U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–819 PDF 2015

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND PERMITTING 

FRAMEWORK: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EPA TO 

PROVIDE COMMUNITIES WITH FLEXIBILITY TO 

MAKE SMART INVESTMENTS IN WATER QUALITY 

(113–79) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. David Berger, mayor, city of Lima, Ohio, on behalf of the United States 

Conference of Mayors ........................................................................................... 12 

Todd Portune, commissioner, Hamilton County Board of Commissioners, on 

behalf of the ‘‘Perfect Storm’’ Communities Coalition ....................................... 12 

Stephen Meyer, P.E., director, Department of Environmental Services, city 

of Springfield, Missouri, on behalf of the National Association of Clean 

Water Agencies ..................................................................................................... 12 

Ron Poltak, executive director, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, on behalf of the Association of Clean Water Administrators ........................................................................................................................ 12

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. David Berger ................................................................................................... 32 

Todd Portune ............................................................................................................ 71 

Stephen Meyer, P.E. ................................................................................................ 78 

Ron Poltak ................................................................................................................ 87 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Larry Bucshon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, 

request to submit written testimony from Hon. Lloyd Winnecke, mayor 

of the city of Evansville, Indiana ........................................................................ 6 

Hon Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, request 

to submit the following into the record: 

Hon. Donald L. Plusquellic, mayor, city of Akron, Ohio, written testimony ............................................................................................................... 93 

Joint written testimony from the following organizations: American Rivers, Stacey Detwiler, associate director, clean water supply and government relations; Clean Water Action, Jennifer Peters, national water 

campaigns coordinator; Natural Resources Defense Council, Larry Levine, senior attorney; and Southern Environmental Law Center, Navis 

A. Bermudez, deputy legislative director .................................................... 96 

Joint written testimony from the following Representatives in Congress: 

Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, of the State of Ohio, and Hon. Steve Chabot, 

of the State of Ohio ....................................................................................... 104 

Joint written testimony from the following Representatives in Congress: 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, of the State of Ohio, and Hon. Timothy J. 

Walz, of the State of Minnesota ................................................................... 106 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written testimony .......................... 108 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, request to submit the following into the record: 

Hon. Mary Ann Lutz, mayor, city of Monrovia, California, written testimony ............................................................................................................... 113 

United States Conference of Mayors, Mayors Water Council, The Financial Impact of Public Water and Federal Manadate Costs on Economically Vulnerable Populations in San Gabriel Valley/Los Angeles County 

Communities—An Interim Report (July 22, 2014) .................................... 115 

Page

VI 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Laura Vaught, Associate Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responses to questions for the record issued by Hon. Grace F. 

Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of California 1 ....... 143 

1Questions for the record are not typically issued to an organization that was not a hearing 

witness. In this case, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was invited to be 

a hearing witness and was unable to attend, and so it submitted a written statement for 

the record (see page 108). 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 88819.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 88819.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 88819.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 88819.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 88819.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 88819.006
(1) 

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND PERMITTING 

FRAMEWORK: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EPA 

TO PROVIDE COMMUNITIES WITH FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SMART INVESTMENTS IN 

WATER QUALITY 

THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will 

come to order. 

A couple of housekeeping issues first. I ask unanimous consent 

that Mr. Bucshon from Indiana be included in today’s hearing. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be kept open 

for 30 days after this hearing in order to accept written testimony 

for the hearing record. Is there any objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that written testimony submitted 

on behalf of the following be included in the hearing record: jointly 

from Representatives Chabot and Fudge; jointly from Representatives Latta and Walz; from the mayor of the city of Akron, Ohio; 

from the Environmental Protection Agency; and jointly from American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Southern Environmental Law Center. 

Is there objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Today we have one panel. We will welcome our witnesses in a 

few minutes, but I will open here with a statement. 

First of all, I would like to welcome everyone here to our hearing 

today for ‘‘Integrated Planning and Permitting Framework: An Opportunity for the EPA to Provide Communities with Flexibility to 

Make Smart Investments in Water Quality.’’ 

This is a followup to hearings we held last Congress on EPA’s 

integrated planning framework. In our previous hearings, we heard 

2 

about how communities all across the Nation are facing increasing 

regulatory enforcement and financial pressures not only to address 

sewer overflows and other aging wastewater infrastructure issues, 

but also to deal with numerous other burdensome regulatory issues 

that recently have become national priorities. 

These include more stringent and widespread regulation of 

stormwater discharges, nutrients and other pollutants, total maximum daily loads, and public drinking water systems, which could 

lead to many communities having to install and operate at great 

expense advanced treatment, removal and prevention technologies. 

All of these initiatives are piling up additional layers of regulatory requirements and economic burdens on our communities, 

and somehow our communities have to deal with it. A large portion 

of these regulatory mandates are going unfunded by the Federal 

and State governments, with the result that many municipalities 

have had to make substantial increases in investments in wastewater and public water infrastructure in recent years. Local communities and ratepayers are now increasingly getting economically 

tapped out. 

In response to some of these issues, EPA developed an integrated 

planning and permitting policy in 2012 that was intended to provide some flexibility on how communities managed their regulatory 

and enforcement mandates under the Clean Water Act. The policy 

outlines how communities can prioritize multiple Clean Water Act 

obligations and develop plans for addressing those obligations in a 

flexible manner and reduce their cost burdens. 

At earlier hearings we heard from witnesses about the implementation of the policy. Concerns that were raised included inadequate consideration of strained municipal budgets and affordability, especially in setting compliance timelines; the continued 

focus on using enforcement mechanisms in the integrated planning 

process rather than permit; and insufficient regulatory flexibility to 

adapt to new or changed circumstances. 

Some of the witnesses also urged the EPA to become more 

proactive and collaboratively assist communities through technical 

assistance and pilot demonstration projects to develop flexible, 

practical, and affordable integrated plan. 

I am concerned that 2 years have passed since the EPA released 

the final policy, and little seems to have been done to successfully 

implement it. I understand that while several local governments 

are working on integrated plans, no such plans have been approved, and one has been disapproved. 

EPA has still not done enough to define the roles and responsibilities of the EPA, the States and the communities in implementing 

the policy. It has not provided clear standards for approval of integrated plans. 

It appears that some at the EPA, particularly in a number of 

Agency regional offices, still may not be willing to provide flexibility to communities and limit EPA’s enforcement efforts even 

when the goal is to achieve a more efficient compliance with the 

Clean Water Act. 

A continued emphasis on an enforcement approach, including 

consent decrees and a resistance to considering affordability and 

innovative approaches to addressing water quality issues, will unVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:29 Jan 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\7-24-1~1\88819.TXT JEAN
3 

dermine the flexibility that the EPA ostensibly is trying to seek to 

provide under this policy. 

However, there might be some cause for optimism that the EPA 

is finally starting to become more supportive of implementing an 

integrated planning policy. I am pleased that back in May the EPA 

announced the availability of some Federal funding to a few communities for technical assistance in developing municipal integrated plans. This will be an important first step in demonstrating 

support for and implementing the policy, although EPA still needs 

to do more. 

To help with this, I and jointly with Ranking Member Tim 

Bishop have written a letter to the House Appropriations Committee requesting their support in directing EPA resources towards 

pilot projects to assist communities in developing integrated plans. 

There are several legislative proposals under development that 

attempt to address various issues and concerns related to the 

EPA’s integrated planning initiative. These proposals include H.R. 

2707, the Clean Water Compliance and Ratepayer Affordability Act 

of 2013, introduced by Congressman Chabot; H.R. 3862, the Clean 

Water Affordability Act of 2014, introduced by Congressman Latta; 

and the draft bill entitled ‘‘The Water Quality Improvement Act of 

2013’’ being circulated by members of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, including Mayor Berger who is one or our witnesses today. 

I would like to hear from today’s witnesses about their thoughts 

on EPA’s implementation of the integrated planning policy today 

and whether EPA has adequately addressed their concerns. 

In addition, I would also like to hear from our witnesses about 

the pending legislative proposals and how specifically the proposals 

could help address their concerns and any impediments that stand 

in the way of making an effective initiative for both communities 

and the regulators. 

It is time for a national clean water strategy to evolve from a one 

size fits all mandate and enforcement approach to an integrative 

strategy that recognizes the individual public health needs and 

water quality benefits of water and wastewater utilities, and the 

resource limitations of communities. 

Our goal is clean water, and that is best achieved by focusing 

more on facilitating compliance and less on punitive enforcement 

mechanisms. Hopefully, this initiative will truly give our communities the flexibility they need to prioritize their water quality requirements and address the huge, unfunded costs associated with 

the growing number of mandates stemming from the EPA water 

rules and enforcement actions. 

Lastly, I should mention that we had invited the EPA to participate in this hearing in order to get the Agency’s perspective on implementing the policy. Unfortunately, however, the EPA declined to 

participate due to what the Agency said was other commitments. 

I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any remarks you 

may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this morning’s hearing. 

In my view, today’s hearing demonstrates the challenges and the 

frustrations of two intersecting trends in our efforts to improve the 

overall quality of the Nation’s waters. As I have noted in the past, 

4 

there is significant evidence that in the last decade this Nation has 

stopped making significant progress in improving the overall quality of its waters. 

For example, if one reviews the last three State assessments of 

water quality covering the years from 2008 through 2012, the results should be alarming. For rivers and streams, State assessments show a steady decline in water quality from 50 percent of 

assessed rivers and streams not meeting their State water quality 

standards in 2008, to 52 percent of these waters not meeting State 

water quality standards today. 

Similarly for lake and reservoirs, the 2008 State assessments 

showed that 64 percent of these waters failed to meet State water 

quality standards. Today 68 percent of assessed lakes and reservoirs fail to meet these standards. 

Finally, in 2008, State data shows that 45 percent of assessed 

coastal shoreline miles failed to meet State water quality standards. Today a shocking 86 percent of assessed coastal shoreline 

miles fail to meet State standards. 

These trends are also reflected in the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s recent wadeable streams assessment. For example, in 

2006, EPA noted that nationally 41.9 percent of the Nation’s 

wadeable streams were given a poor rating for biological condition, 

while only 28.2 percent were given a good assessment. In 2013, 

EPA’s followup report noted that 55.3 percent of the Nation’s 

wadeable streams have a poor rating, but only 20.7 percent have 

a good rating. 

This information suggests that we are moving in the wrong direction in improving the quality of our Nation’s water resources. Yet 

the reality is that any significant additional improvements in water 

quality will be complicated, more expensive, and more politically 

challenging. 

The second trend highlighted at this morning’s hearing focuses 

back on the Congress and how the Federal Government has 

stopped making significant Federal investments in improving our 

Nation’s water quality. For example, only 4 years ago Congress appropriated over $6 billion to the Clean Water SRF to finance the 

cost of necessary wastewater infrastructure, $2.1 billion through 

the regular appropriations process and an additional $4 billion 

through the Recovery Act. 

Since that time, annual appropriations for the Clean Water SRF 

have been declining from an appropriation of $1.5 billion in fiscal 

year 2011 to a recommendation of $1 billion in the chairman’s 

mark of the Interior and Environmental Appropriations Bill for 

2015. Not surprising as Federal investments in water quality improvements decrease, we hear more and more concern about the 

risk in unfunded Federal mandates. 

To be clear, I do not share the view that the recent actions of 

EPA or the Corps are the result of overzealous Federal agencies. 

In my view, these agencies are simply doing the job that we, the 

Congress, told them to do over 40 years ago, to ‘‘restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s 

waters.’’ 

EPA and the State regulatory agencies see the same trend lines 

in declining water quality that I mentioned earlier and are trying 

5 

to do something about them. However, in carrying out the job we 

gave them, they are exposing the difficulties that I also mentioned 

earlier: that continued improvement in restoring and protecting 

water quality will be more complicated, more expensive, and more 

politically challenging. 

To our witnesses, let me clearly say that I am sympathetic to all 

that the States and local communities are compelled to accomplish 

with limited funding. However, I am not convinced that our constituents have thrown up the white flag on making further improvements to our Nation’s water quality. We should not be satisfied that, as some have suggested, our waters are as clean as they 

can ever be. 

We must continue to make progress in achieving the goals we established over four decades ago, and we, the Congress, must be 

willing to put resources on the table for States and localities to accomplish this task. 

Earlier this summer the President signed into law the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, which includes the first reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund ever. This 

new law will provide additional financial flexibilities to States and 

to communities to make the cost of building water infrastructure 

more affordable. Enactment of WRRDA was a tremendous first 

step and one that we should take pride in discussing. 

However, I think we all agree it is only the first step. Now we 

must follow through on providing the Federal resources necessary 

to partner with our States and our communities to get this job 

done. If we remain committed to the goals of fishable and swimmable waters, then we must be willing to commit to providing a 

portion of the funds to do so. 

Investing in our water infrastructure network, like so many of 

the things we do in this committee, is an investment in our Nation’s future. Let us not shortchange the public environmental and 

economic health for generations to come by failing to meet this 

commitment. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. At this time I yield to Mr. Bucshon for a unanimous 

consent request. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask unanimous consent to submit a letter from Lloyd 

Winnecke, mayor of the city of Evansville, Indiana, to Chairman 

Gibbs and to Ranking Member Bishop. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The letter presented by Dr. Bucshon follows:] 

6 


Insert offset folio 7 here 88819.007
7 


Insert offset folio 8 here 88819.008
8 


Insert offset folio 9 here 88819.009
9 


Insert offset folio 10 here 88819.010
10 


Insert offset folio 11 here 88819.011
11 

Mr. GIBBS. I also ask unanimous consent for Mr. Chabot to sit 

on the committee. Any objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

At this time other Members who have testimony may enter it for 

the record. 

I want to call on Mr. Chabot to allow him to introduce one of our 

witnesses today. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will be very brief. I want to thank you and the committee for 

holding this very important hearing, and I want to especially thank 

one of the county commissioners from Hamilton County, Todd 

Portune, who has held that office for quite a few years, and prior 

to that he was also a member of Cincinnati City Council, and I was 

actually a member of both of those fine institutions as well. 

We are different parties, but this is an issue that we agree on, 

and that is what we ought to give local communities more flexibility so that they can meet the same high clean water standards 

that are required now, but do it at a more reasonable cost to the 

ratepayers and the taxpayers. 

So I want to commend him for his leadership in this area. He has 

worked with a whole coalition of other similarly situated elected officials across the country, and this is bipartisan legislation introduced by another Democratic Member of Congress, Marcia Fudge 

from Cleveland, and she is also the head of the Congressional 

Black Caucus and also a different party than myself, but this is an 

issue that we agree on. 

And I want to thank Mr. Portune for his leadership in this area 

and look forward to hearing his testimony today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Also today we have Mr. David Berger, who is the mayor of the 

city of Lima, Ohio. He is representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors and is a member of USCM’s Mayors Water Council. 

We also have Mr. Stephen Meyer, who is the director of the Department of Environmental Services for the city of Springfield, Missouri. He is representing the National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies. 

And we have Mr. Ron Poltak. Did I say it right? 

Mr. POLTAK. Poltak. 

Mr. GIBBS. Poltak. OK. It was close. I am doing better. Executive 

director of the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control 

Commission, and he is representing the Association of Clean Water 

Administrators. 

Welcome to all today, and thank you for being here, and we will 

turn it over to Mayor Berger for your testimony, and the floor is 

yours. Welcome. 

12 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID BERGER, MAYOR, CITY OF LIMA, 

OHIO, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF 

MAYORS; TODD PORTUNE, COMMISSIONER, HAMILTON 

COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, ON BEHALF OF THE 

‘‘PERFECT STORM’’ COMMUNITIES COALITION; STEPHEN 

MEYER, P.E., DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

SERVICES, CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, ON BEHALF 

OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES; AND RON POLTAK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW ENGLAND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER 

ADMINISTRATORS 

Mr. BERGER. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to provide 

an update on integrated planning from the perspective of the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors. 

In my written testimony, which is some 40 pages, I cover in detail four topics: the challenges local governments face with their 

water and wastewater systems; the integrated planning dialogue 

between EPA and the Conference of Mayors; the actual experiences 

of individual cities; and finally the legislation the Conference of 

Mayors has developed. 

I will now concentrate on the experiences of cities which serves 

as the basis of our draft Clean Water Improvement Act, which is 

designed to provide solutions. 

Local government, not the Federal Government, is where the job 

of providing water and wastewater services gets done and is paid 

for. We are on an unsustainable path, however, when it comes to 

public water investment and unfunded mandates. We must change 

or we will bankrupt communities and permanently impoverish 

households in those communities. 

EPA is to be commended for their high level and sustained involvement in this integrated planning dialogue, including Deputy 

Administrator Bob Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator Cynthia 

Giles, and Acting Assistant Administrator Nancy Stoner. Their 

leadership resulted in the issuance of a green infrastructure memorandum and an integrated planning memorandum. 

The third anticipated product of the dialogue is a memorandum 

to the regional offices on how they can be more flexible. Unfortunately, local governments trying to address water issues with the 

regional offices have not been afforded the flexibility discussed with 

EPA Headquarters. While EPA has told us that over a dozen local 

governments are working on integrated plans, no plan has been approved and one has been disapproved. 

EPA recently disapproved Evansville’s $540 million integrated 

plan even though they used EPA’s integrated planning framework 

to integrate SSO, CSO and flood controls. Their plan uses an 

adaptive management approach, relies on green infrastructure, and 

recommends a 28-year implementation period to try to remain affordable. It appears EPA has rejected both Evansville’s plan to use 

green infrastructure and the city’s affordability analysis. Akron, Ohio’s original plan was estimated to cost $865 million, 

and the city passed rate increases totaling over 150 percent to pay 

for the plan. Late last year the city advised EPA about escalating 

costs to implement its plan which has now risen from $865 million 

13 

to $1.4 billion. An analysis of the newly estimated cost by income 

distribution shows that nearly 15 percent of households within the 

city would pay over 10 percent, 10 percent of their annual incomes 

to implement the plan. 

My community, Lima, Ohio, has a median household income of $26,900. The impact of rate increases necessary to meet our proposed $100 million-plus integrated plan include the fact that some 

47 percent of households in my community would experience rates 

above 4 percent of their household incomes. 

We have seen EPA’s integrated planning framework as a very 

promising initiative that would allow us to protect the environment 

in an affordable and economically sensible way. Yet more than 2 

years after the integrated planning framework was issued, we are 

still waiting for EPA to say yes to Lima’s integrated plan. 

Cities around the Nation are finding that little or no change has 

occurred in the regional offices in dealing with the challenges of the 

Clean Water Act. While headquarters prioritizes integrated planning, the regional offices actively resist proposals that require flexibility, longer time tables, and priority settings and instead focus on 

high-cost approaches, fixed deadlines, and penalties. 

While cities applaud the continuing engagement and good faith 

efforts of EPA Headquarters, we must report that the message is 

not getting through to the regional offices. 

To fill the gap between EPA assurances and EPA action, the 

Conference of Mayors developed a Water quality Improvement Act. 

Mayors greatly appreciate the interest shown by Members of Congress, and we are happy several pieces of legislation have been developed to address them. However, we are concerned that some of 

the bills will not solve the real world problems identified by the 

Conference of Mayors. 

We are looking for legislation that can benefit all cities through 

all parts of the country that does not leave relief for local governments subject to the discretion of the EPA. EPA discretion is what 

we have now, and we are not seeing EPA use its discretion in ways 

that recognize that environmental improvements must be affordable. 

We need Congress to provide relief. We need Congress to provide 

oversight and to remember the EPA has its authority because of 

the way the Clean Water Act was written and enacted by the Congress. We need Congress to act. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Portune, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. PORTUNE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bishop, members 

of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to be here 

today. 

As you heard from my good friend and Congressman, and he is 

my Congressman, the Honorable Steve Chabot, my name is Todd 

Portune, and I serve as commissioner for Hamilton County, Ohio, 

and I am here testifying on behalf of the ‘‘Perfect Storm’’ Communities Coalition in my home community in favor of H.R. 2707, the 

Clean Water Compliance and Ratepayer Affordability Act. 

The coalition that I represent is made up of communities that 

are dealing with the ‘‘Perfect Storm,’’ combinations of high unemVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:29 Jan 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\7-24-1~1\88819.TXT JEAN
14 

ployment, high home foreclosure rates, stagnant economic growth, 

and an exodus of business and industry, all while being mandated 

to meet expensive wet weather consent decrees and stormwater 

regulations. We very much appreciate the subcommittee holding 

this hearing and want to thank personally Representative Chabot 

and fellow Ohioan, Representative Marcia Fudge, for their leadership in introducing the bill and the bill’s 13 bipartisan cosponsors. 

Hamilton County and our coalition emphatically support H.R. 

2707, the Clean Water Compliance and Ratepayer Affordability 

Act, and in answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, EPA’s integrated planning policy framework and the Agency’s implementation 

of it is inadequate to meet the needs of local communities. It has 

been inadequate to address the concerns expressed by this community, and it has failed the American people who want clean water, 

but want clean water met in ways that are flexible, affordable and 

reasonable, and the current approach is not. 

The bill, H.R. 2707, does not gut the Clean Water Act, nor limit 

EPA’s authorities, but on the contrary it provides congressional authorization, direction and guidance in implementing EPA’ own integrated planning and permitting framework. 

H.R. 2707, however, will require the EPA to carry out a program 

to work cooperatively with up to 16 specifically identified showcase 

communities each year for 5 years to develop and implement integrated plans to meet their wastewater obligations under the Clean 

Water Act, and in doing so, to develop a credible body of data that 

EPA, the Department of Justice and the Congress can rely upon 

with respect to a new approach, green infrastructure approaches to 

the obligations of the Clean Water Act that are more efficient, more 

effective, and more economical to local communities. 

By naming specific showcase communities, the EPA would offer 

a promising opportunity to provide transparency in how it is applying these flexible and new and cost effective compliance technologies that are being optimized within the framework. 

The stake are high, extremely high for the hundreds of communities across the Nation that are working diligently to conform with 

EPA mandates. Over the last 10 years along over $40 billion in 

mandated wastewater and stormwater upgrades have been required of communities large and small. In fact, 18 of that $40 billion, or 44 percent compliance, falls on distressed communities, 

communities that are experiencing some of the worst economic conditions in decades. 

Hamilton County is one of those communities. Between 2000 and 

2012, our poverty rate for individuals in the county ballooned by 

over 66 percent. Forty percent of the county households have incomes of less than $35,000 per year, and one in ten in 2012 had 

annual incomes of less than $10,000 per year. 

These are the families that are hardest hit by the rate increases 

that we project, 350 percent rate increased in order to meet the obligations of the Clean Water Act under current conditions, and yet 

those same families will benefit the most from the savings that will 

be realized though the flexibility and new technologies that will be 

allowed through H.R. 2707 and the showcase communities program. 

15 

As matters stand today, a green billed approach will result in a 

$500 million savings for Hamilton County alone, and with the 

adoption of 2707, that will translate into additional savings for our 

community and for our residents who are struggling to make ends 

meet and yet to also afford the rates that are increasing to meet 

Clean Water Act obligations. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we believe that 

H.R. 2707 is the best immediate solution to this issue of integrated 

planning and permitting execution. Other proposed legislative 

changes will require significant changes to the Clean Water Act or 

billions of dollars of additional appropriations, neither of which appear to be politically or legislatively feasible at this time. 

Our communities need relieve now. We cannot wait for a better 

solution to wind its way through the difficult legislative path, but 

H.R. 2707 will provide relief immediately if adopted. 

Hamilton County, Ohio, and the ‘‘Perfect Storm’’ Communities 

Coalition look forward to continuing to work with you, Chairman 

Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop and members of this subcommittee, as well as working with the EPA in enacting and implementing H.R. 2707. 

I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony and am 

ready, willing and able to answers any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Meyer, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. MEYER. Chairman Gibbs, Representative Bishop and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you. 

My name is Stephen Meyer. I am the director of the Department 

of Environmental Services for the city of Springfield, Missouri. I 

am also the president of the Association of Missouri Clean Water 

Agencies, and I serve on the board of directors for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and that is who I am testifying 

on behalf of today. 

I applaud the subcommittee for holding this important hearing 

on the issue of clean water affordability and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s integrated planning framework for municipal wastewater and stormwater requirements. I am also 

pleased to testify in support of H.R. 3862, the Clean Water Affordability Act of 2014. 

NACWA applauds Representatives Bob Latta and Tim Walz for 

leading the efforts in the House to raise awareness of these affordability concerns and to help craft practical solutions to address 

them. 

The Clean Water Affordability Act of 2014 does three critical 

things: 

One, it codifies EPA’s integrated planning framework and 

incentivizes its adoption by extending NPDES permit terms for 

communities with an approved integrated plan. 

Two, it helps small rural communities more affordably finance 

their clean water obligations by ensuring at least 15 percent of the 

State revolving funds are set aside for them. 

16 

Third, require EPA to revise and broaden its guidance for determining a community’s financial capabilities to more accurately reflect a community’s financial challenges. 

I urge every member of this subcommittee to cosponsor this important legislation. 

I also thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Representative Bishop, for 

being part of a bipartisan group of Members in the House and Senate who have requested $5 million for this upcoming fiscal year to 

support an integrated planning pilot program at EPA, and I am 

pleased that the House has included an appropriation in support 

of this request in its fiscal year 2015 spending proposal. 

Like many others across the Nation, the city of Springfield and 

Green County region are addressing the challenges of increasingly 

stringent environmental regulations from every front. From 

stormwater, to wastewater, to air quality, and drinking water, as 

regulations continue to evolve, our community is required to devote 

more money and resources to comply. 

Currently the city of Springfield is operating under a 7-year, $50 

million amended consent judgment to correct sanitary sewer overflows through investments in inflow and infiltration reduction in 

our collection systems. After the 7-year period concludes, we will 

anticipate having to move more investments at the treatment plant 

and collection system to completely eliminate overflows which will 

likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars. 

We also have a stormwater related TMDL developed for several 

of our river segments impaired by bacteria, metals, nutrients and 

other pollutants that need to be address. 

While the city of Springfield is currently in attainment under the 

Clean Water Act, forthcoming Clean Water Act related regulations 

will likely cause us to go out of attainment quickly. 

And finally, we have two closed landfills listed as Superfund sites 

requiring remediation under CERCLA. 

The median household income in Springfield is $42,000. Twentyfive percent of our citizens’ household income is $20,000 or less. 

Because our challenges involve multiple Federal statutes, we believe an integrated plan approach is really the only practical and 

affordable way forward to ensure optimization of taxpayer resources. At the heart of Springfield’s integrated plan are six guiding principles: affordability; effectiveness—that assures the biggest 

bang for the buck—fairness to ensure all citizens are being treated 

fairly and equally; attainability, to ensure measures can be reasonably accomplished; measurability, that ensures progress is tracked 

over time; adaptability so that we can adapt and improve based on 

experiences and results. 

We know we will achieve success when community resources are 

directed toward managing environmental issues using the most effective solutions to address the most significant problems in a way 

that is affordable to our citizens: 

When we are in compliance with all Federal and State regulations while addressing the specific needs of our community; 

When we have the ability to address water, air and solid waste 

issues holistically, allowing both our community and the regulators 

to operate more efficiently; 

17 

When our community has a high level of trust that resources are 

being used to address environmental issues effectively and efficiently; 

When our community has a clear understanding of how funding 

and other resources will be used to improve environmental quality; 

When our community realizes a competitive advantage toward 

growth and economic development and increases in quality of life 

as a consequence of this plan. We have identified specific goals relevant to each environmental resource. 

In conclusion, Springfield’s integrated plan will offer a practical 

yet effective approach to addressing water, land and air challenges. 

NACWA remains optimistic that with Congress’ help EPA can advance its framework to address mutual concerns. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and 

I look forward to addressing any questions you may have of me. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Poltak, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. POLTAK. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs. Thank 

you, Mr. Bishop. 

My name is Ron Poltak. I am the Executive Director of the New 

England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission; been in 

that position for 32 years; started my career with Senator Muskie 

writing aspects of the Clean Water Act; been around a long time, 

but I am a young, energetic 66-year-old. So I will try to be as quick 

as I possibly can this morning. 

I am here representing ACWQ, the Association of Clean Water 

Administrators. ACWA has been very active over the course of the 

inception of the concept of the integrated planning approach. We 

have been extremely supportive of EPA and the framework and 

been working earnestly to try and make it happen. 

Our members agree that when the integrated plan is designed 

and implemented properly, it will promote innovative solutions 

that deliver results. We have collaborated with EPA. We have collaborated with our partners here in DC, and we have brought, as 

my case in New England, three workshops where States, communities, municipalities of a larger proportion, meaning cities as well 

as towns, and in addition, the consultant private sector community 

together to talk about implementing the integrated planning approach of which there is tremendous interest and respect thereto. 

Cities in each and every one of our New England States, as well 

as New York, are vitally interested in moving forward with this 

concept. 

During the workshops, what I wanted to share with you this 

morning is a range of implementation challenges were identified, 

including the potential increased burden on State resources, consistency and interpretation and application between EPA Regional 

offices and EPA Headquarters; the level of detail necessary for plan 

approval; and how best to handle financial capability issues. 

The workshops also exposed several statutory and regulatory 

challenges to implementation that must be overcome for this effort 

to move forward. Progress has been made, but there still is yet a 

lot to be done. 

18 

It is clear that the integrated planning framework anticipates a 

prominent role for State permitting authorities, and we appreciate 

the Agency’s recognition of our role as coregulators responsible for 

ensuring that the goals of the Clean Water Act are met. Yet the 

details of the role are still not clear. 

The framework makes clear that the State permitting authorities 

will need to approve the integrated plan as developed by municipalities, but it does not provide details on how exactly States 

should perform this role. EPA has repeatedly stated that it intends 

to provide practical examples and guidance as it works through the 

first integrated planning efforts, but active members are still waiting for these details to be fleshed out. 

The committee can assist the States by encouraging EPA to move 

more quickly, to develop case studies and practical examples of how 

integrated planning works, and by sustaining adequate Federal 

funding to support these programs. 

In addition to the lack of clarity with regard to the responsibilities of State permitting authorities, ACWA members are concerned 

that while EPA anticipates States taking the primary role in reviewing and approving integrated plans, EPA’s authority will linger over the process until the Agency makes clear that it will support State decisions. 

State time and resources are at a premium, and States are concerned that they will invest time and resources in the plan review 

and approval only to have EPA question that decision in the end. 

States are also concerned that EPA will object to a permit based 

on an integrated plan that was approved by a State. 

Finally, the States are concerned that after a plan is developed 

and implementation is underway that EPA could come in and order 

more stringent or different controls or approaches to manage pollution. 

Certainly this type of action by the Agency would undermine the 

economic savings envisioned by integrated planning. The role of the 

States and EPA needs to be clearly defined so that the integrated 

approach agreed upon by the States and municipalities can be relied on by all stakeholders. 

We are very much engaged and intentioned to move forward with 

this process. ACWA encourages EPA to begin exploring the ways 

that the permits can legally and effectively incorporate integrated 

plan elements into each and every permit that is employed. The 

Agency could begin developing a set of guidelines or a model permit 

where the Agency is the Clean Water Act permitting authority. The 

process of developing a model permit would help identify any barriers to implementation and enable the Agency and the regulated 

entities to test out solutions to overcoming the challenges that 

many of our municipalities as well as the States are faced with. 

A model permit or case study completed in a State where EPA 

is the permitting authority would tremendously help the process 

move along. We need a template, and we are finding that we do 

not have one. 

To conclude, I want to emphasize that ACWA’s members are supportive of the integrated planning framework and we appreciate 

EPA’s efforts and receptivity to our comments and concerns. However, many of the concerns I have outlined here today will not be 

19 

put to rest until there are more real world case studies and guidance for the States to follow. We encourage EPA to quicken the 

pace of identifying and conducting case studies to test and evaluate 

the best way to move forward with developing and implemented integrated plans for all of the communities, for example, that I have 

in my district of authority who are anxious to move forward without hesitating. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I want to thank you all for coming in 

again, and your dedication to enhancing and improving the environment, protecting the environment, and also to protect your ratepayers or your customers. 

And I have got to single out Mr. Berger. I just understand that 

your flight was canceled last night, and you got in your car and 

drove last night from Lima. That is a good 10-hour drive so I can 

understand you might want to take a nap later. 

First of all, I wanted to start out with kind of the theme here. 

You know, we are trying to figure out why the EPA came to this 

committee 2 years ago and put this forth, and it looks like there 

has not been the leadership from Washington, DC, into the regional offices, and the first part of my question is: is it because 

there is a culture within the EPA? 

I know Mr. Berger talked a little bit about the enforcement and 

the penalties, and what has been frustrating to me is to see when 

an entity, such as the entities that you all represent, is working 

hard to do what you need to do to comply with the Clean Water 

Act and at the same time you are being fined with enforced penalties. 

Do you think that there has been the lack of leadership from 

Washington to the regional offices or is it just a culture within the 

whole EPA that we have got a whole cultural problem and they 

cannot adapt? 

Does anybody want to answer? 

Mr. PORTUNE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of 

the committee, our experience has been that there may be cultural 

aspects connected to it. There are differences between the permitting side and the enforcement side of EPA. Sometimes it just simply comes down to individuals and their experience, what their experience has been. 

But the bottom line is that there is not consistency in terms of 

delivering the message that we are receiving out there in the field. 

So sometimes we are seeing differences between districts or regions, I should say, in the approach, and even within a region it 

depends on who shows up as a regulator sometimes in terms of 

how the approach is going to be, and that is why we believe that 

there is definitely a need for congressional oversight, definitely a 

need for new legislation. 

And that is why H.R. 2707 has embraced within it real transparency and accountability. 

Mr. GIBBS. Let me ask kind of a followup and anybody else can 

address it, too. 

Like in Lima you have been working to develop an integrated 

plan, what is the involvement of the EPA during the development? 

Are they there working with you or what is the status of that? 

20 

Mr. BERGER. We have been not only developing a plan but also 

negotiating a consent decree, and I can say that that has been an 

entirely frustrating process. The last time we were at the table in 

Chicago, folks from headquarters were in the room and had they 

not been there, it would not have gone well. It was only the presence and the active engagement of folks from headquarters that actually moved the discussion. Otherwise the discussion would have 

been over very quickly. 

So I would assert that you can use the term ‘‘culture,’’ but the 

fact is that the regional offices do not believe in integrated planning. They are actively resisting it, and headquarters has not had 

the ability to discipline those offices to make certain that things 

are happening. 

I think that the issues of penalties that you raise are a very real 

part of not just culture. It is policy. It is policy at DOJ and EPA 

to penalize cities and other POTWs as a way of enforcing, bludgeoning, goading people and intimidating folks. 

It has nothing to do with the shared stewardship responsibility 

that cities, States and the agencies have. And that policy needs to 

change, and I have had direct conversations with folks at the White 

House. They have said to me they agree, but nothing yet is happening. 

That policy of requiring penalties simply extracts money from 

local communities that have nothing. I mean, we have lots of 

things to do with those resources, and paying hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in penalties that go into the U.S. Treasury effects nothing in terms of good public policy in my community 

or any other community around the country. 

Mr. GIBBS. I also see in Mr. Meyer’s testimony you talked about 

I think it was four points, examining community priorities, 

prioritizing the solutions, and then the financial capability. I like 

that approach, and it goes on here in your testimony and you talk 

about we have got to find the source of the pollutant as the major 

problem, mitigating that, and move on to the next pollutant. 

Of course part of this whole concept of integrated permitting is 

to give you that flexibility to address your needs because the needs 

of Lima, Ohio, are probably different than the needs in New York 

City or Dallas, Texas, or wherever. Then also it gives you that 

flexibility. 

So I think legislation is needed here because we are hearing this 

testimony, but I want to ask Mr. Meyer when you say out these 

phases and do this, what are you hearing from the EPA when you 

are saying you have got this plan? 

We are doing this. We are trying to work with the local community, and then we also take in the financial capabilities of the local 

community to support this. 

Mr. MEYER. To start off with, we were taking a Missouri solution 

to clean water. Find the pollutant, find the source, remediate the 

source. It is very simple, and it should be very effective. 

We then move on to the next pollutant. We have formed a citizens priorities task force which is currently gathering, and they are 

helping us to determine what the community’s priorities are. 

21 

The first pollutant may be a water pollutant. The second pollutant may be an air pollutant. We want to be flexible enough that 

we can move around to different sources. 

EPA Region 7, Dr. Brooks and Director Pauley of the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, when we developed our proposal, we invited them in and explained what our proposal was. 

They seemed very supportive. We had a very good discussion. 

In Missouri, EPA Region 7 had delegated that responsibility for 

consent decree negotiations for Springfield to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources as well as the integrated plan development. We have had Missouri Department of Natural Resources in 

all of our technical committees, as well as a technical resource to 

the citizens committee. They have been very active and very supportive. 

So far we have presented to EPA twice, to the senior staff. We 

have kept the headquarters as well as Region 7 up to date. Every 

time we have a movement forward we update them, and so far 

EPA Region 7 has not said stop. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am out of time, but just a quick followup. One of 

the things in integrated permitting is to get longer permit time extension. It is currently 5 years, maybe 10 years or longer. When 

any of you have had discussions with EPA on that, do you feel real 

push-back on that or is that a nonissue on the permit extensions? 

Mr. PORTUNE. Chairman Gibbs, if I may, since in Hamilton 

County we are in a consent decree, it is about $4 billion that local 

rate payers are paying, and one of the programs that we were required to do within the original consent decree under the new integrated planning and flexibility, we were allowed to present a green 

bill alternative to that. 

But here is where the flexibility and the time extension stopped. 

Number one, we did not have help in terms of working with EPA 

as a partner on that. We had to design it on our own. So the consent decree required a gray build solution that cost about twice as 

much as a green build approach, but we had to come up with a 

green build approach by a date certain. We had to do all of the research and the evaluation behind it, and if we wanted to follow 

that approach, we were not given the extension of time in order to 

meet the requirement of dealing with that one issue. 

So if our green build solution was not approved, we had to have 

a gray build solution that was ready to go or else we faced very, 

very stiff penalties. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. PORTUNE. So what we had to do was go forward on parallel 

tracks and design both, very expensive, very time consuming, resources wasted, as opposed to there being a flexible approach. It 

was still very much in the adversarial relationship as opposed to 

a partnership relationship, which is what we need in local communities and working with EPA. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. POLTAK. Could I just add relative to the 5-year permit just 

one quick? 

Mr. GIBBS. Go ahead. 

22 

Mr. POLTAK. The 5-year permits that ensure compliance with 

water quality standards are a real problem in terms of not being 

able to extend that time period associated with being able to meet 

in a conceptual sense the requirements that we are trying to address under an integrated planning approach. I mean it just goes 

without saying. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, and thank you to the panel 

both for your work on this very important issue and for you testimony. 

I want to stay on this 5-year permit issue, and I understand the 

concern that water quality solutions obviously could take longer 

than 5 years, and if you have a 5-year permit what happens at the 

end of it. 

But my understanding is that the EPA has built in extended periods of compliance to 5-year permits. For example, the city of 

Boise has a permit that memorializes obligations for 10 years after 

the permit begins; the same with the city of Chicago. For Milwaukee it is 7 years. 

So I guess my question is: is this an example of selective use of 

discretion on the part of the EPA such that it is not something that 

all communities can count on? 

So I guess my fundamental question, Mr. Poltak, is if the EPA 

is willing to do it for the communities that I have cited, and I am 

sure there are others, why is it that there is not the capacity to 

do it for other communities? 

Mr. POLTAK. The way I can answer is we would expect that to 

be the case nationwide. Our communities in our region are saying 

that there is no financial forgiveness in the integrated planning 

process, and the cities are well aware of that. 

But in terms of being able to deliver on the mandates that are 

mounting and the costs that are escalating, we have to have that 

way of thinking incorporated into our regions through headquarters as a message. It has to be the case to make this work. 

Mr. BISHOP. So I am sorry. I want to just put this in my own 

words. So you are saying that the regional offices, let us say, that 

have jurisdiction over Boise, they are getting the message from 

headquarters, but the other regional offices are not. Is that basically what you are saying? 

Mr. POLTAK. I think what I am imply saying is what we are talking about here in terms of added flexibility and extended permit 

time limit has to become a national policy that is allowed to be negotiated. 

Mr. BISHOP. Anyone else want to comment on this particular 

issue? Mr. Berger. 

Mr. BERGER. I do think it is based upon individual cities, individual relationships that get built between cities and certain Administrators. 

I think what is also important here is not just the idea of longer 

permits, but the adaptive management approaches and also building that into approaches that are outside consent decrees, allowing 

these to be part of the natural, the framework of permitting that 

23 

is allowed and that gives cities the shelter that the Agency believes 

the consent decrees give from citizen lawsuits. 

These are things that ought to be a part of the framework available to every city, and I want to emphasize that idea of every city 

in the United States having the opportunities under the Clean 

Water Act framework. Part of our concern from the Conference of 

Mayors with the other 2 bills that are offered is that the pilot program is limited to a number of cities, 15 per year, and with the 

Clean Water Affordability Act, discretion remains entirely with the 

Agency. 

We believe that there has to be a real opportunity within the law 

that limits the EPA’s discretion; that, in fact, gives cities shelter 

they can rely upon, not relying upon individuals, not relying upon 

the personalities of regional offices or even personalities here in 

headquarters. 

A big concern I have right now is that Mr. Perciasepe has announced that he is going to be leaving. A concern we have is how 

much momentum is going to be lost because his leadership is leaving the Agency, and does that signal to those in the regional offices 

that the pressure is now off and it is back to business as usual? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

I just have one more question and, Mr. Portune, it is for you. You 

spoke in your testimony quite favorably about using green infrastructure approaches as both a means of addressing a problem and 

as well as saving money over both the short term and the long 

term. Can you talk more about that, just what sort of broad-based 

advantages green infrastructure approaches provide to municipalities? 

Mr. PORTUNE. Yes. Ranking Member Bishop, thank you very 

much. 

Our experience is that green infrastructure, watershed management, daylighting streams, riparian issues, detention areas to keep 

rainwater out of sewers, things of that nature give us an opportunity, number one, to transform neighborhoods because the green 

solutions are also the kinds of things that people want in their 

communities, so not huge gray build, overbuild type of things that 

dominate a neighborhood, but they lend themselves to community 

beautification and other quality of life issues that are very important. 

Second, the green build approaches tend to be less expensive, 

and yet they are more efficient and quicker to put into place. So 

the benefit that we see there obviously is we can get the job done 

quicker. We can also get the job done cheaper, which is important 

to our ratepayers. 

The one issue that I mentioned earlier with respect to the two 

approaches where we still had to meet the deadline, there as a savings of about $250 million. The gray build approach was almost 

twice as expensive as the green building approach. So, therefore, 

having the flexibility to implement new technologies, new science, 

green build approaches, adaptive management, watershed management is very important to local communities for those reasons. 

I did want to say one other thing, Chairman Gibbs, if I may, with 

respect to Mayor Berger’s comment about H.R. 2707. The 15 showcase communities is not a limitation in terms of flexibility or the 

24 

full implementation of an integrated planning process. We embrace 

that fully for all cities. That flexibility has to be built in for all cities, and what that bill does is it requires reporting, accountability, 

transparency with respect to all of that, and congressional oversight so that we have EPA consistently implementing its policy 

completely. 

The 15 communities is to build a partnership relationship that 

becomes cultural within the Agency and to build the data so that 

EPA becomes much more comfortable with green build approaches 

than they are today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

I am way over my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. GIBBS. No problem. Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have just a quick question of all of you. In my district in Arkansas, we are kind of struggling with the critical habitat designation 

that will affect about 41 percent of the States. So as you can imagine, there are a lot of small cities and towns, a lot of municipalities 

that are concerned about how that will impact them in obtaining 

permits. 

I am just wondering from each of you if you can comment if you 

have had any experience with obtaining permits from the EPA because of an endangered species or the potential of an endangered 

species that resides in a body of water like, for example, a river 

that you might utilize for discharge after treatment. 

Any comments on that? We will start with Mr. Berger. 

Mr. BERGER. No experience in water, but we have dealt with Indiana bat habitat issues and associated concerns like that. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. PORTUNE. I wish I could help you, but no direct experience 

with that, Congressman, in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, with 

what we are doing at this point. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. OK. 

Mr. MEYER. Congressman, since we are neighbors, we have similar problems. Our DNR is trying to implement ammonia to protect 

mussels. Missouri is unfortunately mussel rich, and we have plenty 

of them. Some of the smaller communities will see increases from 

$32.75 a month to $354 per month just to address ammonia for 

mussels. 

This is a community that has 155 residents, 45 connections. They 

have absolutely no way to pay for it. The permit was issued. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. POLTAK. Representative, we have had a lot of experience in 

New England associated with that type of issue. It is a long, costly, 

negotiated process to get to an endpoint. I would be glad to put my 

staff in touch with yours and follow up to any level of detail you 

might be looking for in that regard. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. That would be great, any input you could have 

based on your experience and how you might expedite the process. 

I know that it can be a problem. 

Mr. Meyer, you mentioned the mussel. That is primarily the 

issue that we are having in Arkansas is the Neosho Mucket and 

25 

the rabbitsfoot mussel. So we are experiencing a similar problem 

downstream from you. 

Mr. MEYER. In our opinion, mussels are very delicious. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Gibbs and Ranking 

Member Bishop, for holding this very important hearing on the affordability and flexibility within the EPA permits. 

As a former mayor, I know how devastating unfunded mandates 

are to our communities that are trying to do their best and the 

right thing in addressing the environmental needs of our Nation’s 

communities, but also let us not forget and be aware that more 

new laws and their unintended consequences could have a problem 

with you. 

Cities have been facing budget restrictions, and the recession has 

hit them hard, and with more unfunded mandates this is not necessarily something that we want to go over lightly, but be sure that 

we do protect our cities. 

EPA’s integrated planning framework is a very good first step towards addressing the financial burden that many cities are facing 

with meeting their obligations under the Clean Water Act, but 

more, much more needs to be done to address the current and 

growing disparity in the water costs on the poor, and I stress that, 

the poor. 

The biggest problem facing my district in Los Angeles County is 

the expected cost of implementing a new municipal stormwater 

permit. It has increased the amount of total maximum daily loads, 

the TMDLs, of pollutants regulated to 33 from the last permit, 

which was two TMDLs. 

The Public Works Department of L.A. County, 13 million people, 

say the permit will cost at least $850 million per year to comply. 

That is million. That means every city with 50,000 residents will 

have to pay approximately $10 million per year. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask to submit for the record a letter to you and 

Ranking Member Bishop from my constituent, mayor of California’s 

city of Monrovia, Mary Ann Lutz, with an attached report from the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors regarding financial impact of Clean 

Water Act permits on just some of the economically vulnerable cities in Los Angeles County. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Mayor Lutz is the leader in the L.A. County water quality issues 

and helping our cities and the Council of Governments deal with 

the new MS–4 stormwater permits. She states that ‘‘it has become 

readily apparent that the cost for water and wastewater mandates 

has grown to an alarming rate and is disproportionately impacting 

our poorest and our most vulnerable citizens.’’ 

The problem is EPA established affordability guidelines based on 

median household income at a maximum of 4.5 percent, which does 

not take into account personal household income. This means that 

poor people pay far more as a percentage of their income towards 

their water bill than anybody else. 

26 

The Conference of Mayors report cites examples from communities in the L.A. region that were surveyed, and that is in the 

record. Every city experiences the greatest financial impact 

amongst the lower median income household groups, especially 

those households with annual income below $15,000. 

Residents of the city of La Verne in my district currently experience regressive financial impacts from public water costs in households earning up to $50,000 in annual income. The poorest households in several cities are spending a significant amount of their 

actual income over a 10-year period on public water services and 

the compliance with various Federal and State regulations: in the 

city of Inglewood, $30 million; La Verne, $25 million; Redondo 

Beach, $29 million, and La Mirada, $9 million; the poorer half of 

the American households currently bear a disproportional financial 

burden paying for public water services. With the new L.A. County 

stormwater permit, this proportionate burden will creep into the 

middle-class income groups. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to seriously look at this issue and try to 

find some commonsense solutions that still protect public health 

and the environment, but do it in a way that does not necessarily 

burden our low-income and middle-income residents. 

And to that I want to add that we need to help cities develop information for their public-private partnerships and be able to find 

other means of being able to support doing the remedies that are 

expected of all of us. We have, of course, in the U.S. some of the 

best water than other countries, and we need to be able to protect 

that, but also ensure that this proportionate impact does not hurt 

those communities that really cannot afford any more unfunded 

mandates. 

And with that I return the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am glad my colleague from California talked about the affordability issue. That is, frankly, why we are here. I know it was addressed a little earlier before about the disconnect between what 

happens here in Washington versus what happens on the ground 

in the regional offices that regulate States like mine. 

As a matter of fact, just a few weeks ago in this hearing room 

a Deputy Administrator from the EPA told me he was at a loss 

when I brought up the fact that they were regulating aboveground 

septic discharge units in Illinois when we were talking about the 

new proposed rule under the Clean Water Act. 

So it does not surprise me when we hear examples that Mr. 

Meyer talked about of a community that is going to face a burden 

upwards from $30 a month to $300 a month just to get water due 

to the impacts of regulations out here in Washington, and it is affordability. All Americans when you look at statistics, the wages for 

American families have gone down every year since 2007. American families are not living in a healthy economy right now, and 

they are having to do more with less. 

It seems as though while we are asking American families to do 

more with less, agencies like the EPA are asking cities to provide 

more regardless of the cost. Now, this affordability issue has got to 

27 

be addressed because in the end, the burden falls on the taxpayers, 

falls on the hard working families in this country. 

So on the affordability issue, and I want to ask each of you to 

respond, how optimistic are you that the EPA will adjust its affordability guidelines and move away from its enforcement approach to 

the clean water requirements in order to allow communities like 

yours, Mr. Meyer, and like yours in Hamilton County, to prioritize 

your requirements based upon the cost versus the environmental 

impact? 

And what suggestions do you have to us as a legislative body to 

make some positive changes in this arena? 

Mr. BERGER. I have a couple of things to say in that regard. The 

first would be that we applaud the current discussion. We want to 

see integrated planning go forward. 

But in addition Congress needs to change the Clean Water Act 

because the language of the act has enabled this set of regulatory 

actions to be fostered in a thoroughly unlimited way, and so, for 

example, there is language in the act that says there will be no 

sanitary sewer overflows. It is absolute, regardless of what the environmental impact is. 

And I have sanitary sewer overflows in my community. 

Mr. DAVIS. Most communities do. 

Mr. BERGER. There is no demonstrable public health or environmental impact from spending millions of dollars to eliminate those 

SSOs, but the Agency has no discretion because of the way the act 

is written. 

Furthermore, there is in the law what are called use attainability 

analyses, and it is the fact that law requires that the Agency is to 

determine that certain uses can, in fact, be obtained, but the Agency minimizes that, discourages States from using it. The law needs 

to be changed to make certain that this provision for use attainability analyses of the Clean Water Act, in fact, undergirds all the 

regulatory decisions that are being made so that we are not spending money on streams. 

I have an intermittent stream. That term means it dries up in 

the summer. So when we start looking at all of the range of potential wildlife in the stream, the river may not ever make it just because it all dries up in the summer. 

Those kinds of language changes within the law are necessary. 

So we must have integrated planning. It must work. The regional 

offices must get the message, but we have to have changes in the 

Clean Water Act as well. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Portune. 

Mr. PORTUNE. Congressman, thank you for asking the question 

and also Congresswoman Napolitano for raising the issue of affordability, both of you in bringing our attention around to that. It is 

critically important. 

First, in direct answer to your question, we do not believe anything short of an act of Congress is going to compel the EPA to effectively and responsibly address the issue of affordability in a way 

that provides real relief to those who need it. There is no sense of 

proportionality or balance with EPA on this issue at all. 

28 

My general fund budget for everything we do as a county, sheriff, 

corrections, the courts, coroner, auditor, treasurer, general government services is $210 million a year. I have to raise in excess of 

$220 million a year new, on top of that, just to meet our consent 

decree obligations under the Clean Water Act, and when we raise 

those issues, the reaction that we get typically is, ‘‘Well, it is the 

law. You have to do what the law requires.’’ 

So there is no sense of proportionality in terms of prioritization, 

of what is more important or things of that nature. We need Congress to act. 

Now, I applaud what the Conference of Mayors is doing and others that want to change provisions in the Clean Water Act. Those 

things will provide immediate relief. We have avoided proposing 

that in H.R. 2707 because we thought that would, frankly, result 

in a long, elongated, contentious legislative process that might not 

get anything done, and we need help now. We need relief now. 

So what H.R. 2707 does is, one, it codifies this entire process of 

integrated planning, flexible approaches, adaptive management 

practices, and compels annual reporting on that and compliance 

with that and consistency among the regions and within the regions on that. That will be of direct help. 

And, second, the showcase communities program will develop a 

body of data that all communities can benefit from with respect to 

an entire new way of addressing these issues that save dollars. 

The poorest in my community are poverty stricken families. 

Households have gone up by 60 percent in the last 10 years. I have 

got over 50 percent of children living in poverty in my community, 

but those are the very families that will benefit from the $500 million to $1 billion in savings that we will realize from a mandated 

flexible approach that allows us to prioritize and use new processes, new approaches that will save money. 

To us a dollar saved is just as important as a dollar given, and 

being able to save money is critically important, and we need that 

help now. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

If the chairman will allow him to answer. 

Mr. GIBBS. Go ahead. 

Mr. MEYER. I agree that Congress needs to act. We would like 

to see this committee to cosponsor H.R. 3862. We believe that does 

bring some responsibility to EPA. 

We also have ephemeral streams. They only flow 3 to 4 days 

after it rains, yet they are classified and must be fishable/swimmable. Can you imagine somebody fishing in a gravel bed? And 

that is what it would amount to. They only flow when it rains. 

There are a number of cities that have the experience that I just 

mentioned to you. They are smaller communities. We see absolutely no way that they can afford these permits, and it has been 

issued. In fact, the only way that we can see this village can meet 

their regulations is to close their treatment systems and use the facilities in Unionville 30 miles away. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Go ahead. 

Mr. POLTAK. I will be quick. When I go around and talk to young 

college students and I talk to young adults associated with the hisVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:29 Jan 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\7-24-1~1\88819.TXT JEAN
29 

tory in our Nation of clean water, I always emphasize that the 

Clean Water Act is probably one of if not the most successful statutes we have had in place over time to deal with clean water 

issues. That is, in fact, the case. 

I just give you Boston Harbor as an example. I use a picture of 

my son who is now 32 years old standing in Boston Harbor when 

we could not get on a boat when he was 3 years old because it was 

too contaminated to spend a day out in the harbor, and now he is 

fishing for stripers off the shore in his professional working career 

when he has time off. 

I hate to elaborate, but my point is that the EPA has also done 

a wonderful job over the years. I do not tend to bash them. Without 

the EPA we would be nowhere respectful of the success stories that 

we can share here today. 

I want to plea to you all associated therewith that the mandates 

we are talking about, the elimination of nutrients, phosphorus, the 

like in our water bodies which is existing throughout New England 

as a matter of course, the nonpoint source program is voluntary. 

We cannot continue to ratchet down on treatment facilities and 

utilities to get the job done when we are trying to at this point— 

well, we just cannot go much further with it. 

With that said, my point is that we need help out of Congress. 

The age-old way of funding water may not be the way of the future. 

We cannot sustain our needs and the obligation that the Federal 

Government has to make, which has assured success in the past, 

without a recommitment and reinvigorating new concept, idea, 

commitment, whatever it takes. 

The fact of the matter is that the greater good is served by further Federal dollars associated with the point of clean water, and 

without it we cannot get the job done. It becomes unaffordable, and 

the level of commitment and burden that is placed on our citizens 

is intolerable. So I mean, that is where I am coming from. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Ms. Edwards. We lost her. Mr. Mullin. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, I will leave it to Rodney to do that. I appreciate it because it sped me up. I thank you for that. 

Panel, thank you for being here. Is it Berger? Is that right, Mr. 

Berger? 

Mr. BERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MULLIN. Just what the chairman said about you driving 10 

hours to be here shows your dedication to your town and the importance that this has on all the communities around the country. 

This is also something I have dealt with. See, I have been in this 

business for over 17 years, not politics, but this right here. I am 

actually a licensed operator. I operate plants, and I have operated 

plants, and I saw a great shift over the last 7 years where DEQ 

used to regulate me, and that is where I still receive my licensing 

from, and I am sure that is still where you receive your license 

from, but yet they have zero impact anymore because it is the EPA 

now that is calling all the shots. 

My question to the panel, and I will let you kind of elaborate on 

this: is where does the role play now with DEQ? 

I mean, I used to complain about DEQ all the time, the Oklahoma DEQ, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, and 

30 

I have worked in many of your all’s States with the company that 

we own that is called Mullin Environmental, and we process waste 

and water, and the compliancy now that the EPA is putting out 

there, you cannot comply with it, not with the technology that is 

here, not on the backs of these small communities. 

Yet DEQ had some common sense to them because they lived, 

worked, and breathed in the same communities. Now that the EPA 

has come in there, and I have heard this over and over again from 

the panel, there is no common sense. There is no justification or 

rhyme or reason, but yet you are having to pay for it. 

Mr. Meyer, I heard you say that one community, which I represent a very rural community, all the actually rural communities 

in Oklahoma on the eastern side; one community where their water 

bill is going to go from $30 to $300 to comply with the new mandates. Did I hear that right? 

Mr. MEYER. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Mr. MULLIN. Because of the EPA requirements. Now, has anybody gotten sick in that community? Has DEQ failed to do their 

job? 

Mr. MEYER. No, sir. Nobody has gotten sick. We see very little 

impact on the human health due to SSOs. We need to stop them, 

but let’s do it in an affordable manner. 

Mr. MULLIN. But is the EPA’s role here not to protect the health 

and safety of others when it comes to pollution and clean water, 

what we are drinking, right? 

Mr. MEYER. That is correct. 

Mr. MULLIN. Was that not the same role that DEQ was playing 

inside the State? 

Mr. MEYER. We have found that our DNR, and it feels great to 

be here today. I have got Illinois. I have got Oklahoma. I have got 

Arkansas. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, Oklahoma is better. We all know that. I 

mean, come on. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MULLIN. I mean look at us. You know which one looks better. 

Mr. MEYER. But our Department of Natural Resources is centered in Jefferson City. They have delegated the work with us to 

the region, which is in Springfield, Missouri. We have found that 

the people on the ground do understand the issues. They do understand affordability, but they also do have their hands tied. 

Mr. MULLIN. So, Mr. Berger, inside your community? 

Mr. BERGER. We had a long-term control plan actually approved 

by the State of Ohio. 

Mr. MULLIN. By DEQ? 

Mr. BERGER. By our Ohio EPA, and that was preempted 10 years 

ago after 5 years of our beginning implementation, and that price 

tag on that approved plan was $60 million. 

What we are now negotiating is a consent decree that we have 

been working on for over 10 years. That price tag is approaching 

$150 million. 

And so the State’s EPA, Ohio’s EPA was neutered in the process, 

and we are the ones that had to insist in the last year and a half 

that they needed to be back at the table because we were getting 

31 

caught between obligations on our NPDS permit versus what the 

consent decree was now obligating us to. 

So, again, it goes back to the issue of a balance of relationships, 

a stewardship approach that is now lacking. It is much more a top 

down approach from the regional office to us and to the State. 

Mr. MULLIN. I think it was you, sir, that had mentioned about 

the fines. 

Mr. BERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MULLIN. Can you elaborate a little bit just for the record of 

what these fines are being paid for because of? 

Mr. BERGER. My understanding is that the fines are a part of a 

consent decree process which is in itself necessary because of our 

violations of the Clean Water Act. 

Mr. MULLIN. But you have not had any violations with your 

State agencies. These are all from Washington, DC. They are the 

ones giving you the fines, right? 

Mr. BERGER. Correct. 

Mr. MULLIN. And how much have you spent in your community? 

Mr. BERGER. We are now in the process of spending another $25 

million. We had spent $10 million up to that point. 

Mr. MULLIN. In just fines? 

Mr. BERGER. Not in fines, no. 

Mr. MULLIN. In trying to comply. 

Mr. BERGER. The fines we have not yet paid, and I am unwilling 

to pay them. 

Mr. MULLIN. And I support you in that, too. You have critical infrastructure needs. You are trying to comply with unfunded mandates, and if they are going to throw it out, then they should be 

giving the States the financial resources to be able to do it, not put 

it on the backs of these small communities. 

But so many of these agencies, they have never even lived in 

these communities, and yet they do not understand the impact it 

is going to have like, Mr. Meyer, you saying one community with 

150 people and their water bill is going to go from $30 a month 

to $300 a month, and most of them will not be able to afford that. 

Do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. Chairman, do you mind if he responds to that? 

Mr. MEYER. That is absolutely correct. I just want to say that is 

absolutely correct. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, panel, for being here. 

And I went over my time. Chairman, thank you for entertaining 

my lateness. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis from Illinois wanted a rebuttal, but we are 

not going to let him do it. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming in. This has been 

very helpful, and it is my intent and commitment that we need to 

move forward with some legislation to address all of your issues, 

and we will be working that. But this hearing today was very helpful to get to that point. 

So thank you for coming and have a safe trip back. 

That concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

32 


Insert offset folio 12 here 88819.012
33 


Insert offset folio 13 here 88819.013
34 


Insert offset folio 14 here 88819.014
35 


Insert offset folio 15 here 88819.015
36 


Insert offset folio 16 here 88819.016
37 


Insert offset folio 17 here 88819.017
38 


Insert offset folio 18 here 88819.018
39 


Insert offset folio 19 here 88819.019
40 


Insert offset folio 20 here 88819.020
41 


Insert offset folio 21 here 88819.021
42 


Insert offset folio 22 here 88819.022
43 


Insert offset folio 23 here 88819.023
44 


Insert offset folio 24 here 88819.024
45 


Insert offset folio 25 here 88819.025
46 


Insert offset folio 26 here 88819.026
47 


Insert offset folio 27 here 88819.027
48 


Insert offset folio 28 here 88819.028
49 


Insert offset folio 29 here 88819.029
50 


Insert offset folio 30 here 88819.030
51 


Insert offset folio 31 here 88819.031
52 


Insert offset folio 32 here 88819.032
53 


Insert offset folio 33 here 88819.033
54 


Insert offset folio 34 here 88819.034
55 


Insert offset folio 35 here 88819.035
56 


Insert offset folio 36 here 88819.036
57 


Insert offset folio 37 here 88819.037
58 


Insert offset folio 38 here 88819.038
59 


Insert offset folio 39 here 88819.039
60 


Insert offset folio 40 here 88819.040
61 


Insert offset folio 41 here 88819.041
62 


Insert offset folio 42 here 88819.042
63 


Insert offset folio 43 here 88819.043
64 


Insert offset folio 44 here 88819.044
65 


Insert offset folio 45 here 88819.045
66 


Insert offset folio 46 here 88819.046
67 


Insert offset folio 47 here 88819.047
68 


Insert offset folio 48 here 88819.048
69 


Insert offset folio 49 here 88819.049
70 


Insert offset folio 50 here 88819.050
71 


Insert offset folio 51 here 88819.051
72 


Insert offset folio 52 here 88819.052
73 


Insert offset folio 53 here 88819.053
74 


Insert offset folio 54 here 88819.054
75 


Insert offset folio 55 here 88819.055
76 


Insert offset folio 56 here 88819.056
77 


Insert offset folio 57 here 88819.057
78 


Insert offset folio 58 here 88819.058
79 


Insert offset folio 59 here 88819.059
80 


Insert offset folio 60 here 88819.060
81 


Insert offset folio 61 here 88819.061
82 


Insert offset folio 62 here 88819.062
83 


Insert offset folio 63 here 88819.063
84 


Insert offset folio 64 here 88819.064
85 


Insert offset folio 65 here 88819.065
86 


Insert offset folio 66 here 88819.066
87 


Insert offset folio 67 here 88819.067
88 


Insert offset folio 68 here 88819.068
89 


Insert offset folio 69 here 88819.069
90 


Insert offset folio 70 here 88819.070
91 


Insert offset folio 71 here 88819.071
92 


Insert offset folio 72 here 88819.072
93 


Insert offset folio 73 here 88819.073
94 


Insert offset folio 74 here 88819.074
95 


Insert offset folio 75 here 88819.075
96 


Insert offset folio 76 here 88819.076
97 


Insert offset folio 77 here 88819.077
98 


Insert offset folio 78 here 88819.078
99 


Insert offset folio 79 here 88819.079
100 


Insert offset folio 80 here 88819.080
101 


Insert offset folio 81 here 88819.081
102 


Insert offset folio 82 here 88819.082
103 


Insert offset folio 83 here 88819.083
104 


Insert offset folio 84 here 88819.084
105 


Insert offset folio 85 here 88819.085
106 


Insert offset folio 86 here 88819.086
107 


Insert offset folio 87 here 88819.087
108 


Insert offset folio 88 here 88819.088
109 


Insert offset folio 89 here 88819.089
110 


Insert offset folio 90 here 88819.090
111 


Insert offset folio 91 here 88819.091
112 


Insert offset folio 92 here 88819.092
113 


Insert offset folio 93 here 88819.093
114 


Insert offset folio 94 here 88819.094
115 


Insert offset folio 95 here 88819.095
116 


Insert offset folio 96 here 88819.096
117 


Insert offset folio 97 here 88819.097
118 


Insert offset folio 98 here 88819.098
119 


Insert offset folio 99 here 88819.099
120 


Insert offset folio 100 here 88819.100
121 


Insert offset folio 101 here 88819.101
122 


Insert offset folio 102 here 88819.102
123 


Insert offset folio 103 here 88819.103
124 


Insert offset folio 104 here 88819.104
125 


Insert offset folio 105 here 88819.105
126 


Insert offset folio 106 here 88819.106
127 


Insert offset folio 107 here 88819.107
128 


Insert offset folio 108 here 88819.108
129 


Insert offset folio 109 here 88819.109
130 


Insert offset folio 110 here 88819.110
131 


Insert offset folio 111 here 88819.111
132 


Insert offset folio 112 here 88819.112
133 


Insert offset folio 113 here 88819.113
134 


Insert offset folio 114 here 88819.114
135 


Insert offset folio 115 here 88819.115
136 


Insert offset folio 116 here 88819.116
137 


Insert offset folio 117 here 88819.117
138 


Insert offset folio 118 here 88819.118
139 


Insert offset folio 119 here 88819.119
140 


Insert offset folio 120 here 88819.120
141 


Insert offset folio 121 here 88819.121
142 


Insert offset folio 122 here 88819.122
143 


Insert offset folio 123 here 88819.123
144 


Insert offset folio 124 here 88819.124
145 


Insert offset folio 125 here 88819.125
146 


Insert offset folio 126 here 88819.126
147 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 127 here 88819.127