly,
we are looking at--and it is being installed all over the U.S.
and the world right now--are automatic metering systems that
give immediate response to homeowners to let them know if they
have a leaky toilet, or there is too much water being used in
the property. And you take that, and extend it out, as you
indicated, to new sensors that can work in the distribution
system to identify where leakage happens, and stop that pretty
quickly.
So, you know, just from that area of the distribution
system, you have an incredible ability to reduce costs, reduce
water loss, and improve the overall health of the water.
You move further into the treatment plants, and you can
also see that there is a lot of major activity happening with
digitization of how you take all the different information you
have, all the big data, what our utilities are collecting data
on, on a minute-by-minute basis, and it is too much for anybody
to be able to assess. You need some form of artificial
intelligence to take this data, and put it down, and make it so
that you can use this data properly, as things come up, and
also to just have a record that things are going well.
So those are a few examples of the smart water systems. I
love the new--my favorite is these pictures that I have from--
particularly, from some of the Asian communities, where they
are using floating solar cells, and using this, and they help
protect the water supply because they prevent the evaporation
of reservoirs, and water quality, and also producing the kind
of electricity that we all need.
Mr. Katko. Thank you very much.
Mr. Colson, have you observed similar use cases in your
work with the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities?
Mr. Colson. I have not personally worked with smart
sensors. However, I know a lot of our utilities are using big
data and artificial intelligence to analyze their situation.
I think, for a lot of our small systems, the challenge is
conveying that information down to the local community, where a
town manager is the town manager, but he is also the public
works director. And that is a real challenge for them to
understand the technology, but also take the risk of investing
in that technology when there is uncertainty of the technology,
and how long it will last.
Mr. Katko. So what do we do, Mr. Colson, to try and bridge
that gap, the educational knowledge gap on the local level?
Because to me, that is critically important for--and you
are exactly right, a lot of these people wear several different
hats as part of being in a town, and they can't understand it
to the depth and extent that folks like you and Mr. Neukrug and
others can. So what do we do in that regard?
Mr. Colson. I think that is why resource agencies are so
important in water infrastructure management, and in meeting
our water infrastructure needs. Agencies like Rural Water
Association, our Environmental Finance Centers across the
country, those are important aspects to helping the utilities
and lifting them up so the utility itself can be resilient, so
that the infrastructure they manage can be resilient.
Mr. Katko. OK, thank you very much, gentlemen. I have many
more questions, but my time is up, so I will yield back.
And Mrs. Napolitano, as always, it is wonderful to see you,
my friend.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, my friend, and thank you for
your questions.
I will now yield to Ms. Norton, followed by Mr. Lowenthal.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this very important
hearing, and my first question is for Ms. Powell.
Your testimony--and I am quoting you--``Climate change is
all about water,'' it couldn't be more true. And again, I am
quoting you, ``Water is life.'' So this is so important, and as
is this hearing focused on climate change.
In your testimony you mentioned that thermal energy in DC
sewers is unique to the District, and yet is untapped, I guess,
elsewhere. I wish you would elaborate on that. What are the
advantages, what is the importance?
Ms. Powell. Yes, ma'am, and thank you for the question, Ms.
Norton.
Thermal energy in DC Water sewers is not unique to the
District, but unique to DC Water in the district. As the single
largest energy consumer in the District of Columbia, we sit on
a significant amount of green energy potential. We are
currently doing combined heat and power generation at the Blue
Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant. We have implemented
a first phase of solar projects, which, in turn, helps to
reduce, through the DC Solar for All program, energy burden on
vulnerable households. And we are looking at additional phases
of solar at Blue Plains, as well as our other facilities.
And as part of our energy opportunities focus, which we
reinvigorated at the start of the year, we are looking at many
projects to utilize the thermal energy from our sewers and our
wastewater treatment process. The headquarters building that I
am sitting in right now is 100 percent supplied by thermal
energy from the pump station that our headquarters is wrapped
around, and we have identified more than 200--I believe 200--
megawatts of thermal energy that exists in our sewers, should
we be able to harness that and potentially use that in other
areas of the District.
Ms. Norton. Well, what the District is doing is a terrific
example for the rest of the country in this regard.
I understand that ratepayers are currently paying 95
percent of the costs associated with this energy. What are the
most effective steps we and the Congress can take to reduce the
burden on ordinary customers?
Ms. Powell. I think the work that the committee is doing
now, as I mentioned, the legislation that is being considered
to provide close to $50 billion in funding for water and
wastewater infrastructure, is a start. But I think we
definitely need to make sure that there is more grant funding.
We also need to make sure that there is a Federal low-
income water assistance program, because, even though DC's
rates are moderately low, they are increasing, just as other
utilities across the country. Every community has vulnerable
households that still can't afford it. And we have to continue
to make investments. Even though the investments that we are
making in DC are cost-effective, and we are using any savings
that are generated from our investments to reinvest in other
critical infrastructure, we have to be mindful that it presents
a burden on local ratepayers.
Ms. Norton. Well, thank you for that response.
Ms. Hammer, you have noted, I think, quite correctly, that
frequent flooding and heavy precipitation events pose a threat
to wastewater service. In your opinion, what are the ways that
public water systems like our own, for example, can prepare for
these extreme weather events?
Ms. Hammer. Thanks for that question. And just, you know,
anecdotally, we have seen so many extreme weather events just
here in the DC area. I live in Alexandria, Virginia, and we
have had three 100-year storms, I think, in the last year,
which is causing a lot of wastewater infrastructure and
stormwater infrastructure problems.
Again, I would just emphasize the importance of deploying
more distributed green infrastructure that can soak up the
water before it hits the sewer system in the first place. It is
incredibly cost effective, when you factor in the long-term
operations and maintenance, compared to hard infrastructure.
And it is also more scalable than hard infrastructure, which is
really--once you build it, it is locked in, and it is not very
adaptable to changing rainfall patterns.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. My time is virtually
expired.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Norton. And right now I
should go back to Mr. LaMalfa, if he is available. Sorry, Mr.
Lowenthal.
Mr. LaMalfa?
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. LaMalfa?
I guess he is not on. Mr. Lowenthal, you are next----
Mr. Lowenthal. I am available, and it is good to see you,
Madam Chair, and I want to thank you and all the witnesses for
this very, very interesting hearing on wastewater, on building
resiliency, and sustainable wastewater infrastructure.
And I also want to thank especially Mr. Ferrante talking
about the importance of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
for infrastructure, and also the tremendous need for water
recycling. My district in southern California is about half-
and-half between L.A. County and Orange County. But I
especially want to point out the leadership of Orange County in
wastewater recycling. They have done a phenomenal job.
But I am interested in the prevention side. We are talking
about the infrastructure, but I would like to know whether you
are aware of what is getting into your wastewater, what is
getting into our entire water stream. And that is the global
crisis of and the failure of our recycling systems. And that is
the plastic pollution, which is a crisis throughout the world
now, and throughout our Nation.
You know that less than 8 percent of the products that we
get are ever going into a recycling bin. And of that, only 3
percent actually gets put into new products. So the vast
majority of our plastics end up in incinerators, and out in the
ocean, in our wastewater. And so I am interested, do you see
this problem?
And I have a bill. I work on the prevention side. How are
we going to break free from plastic pollution, and how, instead
of holding agencies like your agencies, and counties, and
cities from doing recycling themselves, hold the producers
accountable, in terms of extended producer responsibility
projects? That is what I am working on, and I have a bill with
Senator Merkley over in the Senate called the Break Free from
Plastic Pollution Act.
The problems are--is that the growth we--you know, Senator
Merkley keeps pointing out we are ingesting, from our water
system or our food, about a credit card's worth of plastic into
our system a week, all of us. That is the average now, studies
are saying. A broken recycling system, microfibers from wet
wipes are going into our--they are not supposed to be flushed,
but they end up in our waste system. Plastics are breaking down
into microplastics. They are all going into our water system
and our wastewater system.
Let me just ask the panelists, are you aware of this
problem, and is this an issue of concern for those dealing with
wastewater?
I am talking about the prevention of this because I don't
think that you should be the ones that are responsible for
cleaning it up, either. But I want to understand how you are
dealing with the issue of plastic and plastic pollution that is
getting into our waste stream.
Mr. Ferrante. I appreciate the question, and I guess I will
try and answer it first here, but yes, we are concerned about
microplastic pollution.
Our agency, as well as Orange County, is part of the
Southern California Coastal Water Research Program, which
conducts monitoring off the coast of southern California. It is
called the Bight. And one of the assessments it has started
doing is looking at plastic pollution that is in the ocean, in
the sediments. And unfortunately, it is finding more and more
of it getting into our oceans.
So we are concerned about it, and we are developing methods
to be able to monitor the microfibers that you discussed to see
its fate through our treatment plants. For the most part, we
have filtration as our tertiary--or towards the end of our
plants, and that does a good job of removing almost all of the
microplastics.
But it is an issue of concern, and we do definitely support
the producer responsibility that you are talking about,
because, when you look at these issues across emerging
contaminants and other issues, source control is, by far, the
best and most efficient way to reduce pollution. By the time it
comes to us, it comes in concentrations and mixed with other
waste that make it very difficult to remove, whether it be
microplastics or other things.
So source control is--and source reduction--with a producer
responsibility, is definitely the way to go, and I will let
somebody else expand on that.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry, Mr. Lowenthal, you are out of
time.
Mr. Lowenthal. For now, I am out of time for now, but this
issue is not going away.
Mrs. Napolitano. You can put your questions in writing form
for us, please.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. And next, Mr. Huffman, you may proceed.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope you can hear me
on my cell phone here, I had some technical difficulties.
But this is a very important subject. I am glad you
convened this hearing. And as we invest in wastewater
infrastructure, I think it is important that we do that with an
eye toward the 21st century, making sure we ``build back
better.'' That needs to include the challenges of climate
change. And we know that wastewater infrastructure has to be
ready for sea level rise, as well as stronger, more frequent
storms, flooding, and drought. Others have spoken to that.
The bipartisan Water Quality Protection and Job Creation
Act, which I am very proud to cosponsor, would help us. It
would reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and it
includes many provisions to mitigate and respond to climate
change. So I would like to ask Ms. Hammer, if I could start
there, about the success that we have seen with green and
nature-based infrastructure projects in helping manage
stormwater, trapping pollutants before they can reach
ecosystems like the San Francisco Bay.
And if you could, please, describe how these green and
nature-based infrastructure projects support clean water,
climate resilience, and how Congress can promote more of this.
Ms. Hammer. Thanks for the question. Green infrastructure,
of course, is kind of a catch-all term for a whole bunch of
different practices, but they all work in more or less the same
way, which is that they mimic nature by capturing rainwater
where it falls, infiltrating into the ground, having it taken
up by plants, or capturing it for reuse, which reduces the
amount of runoff that is going into waterways, and recharges
groundwater supplies, addressing a number of different climate
impacts. And because so many of them use vegetation, they also
store carbon and help reduce the carbon impacts of climate
change, as well.
So the green project reserve and the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, is--we have been talking about that a lot
today, it is such an important source of funding. Despite the
fact that it has made up a relatively small proportion of Clean
Water SRF assistance to date, I think we can do a lot better
using that program to incentivize those projects by making it
permanent, and also increasing the amount of additional
subsidization that is available for those and other projects.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you for bringing up the green reserves.
And I want to ask Mr. Neukrug about that, as well.
More and more utilities are getting involved in renewable
energy, producing enough to manage their own operations,
sometimes even selling it, the excess, on the market. And in my
district, in Healdsburg, I recently toured a photovoltaic
project, where a 25-million-gallon wastewater pond now contains
11,600 solar panels, not only producing enough clean energy for
the city of Healdsburg--not just the wastewater plant, but the
city--but also providing algae control, preventing algae from
building up in that project.
Can you speak a little bit to how this green reserve is an
important way to support innovation in wastewater, like what we
are doing in Healdsburg?
Mr. Neukrug. Oh, it is so incredibly important. It is--you
know, essentially, there is--we are prioritizing our
environmental needs, because there is not enough money to do
everything that we need to do. And having a green reserve is
really incredibly important, because it is dealing with the
innovation and the new types of systems that we want to put in
place for the next 50, 100 years. This stuff has to last, we
can't replace this every 10 years.
And with the uncertainty with climate, you want to do
things that are a little bit more decentralized perhaps, so
that you are not putting all your eggs in one basket. And just
really simple examples here is this--when you look at the
wastewater plants, and you look at the outfalls, and you
realize that all these plants are going to have to be moved or
maybe pumps added that are going to have to run continuously so
you can pump the wastewater, the effluent higher than the
ocean.
These are all serious concerns that are going to take a lot
of money, and a lot of work together amongst everyone on this,
everyone on this call, and many others in order for us to
resolve that.
Mr. Huffman. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Huffman, it is very nice of
you to come on.
Mr. Kahele, you are next. You may proceed.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Kahele?
Mr. Kahele. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the
opportunity to waive on to the committee hearing today on your
agenda. I really appreciate that, and giving me this
opportunity.
I am here because there is a major issue in my district and
in the State of Hawaii as it relates to water and clean water.
And that is our cesspools, and our very disturbing state of our
water treatment facilities throughout the State of Hawaii. I
think Hawaii, in many cases, can be viewed as the best example
in a developed nation which has one of the worst sewage
disposal and contamination problems that exist that affect our
freshwater supply, our streams, and our nearshore environments.
And I appreciate the testimony of the testifiers today. It
has a lot of great information here for me to take back to my
district. In Hawaii, Chair, we have about 88,000 cesspools that
still exist throughout the State. They discharge about 53
million gallons daily of raw, untreated sewage into the
groundwater that ends up in our freshwater supply, our streams,
our nearshore marine environments. We have AOCs from the EPA
throughout Hawaii. We violate the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
EPA's requirement to, I guess, get rid of large-capacity
cesspools since 2005 that have been in existence in Hawaii. And
it is a dire situation that we have.
So I am here to learn about what we can do in Hawaii to
address this, and my question is to Ms. Hammer regarding your
testimony. There is tremendous opportunity in this Congress to
address America's infrastructure, including the needs of our
wastewater.
As I just described, Hawaii has great wastewater needs, and
we lead the country in the number of cesspools that exist
throughout the Hawaiian Islands. In addition, we have
wastewater treatment facilities that have not been maintained,
and it is facing a crisis.
Can you talk a little bit about how, in Hawaii, we can
address these problems, especially in rural communities like
the Second Congressional District that do not have the ability
to connect to sewer lines, or local geology like a shallow
water table near coastal areas, like you mentioned earlier,
make it difficult to upgrade?
Ms. Hammer. Thank you for the question. Unfortunately,
Hawaii is not the only place in this country where access to
sanitation is a dire issue. We have also seen serious problems
in Tribal communities in the Southwest, as well as communities
in the Black Belt of Alabama.
There are technical solutions that are being developed. I
would refer you to the work of Catherine Flowers, who is a true
champion on this issue.
In terms of policy solutions, these are the kinds of
problems that we see in rural areas, low-income areas that
traditionally do not have the rate base to take out a
traditional Clean Water SRF loan that they would then have to
repay. It is very difficult for them for many reasons, which is
one reason why it is so important to bring more additional
subsidization and grants into the SRF program, so that we don't
have a two-tier sanitation system in this country, where
wealthy communities have functional infrastructure and small,
rural, disadvantaged communities have cesspools that are
failing.
So that would be my primary recommendation, is to make sure
that more grant funding is available.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you, that is something I will try and
push for in this Congress.
With the remaining use of my time, Mr. Colson, my
congressional district comprises eight of the main Hawaiian
Islands, many, many small communities, former plantation
communities. How can we make the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund more flexible for small communities in my district?
Mr. Colson. Thank you for that question. I think it is
important to recognize the impact of Federal mandates on these
small communities and in the SRFs to ensure that we can meet
the needs of those small communities, and one of the aspects is
technical assistance to ensure that they are able to, not just
get the water infrastructure funded, but also to maintain and
operate it, and to build the rates that they need to renew that
infrastructure when it has reached its useful life.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you, Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Kahele. That wraps up all
the witness testimony.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry, I have a problem, but I wanted
to comment on a few things.
First of all, education of the public about what you are
doing, and having them aware of how important it is that you
are successful in getting funded, not only from the [inaudible]
on things that you are talking about.
I understand that today California may be in drought again.
So the Governor is going to make a statement, I understand. The
Bureau of Reclamation is saying the 24-month projection of the
Colorado River is dire. So we are in need of recycled water
continuing to grow and help our agencies.
But I miss Earth Day. Mr. Ferrante; 2 years now we haven't
had Earth Day, so I miss it.
And then maybe there might be some help for Mr. Kahele from
you, into what lessons you have learned, what you can do.
But I really thank everybody.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such a time as all our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may have been submitted
to them in writing.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted
by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
And without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank all our witnesses again for your
helpful and informative testimony today, and I want to thank
staff for all their help.
If no other Members have anything to add, the committee
stands adjourned. Stay safe, everybody, and thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 1:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Submissions for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Napolitano and Ranking Member Rouzer, for holding
this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for being here.
Communities continue to face shifting challenges and increasing
costs related to wastewater infrastructure.
To address this, they may look to incorporate water conservation
and energy efficiency practices to reduce energy costs at wastewater
treatment plants.
We will also discuss the challenges communities face in responding
to extreme weather events and how wastewater facilities can improve
their resiliency to endure such events and maintain their critical
operations.
I understand these challenges well. In my home state of Missouri,
we experienced devastating floods in 2019--dangers that continue to
threaten many of the same areas.
However, as we discuss policies to address these challenges, it is
important to keep in mind that small and rural communities may face
differing sets of circumstances and have difficulties implementing
programs that work well in urban areas. So, flexibility in programs,
permitting, and meeting regulatory requirements is important.
I look forward to hearing more from our panel of experts here today
about these issues and solutions that can address the unique needs of
different communities.
I yield back.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano for holding today's hearing to
continue our engagement in an in-depth exploration of the potential
policies and practices that would allow our nation to increase the
resiliency and sustainability of our wastewater utilities. Investing
more substantially in our wastewater infrastructure system would also
provide a vehicle for our nation to more easily meet the requirements
of the Clean Water Act. I would like to thank our outstanding witnesses
for testifying today, and my colleagues on the Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittee for working to address the critical issues
before us. Beyond a doubt, all Americans need to have access to clean
water, and making substantive improvements to our nation's wastewater
systems would benefit not only our nation's need for clean water but
also provide tremendous environmental benefits to our planet overall.
Certainly, the need to improve our wastewater treatment systems and
stormwater infrastructure is clearly an urgent one. Indeed, as
evidenced by the American Society of Civil Engineers 2021 Report Card
for America's Infrastructure, the grade for wastewater treatment
infrastructure has remained at a D+ for the last four years, while the
new category of stormwater infrastructure has received a grade of D.
Moreover, according to the most recent needs survey from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency conducted nearly 10 years ago,
communities nationwide have documented at least $271 billion of
investment over the next 20 years to bring their systems to a state of
good repair. However, although these figures and environmental
evaluation appear discouraging, we know that we have an opportunity to
make significant improvements to our wastewater systems, and thereby
augment our energy efficiency. One item that I believe needs to be
incorporated into a model for improving our wastewater systems is to
adopt renewable energy technologies. These ``green'' technologies are
indispensable to our nation's effort to increase efficiency while
simultaneously decreasing energy costs and environmental footprint.
In the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, local governments are making major
investments in critical wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. Over
the next two years the city of Dallas will invest approximately $270
million on wastewater infrastructure, replacing miles of wastewater
pipes and making tens of millions of dollars in upgrades to the city's
two wastewater treatment plants. In addition, the city has embarked on
an ambitious $34 million plan to extend water and wastewater
infrastructure to unserved portions of the city, many of which are in
my district. The unserved areas program will increase equity across
Dallas' water and wastewater systems and provide service to all
residents. And in addition to local efforts to fund this critical
infrastructure, we need to ensure that federal dollars are being
adequately invested as well.
I want to again thank you, Madam Chair, for holding today's
hearing. I am pleased that our subcommittee is working to increase
funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund and to
reauthorize the WIFIA Loan Program. And I am looking forward to
expanding even beyond those proposals and augmenting federal investment
in this critical area to serve the water needs not only of my
constituents, but of Americans across the United States.

Statement of Patricia Sinicropi, Executive Director, WateReuse
Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Grace F. Napolitano
Thank you for providing the opportunity to submit written testimony
on Sustainable Wastewater Infrastructure: Measures to Promote
Resiliency and Climate Adaptation and Mitigation. I submit this
testimony today on behalf of the WateReuse Association and its members
to highlight the importance of water reuse and recycling in building
resiliency and strengthening America's infrastructure.
WateReuse is a not-for-profit trade association for water
utilities, businesses, industrial and commercial enterprises, non-
profit organizations, and research entities that advocate for water
recycling. WateReuse and its state and regional sections represent
nearly 250 water utilities serving over 60 million customers, and over
200 businesses and organizations across the country. The WateReuse
Association's mission is to engage its members in a movement for safe
and sustainable water supplies, to promote acceptance and support of
recycled water, and to advocate for policies and funding that increase
water reuse.
Water reuse, also known as water recycling, is the process of
intentionally capturing wastewater, stormwater, saltwater or graywater
and cleaning it as needed for a designated beneficial freshwater
purpose, such as drinking, industrial processes, irrigation,
groundwater replenishment, and watershed restoration. The fundamental
principle of water reuse is using the right water for the right
purpose, everywhere and all the time. By advancing water reuse, we
protect and enhance the environment while helping communities build
resilience to climate change.
Across the country, water, wastewater, and stormwater managers have
shown that water recycling is often a central feature in innovative,
integrated approaches to solving water management challenges, including
challenges brought on by climate change. In the West and South, the
integration of water recycling has often been driven by water supply
challenges and the need for drought-resilient supplies. Elsewhere in
the country, in the Pacific Northwest, and in cities such as Chicago,
Atlanta, and New York, water recycling has been used to help manage
stormwater, address water quality challenges, and relieve overburdened
combined sewer-stormwater management systems. Water reuse is also
helping communities along our coasts manage sea level rise and
saltwater intrusion by replenishing depleted coastal aquifers.
Some important examples of how communities and businesses are
turning to water reuse to ensure stronger and more resilient supplies
include:
By 2035, the City of Los Angeles expects to recycle 100%
of its water supplies and reduce its reliance on costly imported water
from the Colorado River.
Truckee Meadows Water Authority in Reno is planning 13-
mile pipeline to provide 1.3 billion gallons of recycled water annually
to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, home to Tesla, Switch and Google,
and ensure 20,000 jobs remain in Nevada.
The Hampton Roads region of Virginia, home to the largest
concentration of military and naval installations, plans to recycle
100% of its effluent through an aquifer recovery system to prevent
rising sea levels from threatening inundating the entire region.

These are just some of the countless examples of how water
recycling is becoming an essential ingredient in efforts to preserve
American jobs, businesses and communities as the country adapts and
builds resilience to fight climate change.
In order to promote resiliency and climate adaptation and
mitigation, WateReuse strongly urges Congress to substantially increase
investments in each of the following programs in FY 2022, through both
the annual appropriations process and through an infrastructure
package:
Pilot Program for Alternative Water Source Grants;
Title XVI--WIIN Water Reclamation and Reuse Competitive
Grants Program;
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants
Program; and
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program.

Investment in water reuse builds communities that are modern,
sustainable and stable--ready for families to flourish and businesses
to grow. We urge Congress to act swiftly to provide communities the
tools and resources they need to modernize their infrastructure, build
resilience, and protect the environment and public health.
Thank you for considering our testimony. Please do not hesitate to
reach out the WateReuse Association's Policy Director, Greg Fogel, at
gfogel@watereuse.org with any questions.

Letter of May 19, 2021, from Jeffrey Soth, Legislative and Political
Director, International Union of Operating Engineers, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
May 19, 2021.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
2134 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Sam Graves,
1135 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano,
1610 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. David Rouzer,
2333 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairs and Ranking Members,
We were deeply disappointed to see the attack on Davis-Bacon
prevailing wages launched by the representative of the Council of
Infrastructure Financing Authorities at your recent subcommittee
hearing on water infrastructure, ``Sustainable Wastewater
Infrastructure: Measures to Promote Resiliency and Climate Adaptation
and Mitigation.'' The International Union of Operating Engineers
submits the following statement to correct the hearing record and
respond to serious errors in testimony submitted by the representative
of the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities (CIFA).
The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) represents
400,000 working men and women in North America, thousands of whom build
and maintain water, wastewater, and other critical infrastructure
throughout the United States. Members of the IUOE perform millions of
hours of work annually building wastewater systems financed by the
Clean Water Act-State Revolving Fund program. Stationary engineers of
the IUOE also maintain and operate wastewater systems in private and
public settings across the nation. The IUOE is also a longstanding
member of the nation's largest, oldest water-infrastructure advocacy
coalition, the Water Infrastructure Network.
Introduction
The Davis-Bacon Act celebrated its 90th anniversary in March, and,
unfortunately, the attacks--like the one launched by CIFA on the law--
have taken much the same form in that long history. First, CIFA
dismisses the impact of the law on blue-collar construction workers'
livelihoods. Prevailing wage, they say, `` . . . is not an issue.''
Next, they argue that administrative compliance is so burdensome that
the ends are hardly justified by the means. According to CIFA, ``The
problem is the prescriptive paperwork and process required to
demonstrate compliance . . . ''
Contrary to CIFA's argument that payment of prevailing wages ``is
not an issue,'' cheating on prevailing wages is rampant. In fiscal year
2017, the United States Department of Labor assisted over 7,780 workers
to obtain back wages for violations of federal prevailing wage laws,
totaling over $29 million in recovered wages. In April, the Attorney
General of Pennsylvania sued in the ``largest prevailing wage criminal
case on record--under Pennsylvania prevailing wage law and across the
United States under federal law.'' Moreover, all these violations were
prosecuted in an environment where enforcement has been deprioritized.
Between 1975 and 2004, the number of DOL investigators decreased by
fourteen percent while the number of businesses covered by FLSA rose by
more than 100%. And at the end of January 2021, the Wage and Hour
Division's overall headcount was at 794 investigators, down from more
than 1,000 employed during the Obama years. Clearly, prevailing wage is
very much ``an issue.'' Please do not allow CIFA and other opponents of
the Davis-Bacon Act to dismiss its importance to the livelihoods of
construction workers and the quality of construction owned by the
public.
If prevailing wage laws increased labor and administrative costs
without having any other effects, the costs would be passed through to
governments in the form of higher total project costs. Yet the most
thorough review of the literature on the subject concluded that the
most ``comprehensive studies have found that the impact [of prevailing
wage standards] is not statistically significant'' on total
construction costs. (EPI_Report.pdf [actwv.org])
Administration of the Davis-Bacon Act
Awarding Agencies
CIFA provides no evidence to support the position that compliance
with prevailing wage laws is ``very prescriptive.'' Furthermore, the
administrative requirements of the Act are critical to the prevention
of fraud against government agencies and necessary to ensure that
government contractors do not profit by failing to pay the minimum
wage--the wage floor--to which construction workers are entitled. It is
worth noting that the submission of certified payrolls through the
Davis-Bacon Act serves as the only additional protection afforded
taxpayers against kickbacks, misclassification, and unauthorized
workers on public projects.
The costs of complying with the Davis-Bacon Act are minimal for
both awarding agencies and contractors. The ``administrative burden''
for an awarding agency associated with prevailing-wage compliance is
negligible. The steps required of an agency are not a mystery. They are
simple and straightforward. They are as follows:
1. Obtain wage rates (beta.SAM.gov/Wage Determinations)
2. Insert legal requirement and wage rates in contracts (requests
for proposals, bid documents, and contracts)
3. Condition contracts on the acceptance of requirements
4. Collect certified payroll on payments to workers on a weekly
basis
5. Keep certified payroll records for three years
Contractors
Not only is the administration of prevailing wages straightforward
and elementary for an awarding agency, compliance for contractors of
the public agency cannot be fairly described as burdensome. In fact,
collection of the data required for prevailing-wage compliance is
required of all employers, without regard to whether they are a
beneficiary of federal construction assistance and required to report
on the Davis-Bacon Act. All employers must keep records about the hours
their employees work each day, their rate of pay, the deductions from a
worker's wages, payment date, and more. Virtually these same records
are required for prevailing wage reports.
Further, different efforts, most notably a DOL rulemaking in 2008,
have streamlined the process for complying with the Davis-Bacon Act.
For example, during the 2008 rulemaking, the Bush Administration
reduced the amount of information contractors are required to submit.
The DOL estimates that it might take clerical staff 55 minutes for a
first-time filer to complete collection of the required information.
That estimate includes time for reviewing the Department of Labor's
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Again, this estimate includes tasks that a payroll clerk would be
required to perform for other obligations under federal law, most
notably IRS and overtime requirements. The Bush Administration's
Department of Labor found that commenters ``did not believe that the
current process was a public burden or endangered worker privacy.''
Analyses of Compliance and Total Construction Costs
Two state-based studies shed light on the question of compliance
costs, and they both provide evidence to support the contention that
costs are negligible. In fact, in many cases the marginal
administrative costs associated with prevailing wage compliance are
more than offset by the economic benefits associated with the law.
In 2015, the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimated that the
administrative costs associated with the state's prevailing wage law
amounted to $358,000 and 4 full-time equivalent jobs (Horton, 2015).
This amounts to an ``administrative burden'' of 15 cents per household
in Wisconsin.\1\ However, between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2015, the
Division of Equal Rights staff resolved 299 construction wage
complaints and recovered over $4.03 million in unpaid wages for
workers--or $2 million per year, a return on investment of $5.63 per
dollar spent on administrative costs (DWD, 2015).\2\ Furthermore, the
nonpartisan budget office determined that, if Wisconsin repealed its
prevailing wage law, the workload of staff conducting prevailing wage
investigations and ensuring compliance would be ``absorbed to meet
other required duties.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 2.36 million households in Wisconsin (Census, 2021).
$358,000 divided by 2,358,156 households is 15 cents per household.
\2\ $4.03 million in construction wages recovered over two years
divided by $358,000 in administrative costs over two years equals $5.63
in recovered wages per dollar spent administering the law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, a 2013 fiscal and policy note from the Maryland
Department of Legislative Services found that the prevailing wage
caseload in Maryland could be handled ``with existing enforcement
resources.'' The Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and
Regulation did not need to hire additional staff to administer
prevailing wage standards on school construction projects, even when
the volume of projects increased (MD DLS. 2013). This suggests that
prevailing wage standards do not impose a significant administrative
cost burden beyond the usual enforcement and compliance requirements
associated with state and local government.
If CIFA's argument was accurate, then the regulatory burdens and
paperwork requirements associated with Davis-Bacon would discourage
contractors from bidding on public construction projects. However, of
the 18 peer-reviewed academic studies on prevailing wage laws since
2000, 15 find that they have no effect on the total costs of
traditional public works construction projects, such as roads, schools,
municipal buildings, and clean water and sewer projects (Stepick &
Manzo, 2021).
In addition, there have been four peer-reviewed studies since 2012
that empirically examine the effect of prevailing wage standards on the
overall level of bid competition. All four of these studies, which
collectively evaluate data on more than 2,000 bid proposals, find that
prevailing wage standards do not reduce the number of bidders on public
construction projects (Stepick & Manzo, 2021). In fact, ``the cost-
reducing effect of increased bid competition is stronger on projects
covered by the prevailing wage policy'' (Onsarigo et al., 2020).
Conclusion
The Davis-Bacon Act continues to play a key role in the lives and
livelihoods of America's construction workers. Representative Fiorello
LaGuardia (R-NY), on the House floor in 1931 as the body passed the
Davis-Bacon Act, said, `` . . . all that the bill does . . . is to
protect the Government as well as the workers, in carrying out the
policy of paying decent wages on Government contracts.''
In conclusion, the administrative costs to comply with the Davis-
Bacon Act are minimal, required by other workplace laws, and have
actually been reduced since the advent of electronic recordkeeping.
Further, these reporting requirements are central to the law,
safeguarding the wages and benefits of construction workers and
protecting the public from corruption and fraud.
Please do not hesitate to reach out to the International Union of
Operating Engineers should you need technical assistance on the
nation's 90-year labor standard for federally assisted construction,
the Davis-Bacon Act.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Soth,
Legislative and Political Director, International Union of
Operating Engineers.

Letter of May 20, 2021, from Sean McGarvey, President, North America's
Building Trades Unions, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A.
DeFazio
May 20, 2021.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
During the April 21st Subcommittee on Water Resources and the
Environment hearing, ``Sustainable Wastewater Infrastructure: Measures
to Promote Resiliency and Climate Adaptation and Mitigation,''
testimony submitted to the Subcommittee levied several attacks against
the integrity of the Davis-Bacon Act, displaying a clear
misunderstanding of the intent of a law that enjoys clear, broad,
bipartisan support among the Members of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, as well as the full House. On behalf of the
over 3 million skilled craft professionals that comprise North
America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU), I write to strongly reject
the claims unfortunately placed before the Subcommittee, which amounted
to nothing more than baseless attacks on a framework designed for the
protection of construction workers and their families.
As you know, the Copeland Act, 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3145, helps enforce
the Davis-Bacon Act by requiring contractors on covered projects to
submit weekly certified payroll reports (CPR) to the government to
ensure compliance with prevailing wage requirements. Such reporting and
monitoring on the part of the contracting agencies is critical because
the Davis-Bacon Act does not give construction workers the right to sue
in court to recover unpaid wages. Any erosion of this mechanism is an
erosion of the wages and benefits of blue-collar workers in the
construction industry. For this reason, the Committee must reject the
recommendation of the Council on Infrastructure Financing Authority
(CIFA) to eliminate such vital safeguards.
In the testimony submitted to the Subcommittee, a CIFA
representative urged members to do away with federal reporting
requirements on projects assisted with State Revolving Loan funds
because Davis-Bacon compliance ``is not an issue.'' This claim
describes a world where every single contractor plays by the rules. We
unfortunately know this is not true, no matter how strong our desire
for it to be true is.
Data from the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division
(WHD) shows that construction is a ``high-violation'' industry. GAO-21-
13 at 17 (Dec. 2020). The misclassification of workers as independent
contractors and craft misclassification on federally assisted
construction projects is rampant. In fact, five days after the
testimony, WHD recovered $500,851 in back wages and benefits for sixty-
eight workers who were short-changed by subcontractors on federally
assisted construction projects. Not long after that, a group of
construction workers performing work on the U.S. Department of
Education Building won a settlement award of $250,000 that included
back pay and damages. Two days before the hearing, WHD recovered
$91,116 in back wages and benefits for seventy-nine workers who were
paid less than what they were legally required to be paid under
prevailing wage laws. These examples, in just the second half of April
2021, are but three of countless examples our members can point to
where the payment of prevailing wages was indeed ``an issue.''
The CIFA representative also argued that the process of preparing
and submitting certified payroll reports is overly burdensome, and that
the burden is even greater for contractors who operate in states with
state prevailing wage laws. Considering the advances in technology
since the enactment of the Copeland Act in 1934, not only is the
submission of CPRs critical, but it is a rather simple and
straightforward process typically managed through payroll software. And
the data collected in CPRs is not much different than the data
responsible contractors already collect for their daily logs. It is
important to note here that the 27 state prevailing wage laws currently
in effect vary a great deal with respect to scope of coverage and,
contrary to CIFA's suggestion, such laws will not automatically apply
to federally assisted projects. For example, Maryland and Colorado's
state prevailing wage laws do not apply to contracts for construction
that receive federal funding or that are otherwise covered by the
Davis-Bacon Act. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 24-92-201 et seq.;
MD Code State Fin. & Proc. Sec. 17-202(b)(2).
The Copeland Act's reporting requirements work as a deterrent
against dishonest contractors because CPRs can serve as the basis for
federal prosecution. Section 3145(b) of the Act provides that
falsification of a certified payroll may amount to a criminal violation
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, that can result in a fine, up to 5 years in
prison, or both. The falsification of payrolls can also be grounds for
a lawsuit under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3730.
Accordingly, reporting requirements protect construction workers on
federal and federally assisted projects, as well as the taxpayer from
instances of fraud and abuse.
While the hearing did address many important questions, our members
simply cannot allow misleading claims and attacks against a
foundational standard to go unanswered. A strong, bipartisan majority
of the Committee understand the importance of the Davis-Bacon Act to
construction workers across the nation. As you move forward in crafting
a bold, broad, and robust infrastructure package, I look forward to
working with you and other strong supporters of Davis-Bacon on the
Committee to ensure the consistent application of prevailing wage
standards.
Sincerely,
Sean McGarvey,
President, North America's Building Trades Unions.

Appendix

----------

Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Deirdre Finn, Executive Director,
Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities

Question 1. Rebecca Hammer, in her written testimony for the
hearing, testified that ``The Council of Infrastructure Financing
Authorities' SRF Project Pipeline identifies over $47 billion in
specific clean water infrastructure projects across the country that
could be commenced within the next two to three years if funding is
provided.'' Please explain how CIFA came up with that number.
Answer. CIFA has identified an estimated $47 billion in potential
clean water infrastructure projects along the continuum of project
development, from defining the need to design and engineering to
groundbreaking. Not all of the projects are ready to ``commence'' or
proceed to construction within the next two to three years.
In anticipation of potential stimulus funding in the aftermath of
the coronavirus pandemic, CIFA developed the S.A.F.E. Water
Infrastructure Action Plan, an advocacy initiative to Save, Accelerate,
Fill and Expedite water infrastructure projects through the Clean Water
and Drinking Water SRF Project Pipelines. Below is an excerpt from the
Action Plan explaining the development and scope of the SRF Project
Pipelines.
``SRFs used a variety of tools to develop their S.A.F.E. SRF
Project Pipeline, including current year plans and project lists,
multi-year plans and project lists (up to five years), a survey of
utilities for new projects, increased funding for current projects, and
the addition of other known projects, such as projects that applied but
didn't receive funding, projects on planning lists, and projects in
utilities' capital improvement plans.
The SRF Project Pipeline has some ``shovel-ready'' projects but
doesn't focus exclusively on projects that are ready for construction.
Because the coronavirus may cause periodic, localized economic
shutdowns over the next several years, the S.A.F.E. Water
Infrastructure Action Plan focuses on projects along the entire
spectrum of water infrastructure, from concept to construction.
Allowing funding to be invested over the next two to three years will
provide potential borrowers with the confidence to increase investment
in water infrastructure, even during the uncertain times that lie
ahead.''

Question 2. Rebecca Hammer, in her written testimony for the
hearing, testified that ``For its first two decades, the [Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)] did not fund many green infrastructure
projects.'' Why is that?
Answer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) didn't start
reporting data on green projects in the National Information Management
System (NIMS) until the federal mandate for the Green Project Reserve
was established in 2009. Before then, it's likely that green projects,
such as water and energy efficiency projects, were classified as grey
infrastructure.
Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
required SRFs to develop a business case to make the case for
eligibility of some potential green projects. As a result, eligibility
for the Green Project Reserve has evolved since 2009 and some projects
eligible today may not have been captured in early reporting.
To determine a more accurate accounting of SRF funding for green
projects, nearly 24,000 loan agreements executed prior to 2009 would
have to be reviewed and potentially reclassified. Given changes in
eligibility for the Green Project Reserve over the last decade, loans
executed since 2009 may also need to be reviewed to ensure all green
projects are captured.
However, CIFA believes it is more important to focus on the last
decade rather than the first two decades, particularly more recent
trends which indicate significant and sustained growth in funding for
green projects.
According to the Clean Water Benefits Reporting System (CBR) as
reported in National Information Management System (NIMS), SRFs
invested $1.61 billion in green projects in 2020, up from $66 million
in 2009 when EPA first started measuring investment for green projects.
In total, SRFs have funded more than $8.6 billion in green projects
since 2009.
Growth in some project categories is especially significant. Before
2009, the SRFs funded 100 water reuse projects; since 2009, SRFs funded
250 water reuse projects, an increase of 250%. Of the 301 loans closed
for stormwater projects since 2017, 141 or 47% were green stormwater
projects, accounting for 43% of funding for stormwater during the same
timeframe.
CIFA believes funding for green projects will continue to grow
based on continued education about the benefits of green projects and
the evolving priorities of states and communities.

Question 3. Rebecca Hammer, in her written testimony for the
hearing, said ``Green infrastructure has received less CWSRF investment
than other Green Project Reserve (GPR) categories, despite the fact
that green stormwater projects have been found to have `the most
secondary benefits' of all GPR project types.'' Please explain why this
is the case.
Answer. According to NIMS, SRFs closed more loans for green
infrastructure projects than for energy or water efficiency projects in
2020 (33 green infrastructure projects, 29 energy efficiency projects
and 29 water efficiency projects). That same year, SRFs provided more
than $1.61 billion for green projects, including 32% for energy
conservation, 30% for environmentally innovative projects, 26% for
green infrastructure, and 10% for water efficiency.
Decisions about investment in water infrastructure are impacted by
multiple factors, including the responsible party, financial
eligibility, and cost of operations and maintenance as well as primary
and secondary environmental benefits. Generally, the determining
factors for green infrastructure projects are more complex than for
energy and water efficiency and environmentally innovative projects.
Responsible party. Water and energy efficiency projects are
typically infrastructure improvement projects for wastewater or reuse
treatment facilities and conveyance systems, all of which are managed
by a utility.
Conversely, green infrastructure projects are more likely to be
built throughout a community and various units of local government may
be responsible for managing the infrastructure. Roads departments are
more likely to be responsible for installing permeable pavements and
bioswales (vegetative ditches used to channel and filter stormwater).
Facilities departments are more likely to be responsible for installing
green roofs and cisterns in publicly owned buildings, such as libraries
and courthouses, which offer limited opportunity. Parks departments are
more likely to be responsible for building rain gardens in publicly
owned open spaces and recreation areas.
Financial eligibility. To qualify for an SRF loan, a borrower must
identify a dedicated source of revenue to repay the loan. Wastewater,
water reuse and stormwater utilities have a revenue stream of user fees
to repay SRF loans.
Conversely, identifying a dedicated source of revenue for green
infrastructure projects can be more challenging, particularly in
communities without a stormwater utility. In those communities, green
infrastructure projects must often compete with other community
priorities and projects for local funding.
The cost of operations and maintenance. Water and energy efficiency
projects can reduce the cost of operations, which provides a financial
incentive for infrastructure investment. Often, energy conservation
projects pay for themselves, which allows utilities to maintain
affordable user rates. Water reuse projects can also meet growing
demand, reducing the demands on potable water which can also help to
maintain affordable rates.
Conversely, green infrastructure projects, which require routine
maintenance to maintain their effectiveness, can actually increase the
cost of operations and maintenance. As noted by Kevin Robert Perry,
witness representing The American Society of Landscape Architects,
``it's really the maintenance end where you see a lot of communities
very nervous about implementing green infrastructure at the wide
scale.''
Congress should consider a broader measure of investment in green
projects, including investments by private sector entities which are
not eligible for funding under the Clean Water SRF.

Question 4. Rebecca Hammer, in her written testimony for the
hearing, said that ``states often fail to meet the [Green Project
Reserve (GPR)] requirement.'' Please explain why this is the case.
Answer. Since 2009, Congress has provided $21.3 billion in federal
funding to the Clean Water SRF. During the same timeframe, SRFs have
funded $8.6 billion in green projects, 40% of total federal funding.
Meeting the requirement for the Green Project Reserve is based
solely on the number of eligible loans closed within each fiscal year.
This restrictive, short-term measure captures a snapshot in time but
doesn't provide a complete and comprehensive representation of SRFs
funding of green projects.
Alternatively, if compliance was based on cumulative funding of
green projects since the Green Project Reserve was established, all
states exceed the requirement, many by more than double. (See state-by-
state chart in question 10.) Measuring compliance over multiple years
would also incentivize large, transformational green projects that take
time to develop and years to construct.
The ability to close loans for eligible green projects can vary
significantly from year-to-year based on a variety of factors, many of
which are outside the control of the SRFs. For example, three SRFs,
mentioned in the written testimony, didn't meet their Green Project
Reserve for various, valid reasons.
Despite a record number of applications, the Oregon SRF
didn't close any loans on eligible applications because the green
projects weren't ready to proceed to construction within the fiscal
year. The expectation is that these projects will move forward in
future years.
The Florida SRF received both their 2019 and 2020
capitalization grants in fiscal year 2020, which doubled the federal
mandate within one fiscal year. According to their Annual Report,
``Because the 2019 capitalization grant was received in FY 2020, the
requirements for the 2019 grant were to be met in FY 2020. Because
sufficient projects to meet the green requirement were not submitted
during the fiscal year, this requirement was not met. Additional green
projects will be solicited in FY 2021 and we anticipate this shortfall
will be made up in FY 2021.''
According to the Missouri SRF Annual Report, ``The two
projects that were identified as GPR on the 2019 IUP did not close due
to project delays. Once these projects close, the GPR requirements for
FFY 2018, 2019, 2020 capitalization grants will be met. With FFY 2021
IUP, the Department will increase utilization of the Green Project
Reserve by offering Water Quality Incentive Grants for green
infrastructure.''

Question 5. Rebecca Hammer, in her written testimony for the
hearing, said that ``Congress should require [the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)] to adopt regulations implementing the
provision of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of
2014 directing CWSRF recipients to maximize water and energy
conservation in all projects.'' What would be the effects of such a
requirement?
Answer. According to a survey of SRFs, the cumulative impact of
federal requirements is the biggest impediment to increasing investment
in water infrastructure. More prescriptive regulation will only
exacerbate the current inefficiency and ineffectiveness of one-size-
fits-all federal mandates.
For example, the current Water and Energy Conservation
Certification, enacted in 2014, requires all SRF loan recipients to
evaluate the cost to build, maintain and replace the project and select
the ``project or activity that maximizes the potential for efficient
water use, reuse, recapture, and conservation, and energy
conservation.'' While well-intended, this certification is simply not
applicable to many projects funded by the Clean Water SRFs.
Water conservation, which is intended to reduce
consumption of drinking water, is largely impractical for clean water
infrastructure whose primary purpose is to collect and clean wastewater
and stormwater runoff.
Energy conservation is impossible to achieve in many
clean water projects, such as replacing pipes, restoring wetlands, and
rebuilding sewer systems that use gravity, not man-made power.
Conversely, many communities pursue clean water projects
with the singular purpose of water reuse and energy conservation.
Requiring a water and energy efficiency certification is required but
unwarranted for these projects, which are specifically designed to
achieve, and even exceed, the fundamental goal of the federal mandate.

Developing prescriptive regulation for one-size-fits-all federal
mandates will increase the cost of water infrastructure, especially for
small, rural and disadvantaged communities which are the vast majority
of borrowers of the Clean Water SRFs.

Question 6. While resiliency and sustainability practices and
technologies may benefit some communities, it is essential these
initiatives do not take a ``one-size fits all'' mandated approach. Some
communities, especially small and rural communities, may not have the
means or the need to utilize these practices in their communities. What
can be done to ensure that small and rural communities are provided
flexibility in implementing resiliency and sustainability practices and
technologies, as appropriate, in their communities?
Answer. Recognizing the needs, challenges and limitations of small
communities is essential to developing a realistic, relevant and
sustainable plan to build resiliency, including environmental,
professional and financial resiliency.
The vast majority of Clean Water SRF borrowers are small, rural and
disadvantaged communities whose priority is providing basic, affordable
wastewater and stormwater services. In 2020, Clean Water SRFs closed
1,601 subsidized loans; nearly two-thirds of those loans (1,056 or 66%)
went to communities with a population of 10,000 or fewer and more than
half of those loans (862 or 54%) went to communities with fewer than
3,500 people.
One-size-fits-all federal mandates set unrealistic expectations for
these small communities. The vast majority of projects in small
communities are pipe replacement and minor rehabilitation projects,
most of which offer extremely limited opportunities for increasing
water and energy efficiency. Many of these small communities don't have
full-time professional staff to manage their utility, let alone adopt
the federal procurement process to hire an engineering firm or
implement a complex, long-term environmental resiliency and fiscal
sustainability plan.
Clean Water SRFs provide significant support to small borrowers,
from pre-planning through loan close-out. Relief from one-size-fits-all
mandates would allow SRFs to customize support for small communities to
foster resiliency, including environmental, professional and financial
resiliency.

Question 7. Are more water infrastructure projects being built
today under the CWSRF program that may never have been able to be built
if the program was established as a Federal grant program instead of a
revolving loan program? Please explain.
Answer. The Clean Water State Revolving Funds are a national model
for infrastructure investment. Federal funding is used to capitalize
the loan programs, creating a permanent, recurring, resilient source of
revenue for water infrastructure projects.
Grants are one-time; loans are forever. While federal funding for
grants is used only once, federal funding for loans is used over-and-
over again, providing a protected and sustainable source of funding for
future water infrastructure projects in perpetuity.
Early capitalization grants for the Clean Water SRFs have been
recycled at least once and used to build projects that may never have
been built if federal funds were used for one-time grants. Since the
program was created, Congress has provided $47 billion in federal funds
to capitalize the Clean Water SRFs. Today, nearly $60 billion of state
and federal funding remains revolving in the program--$13 billion more
than three decades of federal funding.

Question 8. Only some states leverage their existing state
revolving fund (SRF) programs. How can Congress incentivize states to
better leverage Federal SRF funds and invest more state dollars in
water infrastructure?
Answer. It's important to note that decisions to leverage the SRFs
may be made by the Governor, the Legislature or other state office or
official, not the SRFs.
Eliminating the requirement to provide state match for federally
mandated additional subsidy may incentivize leveraging. Currently, SRFs
that leverage must borrow funds to match federal funding that they are
then required to provide as grants and grant-equivalents. Because loan
repayments are used to repay bonds, requiring state match for mandated
additional subsidy is a disincentive for leveraging.
Eliminating federal mandates on state funds may incentivize greater
contributions of state funds, including through leveraging. Currently,
these federal mandates apply to projects funded exclusively with state
funds, increasing the cost of water infrastructure projects:
Davis Bacon, which requires mechanics and laborers to be
paid the federal prevailing wage and has very prescriptive compliance
requirements.
American Iron and Steel, which requires projects funded
by the SRFs to use iron and steel from U.S. manufacturers.
Water and Energy Efficiency Certification, which requires
all borrowers to certify that they evaluated the cost to build,
maintain and replace the project and selected the ``project or activity
that maximizes the potential for efficient water use, reuse, recapture,
and conservation, and energy conservation.''
Fiscal Sustainability Plan, which requires borrowers who
are building treatment works to certify that they have a financial plan
to maintain assets funded by the Clean Water SRF loan.

Question 9. In what ways have Federal mandates, particularly on SRF
loan recipients, and continued federalization of the CWSRF had the
unintended consequence of diminishing the program's ability to
efficiently and effectively respond to the needs of local communities,
complicating the program, and dissuading greater investment in water
infrastructure? What improvements would help local communities respond
more efficiently and effectively?
Answer. Federal mandates increase the administrative cost of water
infrastructure for all communities, requiring many small borrowers to
increase their loan amounts to ensure adequate funding for compliance.
In many cases, federal mandates are duplicative of state law. For
example, the federal mandate for Davis Bacon, which requires SRF
borrowers to pay the federal prevailing wages to mechanics and
laborers, is duplicative of state prevailing wage laws in 26 states and
the District of Columbia. Paying the federal wage is not the problem
because many contractors must pay more than the federally mandated
wages to attract skilled workers, particularly in communities with
robust economies and tight job markets. The primary issue is the very
prescriptive paperwork and processes to demonstrate compliance with
Davis Bacon. In states with state prevailing wage laws, compliance is
double the work without any known benefit to workers.
In other instances, federal mandates conflict with state law. For
example, the Massachusetts Clean Water SRF no longer funds engineering
services with federal funds because of the federal mandate requiring
the use of the federal procurement process for these services. Instead,
the Massachusetts SRF issues two loans--one funded by state money for
engineering and one funded by federal funds for construction. In other
states, borrowers simply don't pursue funding for engineering from the
Clean Water SRF because of the federal mandate for procurement of
engineering services.
Increased federalization of the Clean Water SRFs also erodes the
creative problem-solving needed to address today's complex water
challenges. The Clean Water SRFs became one of the most effective
programs for infrastructure investment because states could customize
their programs to meet the needs and priorities of their communities.
One-size-fits-all mandates diminish the flexibility and adaptability
that made the Clean Water SRFs so effective.
Additionally, more SRF staff must be dedicated to ensuring
compliance with federal mandates, leaving fewer resources to support
the development of new water infrastructure projects.

Question 10. Do small and medium communities have the professional
staff to comply with the myriad of Federal SRF mandates? What can be
done about this?
Answer. Small communities with a population of fewer than 10,000
often don't have a full-time professional staff to manage capital
projects. Often, these communities must hire staff or contract with
consultants to ensure compliance with the increase in federal mandates,
adding to the administrative cost of water infrastructure on
communities that can least afford it.
Communities with populations of 10,000 to 100,000 are more likely
to have professional staff to manage a capital project. However,
smaller communities within this range can also struggle with attracting
and retaining professional staff, including directors, operators,
accountants and customer service staff.
Restoring flexibility within the Clean Water SRFs to determine loan
requirements, instead of one-size-fits-all federal mandates, will
ensure small and medium communities are considering the financial and
environmental factors that are most appropriate for their water
infrastructure projects.

Question 11. You noted in your written testimony that some SRFs
have expressed concern about their ability to meet the 20 percent state
match requirement if funding is increased five-fold within one year.
Can you explain why this match requirement could be a problem?
Answer. Clean Water SRFs provide state match in a variety of ways.
Depending on a state's economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic,
states that rely on annual appropriations may have a challenge matching
significant increases in appropriations. Mandated additional subsidy
may also pose a challenge for SRFs that use bond proceeds for state
match, because loan repayments are needed to repay bonds.
States, such as California, have issued short-term debt, which must
be repaid with interest earnings from loans, to generate state match.
Given the extremely low interest rate environment experienced in recent
years, loan prepayments, combined with a generous policy of additional
subsidy, interest earnings have been impacted. California has also
issued loans with a local match component to generate state match.
Unfortunately, also due to the very low interest rate environment,
borrowers have not been willing to participate in the local match
portion of the SRF program.

Question 12. You noted in your written testimony that other SRFs
have expressed concerns about the ability to fund the best projects, if
timelines remain the same or are shortened, as they were with the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Please explain.
Answer. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
required SRFs to close loans on ``shovel ready'' construction projects
within 18 months or lose funding.
Typically, SRFs have two years to apply for the annual
capitalization grant and five years to spend the funding. Under ARRA,
the use-it-or-lose-it condition, combined with a shortened timeframe,
created a rush to close loans that favored larger infrastructure
projects. The restriction to fund only ``shovel-ready'' projects also
displaced other projects throughout the SRF Project Pipeline, allowing
some projects to ``jump the line'' for funding. The combination of
these federal mandates, while well-intentioned, upended the SRFs'
proven process for determining priorities for funding water
infrastructure projects.

Question 13. You noted in your written testimony that the Federal
mandate requiring SRF loan applicants to demonstrate compliance with
Federal prevailing wage laws is very prescriptive, and creates a
significant compliance and paperwork burden, without providing any
additional financial benefit for workers. Would you explain how
allowing compliance with equivalent state laws in lieu of Federal
compliance procedures could alleviate state burdens while maintaining
fair wages for workers?
Answer. Under federal law, borrowers of the Clean Water SRFs,
including loans fully funded by state monies, are required to pay the
federal prevailing wage to mechanics and laborers for the job
classification in the county of the construction project, known most
commonly as Davis Bacon. The SRFs, borrowers, contractors and
subcontractors must perform prescriptive paperwork and processes to
demonstrate compliance with the federal mandate. Borrowers, contractors
and subcontractors in 26 states and the District of Columbia must also
demonstrate compliance with state prevailing wage laws, in addition to
federal law.
Paying the federal wage rate is not the primary issue. For the vast
majority of projects, contractors and subcontractors must pay workers
more than the federal prevailing wage rate to attract skilled workers,
particularly in communities with robust economies and competitive job
markets. The most common complaint is the very prescriptive federal
procedures and paperwork required by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
to demonstrate compliance with Davis Bacon.
Below are a few examples from EPA's 2017 Guide for SRF Compliance
with Davis Bacon:
Loan recipients must collect weekly payroll reports from
contractors and subcontractors.
Loan recipients must review evidence of fringe benefit
contributions claimed by contractors and subcontractors.
Loan recipients must interview construction workers to
confirm the correct wages were paid.
If a wage for a particular job in a particular county
isn't published, contractors must request a wage determination from
DOL, a process called conformance, which can take up to 30 days.
Contractors may be disqualified for having an inaccurate
federal prevailing wage, even if the wage changed during the bid
period.
SRFs must conduct inspections and spot-check payroll
reports collected by loan recipients.

CIFA has three specific recommendations to reduce paperwork and
process while maintaining prevailing wages for workers.
The DOL could adopt state prevailing wages for heavy
construction (majority of water projects), which they routinely do for
highway construction.
The DOL could consider compliance with state prevailing
wage laws as demonstration of compliance with Davis Bacon, eliminating
the duplication of paperwork and process.
EPA could allow States to develop compliance procedures
to demonstrate compliance with Davis Bacon, just like States have done
for environmental compliance since the programs were established.
States develop the State Environmental Review Process (SERP) to comply
with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Question 14. The use of green infrastructure is becoming much more
accepted on a widespread basis today as compared with five or ten years
ago. Is there really a need for a ``green'' set-aside mandate with the
Clean Water SRF today?
Answer. Funding for green projects will continue to grow, with or
without the federal mandate, because these projects are state and local
priorities.
As noted previously, 40% of federal funding since 2009 has been
spent on green projects eligible under the Green Project Reserve. As
evidence that a mandate isn't necessary, the Drinking Water SRF, which
doesn't have a mandate, used 14% of their federal funds since 2009 on
eligible green projects.

Green Project Reserve for the Clean Water SRF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Funding Spending on Green
State since 2008 Projects %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... $ 235,958,500 $ 43,808,913 19%
Alaska........................................................ $ 126,121,800 $ 26,861,443 21%
Arizona....................................................... $ 142,447,100 $ 40,476,351 28%
Arkansas...................................................... $ 137,939,900 $ 198,723,531 144%
California.................................................... $ 1,509,112,307 $ 2,051,670,442 136%
Colorado...................................................... $ 169,344,400 $ 46,288,996 27%
Connecticut................................................... $ 258,521,800 $ 35,649,893 14%
Delaware...................................................... $ 103,252,400 $ 100,514,706 97%
Florida....................................................... $ 715,349,493 $ 236,163,068 33%
Georgia....................................................... $ 374,964,216 $ 311,458,609 83%
Hawaii........................................................ $ 163,088,800 $ 67,743,334 42%
Idaho......................................................... $ 103,252,400 $ 131,875,350 128%
Illinois...................................................... $ 954,463,933 $ 314,966,571 33%
Indiana....................................................... $ 508,606,048 $ 621,510,310 122%
Iowa.......................................................... $ 294,674,200 $ 130,180,072 44%
Kansas........................................................ $ 190,453,500 $ 85,701,073 45%
Kentucky...................................................... $ 268,585,200 $ 62,622,640 23%
Louisiana..................................................... $ 239,430,500 $ 36,684,426 15%
Maine......................................................... $ 163,319,600 $ 80,690,046 49%
Maryland...................................................... $ 510,421,657 $ 216,489,252 42%
Massachusetts................................................. $ 716,522,029 $ 140,677,580 20%
Michigan...................................................... $ 907,431,252 $ 233,160,195 26%
Minnesota..................................................... $ 398,426,165 $ 149,335,778 37%
Mississippi................................................... $ 186,500,093 $ 19,981,710 11%
Missouri...................................................... $ 603,702,512 $ 236,607,038 39%
Montana....................................................... $ 103,252,400 $ 27,376,031 27%
Nebraska...................................................... $ 107,626,700 $ 52,857,503 49%
Nevada........................................................ $ 103,252,400 $ 44,900,863 43%
New Hampshire................................................. $ 217,636,900 $ 69,498,053 32%
New Jersey.................................................... $ 1,053,501,973 $ 141,788,838 13%
New Mexico.................................................... $ 111,076,700 $ 42,979,820 39%
New York...................................................... $ 2,753,037,314 $ 397,612,493 14%
North Carolina................................................ $ 352,199,248 $ 148,484,429 42%
North Dakota.................................................. $ 103,926,700 $ 85,773,132 83%
Ohio.......................................................... $ 1,226,374,893 $ 295,019,116 24%
Oklahoma...................................................... $ 170,457,300 $ 74,155,749 44%
Oregon........................................................ $ 238,382,700 $ 43,945,073 18%
Pennsylvania.................................................. $ 835,963,728 $ 158,030,647 19%
Rhode Island.................................................. $ 141,607,900 $ 30,651,118 22%
South Carolina................................................ $ 212,081,670 $ 42,909,865 20%
South Dakota.................................................. $ 103,252,400 $ 12,723,217 12%
Tennessee..................................................... $ 306,571,400 $ 119,457,472 39%
Texas......................................................... $ 923,051,700 $ 325,840,020 35%
Utah.......................................................... $ 110,905,500 $ 22,452,523 20%
Vermont....................................................... $ 106,526,700 $ 38,792,107 36%
Virginia...................................................... $ 431,900,531 $ 192,568,905 45%
Washington.................................................... $ 367,033,331 $ 115,470,269 31%
West Virginia................................................. $ 329,262,879 $ 45,098,026 14%
Wisconsin..................................................... $ 570,537,777 $ 387,221,250 68%
Wyoming....................................................... $ 103,252,400 $ 19,030,389 18%
Puerto Rico................................................... $ 284,720,041 $ 51,553,042 18%
-------------------------------------------------
$ 21,349,282,990 $ 8,606,031,277 40%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Rebecca Hammer, Deputy Director
of Federal Water Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council

Question 1. During the hearing, we heard testimony that wastewater
utilities may benefit from a legislative change to the existing
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
framework. Currently, all Clean Water Act NPDES permits, including
permits for wastewater utilities, are authorized for up to five-years
in duration. The goal of five-year permits is to ensure both that Clean
Water Act permits are appropriately tailored to address local water
quality impairments, and to ensure the incorporation of state of the
art pollution control techniques and discharge standards. This ensures
that permittees are held to the highest standard possible for reducing
the discharge of pollutants that may impair our nation's waters and
endanger human and environmental health.
Question 1.a. Do you agree that NPDES permits should be extended
from five year up to ten years for all municipal wastewater utilities?
Answer. No. Municipal wastewater utilities discharge an enormous
amount of water pollution. More than 16,000 publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants in the United States discharge 34 billion gallons of
wastewater every day. Weakening Clean Water Act requirements for these
dischargers would have significant consequences, allowing them to
operate for a decade or more under pollution control standards that
have long since become outdated. Such a change could put public health
and environmental safety at risk.
The five-year limit on NPDES permits is an essential part of the
Act's design that should not be altered. A key premise of the statute
is that, as environmental science and technology advance over time, the
nation will make steady progress on reducing water pollution. The Act
requires EPA and the states to gather new information and develop new
pollution control plans on a regular basis. For example, EPA must
revisit the national technology-based standards applicable to specific
categories of discharges and classes of pollutants every 1 to 5 years;
EPA must periodically publish new information about pollution
reductions attainable through wastewater treatment; states must review
and consider modification of their water quality standards at least
once every 3 years; states must assess water quality in all their
waterways and develop lists of impaired water bodies not meeting water
quality standards every 2 years; and states must develop pollution
reduction targets (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for impaired waterways on
an ongoing basis, based on the results of their biannual water quality
assessments.
Each of these recurring obligations affects the terms of
dischargers' pollution control permits. The Clean Water Act requires
each NPDES permit to include technology-based effluent limitations,
based on up-to-date pollution control methods, and water quality-based
effluent limitations, designed to ensure compliance with local water
quality standards. The five-year permit term was specifically chosen by
the framers of the Act to ensure that permits reflect the most current
information about control technologies and receiving water conditions.
The Act's legislative history reflects the centrality of the five-
year limit on permit terms as a linchpin of this scheme.\1\ In 1985,
when Congress rejected a proposed amendment to extend the term limit
for certain NPDES permits to ten years, Senator Lautenberg emphasized
that ``the 5-year permit term plays an important role in improving
water quality,'' and ``a 10-year permit provision could result in less
stringent pollution control of toxic pollutants.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``In order to be absolutely certain that these [pollution]
control techniques represent the latest state of the art, they will be
reviewed and upgraded every 5 years.'' 117 Cong. Rec. 38797 (Nov. 2,
1971).
\2\ 131 Cong. Rec. S8080-04 (June 13, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proponents of this change have claimed that ten-year permits would
not lead to adverse environmental consequences because they could be
modified to include new requirements if necessary during the lengthened
permit term. However, permit modifications are only allowed under
certain circumstances and are discretionary on the part of the
permitting authority.\3\ As a result, a permit would not necessarily
have to be updated in the middle of the permit term even if significant
changes occurred in the receiving water or new information came to
light about the impact of the discharge. There is no fail-safe
mechanism in current law to protect waterways from the harmful impacts
of ten-year permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA regulations state that a ``permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.'' 40 C.F.R. Sec. 122.41(f)
(emphasis added). The use of the word ``may,'' rather than ``shall,''
means that reopening and modifying a permit is discretionary, not
mandatory. Another section of the NPDES rules confirms this, stating
that the permitting authority ``may modify or revoke and reissue the
permit'' if it determines that cause exists. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 122.62
(emphasis added). Courts have consistently confirmed this reading of
the statute and regulations: ``The language of both CWA section 402 and
40 C.F.R. Sec. 122.62 make it clear that the EPA [or other permitting
authority] is not required to modify any NPDES permit.'' Texas Mun.
Power Agency v. EPA, 836 F.2d 1482, 1486 (5th Cir. 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only would this proposed change have a damaging effect on water
quality, it would also shut the public out of the permitting process
for long stretches of time. Members of the public deserve to have a say
regarding how much pollution is dumped into waterways that they live
near, use recreationally, or depend on for drinking water. It is only
when NPDES permits are issued or renewed that the public has the
opportunity to weigh in on the terms and limitations applying to
pollution dischargers, or to seek judicial review of those permit terms
if they are not legally sufficient. Doubling the length of permit terms
would cut these opportunities for public input in half.

Question 1.b. Will increasing the time length of permits make it
easier for wastewater utilities to meet the goals of the Clean Water
Act?
Question 1.c. Are you aware of any correlation between wastewater
utility construction schedules and NPDES permit lengths that would
justify extending permits terms from five-years up to 10 years?
Answer to b. and c. Organizations representing regulated
municipalities have claimed that extending NPDES permit terms is
necessary because project construction timelines for clean water
infrastructure can extend beyond five years. This has always been the
case, and the framers of the Clean Water Act were aware when they
drafted the statute that permit terms would not always align with
infrastructure project timetables. They decided nonetheless that permit
limits must be updated every five years. With water quality worsening
across the country, the need for frequent review of permit conditions
is no less now than it was in the 1970s when the Clean Water Act was
enacted.
The organizations advocating for this change in the law have
provided no specific examples of infrastructure projects that have been
prevented or abandoned because of the current five-year permit term.
Rather, this rationale seeks to take advantage of Congress's desire to
promote infrastructure investment in order to roll back pollution
dischargers' regulatory requirements.
Even if the regulated community's concerns are taken at face value,
existing mechanisms already exist to address those concerns. The EPA's
Environmental Appeals Board has ruled that NPDES permits may include
compliance schedules that extend beyond the five-year term of the
permit if allowable under state law.\4\ This option provides a means to
account for the reality of construction timelines while also ensuring
that the permit itself will be updated on a regular basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 13 E.A.D. 714 (2008). See also EPA, Memo from James Hanlon, EPA
Office of Wastewater Management, to Alexis Strauss, EPA Region 9,
``Compliance Schedules for Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations in
NPDES Permits'' (May 10, 2007) (``Any compliance schedule that extends
past the expiration date of a permit must include the final effluent
limitations in the permit in order to ensure enforceability of the
compliance schedule as required by CWA section 502(17) and 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 122.2 (definition of schedule of compliance).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of this proposal also emphasize the administrative costs
associated with seeking a permit renewal every five years. While the
permit renewal process may be time-consuming in some states, the
environmental and public health benefits of frequently reviewing
pollution discharge standards more than justify the administrative
expense. Cost concerns should not be addressed by weakening safeguards,
but rather by providing increased resources. The expenses that
utilities incur renewing their permits every five years could be offset
by increases in federal water infrastructure funding for
municipalities, such as the increased authorizations proposed in H.R.
1915. Moreover, Congress could make the permit reissuance process
faster and more efficient by providing more resources to state
permitting agencies.

Question 1.d. Last Congress, the Committee also received
information related to certain states allowing existing NPDES permits,
including industrial and major NPDES permits, to be ``administratively
extended'' beyond their statutory limit of five years.
Question 1.d.i. In your view, are administratively extended
permits consistent with either the goals or the legal requirements of
the Clean Water Act?
Answer. NPDES permits that are administratively extended past their
expiration dates are a rampant problem. Often referred to as ``zombie
permits,'' administratively extended permits frustrate the intent of
the Clean Water Act to ensure that permits are regularly updated on a
five-year basis to reflect changing conditions. The effect of extended
permits is functionally the same as the potential effect of
establishing ten-year permits: dischargers operating under outdated
standards that in many cases are known to be inadequate to protect
public health and the environment. Under these lax requirements,
dischargers utilize inferior pollution control technology and escape
the stricter pollutant limits that would be triggered if their permits
were renewed. Moreover, extended permits deprive members of the public
of their statutory right to voice concerns about insufficient controls
on pollution entering local waterways.
According to EPA, approximately 15,000 facilities were covered by
expired permits at the end of FY2017, the last time the agency
published nationwide permit status data.\5\ A quarter of individually
permitted major facilities were operating under expired permits.\6\ In
some parts of the country, more permits are expired than current, and
many such permits have been expired for multiple permit cycles. These
include permits for heavily polluting facilities like coal-burning
power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA, Permit Status Report for Non-Tribal Major Individual,
Minor Individual, and Non-Stormwater General Permit Covered
Facilities--End-of-Year FY2017, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2017-12/documents/final_fy17_eoy_non-tribal_backlog_report_card-
sum.pdf.
\6\ EPA, Permit Status Report for Non-Tribal Individual Major
Permits--End-of-Year FY2017, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2018-01/documents/final_fy17_eoy_non-
tribal_backlog_report_card.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has concluded that administratively extended permits do ``not
contain terms and conditions based on the most recent standards, in
effect delaying prospective environmental improvements to the nation's
waters and possibly continuing deleterious effects'' where conditions
have changed.\7\ The agency took steps toward addressing this problem
in a proposed 2016 rule which would have designated certain expired
permits as proposed permits and allowed EPA to take appropriate action
on them, but following the administration change in 2017, the agency
unfortunately dropped the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA, Fact Sheet: NPDES Permit Backlog Reduction (2016), https:/
/www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/factsht.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should consider enacting legislation to curb lengthy
administrative extensions of NPDES permits. Providing additional
resources to state agencies could help them clear up their permit
backlogs. Additionally, Congress should adopt new statutory
requirements--or direct EPA to develop new requirements by rule--that
would ensure EPA regional offices and state permitting agencies take
action on all expiring and/or expired NPDES permits in a timely
fashion.

Question 1.d.ii. How does extending municipal wastewater utility
permits to ten years potentially affect your concerns with
administratively extended permits?
Answer. The pervasive problem of extended permits exacerbates the
potential negative effects of ten-year permits. In states that already
routinely fail to renew their permits on time, there is no reason to
believe that ten-year permits would not also be administratively
extended alongside other kinds of permits. If a ten-year permit is
extended following its expiration date, the discharger could end up
operating for more than a decade without updated pollution control
requirements--potentially 15 to 20 years or more.
This concern is another important reason why the Clean Water Act
should not be amended to allow the issuance of ten-year permits for any
category of discharger.

Question 2. Is there anything else you would like to add or
elaborate from your testimony or the discussion during the hearing?
Answer. My written testimony stated that the Council of
Infrastructure Financing Authorities' SRF Project Pipeline identifies
over $47 billion in specific clean water infrastructure projects across
the country that could be commenced within the next two to three years
if funding is provided. However, CIFA's Project Pipeline includes some
potential projects that extend beyond the two-to-three-year timeframe.
In CIFA's own words, the tools states used to compile the pipeline
included ``current year plans and project lists, multi-year plans and
project lists (up to five years), a survey of utilities for new
projects, increased funding for current projects, and the addition of
other known projects, such as projects that applied but didn't receive
funding, projects on planning lists, and projects in utilities' capital
improvement plans.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Council of Infrastructure Funding Authorities, S.A.F.E. Water
Infrastructure Action Plan and SRF Project Pipeline (2020), available
at https://www.cifanet.org/economic-stimulus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[all]