U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

38–516 PDF 2007

THE RAW SEWAGE OVERFLOW 

COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT 

(110–78) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 16, 2007 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice Chair 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Baer, Katherine, Director, River Advocacy, American Rivers, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 11

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Office of Water, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency .............................................. 3 

Lipp, Ph.D., Erin K., Associate Professor, Department of Environmental 

Health Science, University of Georgia ............................................................... 11 

Shafer, Kevin L., Executive Director, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Milwaukee, Wisconsin ................................................................................ 11 

Summers, Dr. Robert, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment ................................................................................................................. 3 

Whitford, R.S., Stuart S., Water Quality Program Manager, Kitsap County 

Health District, Bremerton, Washington ........................................................... 3 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana .................................................................... 22 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 25 

Kagen, Hon. Steve, of Wisconsin ............................................................................ 27 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 29 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 32 

Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado ........................................................................ 36 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Baer, Katherine ....................................................................................................... 39 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H. ................................................................................. 57 

Lipp, Erin K. ............................................................................................................ 71 

Shafer, Kevin ........................................................................................................... 78 

Summers, Dr. Robert M. ......................................................................................... 84 

Whitford, R.S., Stuart S. ......................................................................................... 99 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

American Public Health Association, National Association of Boards of Local 

Health, National Association of County and City Health Officials, Physicians for Social Reponsibility, written statement .............................................. 102 

American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation Physicians for Social 

Responsibility, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, U.S. 

PIRG, written statement ..................................................................................... 103 

American Rivers, ‘‘What’s in Your Water? The State of Public Notification 

in 11 U.S. States,’’ report .................................................................................... 105 

American Water Works Association, written statement ...................................... 146 

California Association of Sanitiation Agencies, Catherine Smith, Executive 

Director, written statement ................................................................................. 153 

vi 


38516.001
vii 


38516.002
viii 


38516.003
ix 


38516.004
x 


38516.005
xi 


38516.006
xii 


38516.007
(1) 

HEARING ON THE RAW SEWAGE OVERFLOW 

COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT 

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Timothy H. Bishop 

[Member of the Subcommittee] Presiding. 

Mr. BISHOP. The Committee will come to order. Today the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the importance of public notification of sewer overflows such as those provided in the Raw Sewage 

Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. 

Open notification of sewer overflows is an important topic that 

has not received the attention it rightly deserves. I would agree 

with the suggestions of our witness from the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District that the best way to avoid human health and 

environmental concerns for the sewer overflows is to ensure that 

they never occur in the first place. 

I am proud that the first Subcommittee markup of the new majority was to approve legislation to restore the Federal commitment 

to our Nation’s wastewater infrastructure. With documented needs 

of between $300 to $500 billion for wastewater infrastructure improvements nationwide, the cost of repairing and replacing our Nation’s infrastructure is daunting and will not be successful without 

increased Federal support. 

It should come as no surprise that reauthorization of the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund is one of this Committee’s highest priorities. However, that is only half the story because even with significant increases in investment sewer overflows will likely continue to occur. Therefore, it is equally imperative that we provide 

our citizens with comprehensive and timely notification of sewer 

overflows. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s own numbers on annual 

sewer overflows are staggering. For combined sewer systems, EPA 

estimates 850 billion gallons of raw or partially treated sewage is 

discharged annually into local waters. For separate sanitary sewer 

systems, EPA estimates that between 23,000 and 75,000 SSOs 

occur per year in the United States, discharging a total volume of 

3 to 10 billion gallons per year. 

These discharges, laden with potentially harmful chemicals, 

pathogens, viruses and bacteria, often wind up in local rivers and 

streams, city streets, parks or, in unfortunate cases, directly into 

2 

people’s homes. We need to make sure that the public is aware of 

sewer overflows to give individuals the opportunity to stay out of 

harm’s way. It makes no sense for certain owners and operators of 

local sewage agencies to know where and when overflows are occurring but to avoid making this information readily available to the 

public. This defies common sense. 

I was pleased to read the testimony of three of our witnesses 

here this afternoon which discuss their individual State and local 

governmental experiences providing enhanced public notification of 

sewer overflows. As these witnesses will later describe, enhanced 

public notification of sewer overflows is a common sense measure 

to protect public health and the environment, that one can be 

achieved without a significant burden to State and local governments. 

Notification of sewer overflows provides the public the greatest 

opportunity to avoid direct contact with potentially harmful chemicals, pathogens, viruses and bacteria as well as facilitates rapid response to overflows in order to minimize the potential harm to the 

environment. 

We need to replicate these success stories across the Nation. This 

is the premise behind the common sense legislation that I, Mr. 

LoBiondo and many of my Committee colleagues have introduced 

and hopefully something that we can unanimously approve through 

this Subcommittee in the near future. 

I am pleased now to yield to my colleague, Mr. LoBiondo, the cosponsor of our bill for his opening statement 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Congressman Bishop. And I would 

like to repeat my thanks once again for you allowing me to join in 

with you in sponsoring this very important legislation. 

Earlier this year there were about 250,000 gallons of partially 

treated sewage that leaked from the Asbury Park, New Jersey sewage treatment plant into the Atlantic Ocean, threatening beach 

goers for miles downstream, or down the shore as we would say. 

It was a result of a broken pipe that went undetected for over 6 

hours. Fortunately no one got sick and the environment did not 

suffer any long-term consequences, but that is not always the case. 

Congressman Bishop, as you just mentioned in your opening 

statement, the EPA estimates approximately 850 to 900 billion gallons of untreated sewage enter our waterways each year, sickening 

nearly 3.5 million people annually. The bacteria, parasites and 

other microorganisms in sewage can cause very serious and lasting 

disease and have in some cases even caused death for those who 

unknowingly came in contact with it. Over 700 combined sewer 

overflow systems and other aging sewer infrastructures are the primary culprit. 

Fortunately, we passed legislation through the House that provides billions in grants and loans and guarantees to help rebuild 

these systems over the next decade. But something needs to be 

done in the short term. That is why I was especially pleased to join 

with you, Congressman Bishop, to introduce the H.R. 2452, the 

Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. It is a common-sense piece of legislation that will keep the public safe from 

waterborne illnesses, requiring sewer operators to put into place 

3 

monitoring systems that detect overflows and to promptly notify 

the public. 

While some State and localities have strong notification programs in place, the majority do not. Establishing a minimum Federal standard is the right thing to do. I look forward to working 

with all of my colleagues to have this be a reality, and once again 

thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. LoBiondo. Since we are 

late in getting started and some of our witnesses have travel commitments, I am going to ask my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle to refrain from making opening statements and submit their 

comments for the record. I also ask unanimous consent to include 

in the hearing record a statement from the American Waterworks 

Association and a statement from the California Association of 

Sanitation Agencies. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

We will now proceed to our first of two panels. Panel I is comprised of the Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles, a frequent visitor 

to our Committee. He is the Assistant Administrator for Office of 

Water, Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Robert Summers, 

who is the Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of the 

Environment. And Mr. Stuart Whitford, who is the Water Quality 

Program Manager for Kitsap County Health District in Bremerton, 

Washington. 

Mr. Grumbles, we will begin with you and, as always, we will accept your full comments for the record. We would ask you to limit 

your testimony to 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OFFICE OF WATER, UNITED 

STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; DR. ROBERT SUMMERS, DEPUTY SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT; AND STUART S. WHITFORD, 

R.S., WATER QUALITY PROGRAM MANAGER, KITSAP COUNTY 

HEALTH DISTRICT, BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you on behalf of EPA 

to testify on an extremely important and challenging subject. And 

that is the goal we all share, and that is to eliminate or reduce the 

number of sewer overflows, to increase reporting and recordkeeping 

and public notification. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your colleagues for getting this discussion going, to drawing attention to the subject, having the proposed legislation, and giving us all a chance to look for 

ways to advance the ball forward on increased reporting, recordkeeping and public notification. 

I would like to emphasize a couple things. One is the critical importance of prevention, taking steps, investing in infrastructure, 

managing those assets wisely to reduce the possibility of overflows, 

leaks and spills in the first place, but when they do happen, to follow up with strong regulatory consequences through permitting 

programs and enforcement. And then, thirdly, to emphasize the 

growing importance of green infrastructure, relying on not just the 

gray infrastructure, the concrete, the bricks and the mortar, but 

4 

the wetlands, the stream buffers, the vegetation in the watershed 

to help reduce storm water pollution problems and sewer overflows. 

Your legislation emphasizes the importance of recordkeeping, 

public notification and reporting. We, too, at EPA share these 

goals. When it comes to CSOs, we issued a CSO policy. Congress 

codified it, so it is now in the Act, at section 402(q), and it requires 

for CSOs public notification and reporting. 

We also have, when it comes to SSOs, we have a regulatory 

framework under the existing Clean Water Act programs that emphasize the importance of reporting and recordkeeping to the permitting authorities. A very important step the agency took in August of this year was to issue a draft guidance document, a fact 

sheet for sanitary sewer overflows which embraces the concepts 

that you, too, are embracing and provides specific guidance to permit writers to ensure that there is immediate reporting and public 

notification when it comes to sanitary sewer overflows. 

As you and your colleagues have pointed out, this is a significant 

issue locally and nationally, given the number of combined sewer 

overflows and the number of sanitary sewer overflows and the potential public health risk and environmental impact. So the draft 

policy fact sheet that we issued in August is an important supplement to provide permit writers with more tools to work at the local 

level to increase public notification, recordkeeping and reporting. 

Mr. Chairman, I think a very laudable aspect of your legislation 

is that it understands and recognizes that in order to increase investment in infrastructure and pollution prevention there needs to 

be an emphasis put on public notification and reporting and recordkeeping. We have an existing regulatory framework and policies 

that we are looking at. And Mr. Chairman, we will commit to work 

with you and your colleagues as you continue to consider legislation amendments to the Clean Water Act. We will gladly work with 

you to find ways that are cost effective, that put a premium on increased reporting, recordkeeping and public notification. 

I also want to emphasize another important component of the 

EPA strategy when it comes to sewer overflows, and that is enforcement. We all recognize that working together, establishing 

common management frameworks, as we did earlier this year with 

national utilities on maintenance and operation of their facilities, 

but we all recognize that there are times when overflows, spills, 

leaks occur and there should be regulatory consequences. Our enforcement program at the agency has put this as one of its top priorities over the last decade. 

Wet weather overflow events is an enforcement priority. The 

agency has entered into over 50 judicial settlement agreements and 

orders. It represents, I counted up, over $13 billion in long-term investments by communities across the country in infrastructure systems. And I can assure you that as you work on public notification 

and other aspects of the sewer overflow challenge we will continue 

to put a priority on enforcement when the law is violated. And that 

is an important statement to make as the Clean Water Act is celebrating its 35th anniversary supplementing public notification and 

pollution prevention with strong enforcement. And that is entirely 

appropriate when we are talking about raw sewer overflows or 

combined sewer overflows. 

5 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look 

forward to answering questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles. Dr. Summers. 

Mr. SUMMERS. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here 

today. Thank you for asking me to testify about Maryland’s experience with this overflow reporting. I commend the opening remarks. 

I think in Maryland we agree with everything that has been said 

so far regarding this very critical issue. 

I am the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Environment, 

but I have worked for the Department of Environment for 25 years 

on the Chesapeake Bay restoration, most recently, for the last 7 

years as the Director of the Water Management Administration. So 

I have direct—I had direct responsibility for this particular issue 

within Maryland. 

Of course, overflows are a very significant public health and environmental concern. We have heard about the various pathogens 

that cause public health issues. But in Maryland we are particularly concerned with the Chesapeake Bay. And there are a number 

of different constituents that also impact our water quality. These 

significant impacts, obviously contamination of drinking water supply is a very critical issue. There are large areas in Maryland 

where there are impairments due to bacterial contamination, and 

this is affecting some drinking water supplies. We have closures of 

fishing and swimming, beach closures and so forth, fish kills, overall water quality degradation. A very important issue in an area 

like Baltimore City, the spills impact our parks and playgrounds 

and other public use areas which are located near streams. 

The benefits of reporting and public notification we have already 

heard a little bit about. They certainly protect the public from contact with the impaired waters, ensure that local health officials are 

aware and are dealing with the issues. It decreases inquiries from 

the media and the public. We found that proactive reporting actually has been a tremendous benefit to our local governments and 

other owners and operators of sewage systems. 

It has already been mentioned it builds public support for infrastructure improvements. Maryland is the host to several of the orders that Mr. Grumbles just mentioned. Baltimore City, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Baltimore County, we have 

very significant infrastructure expenditures that need to be made. 

The reporting increases the likelihood of timely response by the 

owners and it improves the analysis of the cause of the problem 

and leads to more rapid repairs and fixing of whatever the particular issue might be, which definitely gives a capital cost benefit 

to the local government involved. 

In Maryland we began requiring reporting as of October 2000 

with a directive from the Director of Water Management Administration. That same year the Governor appointed a task force in upgrading sewer systems to look at the cost in financing of the necessary repairs. Of course that is a huge future issue and we strongly support the increases in Federal funding for the State Revolving 

Loan Fund and other programs to assist State and local governments with this critical issue. 

But public education is also a critical component because none of 

these improvements can be made without payments by the local 

6 

governments generally requiring rate increases. And we found that 

the public notification, the public education definitely helps in that 

area. 

This was followed with specific legislation in 2001 and we have 

very detailed regulations as to the implementation of these requirements. Since the inception of recordkeeping in 2001 over 11,000 reports of spills, 2.7 billion gallons, the figures show how the breakdown between combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows look. This is around 380 million gallons a year of spilt sewage 

in Maryland. 

This graphic just shows our historical data on this issue. You will 

notice the peak discharges in 2003, 2004 and 2005. And it is tailing 

off in 2006 and 2007. I would like to say this is because we have 

got our systems repaired, but the fact is it is wet weather related. 

We had very wet years in 2003 and 2004, and I think what we are 

seeing here is a ramping up of reporting capability and the tailing 

off due to dry weather. And you can see a similar pattern for sanitary sewer overflows. 

Making this information available to the public is absolutely critical and we have all of these reports posted on the Web and certainly appreciate the opportunity to tell you a little bit about it. I 

can say with great certainty that local officials, local public works 

directors are very supportive of this effort. In fact, the Director of 

the Bureau of Wastewater in Baltimore City, which is under a consent decree and is in the process of spending over $900 million to 

repair their system, says that this has been extremely beneficial to 

the city’s efforts to make the necessary improvements to their system. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Dr. Summers. We have a 

vote on right now. There is about 10 minutes left in that vote. And 

that will be followed by two others. So Mr. Whitford, we will go to 

you now. If you could complete your testimony within the 5 minutes. And then we will go to vote, and then we will reconvene as 

soon as we are done voting. 

So Mr. Whitford. 

Mr. WHITFORD. Good afternoon. My name is Stuart Whitford. I 

am the Water Quality Program Manager in Kitsap County. Kitsap 

County is a peninsula due west of Seattle, in case you guys don’t 

know where that is. A very beautiful area surrounded by about 220 

miles of marine shoreline, 28 lakes or so, probably 58 perennial 

streams. So we are very interested in protecting those resources 

from spills, and we have been doing a pretty good job of that since 

1992. 

Since 1992, the Health District and wastewater utilities in 

Kitsap County have been cooperatively implementing sewage spill 

reporting and response procedures. The purpose of these procedures is to prevent public exposure to sewage spills through public 

information and notification. This is extremely critical in Kitsap 

County, given the miles of shoreline we have and approximately 

44,000 recreational shellfish harvesters that we have on our beaches year-round. 

Since 1992, 208 sewage spills have been reported to us, to me, 

totaling about 11 million, 11.3 million gallons of raw sewage and 

7 

about a half a billion or over a half a billion of combined sewer 

overflows. That is a staggering amount of sewage that has been 

discharged through our local surface waters. 

The procedures that we have require that wastewater utilities 

immediately notify the districts when a sewage spill or combined 

sewer overflow occurs. It also requires the utility to notify property 

owners in the immediate vicinity of the spill, post a warning sign 

at the spill site and clean-up to the maximum extent possible. 

The Health District visits the site typically within 1 to 8 hours 

to verify the information supplied, verify that the clean-up was 

done correctly and assess the need for additional public notification. This public notification may include additional door-to-door 

work that we do, and we have done that in the past quite a bit 

when we need to get to people right up front. 

We will also post warning signs throughout the affected area and 

issue advisories. Advisories are issued either by a press release or 

by a press release updating Internet home page, and we also have 

a water quality hotline that we update on a regular basis. If we 

have a commercial shellfish growing area present, we notify the 

State Department of Health immediately through a pager system 

if it is after hours. 

A recent sewage spill in Kitsap County highlights the need for 

this bill. At 1:30 p.m. on June 27, 2007, the City of Port Orchard 

reported a sewage spill to the district. They reported that a small 

spill occurred when a gravity main plugged, forcing sewage out of 

a manhole onto the surface of the ground. The area was fairly overgrown with vegetation so it appeared to city personnel that the 

spill was relatively small. Personnel proceeded to remove the plug 

and they applied lime in the immediate vicinity of that spill to control odors, soak up the remaining liquid and inactivate any pathogens that might be there. As we always do, we visited the site that 

afternoon and verified that the main had been restored to service 

and the immediate area had been cleaned up. 

However, our inspector observed a fairly steep drop-off just below 

the manhole and decided to push further into the brush, just to 

make sure that no sewage had made it down the hill. What he saw 

was shocking—a 15-foot wide swath of gray slime oozing down the 

hill with all the vegetation and trees standing lifeless. Unable to 

continue from up there he decided to get down below the area. He 

found a dirt access road downslope from the main that led to a city 

sewer pump station, private pond and wetlands. As he approached 

the stormwater pond the smell of sewage overcame him, and he 

called me on the phone and told me so. When he reached the perimeter fence he could see that the entire pond was filled with sewage. This pond was approximately 100 feet long by 50 feet wide 

and probably between 15 and 20 feet deep. When he reached the 

perimeter fence he could see that the entire pond was filled and 

every tree and shrub on its bank was dead. Looking up the hill just 

above the pond, you could see the swath of sewage that was the 

source of the spill. 

We immediately notified the City of Port Orchard and the State 

Department of Ecology. They responded and the city came out and 

pumped out the pond, the entire contents into the nearby sewer 

pump station. 

8 

The next step was analyzing how did this occur. We received the 

pump run-time data for the downgrading pump station and reviewed it ourselves. The reason we did it ourselves is the sewer 

utility didn’t know how. The city had been collecting this on a daily 

basis for years. They visit the pump station and read the meters 

right there on the pump. Through this effort we determined the 

spill had actually started 2 years previous, on June 12, 2005. Since 

that date approximately 6,500 gallons of sewage per day have been 

discharging to the stormwater pond and nearby wetlands. This 

means a total of 4.8 million gallons of sewage had been spilled. 

If the city had an alert system in place, as required by this bill, 

the impacts of this spill on the environment and the city Health 

District response cost could have been significantly mitigated. This 

is why we stand here today in support of this bill. We believe it 

will be a win for public health in the environment and in the long 

term save taxpayer money. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. We will now adjourn to go 

vote, and we will reconvene with questions for our first panel as 

soon as the series of votes are over. There is about three votes, so 

it will probably be at least 20 minutes or 25 minutes before we are 

all back. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BISHOP. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Mr. Grumbles, if I may start with you, you indicated in your remarks that you talked about the critical importance of prevention, 

and we know that prevention is related to lots of things, but perhaps, most importantly, it is related to capital expenditures for infrastructure, upgrades and expansion. Yet, as you know, we have 

cut in this administration the funding for the State Clean Water 

Revolving Fund by about 50 percent, which clearly impacts on our 

ability to deal with needed upgrades and to cut into the multi-hundred-billion-dollar backlog of unmet need in terms of infrastructure. And I understand that that is a decision that is taken by the 

administration and not necessarily by the EPA. 

Given that, I was, I guess, surprised to see the comment in your 

testimony that you did not believe that Revolving Fund money 

should be used for the monitoring and used for the public notification, because that would reduce the amounts of funding available 

for infrastructure upgrades. So I guess my logic is that if we are 

not going to do the upgrades, therefore we are going to have a hard 

time dealing with the prevention part of the puzzle. 

Our next best hope is to deal with public notification and to deal 

with monitoring. If Federal funds cannot be used for that, are we 

going to be able to make the advances that we need to make in 

that area, recognizing that we have not made the advances we 

need to make in infrastructure upgrade? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question and 

your comments on the position of eligible uses of the State Revolving Fund. 

Our position, quite simply, is the State Revolving Fund should 

be flexible to take into account the many different types of capital 

infrastructure needs, water quality needs of communities and 

States. Really for us it is a question of O&M versus capital investment, and what we are saying is, essentially, that provision in the 

9 

bill takes a significant departure from current practice and law by 

making eligible something that arguably is really O&M when it 

comes to monitoring and notification. 

The SRF is a critically important tool for infrastructure and for 

funding. It is not the only tool. Permit fees, other clean water funding mechanisms, revenues from ratepayers who understand the importance of infrastructure, I think, are important sources for increased monitoring and reporting and recordkeeping as well. So 

that is really the position we are taking on that piece of the bill. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you for that, and that response leads me to 

a question I wanted to ask Dr. Summers. 

Dr. Summers, one of the goals that Congressman LoBiondo and 

I have in this legislation is that, by virtue of increased monitoring 

and increased public notification, we would build public awareness 

for the needs of our infrastructure, and that, therefore, there would 

be a greater tolerance for funding necessary improvements to those 

needs. 

My question to you is how has the notification and the reporting 

guidelines that are currently in existence in Maryland—to what extent has that influenced political support for the so-called ′′flush 

tax′′ in the State? 

Mr. SUMMERS. Well, first of all, the flush tax is focused on upgrading sewage treatment plants, not the pipes bringing the sewage to the plants, but the reporting has certainly focused a lot of 

public attention and a lot of legislative interest on this issue virtually every year since we instituted this. 

We have been asked to provide briefings to our legislature. Maryland has capital funding which is directed towards the repair of 

failing infrastructure. It is not a huge amount of funding, but it is 

very hotly sought, and there is a lot of competition amongst our 

various jurisdictions for that. At the same time we instituted our 

reporting requirements, the Governor established a task force on 

sewage infrastructure, which also provided a report and cost estimate. 

So I think the bottom line is that the educational value of this 

reporting has been acknowledged pretty much across the board. We 

found it to be extremely important. I mentioned that the director 

of the Bureau of Water and Wastewater in Baltimore City has been 

very complimentary of this effort and how it has helped the city. 

Likewise, in western Maryland, we have had similar comments 

from public works directors in Frostburg and in Cumberland. So it 

has been well received in that respect. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. I see my time has expired. 

Congressman LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For Mr. Grumbles, do you feel the public notification for sewer 

overflows is adequate? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. A couple of responses. 

One, I feel that this Nation continues to put a greater emphasis 

on public notification, and I think it is through the permits themselves. I know when it comes to existing regulations that we have 

under the Clean Water Act, there is no specific mention in the regulations on public notification. However, positions that the EPA 

has been taking in the last several years have been through policy 

10 

to include public notification in permit writers, considerations for 

sanitary sewer overflows. Also, the CSO policy, as it was codified 

by you and others in 2000, did specifically pick up public notification for combined sewer overflows. 

So what we are committing to are continued and important discussions on ways to improve and to increase the amount of public 

notification, and one of the best and most flexible ways we can do 

that is through guidance and through working through with permit 

writers throughout the country who are issuing these permits for 

the various community sewer systems. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Do you think anything should be done to 

strengthen public reporting requirements? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, I think that, from an EPA standpoint, continued effort on our part is to educate permit writers—to hold 

workshops. We issued guidance in August specifically for that purpose of improving public notification. 

Congressman, I would say we are willing and eager to review additional steps, whether it is through, you know, considering the 

various array of approaches to increased public notification, a possible regulatory approach through a regulation. Right now we have 

been focused on the policy guidance and also the enforcement program. As the enforcement office, in working with the Justice Department, enters into consent agreements or settlement agreements with communities that are violating the Clean Water Act, 

we do put an emphasis on increased public notification and reporting because that is a great opportunity to reassure and to get the 

community more invested in their sustainable infrastructure systems. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Dr. Summers, can you give us any rough idea of what you think 

it costs the State and local authorities in Maryland to implement 

the State’s reporting system? 

Mr. SUMMERS. Well, actually we have not compiled cost information from the local governments. I really do not have a lot of information in that regard. I would say that basically they have been 

able to incorporate this reporting and the various steps, in conjunction with the local health departments, with existing resources. 

There has not been a major increase in cost that has been reported 

to us. In fact, the reports that we have gotten are positive with the 

respect of it has actually benefited them by allowing them to 

proactively deal with citizen complaints and press reports. It has 

helped them in terms of getting support from their commissions or 

legislatures to finance the improvements to this system that are 

necessary; it has actually built support, but that is a question that 

we could certainly put to a number of our jurisdictions, if that 

would be useful. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I thought it might have been compiled. I certainly would not want to give any suggestion or directive to go back 

and to compile that, but it is just a curiosity thing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo. 

I am going to exercise the discretion of the Chair and ask Mr. 

Whitford a question. 

11 

Obviously, Kitsap County was somewhat ahead of the curve in 

implementing your reporting and response procedures. Could you 

just tell us what kind of response you got from the local sewage 

agencies? Were they reluctant? If they were, have they now come 

around? What kind of response have you gotten from the public? 

Mr. WHITFORD. The response from the wastewater utilities has 

been great, and trust has been built up over 15 years now, so it 

does take time. 

When mistakes happen, the human thing to do sometimes is to 

try to mitigate it or to hide it, but that has gone away, you know, 

over the years to where now most of the reports that we get, except 

for the one example that I mentioned here, are accurate, that what 

they said happened actually did. So I would say that their participation has been great. 

I would say that the public sees the press releases constantly, 

and we get calls of people being very upset about that, but they 

know that we have a program in place to kind of detect these 

things and to warn them, so I think they are very appreciative. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. That brings our panel number 1 to a close. Thank 

you all very much for your testimony, and we will now move to our 

second panel. 

Thank you very much. I know, Dr. Lipp, you have a time constraint, so we will go to you first, but our second panel is comprised 

of Dr. Erin Lipp, who is an associate professor in the Department 

of Environmental Health Science at the University of Georgia; Ms. 

Katherine Baer, who is the director of river advocacy for American 

Rivers; and Mr. Kevin Shafer, who is the executive director of the 

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

So, Dr. Lipp, we will start with you, and we appreciate your patience. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF ERIN K. LIPP, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA; KATHERINE BAER, DIRECTOR, RIVER 

ADVOCACY, AMERICAN RIVERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND 

KEVIN L. SHAFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 

Ms. LIPP. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

As has already been mentioned, I am an associate professor at 

the College of Public Health at the University of Georgia. I am an 

environmental and public health microbiologist, and my research is 

focused in the area of water quality, microbiology and the ecology 

of waterborne pathogens. For the past decade I have been involved 

in issues associated with pathogens like bacteria and viruses in 

sewage in natural waters in the Southeast United States, including 

rivers, streams, estuaries, coastal waters, and coral reefs. I would 

like to highlight five main points this afternoon which relate to the 

issues of waterborne disease, pathogens in sewage and the contamination of our Nation’s waterways. 

First, the scientific literature shows abundant evidence of the 

role of contaminated waters as a source of infectious disease. AcVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:38 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38516 JASON
12 

cording to the CDC’s most recent reports, there were 62 outbreaks 

of disease associated with recreational water and 30 outbreaks associated with drinking water in 2003 and 2004. This affected a reported 5,400 people. However, this does not include the many sporadic cases which are not included in those reported outbreaks, and 

it is likely a very considerable underestimation of the actual numbers of people who became ill. Most cases of diarrhea and vomiting, 

which are the most common symptoms associated with waterborne 

diseases, are never recorded in State and Federal databases because people simply do not seek treatment or are not diagnosed. 

For example, one estimate suggests that only about 2.6 percent 

of all cases of Salmonella or illnesses with similar mild to moderate 

gastrointestinal distress are ever reported. Therefore, the problem 

of waterborne disease is likely much greater than the current data 

indicate. 

My second point is that sewage contains bacteria, viruses and 

parasites that come directly from infected people in the community. 

Because those infected people may excrete high numbers of these 

microbes while they are ill, sewage can be expected to carry high 

concentrations of numerous pathogenic agents. Wastewater treatment can be expected to reduce much of it. If raw sewage is released into a waterway, we are depending solely on dilution to reduce concentrations. 

For many pathogens, especially protozoa like Cryptosporidium or 

viruses like the cruise ship virus—the norovirus—the solution to 

pollution is simply not dilution. As few as one cell or virus can 

cause disease. To give you an example, noroviruses can be detected 

at concentrations as high as 10 million viruses per liter, so that is 

about twice the size of this small bottle of water here. If a milkcarton-sized container of sewage were dumped into a body of water 

about the size of a typical backyard swimming pool, there would 

still be around 100 viruses per liter. If a person swimming swallowed as little as 2 tablespoons of this water, he would likely ingest 

three viruses, and only one is needed to cause disease. 

My third point is that, because of lack of coordinated notification 

of sewer overflows and data collection during such events, we actually have relatively few studies that show a direct link between an 

overflow event, pathogens in the water and illness from exposure 

to those specific pathogens. However, there is a variety of research, 

studies that strongly suggest this linkage. I can give you an example from my own research. 

In the summer of 1999, the city of Key West experienced significant problems with their deteriorating sewer lines. This resulted in 

multiple and ongoing beach closures. During that period about 300 

swimmers participated in an annual race around Key West. Following this 12-mile swim, 30 percent of swimmers reported infections of the eyes, ears, nose or diarrhea. These are all symptoms 

consistent with exposure to sewage-associated bacteria and viruses. 

In terms of drinking water, in 2002, the CDC estimated that the 

number one known cause of disease outbreaks from untreated 

groundwater or private wells was the seepage or overflow of sewage. Because our Nation’s waterways and coastlines do not end at 

State boundaries, someone is always downstream. Therefore, Federal efforts to protect our natural water resources continue to be 

13 

a laudable and achievable goal. Including public health and agency 

notification of sewer spills is clearly in the spirit of the Clean 

Water Act goals to maintain fishable and swimmable waters. 

Finally, I would like to make one last note, which is that research and regulations that support improved water quality guidelines that encompass the array of pathogens that can threaten 

human and ecosystem health would also allow for better management in the case of overflows or seepage of sewage. Along with 

public notification of sewer overflows, increased data collection on 

specific pathogens in our water and the surveillance of associated 

diseases, especially among our most vulnerable populations, are 

needed. To better implement strategies that effectively protect public health and our aquatic resources, we need to know what we are 

dealing with. 

In 1996, the EPA implemented the Information Collection Rule 

to determine the level of specific pathogens in source water prior 

to treatment for drinking. This collection period provided critical 

baseline information on the abundance of specific pathogens and allowed treatment plants to optimize practices to best reduce these 

agents. A similar information collection tool for sewage would, likewise, aid both treatment plant operators to optimize for pathogens, 

rather than the indicator system that they currently use, and those 

responsible for protecting our public health by giving them the 

knowledge of what pathogens were probably in the sewage when an 

overflow occurred, applying appropriate risk-assessment models to 

determine risk to the overall population and to our vulnerable populations, and finally, to determine which actions could best mitigate the problems. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Lipp, so that you may catch your plane, and with the indulgence of my colleagues, we will submit our questions for you in 

writing, and then we would appreciate a written response. Thank 

you very much. 

Ms. LIPP. All right. 

Mr. BISHOP. Again, thank you for your patience. 

Ms. LIPP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. We will now move to Katherine Baer of American 

Rivers. 

Ms. BAER. Good afternoon, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

LoBiondo and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Katherine Baer. I am director of American Rivers 

Healthy Water Campaign. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today in support of H.R. 2452, the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. I would also certainly like to 

thank you both for your leadership in introducing this important 

legislation. 

As sewers continue to overflow or to spill on a regular basis, citizens have a basic right to know when it is unsafe to swim or to 

play in local waters—streams, rivers and lakes. Just as we are 

alerted to code red unhealthy air days or to contaminated food— 

as you can remember in the case of when the bagged spinach was 

pulled so quickly off the store shelves in 2006—we similarly have 

a right to know about the sewage spills that can affect our health. 

14 

I will make four brief points today in support of H.R. 2452. First, 

the contact with sewage is a serious public health threat that must 

be addressed. I think Dr. Lipp described it well. Every year many 

Americans and their loved ones risk serious illness, such as diarrhea and ear infections, when untreated sewage seeps into the 

water they use for recreation and drinking. In rare cases contact 

with untreated sewage can lead to more chronic conditions, including liver failure and cancer. Individuals, especially children and the 

elderly, become ill from contaminated recreational waters through 

ingestion or contact with ears, eyes, nose, and skin. 

According to EPA estimates, up to 3.5 million people become ill 

from contact with raw sewage from sanitary sewer overflows alone 

each year. However, the number of illnesses caused by untreated 

sewage could be much higher due to underreporting. For example, 

a recent study found that up to 1.5 million people get 

gastroenteritis at two beaches in California alone each year. 

My second point is that current Federal policy does not require 

public notification, leaving people at risk. Currently Federal public 

notification or right-to-know requirements for sewage are almost 

nonexistent. There are no requirements for public notification for 

sanitary sewer overflows, and compliance with the combined sewer 

overflow policy is highly variable, leaving people at risk. 

State requirements, where they exist, are also highly variable. 

While some States like we have heard from today, like Maryland, 

and others such as Michigan, and individual cities have excellent 

public notification programs, many do not. For example, South 

Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and many others do not have any statewide public notification requirements at 

all. The bill will create a consistent Federal minimum requirement 

that will level the playing field to better protect all Americans. 

Third, H.R. 2452 provides a straightforward, commonsense solution by requiring monitoring and notification to protect the public 

from sewer spills. The bill would provide an enforceable, consistent 

baseline, providing a safety net for everyone. H.R. 2452 requires 

publicly owned treatment works to use a monitoring system, technology or a management program to alert the owner or operator of 

an overflow. 

Just as cars have ′′check engine′′ lights, wastewater treatment 

systems should also have monitoring systems to inform them of potential problems. The bill allows a system to choose from a great 

range of monitoring techniques currently available. 

The bill also requires POTWs to notify the public when there is 

a sewage overflow with the potential to threaten human health so 

that people can avoid the risk of becoming ill. Notification must 

take place as soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after 

the owner or operator becomes aware of the spill. This timeliness 

component is, of course, important in order to really protect public 

health. 

Fourth and finally, some cities and utilities are already doing an 

excellent job of notifying the public, using a variety of mechanisms, 

showing both that notification can be achieved, and that it is also 

an important part of sound management and community safety. 

Communities like Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, illustrate that strong monitoring and public noVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:38 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38516 JASON
15 

tification is viable. There are a variety of public notification methods that can be used separately or in combination to reach the 

broadest possible audience in a timely manner. 

Public health agencies must also be notified when there is an imminent threat to the public. In some States and in some places like 

you have heard today, they are already involved in public outreach. 

H.R. 2452 allows each State or community to tailor a program 

to best reach the local population. Notification is not intended to 

be one-size-fits-all, and it should be designed with the end goal of 

protecting public health in the most effective way possible. 

In closing, knowledge is a powerful first line of defense that public notification can provide to keep us healthy while we continue to 

work for the solutions to reduce sewage pollution. We will continue 

to work hard with Members of Congress and with those in the 

wastewater treatment community to advocate for more funding for 

clean water infrastructure. In the meantime, however, public notification of sewage spills is essential so that people can protect themselves and their families from getting sick, while also galvanizing 

support for the solutions needed to reduce sewage pollution as 

mentioned by Dr. Summers in his testimony. 

Finally, I would like to submit, as part of my testimony, two letters, one from the CEOs of nine environmental organizations and 

the other from four national public health organizations, in support 

of this bill, as well as American Rivers’ report on the status of public notification in 11 U.S. States. 

We urge the Committee to move this bill, and we are strongly in 

support of it. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 

2452, and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, and your additions will be 

made part of the record. Thank you. 

Mr. Shafer. 

Mr. SHAFER. Good afternoon, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member LoBiondo and Members of the Water Resources Subcommittee. 

I am Kevin Shafer, executive director of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, MMSD, and treasurer of the National 

Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA. 

Thank you for your leadership on clean water issues. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify here today on the Raw Sewage Overflow 

Community Right-to-Know Act of 2007. This legislation is designed 

to achieve an important goal: ensuring the public’s right to know 

about events that could impact their health and their environment. 

It is a goal that we in the clean water community endeavor to meet 

every single day. 

At home in Milwaukee, I, like others, have kids who thrive 

around our great Lake Michigan and the other area waterways. I 

want to know and my neighbors want to know that our children 

are playing in water that will not make them sick. It is of the utmost importance for us to know this, and we take this reporting 

challenge very seriously at the MMSD. 

Before I discuss H.R. 2452 from a national perspective, I would 

like to tell you about how Milwaukee achieves these challenges. 

Fortunately, in Milwaukee, we have an extensive monitoring program that has been in place for over 10 years that we feel exceeds 

the H.R. 2452 requirements. In the 1980s and 1990s, Milwaukee 

16 

spent nearly $3 billion to reinforce our sewer system to protect 

Lake Michigan. As part of that program, we built a 19.4-mile-long, 

405-million-gallon tunnel system that captures flows from both the 

combined sewer and separate sanitary sewer systems. Additionally, 

in 2006, we completed an 89-million-gallon deep tunnel that is devoted solely to separate sewage, and we are currently constructing 

another tunnel that will add 27 million gallons more to our regional system. These tunnels store the water until our treatment 

plants can treat it. 

Our stewardship of the water environment is impressive. Since 

the first tunnel became operational in 1994, we have reduced the 

number of combined sewer overflows from an average of approximately 60 in 1994 to an average of 2 in 2007. We have also reduced 

separate sewer overflows from an average of approximately 25 in 

1994 to an average of about 2 by 2007, but we do still have overflows, and we are working diligently every day to address this. 

We are also continually improving our extensive monitoring and 

notification programs. The monitoring system that was installed in 

1994 provided a regional umbrella coverage for our sewer system. 

Currently MMSD is upgrading this system with a $50 million, 

state-of-the-art technology that will help us drill down into the 

local system. This updated system will further help MMSD maximize the use of its wastewater storage systems and treatment 

plant capacity. 

In Milwaukee we are protecting our citizens and the environment, and we take that seriously and strive to overreport these occurrences. What I mean by this is we notify not only our regulators, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, of an overflow event as required, but we also notify the public health department, local media outlets, and scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Great Lakes WATER Institute, which uses these occurrences as opportunities to gather realtime scientific data to help us 

plan for our future water quality improvements. 

Additionally, during a storm, even before a sewer overflow might 

occur, we have posted on our Web site, www.mmsd.com, a storm 

update page which shows in realtime the volumes of wastewater 

and sewage we have kept from overflowing. During these large 

events, the public can log onto our system and see the status every 

5 minutes. If we do have an overflow in our system during very 

large storms, we report this immediately on our Web site. As I said 

earlier, we take this challenge very seriously. 

Milwaukee and a few other utilities may be unique in our approach to monitoring and reporting, and from a national perspective, it is important to remember that every wastewater utility in 

the United States is different. Therefore, this issue should be treated as an ongoing partnership between the Federal, State and local 

governments because it is important on so many fronts to make 

sure that what is proposed actually helps solve the problem. It is 

critical to underscore that meeting the Clean Water Act’s goals requires a sustainable partnership among all levels of government 

and a significant recommitment of resources from the Federal Government in particular. 

Our Nation now faces serious long-term funding shortfalls to 

meet its vital water and wastewater infrastructure needs. AccordVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:38 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38516 JASON
17 

ing to EPA and other Federal agencies, the Nation faces a $300 billion to $500 billion water infrastructure funding gap over the next 

20 years. It is in this context that we must consider H.R. 2452. 

Sewer overflows continue to pose one of the biggest single challenges to clean water managers everywhere. The infiltration and 

inflow of stormwater into sewer systems is a primary cause of sanitary sewer overflows, and it is very difficult from an engineering 

perspective and costly to eliminate all together. Most NACWA 

members are already subject to detection, notification, reporting, 

and recordkeeping requirements imposed by EPA’s part 122 regulations and the SSO facts sheet. 

Communities with combined sewer systems must implement 

monitoring and notification programs for overflows as part of their 

nine minimum controls for the CSO policy adopted in 1994. Any 

additional Federal legislation on monitoring and reporting should 

acknowledge the programs that are already in place and ensure 

that any new programs do not interfere with existing efforts or impose duplicative, unnecessary and often costly mandates. 

H.R. 2452 also states that all overflows with the potential to 

harm public health would trigger the notification requirements. 

Some NACWA members have expressed concern that even minor 

spills of a few gallons that can occur during the system routine 

maintenance of a sewer line could meet that notification. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Shafer, if you could wrap up, please. 

Mr. SHAFER. I will. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. SHAFER. Sorry. 

NACWA believes that a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal 

approach to SSOs is needed. The EPA should promulgate SSO control regulations similar to the CSO control policy as they did in 

1994. In 2001, the EPA attempted to use such a regulation that 

broadly addressed the management and reduction of SSOs. 

Finally, to further help cities address wet weather and other critical clean water infrastructure challenges, Congress should establish a sustainable, national clean water trust fund. 

As we approach the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, it 

is vital that we recall that success so far has been achieved 

through a Federal, State and local partnership. We look forward to 

working with you to ensure its continued progress and in improving the health of our Nation’s waters, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

My first question is for both Ms. Baer and Mr. Shafer. 

Ms. Baer, you have testified that H.R. 2452 is designed to allow 

each State or community to tailor its own program to meet the specific needs of their individual communities so as to avoid a onesize-fits-all approach, which is precisely what Mr. LoBiondo and I 

had in mind when we worked on the bill. 

Mr. Shafer, you have described the very same legislation as a 

one-size-fits-all approach. 

So we obviously have a conflict here, and I would wonder if you 

could each expand on your positions on what apparently is, you 

know, a disagreement. 

18 

Ms. BAER. Well, the bill requires notification of the public, but 

it does not actually define how this could be done. As you have 

heard from Mr. Shafer and from some of the other panelists, and 

as we have found in our research across the country, there are a 

number of excellent mechanisms, such as Web site alerts, postings, 

phone hotlines. There are a lot of different ways to notify people 

to most effectively reach them, given who is in your community and 

who is out using the water. 

So my reading of the bill certainly does not mandate any sort of 

type. It is not intended to be heavy-handed, nor is it—and it should 

be left open so that we can further define and let communities best 

tailor it to really make sure people have a right to know. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Shafer. 

Mr. SHAFER. I am not sure there is really any conflict. We agree 

that we need to look at these issues, and, you know, we feel that, 

as we move forward, we need to work together, but we do know 

that every system is different. Some systems are as large as Dallas’, which is very large, versus Milwaukee’s, versus very small systems. 

So one of the concerns is maybe that there is not enough definition in this, and that that may be something that we could ask the 

EPA, which is to add more definition so that it would make some 

of the various members of NACWA feel more comfortable with the 

requirements. But we are in support of notifying the public, and we 

just need to make sure that there is more definition added to this 

issue. 

We are a little concerned that there may already be reporting requirements there through the CSO policy of 1994 and the EPA’s 

work with the SSO facts sheet, and we just do not want to be duplicative with something that is already there. 

Mr. BISHOP. It seems to me that our goal is to achieve nationally 

what you have achieved in Milwaukee. I mean, you clearly are presiding over a first-rate system, and as I read your testimony, I was 

a little surprised because you seem to be—no pun intended—lukewarm on H.R. 2452. Tell me why. I mean, is it because of your concern about duplicative requirements? 

Mr. SHAFER. Absolutely, and it is also something where, in 2001, 

the EPA had promulgated a rule for SSOs that was never moved 

forward, and we need to be able to look at this in a comprehensive 

manner. Just like with watershed approaches, we need to look at 

everything in a comprehensive manner. We need comprehensive 

SSO guidance from the agency so that we can address all of these 

issues in a cohesive fashion, and we need to fund that as well. 

So I would not say we are lukewarm to it. We just need to make 

sure that we do not overlap with existing regulations that are 

there, and we need to work with all of the organizations similar to 

what we did with some of the other wet weather approaches that 

we have addressed—that ′′NACWA,′′ when I say ′′we,′′ has addressed, and that we move forward in a cohesive fashion to address 

these issues. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

My last question: Ms. Baer, in his testimony earlier, Administrator Grumbles indicated that he thought the best approach to 

19 

public notification of sewer overflows would be that of flexibility to 

utilize existing guidance and working with permit writers to include notification requirements in the NPDES permits. 

Do you agree with that approach, or would you take a different 

approach? 

Ms. BAER. I think we believe that the current policy is insufficient to protect public health, and while we certainly appreciate 

Mr. Grumbles’ efforts to move things forward through policy, so far 

this has not actually achieved its goals, and we know that many 

people are still at risk. I can give you specific stories from across 

the country. 

Even earlier this year in Florida, 200,000 gallons of sewage 

spilled into a stream that went into the Tampa Bay. Local residents were out in the water and did not know about it until the 

media came and told them 2 days later. We see complaints like this 

around the country. 

So, even though I think it is important to take a flexible approach and work with communities and permit writers, H.R. 2452 

is critical to making sure there is a requirement nationwide and is 

consistent to protect public health. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank our panel members for being here today. I appreciate 

your testimony. 

For Ms. Baer, I have had a couple of questions posed to me 

which I am going to pose to you, because I think you would have 

a better way of answering them than I would. 

I was asked, why focus on public notification? Why not focus on 

actively trying to reduce the amount of sewage pollution going into 

our waterways? 

Ms. BAER. I think it is a good question because, as we pointed 

out, there still is a lot of sewage pollution, unfortunately, going into 

our waterways. 

The way we see it is that right now we have an important public 

health threat that needs to be addressed that this bill addresses, 

but this bill also provides a great benefit that Dr. Summers really 

explained quite well, that it will galvanize support for the many solutions that we know are needed to raise the infrastructure investment in the clean water infrastructure. 

So we see this as an important step right now to address public 

health concerns, while we also continue to seek the solutions and 

to fight hard and to work with others in the wastewater treatment 

community and in the public health community to make sure there 

is enough money, enough funding, and resources to actually improve our infrastructure. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Another question that was posed to me: How do 

I know that there are not effective notification systems in most 

places? Why do we need legislation to fill the gap if we do not know 

for sure? 

Ms. BAER. Our own analysis of 11 States, as well as other reports 

that have looked at States and the Great Lakes, Florida and across 

the country, have shown that there really is a gap. We know the 

States I mentioned do not have any public notification policies at 

20 

all, and so we are finding, both from looking actually at the policy 

as well as hearing of stories where we know people are, unfortunately, in streams and creeks when there is a sewage spill and 

they do not know about it, that there is this need for a Federal consistent minimum, and it is wonderful that some communities are 

already doing this, and because they would surpass those Federal 

requirements, those programs would remain in place. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Shafer, as Chairman Bishop indicated, you have kind of got 

the gold standard in Milwaukee of what we would like to see in a 

lot of other places. 

Can you tell us a little bit about what is involved with your monitoring system? What kind of equipment? Do you have any handle 

on what the costs were to get to the point where you are now? 

Mr. SHAFER. We may have a gold-plated system, but there is always something that we can improve on. We always need to look 

at our system and see if we can improve. 

We spent about $50 million on various improvements to the instrumentation in our system and on the controls in our system. We 

have approximately 14 pump stations where we have indicators 

that, when a pump kicks on and starts overflowing to a creek, we 

know it immediately. We also have level indicators throughout the 

system so that, as the depth in the pipe gets above certain critical 

elevations, we know it immediately, and we have area velocity meters throughout our system so we can compute the flow and the velocity coming to our treatment plants. We also have a deep tunnel 

system that I testified to that has gates where we can measure the 

flow at those points, and at certain critical elevations we have to 

close those gates. 

We have a very intelligent system that allows us, through a central control system, to monitor over 300 miles of pipe that we can 

see flows, velocities and depths. Then, if we have an overflow, we 

report it immediately to the various regulators, to the public health 

department and to our public through our Web site. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Do you feel the age of your pipe is any kind of 

a problem for you? 

Mr. SHAFER. The age of pipe is always a problem for a community the age of Milwaukee, and we are continually trying to either 

reline those pipes or replace those pipes. So capital improvements, 

as was stated earlier, preventing the overflow up front is the most 

important goal of all clean water agencies. That is done through 

good management, good asset management, and good capital improvement programs. So funding those programs is critical, the age 

of pipe is critical, and you need to always monitor the system very 

closely. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just am curious. I know that we are referring to, you know, the 

combined and the sanitary sewer overflows. 

In regard, though, to the problem of raw sewage, what part do 

septic tanks play in the picture? Do you have any idea, Ms. Baer? 

21 

Do you all have septic tanks in your community, Mr. Shafer? Is 

that a thing of the past or—— 

Mr. SHAFER. We do not have septic in—— 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No. Around a lot of the rivers and lakes and 

streams and things in rural areas, you know, that is a significant 

component. Again, I just was curious if you knew what percentage 

the raw sewage problem was in that regard. 

Ms. BAER. I do not have that information. I would be glad to respond to you in writing. I do know septic is a proportion of it, and 

this bill focused more on the big volume spills, which are more 

often from the—— 

Mr. BOOZMAN. You mentioned the volume of the—and again, I 

am just curious. I believe Dr. Lipp talked about pouring like a cup 

or a cup and a half into a swimming pool, and then you mentioned 

the 200,000 gallons into Tampa Bay. 

Can you make a comparison in the swimming pool there? Is that 

like a thimble, or is that like a 5-gallon bucket? 

Ms. BAER. I am afraid I would have to get out my calculator to 

figure that one out for you. I can get back to you. I do not know. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. Good. 

Well, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

If there are no more questions, I will dismiss the second panel 

with our thanks. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

22 


38516.008
23 


38516.009
24 


38516.010
25 


38516.011
26 


38516.012
27 


38516.013
28 


38516.014
29 


38516.015
30 


38516.016
31 


38516.017
32 


38516.018
33 


38516.019
34 


38516.020
35 


38516.021
36 


38516.022
37 


38516.023
38 


38516.024
39 


38516.025
40 


38516.026
41 


38516.027
42 


38516.028
43 


38516.029
44 


38516.030
45 


38516.031
46 


38516.032
47 


38516.033
48 


38516.034
49 


38516.035
50 


38516.036
51 


38516.037
52 


38516.038
53 


38516.039
54 


38516.040
55 


38516.041
56 


38516.042
57 


38516.043
58 


38516.044
59 


38516.045
60 


38516.046
61 


38516.047
62 


38516.048
63 


38516.049
64 


38516.050
65 


38516.051
66 


38516.052
67 


38516.053
68 


38516.054
69 


38516.055
70 


38516.056
71 


38516.057
72 


38516.058
73 


38516.059
74 


38516.060
75 


38516.061
76 


38516.062
77 


38516.063
78 


38516.064
79 


38516.065
80 


38516.066
81 


38516.067
82 


38516.068
83 


38516.069
84 


38516.070
85 


38516.071
86 


38516.072
87 


38516.073
88 


38516.074
89 


38516.075
90 


38516.076
91 


38516.077
92 


38516.078
93 


38516.079
94 


38516.080
95 


38516.081
96 


38516.082
97 


38516.083
98 


38516.084
99 


38516.085
100 


38516.086
101 


38516.087
102 


38516.088
103 


38516.089
104 


38516.090
105 


38516.091
106 


38516.092
107 


38516.093
108 


38516.094
109 


38516.095
110 


38516.096
111 


38516.097
112 


38516.098
113 


38516.099
114 


38516.100
115 


38516.101
116 


38516.102
117 


38516.103
118 


38516.104
119 


38516.105
120 


38516.106
121 


38516.107
122 


38516.108
123 


38516.109
124 


38516.110
125 


38516.111
126 


38516.112
127 


38516.113
128 


38516.114
129 


38516.115
130 


38516.116
131 


38516.117
132 


38516.118
133 


38516.119
134 


38516.120
135 


38516.121
136 


38516.122
137 


38516.123
138 


38516.124
139 


38516.125
140 


38516.126
141 


38516.127
142 


38516.128
143 


38516.129
144 


38516.130
145 


38516.131
146 


38516.132
147 


38516.133
148 


38516.134
149 


38516.135
150 


38516.136
151 


38516.137
152 


38516.138
153 


38516.139
154 


38516.140
155 


38516.141
156 

Æ 


38516.142