The Clean Water Act has brought about tremendous improvement in the quality of Ohio waters. By mandating control of point source discharges, including sewage treatment plants, the Act has enabled many streams to recover from low oxygen conditions, excess phosphorus discharges, and other degradation. There are many dramatic examples of the results, most notably perhaps the renaissance along the banks of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland and the resurgence of Lake Erie as a world class fishing destination. I understand that Senator Voinovich may be planning a fact-finding mission on the Lake this summer to confirm for himself that the walleye and perch are really biting.
In the 70's and 80's, many of the infrastructure projects that enabled water quality improvements throughout the state were funded through the federal Construction Grants program, which provided 75% of the cost of sewage treatment infrastructure mandated by the Clean Water Act. As you know, that program was converted to a low-interest loan program administered by the states.
The State Revolving Loan Fund program is currently due to be reauthorized, and I know that Governor Taft has written you to express his strong support for your bill to do that, Senator Voinovich. We are particularly pleased that S. 252 would double the current level of funding to $3 billion per year over five years. If enacted by Congress and signed by the President, S. 252 will greatly assist communities in Ohio and throughout the nation with the construction, expansion, and improvement of sewage treatment facilities.
However, even doubling current spending will not adequately meet the mandates in the Clean Water Act. I would like to briefly outline the needs in Ohio, and then to suggest two areas in which targeted resources are particularly needed.
Ohio EPA is in the process of updating the Clean Water Needs Survey, which we do every five years in cooperation with U.S. EPA. Unfortunately, the 2001 results are not yet available, so the figures I am about to give you are based on the 1996 survey. We hope to have more current numbers by mid-summer.
The total infrastructure need in Ohio, according to the survey, was $7.4 billion. That need can be further broken out as follows:
$1.1 billion for wastewater plant construction and improvement
$900 million to repair existing sewers
$900 million for construction of new sewers
$97 million for storm water controls
$198 million for nonpoint source pollution abatement
and $4.2 billion for combined sewer overflow elimination.
Combined sewer overflows account for more than half of the infrastructure needs in Ohio. Frankly, Senators, even with a dramatic increase in low-interest loan dollars, this burden is too much for many communities. There are 92 Ohio communities with combined sewers, and they range from the largest of our cities, such as Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, Youngstown, and Cincinnati, to very small communities like Van Wert and Lisbon. In fact, a total of $16 million for CSO controls is needed in communities with fewer than 1,000 residents.
As an example, Port Clinton, a northwestern Ohio town of a little more than 7000 people, has completed a Combined Sewer System Long Term Control Plan. The plan recommends improvements over the next five years of between $8 million to $14 million. Port Clinton's annual average sewer rate is now $566, 77% higher than the state average. To pay for the improvements, in today's dollars the average sewer bill will increase to $846 in 2004 , and to $1,132 in 2010. These financial projections already include a $1.5M grant expected in 2002 as part of a previous budget bill.
Eliminating combined sewer overflows is important if we are to continue to improve water quality. But the cost of controls is simply out of reach of most communities. Noncompliance brings federal sanctions, including monetary penalties that simply exacerbate the problem. What is needed are federal grant dollars, matched with state and local funds. This is the only way that CSO control infrastructure is likely to be built on the necessary scale nationwide, particularly when you consider that the same communities that must invest in these controls must also maintain aging wastewater treatment plants and sewer lines.
The second area where Ohio would like to see targeted federal grants is to provide sewers in low-income areas where failing septic systems are causing public health concerns. It is difficult to believe that in the year 2001 in the United States of America, people are living with raw sewage in the back yard, in the drainage ditch, or in the creek. But it's true in far too many communities. The 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey identified 199 areas in Ohio with high densities of failing on-lot septic systems, a number we believe significantly understates the real need. We are attempting to gather more accurate information in the survey that is ongoing now.
Clearly, exposure to drainage from a failing system threatens public health, but the threat does not end there. Pooling effluent is a breeding ground for mosquitos, which carry encephalitis, including the form known as West Nile Virus. Ohio expects to see West Nile Virus, which is potentially fatal, in the far eastern parts of the state this summer. At the same time, Lake County has filed a complaint, which we are now investigating, that the neighboring county to the east is allowing discharges from on-lot systems to go unabated, affecting water quality in Lake County downstream. These are our easternmost counties, and the places where mosquito breeding is particularly worrisome right now.
Community development is also impeded by failing on-lot systems. Obviously, a home with a septic system that does not work properly declines in property value. It becomes even more difficult to revitalize these low income areas, because few people would choose to live with such a nuisance if they could afford not to.
One example of a small Ohio community that is doing its best to rectify this problem is the village of Morristown, in Belmont County. The Village has been trying for years to find an affordable way to install sewers. Raw sewage from failing septic tank systems has been confirmed in the storm sewers and creeks around the town.
Development in the Morristown area has grown stagnant due to the lack of suitable wastewater facilities. Ordinary businesses that we all take for granted, such as a restaurant or a laundromat, have been unable to locate in the area.
The village has evaluated different alternatives, trying to find something that would be affordable for the 350 residents. The most recent proposal is for the village to construct sewers to tie into the existing Belmont County Fox Shannon wastewater treatment plant. The county has already extended sewers to the edge of the village to enable the village to tie in. However, the cost to the village residents could be as high as $105 per month for the approximately 130 households in the village without supplemental grants to bring down the cost.
Low interest loans, even zero interest loans, are not particularly helpful in this situation. Residents living at or near poverty level simply cannot afford to repay the loan. Again, federal grants are needed. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that there are places in America, places in Ohio, where the lack of adequate sewage treatment compares to that in some Third World countries. The federal government simply must help.
I do not want to leave you with the impression, however, that increasing funding is the only thing we can or should do. Regulatory flexibility will help available dollars go further and reduce the obstacles to compliance for many communities. Among the things Congress can do are:
Say Clearly That State Primacy Means Primacy The CWA should explicitly articulate minimum standards that states must meet to achieve primacy, that is, delegation of the federal program. Once the state is awarded primacy, there should be no independent federal presence unless the state fails to perform its obligations. The federal agency should not second-guess enforcement decisions or permit conditions.
Create Block Grant Funding Currently, funding under the Clean Water Act is a maze of separate grant programs, each with its own requirements. The goal of restoring and preserving watersheds drives all the State's clean water activities: permitting, enforcement, wetlands restoration, nonpoint source mitigation, monitoring, and so on. Yet most of these activities are funded through separate grants, imposing a burdensome grant tracking obligation. Clean air programs are managed for the most part under a single grant, and successfully so. Federal funding under the Clean Water Act should be changed to a block grant system, with the State held accountable for maintaining the fundamental standards of a delegated program, and free to allocate federal dollars according to its unique needs to achieve that end.
Recognize That When Everything Is A Priority, Nothing Is A Priority. Currently, U.S. EPA is pressing states, and ultimately communities, to move forward simultaneously on all fronts. Municipal and industrial permits must be updated every five years, sewer overflows must be controlled, storm water must be controlled, wetlands must be protected, coastal areas must be managed, stream uses must be designated, and on and on. Yet none of these efforts is adequately funded. The result is that states can do a little of everything, and not enough of anything.
Congress should change the term of discharge permits from five years to ten years. States spend inordinate resources renewing permits every five years, even though there is frequently no substantive change in permit requirements. There is a national backlog of expired permits, largely because states recognize that renewal on a five year schedule is often a paperwork exercise that produces less benefit than actual field work.
In addition, the reporting schedule under Section 305(b) should be changed from every two years to every five years. This section requires states to report water quality trends. Meaningful changes are unlikely to show up on a two year cycle. Five year reporting will ease the resource burden without negatively impacting forward progress.
GAO should evaluate whether states without an active antidegradation program are making less progress toward the "fishable, swimmable" goal, or whether antidegradation enforcement makes little difference in states' progress. The goal of antidegradation is to "keep clean waters clean." However, the Act is unclear with regard to when a discharge is significant enough to trigger this provision. Many states, therefore, fail to implement antidegradation, while others, including Ohio, devote significant resources to it. A GAO analysis could help to determine whether the antidegradation process effectively supports the goal of the Clean Water Act.
Chairman Crapo, Senator Voinovich, thank you for your willingness to explore this problem and work with us toward constructive solutions. On behalf of Governor Taft and the many communities in Ohio that are struggling to address their wastewater infrastructure needs, your interest is much appreciated.