Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 1915, The Small Community Assistance Act.
My name is Kenneth Bruzelius, New Prague, Minnesota. I bring three perspectives to the issue of small communities and their concerns. First, I have lived over 50 of my 65 years in rural places or small communities under 7,500 in population. In this capacity as citizen, I have served on a city council for a town of 50 people and I have served for two years as a township representative to a county planning board.
Second, as the Executive Director of the Midwest Assistance Program (MAP), my staff and I have entered thousands of small communities providing technical assistance to mayors, city councils and special district boards of directors. The Midwest Assistance Program is a not-for-profit agency that serves nine Midwest and western states with technical assistance to small communities on drinking water, wastewater, solid waste management and other environmental concerns. MAP is part of the Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP) network.
As an aside, the RCAP network deeply appreciates the support that we have received from members of this Committee through the years as we work with EPA, USDA, HHS and other government agencies. In particular, we thank both Senator Baucus and the Chairman for their support of a provision in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which, if enacted, will allow the Corps of Engineers to enter into cooperative agreements with RCAPs or other rural technical assistance entities to assist small rural communities during planning and implementation of Corps projects.
Third, I was a member of the Small Town Task Force (STTF) created by Public Law 102-386 dated October 6, 1992. Upon sunset of that task force I was asked to be a member of the Small Community Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS) - a subcommittee of the Local Government Advisory Committee. In July of this year my term on this small community advisory subcommittee expired.
I am pleased to be here today to support The Small Community Assistance Act of 1999. I commend Senator Jeffords for initiating and introducing this legislation, as well as those who are cosponsors. I also express appreciation to the Environmental Protection Agency for its interest, commitment and support of Small Community issues. My testimony supporting this legislation is a combination of individual expression as well as collaboration from local officials, other grassroots organizations, and the Rural Community Assistance Program network (RCAP).
Establishing a Small Community Advisory Committee as a permanent committee - instead of a temporary subcommittee is extremely important. Small communities represent an overwhelming percent of local governments.... over 26,000. Additionally, unincorporated communities subject to EPA regulation would be heard and benefit from the Small Community Advisory Committee. It is important that these stakeholders have a direct voice to EPA decision makers without the filter of a committee dominated by larger cities and metropolitan areas. This message came out loud and clear in the Small Town Task Force Report and has been reaffirmed in the current work of the Small Community Advisory Subcommittee. Background information about and excerpts from the STTF Report are included as part of this testimony starting on page 6.
The Small Community Assistance Act responds to the message conveyed by small communities in the Small Town Task Force Report. Briefly stated, that message is: * We need environmental protections; * We need to understand how new regulations will accomplish that; * We need input so that when regulations are promulgated they are appropriate to our situation; * We need advice and technical assistance in how to implement; * We need access to resources so that we don't bankrupt our communities and our future.
I commend EPA Staff for the seriousness and commitment that I have seen in their pursuit of their responsibilities. It is because of that commitment that I find it discouraging that they are not willing to offer to small community officials an opportunity to express their similar commitment to fully participating in the job of protecting the environment and public health.
Creating a permanent Small Community Advisory Committee with the objectives stated in S.1915 is a small, but extremely important mechanism toward offering small community officials this opportunity.
S.1915 would establish an advisory committee composed of at least one (1) small community representative from each of EPA's ten (10) regions. It would: * Allow for representation from Federal, State and public interest representatives. * Seek to improve the working relationship between the agency and small communities. * Provide for early involvement in the development of environmental regulations. * Report its activities to Congress. * Assist the EPA Administrator in other appropriate matters.
I ask - Who could reasonably deny small community officials this opportunity to show their commitment to helping themselves and their neighbors to meet essential environmental responsibilities?
S.1915 offers EPA an opportunity to better understand small communities. Section 8 - The Survey of Small Communities identifies relevant information needs that, if appropriately collected, compiled, analyzed, and translated into strategy, can assist EPA and the Congress in improving environmental services and quality of life in small town America.
S.1915 also offers small communities an opportunity to better understand the Federal Government's regulatory requirements for small communities. A Guide for Small Communities entitled "Everything You Wanted to Know About Environmental Regulations - But Are Afraid to Ask" was originally published by my organization (the Midwest Assistance Program) under a contract from Region VIII - EPA. It has been amended and updated a number of times by EPA regions, headquarters and states. This publication has fallen out of date and needs EPA to publish an on going, up-to-date guide in a format useful to small communities.
I would like to speak in particular about the concept of a Small Town Ombudsman at regional EPA offices. The STEP legislation of 1992 required EPA to initiate an Ombudsman function for small communities. EPA has refused to do so! The final report of the Small Town Task Force also recommended that EPA establish a Small Community Ombudsman office at EPA regional and headquarters offices. This recommendation has not been honored. (EPA has re-established a Small Community Advisory Subcommittee, and small communities are thankful for this limited voice.) Once again the Ombudsman issue was raised by the Small Community Advisory Subcommittee. The advisory subcommittee has spent the last two years asking EPA to implement an Ombudsman like function for small communities. Even today they resist this request. A letter of September 19, 2000, just one week ago today, was transmitted to the Agency again requesting the establishment of an office of a small town advocate. Such offices could serve a number of useful functions benefiting small communities as they seek to enhance and preserve environmental, quality of life services to their residents.
Regional Ombudsman Offices could:
* Provide for a mechanism to identify and notify small communities affected by new rules. * Consult with affected small communities about the potential impacts of a contemplated rule. * Make provisions for compliance assistance to small communities when the rule is adopted and implemented. * Identify "unintended consequences" of implementing a rule in unique situations and assist in providing an appropriate resolution. * Be a full-time advocate for small communities to the universal goal of enabling them to improve their environment and quality of life and meet regulatory compliance through implementation or appropriate exemptions or waivers. * Be a participant in state/EPA partnerships and delegation agreements to assure that small community concerns are considered: such as, outreach, technical assistance, availability of resources, etc.
It is also important for each Regional Ombudsman Office to have an advisory board of small community stakeholders. This approach recognizes the likelihood of regional differences and enables local officials to inform their Regional Ombudsman of their unique needs. The regional advisory mechanism should enable EPA, states, and local small community advisors an opportunity to understand issues that arise at each level and work toward acceptable solutions.
An EPA Headquarters Ombudsman Office could:
* Be an advocate within EPA at the start of, and during the regulatory development process to assure that impacts to small communities are clearly understood. In particular the cost implications of new regulations should be projected on a real cost basis to the smallest regulated community system that would be impacted. (i.e. if a community of 25 would be impacted, what would the real cost to that community be?) * Be an equal partner in the development of rules to determine what, if any, federalism implications may be involved in implementation. * Participate as an equal partner in EPA's evaluation of delegated programs to help identify and ameliorate unworkable or unintended negative regulatory impacts on small, rural communities.
The Superfund Ombudsman and the Small Business Ombudsman Offices are clear examples that the availability of such assistance benefits smaller entities, which often have few resources to secure other professional or legal assistance.
The Regulatory Review Plan described in Section 6 of the Act would seek to increase the involvement of small communities in the regulatory review process. This is important because: * Small community systems represent the largest number of regulated systems. * Small communities are the least able to survive a regulatory mistake or debacle. * Solutions that are available to cities are often cost prohibitive to small systems, and solutions appropriate to small systems are often untested or otherwise not acceptable to state regulatory agencies. * Small communities need to be represented by a larger number of community officials, because as individuals they often lack the time, experience and technical knowledge that paid staff and consultants can provide to larger cities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and the Small Business Regulator Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 have each prompted EPA to show a little more interest in how small communities are treated by the Agency. In effect, EPA has responded to small community needs only after Congress has mandated it. The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act (SBREFA) requires EPA to consult with small entities (including communities) when a proposed rule is likely to impose a "significant impact on a substantial number of small entities". Recently EPA utilized this stakeholder consultation process to review the development of a proposed regulation (arsenic). In spite of strong stakeholder dissent to what EPA proposed, it is yet to be shown that EPA's publishing of the proposed regulation was informed or modified in any way by this stakeholder process.
Background Information
This background information is taken from the Small Town Environmental Planning (STEP) legislation (Public Law 102-386) and from the Small Town Task Force Report dated May 23, 1996.
Small communities across the United States face a wide range of environmental challenges and responsibilities. Local leaders must evaluate a multitude of competing priorities with limited resources and are accountable to their citizenry for the decisions they make regarding these issues. It is increasingly difficult for small towns to manage and implement environmental requirements for a variety of reasons.
The work of the Small Town Task Force (STTF) characterized small communities as follows: People who live in small towns are proud of their community. They want to comply with reasonable health and environmental standards leaving a healthy legacy for their children. However, local officials are concerned about standards written without consideration for the special circumstances small towns in America face. They take issue with unnecessary and cumbersome regulations restricting their ability to respond intelligently to local priorities and needs. It is not that small towns do not want to comply with environmental regulations. They simply want some flexibility in order to comply in a reasonable manner. Small towns do not want preferential treatment; they want treatment that recognizes their unique political and financial situations. Small towns have many unique characteristics. It is realized that in order to maintain or improve the quality of life for citizens, difficult choices will have to be made.
Small Town Task Force [STTF] History
The Small Town Task Force was established by Public Law 102-386 dated October 6, 1992, section 109, Small Town Environmental Planning. This is also referred to as the STEP Legislation.
The STEP legislation authorized the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish the Small Town Environmental Planning Task Force, commonly referred to as the Small Town Task Force (STTF). The STTF was formed to improve the working relationship between EPA and small towns and the ability of small towns to comply with environmental regulations. The task force was to include representatives of small towns from different areas of the United States, federal and state governmental agencies and public interest groups. Fourteen individuals were appointed to the task force including municipal, township, and state and federal officials as well as others who work with small towns on environmental issues. It was my privilege and honor to be a part of this group.
The STTF provided recommendations to EPA on building the capacity of small towns to comply with regulations, promoting regionalization of environmental treatment systems, solving multi-jurisdictional compliance and permitting problems, involving small communities in the rule making process and improving the working relationship between EPA and small towns. Those recommendations are explained in detail in this testimony.
The STTF had five major responsibilities. They were to:
a. Identify regulations developed pursuant to federal environmental laws which pose significant compliance problems for small towns;
b. Identify means to improve the working relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and small towns;
c. Review proposed regulations for the protection of the environment and public health and suggest revisions that could improve the ability of small towns to comply with such regulations;
d. Identify means to promote regionalization of environmental treatment systems and infrastructure serving small towns to improve the economic condition of such systems and infrastructure; and
e. Provide such other assistance to the administrator, as the administrator deems appropriate.
Several responsibilities are assigned to the administrator or to the agency. Perhaps the most important is, "The Administrator...shall establish a program to assist small communities in planning and financing environmental facilities."
To begin the process of advising the administrator, the task force stated one finding and four principles, which it believed, guided and shaped all specific recommendations.
Finding: Small towns are different from large towns--not just smaller.
There are several reasons why this is true. Most of the reasons can be grouped into three broad areas: limitations on technical and professional capacity, limitations of financial resources, and demographic and socio-economic factors.
A. Limitations on technical and professional capacity.
First, small towns, as a general rule, have no full time officials. One state represented on the task force has 310 municipalities; 297 have fewer than 5,000 people. There are two full-time mayors in the state (for one town of 50,000 population and another with more than 100,000 population). There are four full-time city council members. All the remaining mayors and council members are part-time, and have other, full-time, life-supporting occupations.
On a national basis, 86% of the 35,000 total governments in the United States contain fewer than 10,000 people. Ninety million people in the United States live in jurisdictions under 10,000 population; 74 million live in jurisdictions under 2,500. One third of all governments in the United States have no employees at all.
Second, small towns, as a general rule, have little or no professional staff. Such towns may have a clerk, who may or may not have received specialized training. Routinely, small towns do not have planning offices or engineering staffs. The wastewater operator may have been trained by the state and may, in addition to operating the wastewater system, perform other municipal functions including maintenance and some law enforcement.
A key factor related to these two points is continuity, because town officials change, as do the bureaucrats who regulate them. At just about the time that agency officials are getting along with the current group of town officials, an election can cause them all to be thrown out of office. Then the whole education process has to start all over again. The loss of continuity threatens the communication linkages that have developed among local, state and federal officials. When that happens, regulatory compliance becomes a nightmare. Any good will developed by regulators may be lost in this situation.
Finally, there is often reluctance on the part of potential candidates to run for office and to be associated with unpopular environmental projects. In one state represented by a task force member, there are often elections in which nobody declares his or her candidacy. This means that the people who will address the challenges of environmental protection are write-in candidates.
Third, small towns, as a general rule, cannot attract or support private technical businesses; accordingly, there is no private capability to supplement governmental capacity. There will usually be no registered engineer in a small town, for example, nor will there be an engineering firm. There will be no laboratory to perform required tests. One member of the task force has no certified laboratory in her state.
Fourth, there will be few, if any, training opportunities. Small towns do not generally contain universities or significant technical training capabilities. Some progress is being made in this area in two respects: first, state governments have taken on some of the training responsibilities. Where local budgets permit travel, states can train, for example, water and wastewater operators. Second, in some areas interactive television networks offer an alternative form of training. But training opportunities will always be in short supply for small towns because training capacity does not exist locally.
The result of these four facts is that technical and bureaucratic capacity is severely limited in small towns. The part-time mayor is limited in ability to understand what requirements must be met; the council is limited in their ability to understand the significance of what they are being asked to do; and there are limited or no staff or private resources upon which to draw.
B. Limitations of financial resources.
Fifth, almost by definition, small towns have severely limited tax bases. In one state represented on the task force, a small town which needed a loan for water and wastewater projects found that the amount of the loan would have exceeded the entire assessed value of the town.
Sixth, small towns, because of limited opportunities for young people, tend to have disproportionately older populations. The implications of this fact will be explored in another way under socio-economic factors. On average, older persons, retired and/or living on fixed incomes--especially in rural areas--tend to be poorer than the population as a whole. Their marginal capacity to support increased spending, for any public purpose, is quite limited.
Seventh, small towns tend to have fragile, heavily concentrated economic bases. Thus, the small town gasoline station faced with the cost of upgrading underground storage tanks may be the only station in town. Should the owner not succeed in coming into compliance, the result of the loss is not a reduced competitive base; it may be the total loss of the services.
This can also have major impacts on individuals. Station owners cannot, in some instances, sell their businesses because of the cost to clean up the areas where previous owners have discarded petroleum products on the property. In some instances, the cost would exceed the sale price of the property. This burden causes loss of retirement income.
Eighth, infrastructure costs fall disproportionately on small towns because entry-level costs must be distributed over a smaller base. Thus, the cost of a waste water system for a population of 1,000 is not one percent of the cost of such a system for a population of 100,000; it is substantially more. When those costs are distributed over a smaller number of households, the per family costs escalate--perhaps as much as ten times. EPA is currently considering combined sewer overflow rules. The agency estimates that the per-household costs in towns under 1,000 population will be more than ten times higher than similar costs in towns with populations greater than 100,000. This is a well-recognized principle in the development of rural drinking water systems. Unfortunately, this does not appear to have been a consideration when the federal pollution abatement grant programs were being administered.
Ninth, limited tax bases mean limited budgets. Small towns routinely operate with budgets smaller than $100,000 per year. In many instances, the amounts will not exceed $50,000. These budgets are so small that the cost of additional drinking water testing, for example, may be ten percent, or higher, of the total annual budget.
Many small jurisdictions do not have access to capital at reasonable rates. This may occur because of costs of obtaining bond ratings, thereby causing the community to have a "non-investment grade" rating with accompanying higher rates. Or the problem may arise from limited resources, or from state constitutional limitations on indebtedness.
While funding sources exist at the federal, state and local levels, small communities often find it difficult to access these sources, for reasons discussed elsewhere, such as the absence of technical and professional staff, absence of political strength, and a lack of recognition of the particular problems of small communities.
Many small towns cannot get local approval to expend funds for programs which go beyond what they believe is necessary.
C. Demographic and Socio-Economic Factors.
Tenth, small towns tend to have little, or no, medical care or emergency services readily available. In the current debate on national health care, rural states have repeatedly tried to make clear that their problem is, more than anything else, the absence of medical care. Thus, "managed competition" may not be the answer where there is no competition to manage. Additionally, medical infrastructure, such as ambulance and 911 services are routinely not available. Finally, small towns have limited fire-fighting capability. They often rely on volunteer fire departments and limited equipment.
It is, therefore, somewhat facile to argue that small towns must meet the same environmental standards as the rest of the nation and that such standards are required by "environmental equity." Citizens of small towns may already be subject to greater health risks than their neighbors in large cities. If the basis for imposing the environmental standard is health protection, greater health protection could be accomplished through expanded medical and emergency services.
Eleventh, a disproportionately older population may require different forms of health protection. Typically, environmental protection is based on health risks that may or may not come to fruition for ten or twenty years. The older population of the typical small town has many more immediate health threats with which it must cope.
Twelfth, small communities often lack political strength, both on the state and national levels. Small communities perceive that they are required to meet higher environmental standards than large communities are able to arrange for themselves through the exercise of political power. This lack of political strength may affect the distribution of resources as well as the granting of exemptions and deviations.
For all these reasons, the STTF found that small towns are fundamentally different from large communities.
The Small Town Task Force Committee identified three primary priorities. These priorities are excerpts from the Small Town Task Force Report.
I. Improving the Working Relationship Between EPA and Small Towns
* The STTF should be re-established as an independent advisory group by the Administrator, within existing statutory and funding guidelines, to continue its work and provide ongoing guidance to EPA regarding small towns.
* A Small Town Ombudsperson Office should be established in each EPA region and at headquarters with primary responsibility for serving as an advocate for small towns and as a facilitator for addressing small town concerns and programs.
* EPA should formulate a method for allocating federal resources and funds for environmental issues targeted on the basis of need recognizing that small towns often pay a disproportionate share of expense.
* EPA should take an activist role in shifting both environmental responsibility and accountability to the states, giving them the capacity to solve local problems in the most economically feasible and timely manner. These efforts should support the broader concept of encouraging localities to implement community-based environmental planning.
* EPA should recognize the ability of small towns to initiate, prioritize and implement community-based environmental planning efforts.
* EPA must use the opportunity of Agency reorganization to institutionalize special considerations for small towns.
* A brief preface for each proposed and adopted regulation should be provided in layperson terms providing a justification for the regulation.
* Information developed on environmental regulations and requirements of regulations must be written in user-friendly language.
* A waiver process that is easily understood and implemented should be developed so that when small communities request a waiver, states have a process in place.
* Chemical monitoring requirements should be revised to provide states with authority to design alternatives to national monitoring requirements.
II. Policy and Procedure to Involve Small Towns in the Rule-Making Process
* EPA should establish a Small Community Advisory Committee to review environmental regulations as part of an initiative for involving small towns as early as possible in the process of developing environmental rules, guidance's and policies.
* Funding should be set aside to include conflict resolution experts in the regulatory process. This will be especially crucial when those with opposing views are not able to reach a compromise or mutually agreed upon solution.
* Outreach mechanisms are needed for small towns that extend beyond those that have traditionally been used. Special efforts are needed for reaching small jurisdictions.
* EPA must insure that a small town official sits on the Regulatory Negotiation Work Group when a rule or policy that has the potential to impact small towns is being reviewed to assure the special nature of small towns is considered. The STTF should have the opportunity to identify a representative that is knowledgeable on the specific issue being considered.
* EPA needs to improve methodologies for assessing the environmental impacts, costs, and practical and technical applications of proposed regulations. Special consideration should be given to how regulations will impact towns with populations less than 2,500.
* EPA should expand its use of focus groups, Internet, public meetings, newspaper articles and regional small community work groups such as the one in Region VIII to inform small towns of pending rules and issues of concern.
* EPA should utilize the small community databank for information about small towns when writing regulations.
III. Technical Assistance
* EPA should assure that technical assistance is available to small town officials from federal, state and third party providers to enable timely and cost effective environmental compliance capacity at the local level.
* The Office of the Small Town Ombudsperson must be staffed to provide technical assistance to small towns and to resolve problems between state primacy agencies and small towns pertaining to interpreting and implementing new regulatory requirements.
* EPA and Congress should fund technical assistance as part of state delegation grant programs and provide assurances that states have the capacity to provide technical assistance to help small towns comply with mandated regulations.
EPA and Congress should expand resources available, both directly and through third party technical assistance providers, enabling small towns to secure professional services for planning, developing and implementing new or rehabilitated environmental facilities whether immediate compliance problems are at stake or pollution prevention efforts are the issue.
2