First and foremost, I would like to give my deep thanks to my friend and colleague, Senator Mike Crapo, for holding this hearing on Ohio's wastewater infrastructure needs right at the source of the problem here in Ohio.
Senator Crapo, who represents the Great State of Idaho, and I came to the Senate at the same time, and I consider him one of my best friends in the Senate. Before being elected as a U.S. Senator from Idaho, Senator Crapo served the people of Idaho's 2nd Congressional District for 3 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, it takes a lot longer to get back to Washington, D.C. from Idaho than from Ohio, and I am very grateful that you could make a stop in Columbus to chair this field hearing.
I am particularly pleased that we are here in Columbus today, with a good representation of the individuals whose communities are directly impacted by infrastructure needs. I've said on a number of occasions that too often in Washington we get so caught up in everything that's going on that we can lose sight of what's really important to the American people.
So many times people ask me if I have adjusted to D.C. I answer, "no," and say that if my answer is ever "yes," it is time for me to leave.
Today, we are going to get some perspective from those who are really feeling the financial pinch on an issue that is not often talked about, but is, nonetheless, of great importance to the health and well-being of all Ohioans water infrastructure, and in particular, sewer infrastructure.
I appreciate our witnesses taking the time out of their busy schedules to be with us this morning. I had the opportunity to meet with many of you last December in discussing these same issues, and I am pleased that we have another opportunity to talk about Ohio's wastewater infrastructure needs in this hearing.
The condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure systems has been a long-standing concern of mine, as I know it is for you, Mr. Chairman, and for each of our witnesses as well. From my own experience, as mayor of Cleveland, I saw rates increase dramatically to deal with the City's dual water infrastructure problems: drinking water and wastewater treatment.
Mr. Chairman, many years ago, our former Governor, the late Jim Rhodes advised me, "George, never put anything in the ground because the public can't see it." Well, as you know, Washington, in many cases, has the same attitude when approaching unmet needs: don't address anything that isn't high profile.
But, as our local officials here on this panel know, it is quite often the stuff that's underground and out of sight that gets you the most attention and it's almost always never positive. All it takes is one burst pipe, and you'll get hundreds of phone calls from angry citizens demanding that you fix it immediately.
In my hometown of Cleveland, there have been two big water main breaks in the last year that caused a lot of flooding and disrupted people's lives. Let me tell you, those breaks got a lot of attention.
Unfortunately, for many communities across our nation, anything but routine maintenance for such problems is prohibitively expensive. For those communities that want to conduct a wholesale overhaul of their aging infrastructure, many face the realization that they will have to obtain revenues locally.
Of course, the general public considers rate increases as they do taxes. And with the reaction to the dramatic rise in heating costs this winter, possible increases in electricity costs, high gas prices, and other necessities like health care, it's easy to understand why the public does not want to pay more for something they take as a "given." It's a wonder how the average person can make it.
(That's one of the reasons I am working to address the lack of a national energy policy.)
However, with an attitude among the public of not wanting to pay for these infrastructure upgrades, more often than not, these upgrades go on the back-burner, adding to the nationwide cost of repairs.
I have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a study on the unmet infrastructure needs of our nation. This includes such items as: highways, mass transit, airports, drinking water supply and wastewater treatment, public buildings, water resources (flood control and navigation) and hydropower generating facilities.
For each infrastructure area, the GAO will look at how agencies develop their needs estimates and determine whether they used leading practices and guidelines. I believe the GAO's final report will give us a better sense of exactly how reliable the needs estimates are.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Clean Water Needs Survey" is a striking example of how much has to be done to tackle our unmet needs. Conducted in 1996, this survey estimated that nearly $140 billion would be needed over the next 20 years to address wastewater infrastructure problems in our communities.
In March 1999, the EPA revised their figures upwards, whereas infrastructure needs are now estimated at $200 billion. Other independent studies indicate that EPA has undershot the mark, estimating that these incredible unmet needs exceed $300 billion over 20 years.
Since arriving in the Senate two years ago, I have used my position as a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works to work towards improving the condition of our nation's water infrastructure.
In February, I introduced legislation reauthorizing the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) Program. My bill "the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act" (S. 252) which is identical to legislation I introduced in the last Congress would authorize $3 billion per year over 5 years for a total of $15 billion.
As you may know, the SRF program has continued to receive annual funding since 1994 when its authorization expired. This year fiscal year 2001 is no exception, with Congress appropriating $1.35 billion for the program. Of that, approximately $74.9 million will go to Ohio to capitalize its SRF program.
However, as in many states, my state of Ohio has needs for public wastewater system improvements which greatly exceed typical Clean Water SRF funding levels. In Ohio alone, $7.4 billion of improvements have been identified as necessary, according to the latest state figures. Of that amount, nearly $4 billion is needed to fix Ohio's combined sewer overflow problem. I will let our witnesses go into details about the cost of the needs they face, but suffice it to say, most have needs that far outweigh Ohio's annual allocation.
In order to allow any kind of substantial increase in spending, reauthorization of the SRF program is necessary. One of the things that bothers me the most in Washington is that there is no consideration to taking care of our nation's needs across the board. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request, for instance, increases funding by 4 percent, although important programs like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program and the Clean Water SRF program face significant cuts. In my view it is the responsibility of the federal government to take care of our aging water infrastructure.
The Clean Water SRF program is an effective and popular source of funding for wastewater collection and treatment projects. While the loans provided by the Clean Water SRF program can help many communities finance wastewater infrastructure projects, even a low-interest loan can be too expensive for some.
One of the bills that I pushed especially hard last year was the Wet Weather Quality Act of 2000 (H.R. 828). This bill created a $1.5 billion grant program to help localities deal with CSO and SSO problems.
I felt that this bill was a reasonable approach to helping communities overcome the burden of wastewater infrastructure costs. I was pleased, therefore, that it was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill that passed in the Senate late last year, and I was further pleased to be able to work with my House colleagues from the Ohio delegation to get this enacted.
Now we will need to work to ensure that we have the first installment of $750 million to carry-out this program, as well as at least level funding $1.35 billion for the Clean Water SRF program as Congress addresses the fiscal year 2002 budget. Again, I am disappointed that the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request reduced the overall amount of money available for water infrastructure. Specifically, the budget asks for $450 million for the new wet weather grants program and $850 million for the Clean Water SRF. I am not alone in asking that more funds go toward these programs.
This past February, I also attended a press conference held by the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN). WIN is a coalition of wastewater treatment and drinking water providers, environmental engineers, contractors, and municipal organizations.
During the press conference, WIN called on the federal government to significantly enhance its role in financing the nation's clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure. Their proposal is a five-year, $57 billion program combining grants and loans to increase federal investment in our nation's water infrastructure, including our CSO and SSO problems.
After the press conference I was asked by a person from the media if I thought that was enough money or if Congress would even approve such a sum.
I told him that while $57 billion may or may not be something that Congress can approve, I am in favor of talking about the costs incurred by the local governments as a result of actions taken by Congress that is, the unfunded mandates that are passed on by Washington and seeing what we can do to alleviate the situation. Perhaps a program that involves a mixture of grants and loans would suffice. It should be given our careful consideration.
Mr. Chairman, the federal government will not be able to solve our infrastructure needs with more money alone. Accordingly, I believe some of our laws and regulations may need to be revisited to see if there is any way the federal government can alleviate the burden on communities and their ratepayers and still be consistent with good environmental policy. I believe benefits and costs need to be carefully analyzed and taken into consideration when the federal government makes a decision that will affect our citizens.
That is why when I was Governor of Ohio I was very involved with the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act to bring common sense to our nation's drinking water law. At the time the legislation was being debated, cities like Columbus were facing having to add 25 pollutants every 3 years and spend millions of dollars to invest in sophisticated monitoring technology.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the extent of water infrastructure concerns in their communities. I am interested in what they have done to address their own concerns and how they have used available federal and state programs to help finance improvements. Part of what I would like to get out of today's hearing is what our witnesses believe Congress should be pursuing in a comprehensive effort to deal with wastewater infrastructure needs.
Further, I would appreciate hearing their thoughts on how they see the federal government acting more as a partner with our states and communities; especially those trying to comply with federal water quality standards.
Finally, I would like to come out of this hearing with a consensus on a number of issues besides just funding, mainly, whether changes in federal regulations are needed in order to make them more reasonable and flexible to communities, or whether changes to federal law are needed instead.
What are we asking our communities to do that doesn't make sense and what are the implications of those requirements on the costs they are facing? If they make sense, what is fair in terms of who should pay for what? How much should the federal government put forth and how much should states and localities be responsible for? Finally, how do we pay for it?
Mr. Chairman, if we tell communities they have to comply with a law that we pass, then we need to give them the means to do it not just make a decree.
We need to seriously look at some of the things that we're asking our state and local leaders to do. We need to let them use cost benefit analysis, risk assessment and sound science.
Congress needs to do a better job educating the public on the extent of water infrastructure needs in our communities and why it is important that something be done to protect public health and well-being. We need to address the regulations that these communities are faced with, and we need to ensure that they have the adequate funds to meet their needs.
Once again, I am pleased to be here this morning and I am eager to hear what you have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time to be with us this morning. I would like to thank our witnesses as well, and I anticipate a very lively hearing.
###