Testimony of Nancy Stoner, Director, Clean Water Project
Natural Resources Defense Council
Before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Good
morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. I am Nancy Stoner, Director of the Clean Water Project at the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national environmental group that
has a long history of working to protect our nation’s waters through the Clean
Water Act. I am also one of the co-chairs
of the Clean Water Network, a coalition of more than 1,000 groups supporting
clean water from around the country. I
present this testimony on behalf of both NRDC and the Clean Water Network. My expertise is primarily on clean water,
not safe drinking water issues, so while I will touch on both, I will focus my
remarks on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
Thank
you for holding this timely hearing today on S. 1961, the Water Investment Act
of 2002, which would reauthorize the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water
Act state revolving funds (SRFs). This
is a tremendous opportunity for the Congress to provide increased funding and
essential improvements in these programs.
Restore Our Water Infrastructure Investment
The
federal government’s investment in wastewater and drinking water treatment over
the last thirty years has brought tremendous progress in cleaning up our
rivers, lakes, and coastal waters and in ensuring the safety of our drinking
water. For example, EPA has documented a dramatic decrease in loadings of
sewage contaminants into our waterways from the wastewater treatment plants
that we built through the construction grants and clean water state revolving
fund programs. Progress in Water
Quality: An Evaluation of the National
Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment, U.S. EPA 2-72 (June
2000)
That
progress, however, has been eroded by water pollution resulting from urban
stormwater, agricultural runoff and of discharges of inadequately treated
sewage from our deteriorating collection systems and wastewater treatment
facilities. In fact, the same EPA
report that trumpets our tremendous success to date in reducing sewage
contamination predicts that, if we do not substantially increase investment and
treatment efficiency, by 2025, we will again have pollutant loadings from
domestic sewage that are as high as they were in 1968 – the highest in our
nation’s history.
And untreated sewage is not the only growing water
pollution problem. NRDC’s annual report
on beach pollution shows increasing beach closures and advisories due to
bacterial contamination of coastal waters for 10 of the 13 years reported. Testing the Waters (Eleventh Edition), Natural
Resources Defense Council (August 2001).
The number of closures in 2000 was the highest ever. While some of the increase is due to better
monitoring and reporting of beach pollution, stormwater pollution continues to
increase as development replaces soil and vegetation with paved surfaces that
collect and convey pollutants directly into our waterways. Stormwater Strategies, Natural
Resources Defense Council 23-38 (May 1999).
We need to step up our investment now to keep these sources of pollution
from overshadowing our previous water quality gains.
Increase Funding and Spend It on More Environmentally
Beneficial Projects
The
environmental community would like to see water infrastructure legislation
achieve three major goals:
1.
Substantially increase
funding for state clean water and safe drinking water projects.
2.
Spend that money on more
cost-effective and environmentally beneficial projects.
3.
Improve public
participation in the funding
process and increase state accountability for the expenditure of federal funds.
I
will describe each of these issues and our proposals addressing them through
this legislation in turn, but, as an initial matter, I would also note that we
are concerned that reauthorization of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water
SRFs not be used as a vehicle for rolling back clean water or safe drinking
water protections. We urge the Congress
to stick narrowly to the issue of developing a new paradigm for water
infrastructure funding that will better meet the needs of our nation and will
provide greater environmental benefit for each dollar spent. That is a large enough task for the
moment.
Mind the Gap
As was discussed extensively at the Fisheries,
Wildlife & Water Subcommittee’s oversight hearing last spring, the funding
gap between water infrastructure needs and available resources is very large
and continues to grow. Yet, the current
Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs are grossly insufficient to meet our
nation’s water quality needs, which include repairing and replacing aging sewer
plants and collection systems, controlling contaminated stormwater, minimizing
polluted runoff, and remedying decaying and out-of-date drinking water
treatment, protection, and distribution systems. We need to authorize substantially more SRF funds to close the
gap between our water needs and available federal funding. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Water Infrastructure Network estimate that $23 billion must be invested
annually in the next 20 years to replace aging infrastructure and to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
While there are differing estimates of the amount of additional funding needed, the need for greater investment in clean water and drinking water infrastructure is clear and undisputed. Any reauthorization of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water SRFs must substantially raise the funding levels for those programs. We commend the sponsors of the Water Investment Act of 2002 for supporting substantially increased funding over the next five years, but urge you to look ahead and to authorize additional spending for at least the next ten years. We know now that we will continue to need vastly increased water infrastructure financing beyond 2007. We should begin to plan now to meet those future needs by authorizing them in this legislation.
Fund the Smartest, Most Beneficial Projects
The growing funding gap suggests not just the need for more funding, but also the need to begin to spend that funding more wisely to obtain the greatest amount of environmental benefit per taxpayer dollar invested in water infrastructure. We should not merely rebuild our wastewater systems using the hard infrastructure technologies of the past. We must become smarter about stretching our federal investment in water infrastructure by spending more on “green infrastructure” – non-point and non-structural solutions that are more efficient and more environmentally effective than traditional concrete and pipe solutions. We need to take advantage of the innovative approaches that have been developed over the past several decades that allow us to use on-site source controls (like rain gardens), stream buffers, conservation practices, and other approaches to prevent pollution. These approaches reduce the amount of water that needs to be conveyed to centralized treatment facilities, thereby reducing the cost of operating those facilities.
For years we have known that polluted runoff is the
most significant source of water pollution in the nation for lakes, streams,
and coastal waters. Yet, year after
year, we continue to direct the vast majority of federal funding to point
source discharges. According to EPA,
between 1987 and last summer, only 4% went to non-point source projects. Four years ago, EPA adopted a goal of
increasing the annual percentage of Clean Water SRF funds loaned for non-point
source projects to 10% by 2001. EPA
pledged to “work with states and territories to ensure that state loan funds
are used for the highest priority polluted runoff projects that meet the
programs’ financial criteria.” Clean
Water Action Plan, U.S. EPA 57 (Feb. 1998). This goal has not been met.
In fact, the percentage of Clean Water SRF funds used for non-point
sources has not increased in the four years since this pledge was made. We need to do more than continue talking if
we are going to begin to see the real changes in water quality that are the
goal of the SRF program.
Prevent
Pollution and Reduce Costs with “Green Infrastructure” Approaches
While states are allowed to fund non-point
source projects under the Clean Water SRF, many of them continue to fund
traditional, centralized wastewater treatment approaches even when a non-point
or non-structural solution would be less expensive, more effective, and provide
non-water quality benefits. Similarly, while states are also authorized to fund
non-structural drinking water protection (such as buffer zones or easements),
many states have failed to use this authority despite the cost-effectiveness
and environmental benefits of such projects.
While hard infrastructure projects are an important component of
addressing our wastewater needs, we can often mitigate these needs and do a
better job of cleaning up the water by funding a combination of cost-effective,
non-structural, preventive projects (green infrastructure) and innovative and
alternative engineering strategies. Use
of distributed, nonstructural, pollution prevention approaches in addition to
modernization of aging, decaying treatment plants, collection systems, and
distribution systems can forestall the need for even more costly approaches and
investments in the future.
Non-structural and non-point
approaches can also provide a wider array of benefits than hard infrastructure,
like pipes and wastewater treatment facilities, can. Those benefits include improved wildlife habitat, enhanced
drinking water supplies, energy savings, smog reduction, decreased flooding,
and higher property values. Stormwater
Strategies, NRDC, Chapter 12 (Sept. 2001).
These approaches result in cleaner bodies of water, a greener environment,
and better quality of life. Green
infrastructure is already working in a number of communities across the nation,
saving money and enhancing environmental quality.
Provide
a Specific Funding Incentive for Non-Structural and Non-Point Solutions
The Water Investment Act of 2002 takes a step in
the right direction on this issue by clarifying that non-structural and
non-traditional approaches to wastewater needs are eligible for funding under
the Clean Water SRF. However, this
clarification alone is not sufficient to overcome the institutional barriers to
using SRF funds for non-point and non-structural solutions to address
wastewater and stormwater pollution.
Those institutional barriers include the relative ease of making one
large loan for a major construction project rather than making many small
non-point source loans, the greater voice of sewer authorities than most
potential non-point loan recipients in setting priorities at the state and
local level, the bias of many engineering firms for traditional, hard
infrastructure projects, and the greater difficulty that many non-point source
recipients have in paying back loans since they often do not have a guaranteed
source of revenue as water and sewer authorities do. Some states also have laws or regulations that prevent non-point
sources from obtaining SRF loans, even when their projects can provide greater
environmental benefit at lower cost.
State and local officials repeatedly
tell us that these institutional barriers to funding non-point and non-structural
solutions with Clean Water SRF monies will be overcome only if we
provide incentives for their use.
That’s why NRDC and the Clean Water Network support providing a specific
incentive for non-point, non-structural approaches for cleaning up our
waters. In particular, we support
providing an incentive of additional funding of up to 10% of base funding for
any state that voluntarily sets up a SRF clean water fund for projects that provide non-structural protection to surface waters,
including agricultural
best management practices that benefit impaired watersheds, non-structural
stormwater and low-impact development practices, conservation easements, land
acquisition for water quality protection, stream buffers, wetlands restoration
and other non-point source or estuary projects.
This incentive approach relies on
lessons learned from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 and its successor, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, which allocated 10% of state surface transportation funds for
environmental enhancement projects that improve transportation systems and the
quality of life in our communities. Transportation enhancements preserve the
human and natural environment, increase the transportation mode choices
available to citizens, and encourage coordinated state, local, and public
involvement in transportation decisions. This multi-billion dollar program has
received broad support from state and local communities by making funding
available for non-traditional transportation projects, including the
restoration of a historic train station in Tampa, Florida, creation of a park
in Manchester, Vermont, and the construction of a rail-trail in Mineral Wells,
Texas.
The Water Investment Act of 2002 contains
funding a demonstration program to promote innovations in water supply and
treatment technology. While such a
program would helpful to spur continued innovation in water and wastewater
technologies, many green infrastructure approaches have been in use for more than
a decade. They have been demonstrated
to be effective and should be promoted for widespread use, not merely piloted,
at this point.
Direct Funding to the Greatest Environmental and Fiscal
Needs
In
addition to the monetary incentive for non-point and non-structural solutions,
we support a number of other mechanisms to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
spent on projects that will address the greatest environmental and fiscal
needs.
Fund Only Environmental Priorities
First,
we need to require that Clean Water SRF funds be spent to address those
projects identified by the state as its top priorities. The Safe Drinking Water SRF already has such
a provision. There is no good reason
why clean water funds, unlike safe drinking water funds, should be squandered
on projects that are not identified as top priorities. This loophole in the current statute must be
closed.
Give Priority to Projects Addressing Significant Public
Health and Environmental Needs and Needs of Disadvantaged Communities
Second,
we need to prioritize projects that meet the most significant public health and
environmental needs and those that help disadvantaged communities the
most. We support providing an explicit
priority for projects on these bases, as the Safe Drinking Water Act already
does, and also support principal forgiveness and other means to ensure that
disadvantaged communities and users receive greater access to SRF funds. We also recommend two mechanisms to ensure
that this mandate is adhered to – improved EPA oversight of state priority
lists and intended use plans and increasing public participation and
involvement in setting priorities and in monitoring use of the funds. With little oversight by US EPA and almost
no public involvement today in the creation of intended use plans and
identification of priorities, there is very little indication of whether
federal dollars are supporting the most pressing public health or environmental
needs. Meaningful public participation
in the best way to ensure that environmental and fiscally sound choices are
made. Ensuring such participation is
the best way for Congress to protect and build support for its clean, safe
water investment.
End SRF Funding for Sprawl Development
Third,
we need to stop using SRF funds to subsidize new sprawl development. Sprawl development makes pollution worse
in the long run by bringing more and ever-larger parking lots, roadways, and
driveways to more and more watersheds.
The volume of polluted runoff is significant – a one-acre parking lot
produces 16 times more runoff than an undeveloped meadow. And the aggregate
costs to our environment are adding up.
Urban runoff causes nearly half of the impairment of estuary miles
assessed by EPA. Disturbingly, U.S.
Department of Agriculture figures show that sprawl is accelerating. The 2.1
million acre-a-year development rate in the 1990s is 50% higher than in the
previous decade. The increase in paved surfaces leads directly to increased
flooding, stream channel degradation, habitat loss, increased water
temperature, contamination of water resources, and increased erosion and
sedimentation. By using our scarce
taxpayer dollars to fund sprawl, instead of repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement of existing sewer systems, we could exacerbate water pollution in
the long run. Sprawl will happen, but the federal government shouldn’t help
foot the bill. Congress should make the Safe Drinking Water Act requirement
that projects in state plans not support future growth a part of the Clean
Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund as well.
Fund Only Law-Abiding Entities
Fourth,
we need to discontinue funding for entities that are in significant
noncompliance with the Clean Water Act and that have not made a commitment to
remedy those violations in the future.
Funding of significant violators undermines efforts of law abiding
entities to raise funds for their wastewater needs. We will never have enough federal funding to address all
wastewater needs. We need to provide
incentives for communities to step up to the plate now and raise funds at the
state and local level as much as possible to address their wastewater and
stormwater problems, not to stay in violation and wait until more funding
becomes available. The Clean Water Act
SRF should be available only to entities that have committed to comply, not
those that have thumbed their noses at the regulatory requirements.
Inform the Public About Publicly-Funded Projects
Fifth,
we need to improve the publicly available information about the projects that
taxpayer dollars are used to fund.
Currently required reports on the use of SRF funds provide little useful
information and are not routinely available to the public. The public has a right to know which
projects are being funded at taxpayer expense and what they are
accomplishing. The Water Investment Act
of 2002 does little to improve state accountability for the use of funds or
public availability of such information.
Americans Want Clean, Safe Water
As
poll after poll has shown, Americans want clean, safe water and are willing to
invest more to get it. We applaud you
for moving forward with legislation to address the public’s demand for clean
water. We urge you to ensure that the
bill you pass is the best, most effective one possible to meet that
demand. Only if Congress substantially
increases funding for state clean water and safe drinking water projects,
spends that money on more cost-effective and environmentally beneficial
projects, improves public participation in the funding process, and increases state
accountability can we hope to achieve the clean and safe water Americans want
and deserve. This year is the 30th
Anniversary of the Clean Water Act.
Let’s move ahead this year with legislation that will ensure clean and
safe drinking water for years to come.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to
testify today. We have drafted specific
language on each of these issues and would like to work with you to address
them. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.