|
Additional Views H.R. 2771, To reauthorize financial assistance to the State of New York for demonstration projects implemented as part of the New York City Watershed program In reporting H.R. 2771, a bill to reauthorize financial assistance to the State of New York for demonstration projects implemented as part of the New York City Watershed program, the Committee is giving priority to only one of the 14 provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act whose authorizations expired in 2003. In selecting a minor provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act that benefits only one state for special treatment, the Committee leadership is failing to address important core provisions of the Act, such as the State Revolving Loan Fund that assists all states and helps assure that our citizens receive drinking water that is healthy and safe. The State Revolving Loan Fund authorization for $1 billion annually expired in 2003. The Congressional appropriation in FY 2004 was $845 million or $155 million less than the 2003 authorized level. If reauthorized and fully funded each of our states would receive an additional one to fifteen million dollars. The need for additional resources to ensure compliance with drinking water standards and make critical infrastructure improvements is beyond question. In February 2001, the EPA released the results of a comprehensive survey of our Nation's infrastructure needs. The key finding of the survey is that "$102.5 billion is needed now to ensure the continued provision of safe drinking water" and a total of $150.9 billion over the next 20 years. The EPA budget justification for FY 2003 explicitly recognized the large gap between the budget request and the needs of our public water system as follows: "According to the Agency's 2001 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey, the total 20-year national infrastructure needed is $150.9 billion, $31.2 billion of which is needed to ensure the provision of safe drinking water under existing and recently proposed regulations. The need is even more pressing in the face of the projected increases of population growth and the subsequent increase in demand for safe drinking water over the next several decades." Since the submission of the FY 2003 budget, two additional reports have been released supporting the need for tens of billions of dollars of additional drinking water infrastructure funding. In April 2002, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) testified before the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials that its midpoint estimate of the gap between what public water systems are now spending and what needs to be spent annually over the next 20 years is $4 billion a year or $80 billion over 20 years. This testimony was reaffirmed in a CBO Report issued May 24, 2002, entitled "Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure." On September 20, 2002, the EPA released a Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure GAP Analysis which found that for drinking water the funding gap between projected spending, assuming no growth in revenues, was $265 billion for the 20-year period from 2000 to 2019. Assuming an annual 3 percent real growth in revenues, the report indicates that the gap on the drinking water side could possibly be reduced to $53 billion. The huge funding needs documented in the EPA and CBO reports are far greater than the $850 million budgeted in FY 2005 by the Bush Administration for the state drinking water revolving loan fund. Local governments, states, drinking water suppliers, and the EPA all agree that there is a tremendous resource gap - which will continue to grow - for drinking water infrastructure funding needed to protect the public health. Yet the Committee has chosen to provide a new six-year authorization for only one small program benefitting only one State. We note that neither President Bush nor President Clinton has ever submitted budgets seeking appropriations for the New York Watershed demonstration projects. Congress has, however, earmarked several million dollars a year for the demonstration projects since 1997. The Committee is also acting without the benefit of the Bush Administration's views on the wisdom of a six-year authorization for this program alone. Further, the Administration witness at the hearing was a regional official who was not authorized to discuss the President's budget. Therefore, members of the Subcommittee were not able to find out why President Bush chose not to fund the New York demonstration projects in his budget. The New York demonstration project's annual authorization of $15 million represents 1.2 percent of the total $1,289,000 in authorizations for the 14 Safe Drinking Water Act programs whose authorizations expired in 2003. The Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials has also failed to take action on other very important drinking water issues facing the country. These include the lead contamination in drinking water crisis in the District of Columbia and the need for a federal drinking water standard for perchlorate to ensure that the Department of Defense cleans up the widespread contamination from military munitions at its facilities. In addition, residents in Eastern Ohio and West Virginia have expressed serious concerns about the nature and extent of adverse human health effects from exposure to a chemical, commonly referred to as PFOA or C8, that was detected in local drinking water supplies along the Ohio River. While this measure may bring benefits to New York State, the Committee is failing to meet the needs of all our citizens by ignoring the other important core provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. John D. Dingell | |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
