Testimony of Elmer Ronnebaum,
General Manager of the Kansas Rural Water
Association
For the National Rural Water Association
Before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Water
February 28, 2002
S.
1961
Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss small communities and
their water funding concerns.
My name is Elmer Ronnebaum. I am General Manager of the Kansas
Rural Water Association. We have more
than 650 small community members that operate water utilities and most operate
wastewater utilities. Kansas Rural
Water Association is governed by the local communities. The mission of the
Association is to improve and protect water quality through grassroots
technical assistance of utility operation and maintenance and training. Every community wants to provide the best
possible water quality to their consumers. Rural Water provides the resources
and training to achieve this objective in a common sense, hands-on manner
systems can utilize. I have personally
worked with hundreds of small communities in Kansas on problems ranging from
securing SRF or other funding, to water supply, to explaining to a new operator
or city council member what the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act,
and the Federal Register are and what they require. Kansas Rural Water is similar to the state rural water
association in each of your states. I am honored to speak on their behalf
today.
On behalf of all small and rural communities, I would like to
thank the Committee for your efforts to assist small communities with
compliance with the federal Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act and to
provide the safe drinking water and highest quality of effluent possible. Rural
Water looks forward to working with you to move these ideas into laws and
actual dollars in the field.
The five principle dynamics of small communities that we believe
need to be recognized in discussing funding policies are:
· One, that small
communities make up the overwhelming percentage of water and wastewater
utilities – over ninety percent of regulated communities.
· Two, that due to a
lack of economies of scale, small town consumers often pay high water and sewer
rates. Water bills of more than $50 for
5000 gallons of water are not uncommon in rural areas. This dynamic often results in very high
compliance costs per household in rural systems. Simultaneously, the rural areas have a greater percentage of the
nation's poor and a lower median household income. This results in very high compliance cost per household in rural
systems coupled with a lesser ability to pay.
· Three, small systems
often have limited technical and administrative resources to deal with
compliance and navigate through funding programs. In the smallest systems, one person may run both the water and
sewer system and in some cases communities can only afford a part-time or
volunteer operator. This lack of
resources makes small systems a challenge for state agencies – the more
complicated we make funding programs the more likely the small communities,
which need the funds most, will not be able to participate.
· Four, small
community water systems have been the historical solution to rural families
living without water. Small water
systems were ONLY started to improve the public health. The result is dramatic improvements in
public health by providing an alternative for families from gathering their
drinking water from untreated streams, shallow and contaminated wells, roof
collection and cisterns. In 2001, there
are hundreds of thousands of rural families that still don’t have piped water
in their homes. Millions of rural
families still have water delivered to their homes. According to the USDA at
least 2.2 million rural Americans live with critical quality and accessibility
problems with their drinking water, including an estimated 730,000 people who
have no running water in their homes. About five million more rural residents
are affected by less critical, but still significant, water problems.
· Five, consolidation
and privatization are limited solutions for small systems. Consolidation can work in some situations,
but only for a small portion of small systems and only when the systems are in
close proximity and the economics make sense.
Rural Water is the lead proponent of consolidation when it makes sense
(when it results in better service for the consumer) and we have consolidated
numerous communities in all the states.
Consolidation and regionalization that is in the consumers’ best
interest will happen naturally at the local level regardless of federal policy
on issue. Federal policy that favors
consolidation over the locally preferred solution is a step in the wrong
direction for consumers (i.e. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300g-3(h) Consolidation
Incentive). Privatization is rarely a
less costly solution for very small communities. In the very small communities
it is, perhaps, more common to see private systems being transferred to public
bodies so they can obtain better financing and local governmental control. The missions of private water and rural
water systems are fundamentally different, the reason being the lack of profitability
in sparse rural populations.
In 1996, another Senator from Idaho, Dirk Kempthorne, made a
significant policy change in the Safe Drinking Water Act. At every opportunity, he ameliorated the Act
by including as much flexibility as possible.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the state revolving fund
section. Under the Kempthorne approach
states were given all sorts of discretion on how to spend the money to meet
their local priorities. For example, a
state can make grants, can fund set-asides, expand technical assistance efforts,
create new prevention programs, increase state staff, or choose to do none of
these and retain the traditional low interest loan focus.
Small communities’ message here today is that this was a
monumental step in the right direction. This flexibility has made state SRFs
better and more responsive to nearly every stakeholder. Small systems have seen a level of inclusion
and benefits from the drinking water SRF that we could not imagine based on our
experience with the wastewater SRF that does not include these flexible
provisions.
Some state rural water associations have not been impressed with
the way their state has chosen to utilize their discretion. Some states have steered funds to larger
systems with less urgent needs, in their opinion, to make fund administration
easy and keep bond ratings high.
However, this is not a complaint that is appropriate for this
committee. Those concerns are best
handled in the states and each year locals have a better chance to improve
their own state’s program.
My state of Kansas is an exemplary case for success in SRF
implementation. Many of our small systems are receiving large funding packages
from the SRF. The state has made small
system funding a priority in Kansas and we have expanded technical assistance
to small systems. Assistance is also provided to help small systems through the
funding process. The Kansas application for drinking water
funding is streamlined and simple enough for a small system operator (with too
little time and too much to do) to complete.
Also in Kansas, Mr. Kempthorne’s creative experiment in policy
ignited innovation in governmental programs.
Our state’s drinking water administration has exploited the provisions
in the SRF to invent one of the best local-state partnerships in all of
government. As you consider crafting
new funding legislation, small and rural communities urge you to include a few
key provisions dealing with flexibility and targeting of funding that have made
the drinking water program more responsive to small systems.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize the key elements for small
and rural communities in modifying the wastewater the drinking water SRFs as
follows: Make the wastewater fund more
like the drinking water fund and put more money in both.
We urge you to include three legislative provisions in both water
and wastewater that would ensure communities in the greatest public health and
economic need receive prioritization in funding programs. One, the communities exhibiting the greatest
need should receive funding first. Second, programs should not be limited to
making loans because in many situations, small communities will not have the
ability to pay back a loan – even with very low interest rates. Third, a minimum portion of the funds should
be set-aside for small systems. This
ensures that a state must set up a process for dealing with small
communities. Once established, local
pressures and priorities will determine the actual portion directed to small
systems, which we expect will often be greater than the minimum
prescribed. All of these provisions
were included in some manner in the drinking water SRF – balancing the federal
priorities with the state’s flexibility to tailor individual programs and
discretion on implementation of each these programs.
The SDWA included the following three provisions to ensure that
funds would result in the greatest advancement in public health/environmental
protection and be used to assist the consumer with the most economic needs.
1) A small system set-aside like the drinking water SRF (this
serves as an incentive to create a useful process for outreach to small
systems). SECTION 1452 (a)(2) USE OF FUNDS-Of the amount credited to any State
loan fund established under this section in any fiscal year, 15 percent shall
be available solely for providing loan assistance to public water systems which
regularly serve fewer than 10,000 persons to the extent such funds can be
obligated for eligible projects of public water systems.
2) A requirement to target systems most in need like the drinking
water SRF. SECTION 1452 (b)(3)(A) IN
GENERAL -An intended use plan shall provide, to the maximum extent practicable,
that priority for the use of funds be given to projects that -- (i) address the
most serious risk to human health; (ii) are necessary to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this title (including requirements for filtration); and
(iii) assist systems most in need on a per household basis according to State
affordability criteria.
3) Grants (some type of mechanism to make funding useful for
hardship communities). SECTION 1452 (d)
ASSISTANCE FOR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES (1) LOAN SUBSIDY- Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, in any case in which the State makes a loan
pursuant to subsection (a)(2) to a disadvantaged community or to a community
that the State expects to become a disadvantaged community as the result of a
proposed project, the State may provide additional subsidization (including
forgiveness of principal). (2) TOTAL AMOUNT
OF SUBSIDIES- For each fiscal year, the total amount of loan subsidies made by
a State pursuant to paragraph (1) may not exceed 30 percent of the amount of
the capitalization grant received by the State for the year. (3) DEFINITION OF DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY-
In this subsection, the term `disadvantaged community' means the service area
of a public water system that meets affordability criteria established after
public review and comment by the State in which the public water system is
located. The Administrator may publish
information to assist States in establishing affordability criteria.
Our specific comments on Senate Bill 1961 include:
1. We appreciate that the bill did not include new priorities for
funding, set-asides for various size systems, and changes in the disadvantage
community determination. We have been
told that large system groups believe too high a percentage of the present
drinking water SRF funding is going to small communities. However, a
significant portion of the funding should flow toward small systems because,
generally, they need it more. Rates are
often much higher per household in small communities – often from compliance
requirements. EPA rules on the horizon
will likely triple water rates in rural systems. Also, rural communities often have lower median household
incomes. The CWA and SDWA axiom in
rural areas is: much higher cost per household with much lower income. No large system is facing cost increases on
a per household basis comparable to what is facing small systems. It only makes sense that federally
subsidized funding would flow toward the communities with the greatest need –
that is to small systems.
2. We appreciate that the
bill retains the three SDWA provisions (mentioned above) that ensure funding
results in the greatest advancement in public health/environmental protection
and be used to assist the consumer with the most economic need. This keeps the money tied to the
regulations. Funds should be used for the greatest health protection, which
should be what the regulations are targeting.
To target funding for issues outside of the scope of the regulations
would infer that the regulations are not covering the greatest health risks.
3. We urge the Committee to include the three SDWA provisions
[sec. 1452 (b)(3)(A) - above] in wastewater program in a comparable form. This will ensure the more critical projects
with the greatest need receive priority.
4. We urge the Committee to include the same set-aside amounts for
the wastewater and drinking water programs; 15% minimum for small systems as
like the drinking water program and 30% disadvantaged community subsidy like in
the drinking water programs. This
parity will ensure states have the tools to help the systems most in need and
will be especially important if the two funds have transfer authority between
them.
5. Corporate water systems should not be eligible for state
revolving funding. Taxpayer subsidies
should be prohibited from profit generating companies or companies paying profits
for shareholders/investors. Private
companies argue that they have to comply with the same regulations. However,
they voluntarily chose to get into this “business” and compliance is not the
over-riding principle that should be considered in this discussion. We believe that the distinction in mission
between public and private is the core principal that should be
considered. Private systems are in the
business to maximize profit. Public water utilities were and are created to
provide for public welfare (the reason why public water continues to expand to
underserved and non-profitable populations).
This is a significant difference. And while we believe that maximizing
profit is a noble virtue and as American as safe water, we do not think that
taxpayers should help the cause of privately owned systems. In addition, the needs of less affluent
public water systems and families with no piped water dwarf the current SRF
allocations. The state of Florida has a
novel compromise to this issue. Florida
limits SRF funds to private water systems less than 1,500 people – ensuring
funds are limited to the class of private water systems that did not get into
the business as a corporate enterprise.
Also, this group of private systems could be included in the state’s
needs assessment which determines allocations under the bill.
6. The bill includes many new requirements for applicants
including: environmental, land use planning, capacity, actual cost of water,
common industry practices, etc. We urge
you to exercise caution for increasing demands on applicants as each new demand
makes the process too complicated for small systems and therefore less
attractive. We believe that the current review process is fully adequate to
ensure repayment of loans, progressive environmental planning, and long-term
capacity of applicants. Nationalizing policy industry practices and determining
actual cost of water could lead to gold-plating of water utility practices
which is not in the best interests of consumers.
7. We urge the Committee
to limit the ability of any portion of a water or wastewater system to be
eligible for disadvantage type subsidies or other special treatment. To assist any portion of a system moves the
effort from an environmental-public health program to a social program. If particular low-income consumers are
having problems paying their water bills, we don’t think the SRF should be used
as the solution. That may be an issue
for agencies other than the EPA. It is
important to note that a state can determine a large system disadvantaged as
well as a small system. Funding a
portion of a system seems to be a way to skirt the current process which is
working so well at prioritizing systems most in need. Also, this moves the SRF in a direction contrary to the CWA and the SDWA’s regulatory structure which only
applied on a system-by-system scope.
8. We urge the Committee to consider including provisions guiding
the percent of a project that can be used for engineering/consulting services
on projects. USDA has such a provision
[PART 1780 - WATER AND WASTE LOANS AND GRANTS, §1780.39(b) Professional
services and contracts related to the facility]. In Kansas, our research shows that engineering fees are sometimes
charged at twice as much in programs that don’t have such guidance on
engineering fees.
9. It is not clear exactly what defines “public-private”
partnerships. This may be too ambiguous
and means various things to various people – left open to EPA or state
determinations may result in unintended consequences. Also, the states are doing a fine job of public outreach under
the current rules. Before requiring
more “significant” public outreach, we should first conclude the current is not
working (which states and why would be useful information).
10. The proposed wastewater program is limited to “municipal”
systems and privates. We urge you to
consider opening it up to a variety of non-profit systems including districts
and other quasi-governmental systems, which we believe was intended and is
consistent with the drinking water programs.
Many rural wastewater systems are not legally municipalities, but rather
district or other non-profit utilities.
11. We urge the Committee to consider allowing states the
discretion to 30 years loans to any small community – not just to communities
designated disadvantaged.
The coming arsenic rule will increase the number of small systems
facing funding challenges. Dozens of
small systems in Kansas (thousands across all the states) will need funding to
comply with the arsenic regulation.
One municipality in Kansas that will be greatly affected by
Arsenic Rule, established at 10 ppb, is the City of Atwood (population of
1,300) surrounded by farmland and an agricultural economy.
Past arsenic water quality results for the City of Atwood has
shown a range of 12 to 18 ppb in the three currently used municipal wells. The proposed arsenic MCL of 10 ppb allows
the City two general feasible options to attain the MCL. The community has an option to develop new
well fields in the Ogallala formation located several miles from the community.
However, while Ogallala formation generally provides better water quality and
perhaps an arsenic concentration below the 10 ppb, it is a much more cemented
and finer formation. This fine
formation decreases production of wells.
Thus to develop a sufficient municipal water supply, more area for wells
is required since they must be a greater distance apart. The estimated cost of this option would be
$2,200,000 based on a five-mile transmission main with four wells to meet daily
water demand. A second option available
is treatment of the existing water supply sources.
The city presently does not have a single point of entry into the
distribution system. Each well is
directly connected into the distribution system. All wells are located in separate areas of the existing system.
Over 3,000 feet of distance exist between the two farthest wells. In order to implement a point of use
treatment plant, a new dedicated transmission main would have to be constructed
between the wells. Land and easements
would have to be procured to build a treatment facility. Atwood’s sulfate concentrations in the range
of 90 to 309 mg/L will affect treatment efficiencies in an ion exchange process
requiring frequent regeneration. This creates higher operation and maintenance
cost (O&M). The estimated treatment
facility cost would range from $1,300,000 to $2,100,000 depending on the Best
Available Technologies (BAT) selected.
Atwood could experience a budget increase of $50,000 to $75,000 per year
with the incorporation of a treatment plant.
These budget increases are due to operation and personnel
requirements. Special by-product
disposal requirements could require more operation costs.
In order to provide funding for capital construction and O&M
assuming a 5% interest rate and 20-year loan period that corresponds with the
life of a treatment facility with 700 connections, the monthly water rate would
have to increase by $18 to $29 per connection.
Again, please keep in mind this does not include the current water rate
and upgrades currently necessary to keep the system in compliance. [MILLER
& ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C., McCook , NE 2001]
This is a conservative estimate and does factor in all the costs
for compliance. Rate increases on this type of a community could be
devastating.
However, Mr. Chairman, while no system will be in greater need for
federal assistance than Atwood, KS the challenge is how to craft a funding
program that will work for those most in need.
Cost estimates of the funding needed to sustain a healthy U.S. water
supply are staggering. The Water
Infrastructure Network, of which Rural Water is a member, estimates an $11
billion annually funding gap over the next 20 years. This estimate is over 4 times the current combined federal
contribution in the USDA, EPA Drinking Water, and EPA Wastewater programs.
Rural Water is not the type of organization that can present an
accurate cost figure on the future need for funding. However, we can acknowledge the extreme shortfall in both EPA SRF
and the USDA water programs, as indicators that the current needs are not being
met. The USDA program, which is the
core-funding program for small water and wastewater projects, is currently
experiencing a $3.2 billion backlog. We
believe this is the most accurate indicator of need because all of the systems
in USDA’s backlog have applied for funding.
They have met the requirements of USDA’s strict needs requirement
(including lack of commercial funding availability and high ratios of median
household income to water rates).
In addition to this current need, EPA is proposing more
regulations. Many of the regulations
will force small towns to come up with millions in financing – many systems
will be stressed to comply. I think it is significant to observe a new dynamic
in EPA regulations: the regulation of naturally occurring contaminants and the
regulations of operations and maintenance in utilities. The result of this new effort by EPA will be
to greatly expand the number of systems forced into costly compliance with EPA
rules. For example, very few systems
were required to treat for EPA’s previous rules on organic contaminants, many
with anthropogenic origins. However, the forthcoming arsenic rule could capture
as many as 4,000 communities; this will greatly drive the demand for additional
funding resources. Upcoming EPA rules
that may be expensive in thousands of rural communities include: standards for
certification of operators, filter backwash, radon, surface water treatment
rules, arsenic, disinfection byproducts, ground water disinfection, etc.