Before I continue, I should note that the CSO bill has undergone significant revisions and that a complete substitute will be the subject of the testimony before the Committee today. These revisions reflect my attempt at addressing some of the comments and concerns that I received on the bill. It is my understanding that copies of this revised version have been circulated in advance so that our witnesses could review it.
The issue of Combined Sewer Overflows (or CSOs for short) is not exactly the most glamorous subject we discuss on Capitol Hill. Yet, for so many small and medium-size cities in this country, correcting their CSO problem is a big issue that comes with a big price tag! I became more aware of the CSO problem when my friend Mayor Wieczorek came to me several years ago with his concerns for Manchester's ratepayers. I'll let the mayor go into further detail about Manchester's situation, but suffice it to say, the City was potentially looking at a ten-fold increase in its sewer rates to comply with EPA's original mandate. After several years of negotiations with EPA, they agreed to a phased-in approach, but it still remains a significant financial burden on the citizens of Manchester. Likewise, Nashua residents will face a more than 80 percent increase in their sewer rates.
It was Mayor Wieczorek and representatives from numerous other CSO communities who convinced me that this legislation is necessary. The bill would authorize a critical funding partnership between our local, state and federal governments to facilitate the implementation of CSO controls and clean up the environment.
In addition to funding assistance, the bill would essentially codify EPA's 1994 CSO policy -- a document that was formulated through a broad-based stakeholder process and gave communities the additional flexibility they need to comply with CSO mandates. Unfortunately, this policy is just that a policy. It's not the law, and several cities have
already been sued over their CSO problems.
Many CSO systems date back to the turn-of-the-century when they were "state-of-the-art" sewer technology. The cost to upgrade these systems is estimated to cost $50 to $100 billion nationwide. And, unfortunately, CSO communities comprise much of America's declining urban core, and often times, areas least able to afford the enormous costs. This bill will give CSO communities the tools and resources they need to develop affordable and cost-effective programs to finally address their CSO control obligations.
Most of my colleagues on the Committee have CSO communities in their states and I am confident that they've heard from local officials on this issue. Even the states without CSOs should be interested in this bill since their states are likely downstream of communities with CSO discharges.
It is my belief that these communities have made a compelling case for regulatory and financial assistance. This is not a matter of trying to avoid their environmental responsibilities, but to the contrary, many of these communities have stepped up to the plate in implementing CSO controls. I need to look no further than my own state and the efforts of communities like Manchester and Nashua.
The CSO Partnership, a national organization that supports S.914, has been at the forefront of CSO control for a decade now. These communities are not here to avoid necessary and appropriate remedies. Many have doubled or tripled their water rates and borrowed to the limit of their ability to repay the loans. So, it is clear to me and I hope it will become clear to this Committee that CSO controls dramatically exceed our communities' local resources to implement, even with the Clean Water SRF loan program.
In addition to helping out local ratepayers, the legislation would go a long way in helping out the environment. Not only would we see a substantial reduction in sewage discharges into our rivers and lakes, but there would also be less incentive for sprawl development outside of our urban areas.
For these reasons, I was pleased to sponsor the CSO Partnership's proposal, and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the Committee with the goal of getting this legislation on the Committee's markup agenda in the near future. Thank you.