Congress Urged to Approve Funding for Water Security

By Maureen Lorenzetti

In light of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the White House and Congress leaders have made clear they are willing to sidestep the usual budget constraints to expand security for critical infrastructures, including water. Yet exactly how much money lawmakers will provide remains an open question.

Almost every special interest group wants to be considered as part of a large economic spending package now being considered by Congress and it is still anyone's guess what the final legislation will look like.

In the name of national security, estimates as high as a staggering $1.5 trillion for long-term infrastructure spending (both power and water) have been discussed although some lawmakers have been openly skeptical of the actual price tag for upgrading energy and water delivery systems.

On Oct. 10, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, whose members supply about 160 million people, told the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on water resources and environment that Congress should spend up to $5 billion to protect drinking water and wastewater plants.

They also advised giving the Environmental Protection Agency $155 million more — a 62-fold increase — for security planning.

"We now realize that we will have to plan for the unimaginable," said Patrick Karney, Cincinnati's sewer director and spokesman for the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies.

Major worries include concern that an explosion at a sewage plant along a river could contaminate the drinking water of millions downstream or that the destruction of major dams could wreak havoc on cities in the flow's path.

A bipartisan group of 11 senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee sent Senate leaders a letter Oct. 9 proposing the $5 billion among other billions of dollars in spending for security and economic reasons.

To get a better picture of what money and resources will be needed, a series of hearings were held in early fall. Actual spending levels for the new fiscal year were still being negotiated in mid October. Outside of security measures, federal spending levels for water treatment and related water issues are expected to be similar to last year, although a final agreement is still pending. Possible upgrades of municipal water systems could still be considered under the context of national security considerations, however. Congress is expected to wrestle with that possibility until mid-November when it takes a break for the winter holidays.

With normal budget issues taking a backseat to security issues this month, several hearings were held that sought to address potential terrorism threats to the nation's water supply and wastewater infrastructure.

Federal and local witnesses described their agencies' responses to the recent attacks, and outlined the steps they have since taken to ensure greater security at water supply systems, wastewater treatment plants, dams and reservoirs, and federally-owned power plants under their authority. Steps included heightening security, assessing security risks and needs, enhancing inter-agency and agency-industry information networks, and better personnel training.

Industry officials have told policy makers that terrorists are more apt to attempt to blow up a water holding structure than to try and contaminate the water supply because it is easier to obtain explosives and guns than the huge quantities of toxic chemicals that would be needed to foul a system. Nevertheless security experts say they plan to guard against both scenarios.

"Heightened security measures are in force in our office buildings, at our dams and power plants, and throughout the TVA system," Tennessee Valley Authority Chairman Glenn L. McCullough Jr. told a House Transportation subcommittee. "The value of our emergency plans and emergency drills has never been demonstrated more clearly, and we are continuing to further strengthen our overall security program."

TVA currently employs its own police force, and contracts with a private security company to help maintain security at its three nuclear power plants. McCullough assured the subcommittee that security at these locations was stringent and thorough.

Representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and others testified Oct. 10 before the U.S. House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.

"Before the tragic events of September 11, security of water resources and environmental infrastructure was not a very high national priority," said U.S. Rep. John Duncan (R-TN),chairman of the Subcommittee. "However, on that day, our nation learned that our own equipment and our own structures can be used against us.

"We have to consider whether chemical plants, dams, and water supply systems can be turned into weapons through destruction or contamination.

"There has been a lot of speculation about our vulnerability to terrorist attack. Not all of that speculation is well-founded. But to be prudent, government agencies and the private sector must review the security of all of the critical infrastructure they operate, and, where appropriate, take steps to increase that security."

Several types of attacks were of concern at the hearing, including attacks threatening physical destruction of water infrastructure components, biological and chemical attacks that would attempt to infect or contaminate water systems at various points, and cyber attacks that would attempt to sabotage electronically controlled water systems.

Federal law enforcement officials stressed that the country's water supply is indeed safe and protected, although they acknowledged water works are a "logical target for a terrorist attack."

Ronald L. Dick, director of the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center, addressed the Bureau's perceived likelihood and feasibility of threats to water resources. Throughout his testimony he sought to downplay the chances terrorists could poison the water supply.

"Based upon available intelligence and investigative information, there are no specific threats to major waterways or distribution networks at this time," he said, adding, "The FBI considers all threats to attack the water supply as serious threats.

"With regard to contamination by biological agents, the nation's water supply may seem to be a logical target for a terrorist attack. In reality, targeting the water supply may prove difficult."

Jeffrey J. Danneels of Sandia National Laboratories, which performs infrastructure security research and development, addressed similar concerns.

"Contamination of large-volume water supplies such as reservoirs is considered difficult because significant dilution is highly likely," he said.

Danneels suggested that the most vulnerable point in water infrastructure may be at water distribution subsystems, after water has been treated. He advocated monitoring capabilities that could detect contamination at various points throughout water systems.

Several witnesses stated that they would look for congressional guidance to help them address long term security needs and strategies.

Over in the Senate, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee has estimated that security-related spending on water and other infrastructure could reach $40 billion. Further details have not been forthcoming however on how much would be earmarked for water projects.

Various members of the Senate Environment Committee senators have asked the White House to spend anywhere from $1 billion to $5 billion in matching grants for drinking water infrastructure security improvements. WW/