Water Infrastructure Focus of Congressional Hearing

Maureen Lorenzetti-Washington Correspondent

Both the House and Senate have held extensive hearings on water and wastewater infrastructure needs. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, industry representatives, and other stakeholders including environmental groups have testified before various panels that oversee the issue including the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water; and two House panels: the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and the House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.

Whitman maintained throughout the proceedings (which often were overshadowed by questions over the agency's arsenic standard decision), that the true cost of retooling the country's water infrastructure is still not yet known and perhaps needs additional study.

She noted that a better understanding of key components needed to be evaluated more fully, encompassing population growth, aging infrastructure, emerging environmental and public health demands, increasing O&M costs, and affordability.

EPA is now assessing long-term needs (the so-called "Gap Analysis") and the report will be available for peer review "in the near future" although no specific date was given.

Meanwhile in a related effort, the Senate panel revealed it has asked the General Accounting Office to do its own outside review of a widely touted Water Infrastructure Network study released in February. WIN is a non-partisan coalition of local elected officials, drinking water and wastewater service providers, environmental groups, labor unions, construction and engineering professionals. WIN wants the federal government to provide $57 billion over a five year period for loans, grants and other subsidies for water infrastructure needs.

A separate industry group, dubbed the H2O Coalition, comprised of the National Association of Water Companies, the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, and the Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association, cast doubt on those findings, and instead agreed with Whitman that the real cost is not known.

"The $1 trillion 20 year needs estimate for water and wastewater systems has become a focal point for discussion," said Dr. Janice Beecher on behalf of H2O. She called that estimate "imprecise," adding "comprehensive, valid, and reliable technical and financial data on the nation's water and wastewater systems are not readily available."

Beecher's comments are supported by the Congressional Budget Office, which testified before the House Water Resources panel that there is no national inventory of pipes' ages and conditions on which to base estimates. The WIN estimates that 3% of sewer pipes and 1% of water pipes will be replaced each year. But CBO's Perry Beider suggested that estimate could be off by "30-40%."

Meanwhile, environmental groups and some local officials told various panels that there is plenty of evidence already to substantiate a large infrastructure funding gap. Speaking on behalf of the National League of Cities, Mayor Bruce Tobey of Gloucester, MA, called on the federal government to embrace the WIN plan and for the creation of a new government structure called Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Financing Authorities to replace the current State Revolving Loan Funds for drinking water and clean water.

EPA Budget Plan Holds Line on State Clean Water Funds

Under a White House budget blueprint announced in March for fiscal year 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's budget for the clean water state revolving loan fund (SRF) would remain constant from fiscal year 2001 at $1.3 billion. (The government fiscal year begins Oct. 1). Spending levels for the drinking water SRF program are not yet known but the agency has signaled funding would be sufficient to provide average annual assistance of $500 million.

EPA administrator Whitman has defended the proposed budget on Capitol Hill saying she was confident the budget proposal would be sufficient to "carry out the mission" of EPA. However there is movement in Congress to significantly expand the amount: U.S. Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) recently introduced legislation that would expand the fund to $3 billion per year for five years.

The senator said recent studies conducted by both the government and private organizations show wastewater capital needs nationwide total between $200 billion and $300 billion. However, some groups, including the Congressional Budget Office, say that figure may be overstated.

Industry is also looking to Congress to see when and if Capitol Hill will move forward with plans to earmark federal money to reduce wet weather sewer overflows from municipal sewer systems. Last year then-President Clinton signed the Wet Weather Quality Act of 2001 which authorized $1.5 billion in federal grant funding over the next two fiscal years. The bill also allows for $45 million in demonstration grants and establishes a technology clearinghouse designed to prevent sewer overflows. However, Congress still must formally appropriate the money this year before local authorities can use the funds.

Superfund Legislation on Track for This Year

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Mar. 8 sent to the full Senate a White House-backed proposal that would nearly double the amount typically spent on the cleanup and reuse of contaminated industrial sites. S. 350 has widespread bipartisan support; it would authorized $200 million annually to fund assessment and cleanup activities at Brownfields, an increase from the $90 million to $92 million per year spent over previous years. Republican leaders predict this narrow superfund legislation has a good chance to pass this year.

Wisconsin Lawmakers Seek Oversight on Future Army Corps Projects

Water construction projects built by the Army Corps of Engineers would be subject to a much more rigorous review process under a bill reintroduced by two Wisconsin lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) introduced the Army Corps Reform Act of 2001 while his Senate counterpart, Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). introduced an identical package. Both lawmakers proposed the same bills in the 106th Congress.

Proponents say the bill seeks to increase transparency and accountability for the embattled agency, which government watch dog groups complain is too often willing to bend or ignore environmental rules in favor of political expediency.

"It is my hope that this legislation will increase transparency of the Army Corps of Engineers decision-making process through greater accessibility by the public and interested stakeholder groups," Feingold said. "While there are heartening signs of reform in the Corps Civil Works program, Congress should be working to create an independent process to bolster public confidence when the Corps gets it right and help to provide a means for identifying problems before taxpayer funds are used."

Projects that would be subject to review include any new projects, or significant modifications to existing projects:

with an estimated cost of over $25 million (approximately 40% of the projects funded through the Water Resources Development Act),
for which the Governor of the affected State requests independent review,
that are determined to have significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife after implementation of proposed mitigation plans by the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
for which the head of another Federal Agency charged with reviewing the project determines that the project has a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other resources under their jurisdiction, or
which are determined by the Corps to be "controversial" in its scope, impact or cost-benefit analysis.

No hearings have been scheduled on the bill.