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

25–243 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–12 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 518, A BILL TO 

AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION 

CONTROL ACT TO PROVIDE FOR TECHNICAL 

ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL TREATMENT 

WORKS, S. 692, THE ‘‘WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2017’’ AND S. 675, 

THE ‘‘LONG ISLAND SOUND RESTORATION 

AND STEWARDSHIP ACT’’ 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WATER, AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 28, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming (ex officio) 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 28, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ........................ 1 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 2 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 8 

Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois ...................... 10 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 11 

WITNESSES 

Gray, Richard, Mayor, City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania ...................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Sternberg, Dennis, Executive Director, Arkansas Rural Water Association ...... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Crotty, Erin M., Executive Director, Audubon New York .................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

LEGISLATION 

S. 518, the ‘‘Small and Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance 

Act’’ ........................................................................................................................ 72 

S. 692, the ‘‘Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act of 2017’’ .................................. 76 

S. 675, the ‘‘Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act’’ .................... 92 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 518, A BILL TO 

AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION 

CONTROL ACT TO PROVIDE FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL TREATMENT WORKS, S. 692, THE ‘‘WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2017’’ AND 

S. 675, THE ‘‘LONG ISLAND SOUND RESTORATION AND STEWARDSHIP ACT’’ 

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Boozman (Chairman of 

the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Duckworth, Cardin, 

and Gillibrand. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The meeting will come to order. 

I would like to welcome everyone to today’s legislative hearing. 

We are reviewing three bills: S. 518, the Small and Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance Act, the Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act of 2017, and S. 675, the Long Island Sound 

Restoration and Stewardship Act. 

The sponsors of these bills also sit on the Armed Services Committee which has a conflicting meeting in just a few minutes. What 

we would like to do is let them go first. I am going to recognize 

Senator Wicker, Senator Fischer, and Senator Gillibrand and let 

them make remarks about their legislation. 

Then I will give my opening statement followed by Ranking 

Member Duckworth. We will then proceed to the testimony. 

Would you like to start, Roger? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for accommodating 

our schedule this afternoon. 

I am at this moment here to talk about S. 518, which deals with 

sewer systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people. Frankly, in the 

United States of America, some 80 percent of public sewer systems 

are in that category. 

2 

Many of these small communities often face significant challenges in complying with Federal rules, and it is also costly. 

S. 518 provides some relief in the form of technical assistance 

and training to assist small communities in securing the necessary 

technical expertise to improve and protect their water resources. 

Specifically, under my legislation the EPA Administrator would 

have authority to direct funding to non-profit organizations to provide onsite assistance, regional training, assistance with implementation of monitoring plans, rules, and regulations to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

I might mention to my colleagues that a similar initiative has already been in effect with regard to effective implementation of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. This would add the Clean Water Act to 

that. I believe this program would share the same success for rural 

community wastewater systems. 

The bill would also one other thing. It would allow States to use 

up to 2 percent of their Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund 

for technical assistance for these small systems. 

My appreciation goes out to our colleague, Senator Heitkamp, for 

being the lead Democrat on this bill and to members of this Committee, Senators Barrasso, Boozman, and Capito, for also signing 

on as co-sponsors. There is a great need for this. I urge its adoption 

at the appropriate time. 

I thank my colleagues for their attention. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. We thank the Senator from Mississippi. 

Now we will go to our Senator from Nebraska. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and also the Ranking Member for holding this hearing today. I thank the Committee 

for coordinating the schedule with today’s conflicting Armed Services Committee briefing. 

I would also like to thank Mayor Gray for providing testimony 

today on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the other witnesses for their willingness to share their time and experience with 

our Subcommittee. 

Last week I introduced S. 692, the Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act, with Senators Brown, Cardin, Boozman, Portman, Blunt, 

and Booker. Our bipartisan legislation would provide local communities with increased flexibility when complying with Clean Water 

Act requirements for updates to water infrastructure projects. 

The bill would also give communities more independence as they 

prioritize and plan for wastewater and stormwater investments. 

More than 700 local communities across the country face mandates 

from the EPA to comply with Clean Water Act requirements. 

In my home State of Nebraska, the city of Omaha was hit with 

a $2 billion unfunded Federal mandate from the EPA. Specifically, 

Omaha was required to update its combined sewer overflow system. 

We all want clean and safe drinking water but an expensive, one 

size fits all approach handed down from Washington does not work. 

3 

According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, on average, municipalities spend between 6 to 7 cents of every tax dollar on water and 

sewer systems. This makes water infrastructure the third largest 

expense for cities after education and emergency personnel. 

Local communities forced to comply with these costly mandates 

have no choice but to pass these costs on to families through higher 

utility bills. For example, in 2014 the city council in Omaha, Nebraska, approved a sewer rate increase of approximately 45 percent 

over several years. This hurts the most vulnerable in the community, our low and fixed income families. 

The Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act would allow municipalities to prioritize investments in storm and waste water projects 

needed for CWA compliance. It would also establish an Office of 

Municipal Ombudsman at the EPA to assist cities in complying 

with Federal environmental laws. 

Most importantly, our bill requires the EPA to revise this regulation to make it more affordable. 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of 

Counties, the National League of Cities and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies have all endorsed this bill. I am 

grateful for their support. I would ask unanimous consent that 

their letters of support be included in the record. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

4 


25243.001

NATIONALNAlCD ASSOCIATION 

~/'COUNTIES 

~~"'-~ NLC NATIONAL 

LEAGUE 

OF CITIES 

March 21, 2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

United States Senate 

454 Russell Senate Office 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Ben Cardin 

United States Senate 

509 Hart Senate Office 

Washington, DC 2051 

Dear Senators Fischer, Cardin, and Brown: 

The Honorable Sherrod Brown 

United States Senate 

713 Hart Senate Office 

washington, DC 20510 

On behalf of the nation's mayors, cities, and counties, we are writing to express our support for your bill the 

Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act, and we urge your colleagues to support it as well. The legislation would 

codify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Integrated Planning and Financial Capability policies 

as useful tools for local governments to comprehensively deal with wastewater and stormwater investments 

as well as unfunded mandates. 

Local governments are at a crossroads. Cities and counties spend over $115 billion per year to provide safe 

and reliable water and sewer services and maintain a vast physical infrastructure of pipes, pumps and plants. 

While we thank Congress for providing $2 billion annually to the water and wastewater State Revolving Fund 

programs, these loans are not enough to cover the estimated costs to maintain and replace our aging 

infrastructure. Additionally, local governments, our residents, and businesses must spend additional resources 

to comply with numerous environment and non-environmental federal and state unfunded mandates, which 

further limits the money available for water infrastructure. 

Furthermore, both the state and EPA's enforcement agencies increasingly regulate in a silo. While our cities 

and counties may be working to meet a multitude of standards in various water and wastewater 

requirements, the states and EPA often do not collaborate across the policy programs. This often create 

further, unnecessary unfunded mandates. However, the legislation would address many of these concerns by 

creating a policy shift that costs no federal money and creates some spending flexibility for our citizens. 

Specifically, the bill would allow local governments to work with their state and EPA to prioritize investment in 

wet weather overflows and flooding collectively, rather than individually, by codifying various EPA 

memorandums on water tools and affordability. And the bill would allow consideration of other service costs 

including drinking water. Since our water and wastewater systems are paid for by the ratepayers, the bill will 

help reduce costs for a substantial number of our low-income citizens who spend a significant portion of their 

income on water and wastewater bills. The measure would also allow local governments who undertake 

integrated planning to incorporate green infrastructure 
5 


25243.002

components into municipal stormwater, combined sewer overflow (CSO) and other water plans in a more cost 

effective way. 

Thank you again for your leadership on this issue. On behalf of the nation's cities, counties and mayors, we 

thank you for your consideration of our request. If you have any questions, please contact us: Carolyn Berndt 

(NLC) at 202-626-3101 or Berndt@nlc.org; Julie Ufner {NACo) at 202-942-4269 or jufner@naco.org; or Judy 

Sheahan {USCM) at 202-861-6775 or jsheahan@usmayors.org. 

Sincerely, 

r-.~-'- Tom Cochran 

CEO and Executive Director 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors 

cc: Members of the Senate 

Matthew D. Chase Clarence E. Anthony 

Executive Director CEO and Executive Director 

National Association of Counties National league of Cities 
6 


25243.003

March28,2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

1be Honorable Sherrod Brown 

US. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Ben Cardin 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senators Fischer, Brown, and Catdin: 

On behalf of the clean water utility members of the National Association of Clean 

Water Agencies (NACWA), I am writing in support ofS. 692, the Water Infrastmcture 

Flexibility Act {'X'lFA), bipartisan legislation that establishes strong tools within the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) to help municipalities more affordably comply with the 

statute. 

There is little doubt that our nation's water quality has significantly improved since 

enactment of the CWA in 1972, largely due to investments in wastewater and 

stormwater infrastructure made by Congress and America's ratepayers. In fact, since 

the law's enactment, the number of waterways deemed fishable and swimmable has 

increased nearly SO%. Yet improvements in water quality have become more difficult 

to achieve as sources of pollutants have grown mOl·e complex and the Nation's 

municipal dean water infrastructure has continued to age. At the same time, the 

current structure of the CWA, which hasn't been significantly reformed in over thirty 

years, has led to an accretion of costly regulations for local ratepayers- in many cases 

with diminishing environmental returns. 

Paying for dean water services has primarily rested with ratepayers who haw, seen 

clean water bills increase nearly twice the rate of inflation each year for the past 

decade" Today, 40% of households across America are paying more out of their 

disposable incomes for wastewater and stormwater management than what EPA says 

is affordable. 

S. 692 proposes common sense reforms to the CWA to address this affordability 

challenge. Specifically, the legislation codifies Integrated Planning which is an 
7 


25243.004

NACWA S.692 Support Letter 

March 28,2017 

Page2 of2 

important new tool that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched several years ago. The initiative 

enables communities to meet their permit obligations under the CWA in a holistic, prioritized manner that 

accounts for ratepayer affordability concerns while ensuring progress toward water quality goals. By codifYing 

Integrated Planning as a permanent compliance feature under the Act, communities can undertake long~term 

planning in reliance of it. 

Equally as important, the legislation requires EPA to adopt new affordability guidelines that do not rely on a 

single economic indicator to determine whether a community of ratepayers can afford compliance obligations. 

The clean water community has urged EPA to adopt revised affordability standards for many years and we are 

pleased this legislation will finally accomplish this goal. 

Further, the legislation would establish an office of Municipal Ombudsman at the EPA to provide 

municipalities with technical assistance to comply with the CWA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Many 

communities, especially small, rural communities, often have insufficient technical capacity and expertise to 

manage the increasingly complex regulatory compliance obligations under these statutes. The Office of 

Municipal Ombudsman can ensure that these communities receive technical support they may need to navigate 

these statutory requirements and ensure compliance to avoid violations and/or federal enforcement actions. 

Finally, the legislation includes provisions to ensure that the EPA integrates the use of green infrastructure 

throughout its CWA compliance programs. Green infrastructure uses natural landscape features such as 

vegetation, soils, and other elements to manage storm water in a way that reduces pressure on aging 

underground infrastructure. Municipalities are increasingly installing green infrastructure throughout the 

urban environment as an alternative to grey infrastructure approaches in an effort to build more resilient water 

management systems, reduce costs and improve quality oflife attributes in local neighborhoods. 

NACWA appreciates your leadership on this important legislation and looks forward to working with you and 

your Senate colleagues to enact it. 

Sincerely, 

~ K;..~-

Adam Krantz 

Chief Executive Officer 
8 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. 

We all want clean water. Our bill helps us work toward that important goal without unnecessarily burdening families along the 

way. 

I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me on this legislation, and I look forward to working with each of you as we move 

forward to address our Nation’s infrastructure needs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Fischer. 

We are going to have our opening statements. I will speak first 

and then our Ranking Member. If Senator Gillibrand pops in we 

will pause because she also needs to be at Armed Services. 

The reality now is we all have two or three things going on at 

the same time. There is a lot going on up here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. As a former member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and now part of the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee, I understand the importance of infrastructure investment. 

During my time in Congress I have been a constant advocate for 

water resources development and infrastructure. In the 114th Congress the Senate EPW and full Congress demonstrated its commitment to infrastructure with the bipartisan—I emphasize bipartisan—passage of two bills, the Water Infrastructure Improvement 

for the Nation Act as well as the comprehensive highway bill, the 

Fixing America Surface Transportation Act. I was very pleased to 

support both. 

Passing these pieces of legislation was a major step forward. 

However, there is still more to be done. I am looking forward to the 

opportunities we will have to make investments in the 115th Congress. I am really looking forward to working with Senator 

Duckworth in that capacity. 

Like many Americans I am encouraged by the Trump administration’s commitment to improving our Nation’s crumbling infrastructure, following the example set by President Dwight Eisenhower in establishment of the interstate highway system. 

It is clear that infrastructure investment boosts our economy, 

creates immediate jobs, and produces decades of economic opportunity. 

Unfortunately, since the President signed the Federal Aid to 

Highway Act of 1956 we have relied on a fix as fail approach to 

our Nation’s infrastructure. Not only is the fix as fail approach 

more expensive, increasingly causing delays to commerce, but it 

also poses a risk to public safety. 

The United States faces a multi-hundred billion dollar shortfall 

for water infrastructure investments which includes drinking 

water, sewer, and water supply projects. This shortage is reflected 

in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ overall grade for America’s infrastructure as a D∂. 

America is now at a crossroads. We need to address our aging 

infrastructure, but it comes with a cost. We have options that can 

9 

help fund infrastructure projects so we can get shovels in the 

ground and projects underway. 

The Federal Government has provided funding to establish revolving loan grant programs administered by the States as well as 

resources through the Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation 

Act. 

This program leverages small investments to make sure that taxpayers get the most bang for the buck. However, solving America’s 

infrastructure crisis is not just about funding. We also need to 

make investing in infrastructure more affordable. 

Once investments have been made, smaller communities may 

need technical assistance with operation and maintenance. Of 

course planning is needed to help us make wise investments. 

One example of Congress providing these tools is the Water Supply Cost Savings Act, which I co-sponsored and was included in another bill. This legislation provides a technical clearinghouse that 

encourages cost effective approaches to bring affordable, quality 

drinking water to rural America, which is so very important. 

With this bill we help to ensure that rural States—such as Arkansas—are not overburdened by major new infrastructure investments. The three bills we are reviewing today provide further examples of how we can help communities meet the requirements of 

the Clean Water Act. 

We all want clean water, but communities are being asked to do 

more and more. These requirements are all coming at once where 

there are mandates to update treatment plants, to address nutrients, mandates to control stormwater flows, or mandates to address 

combined or sanitary sewer overflows. There are lots of unfunded 

mandates. 

The question is not whether communities are going to address 

these issues. However, we have to recognize there are limits to how 

fast a community can act, particularly when many clean water 

mandates can cost hundreds of millions and in some cases billions 

of dollars. 

Senator Fischer’s bill, the Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act of 

2017, helps address this issue. This legislation, which I am also cosponsoring, allows communities to put all their Clean Water Act 

obligations into a single plan and then implement that plan over 

time, making the investments that provide the greatest environmental and economic benefits first instead of trying to do everything at once. 

Another issue is whether a community has the technical capability to meet Clean Water Act mandates. Many wastewater treatment systems operated by small and rural communities have few 

staff and limited resources. 

As a result, they may lack the expertise to maintain compliance 

with Clean Water Act requirements and may not be able to afford 

a full-time technical expert. On-site technical assistance and education offered by circuit riders provides a cost effective way to address this issue. 

Senator Wicker’s bill, the Small and Rural Community Clean 

Water Technical Assistance Act, addresses this issue by authorizing funding for rural water circuit riders. 

10 

Under this bill, of which I am also a co-sponsor, funding for this 

program can come directly from EPA. In addition the bill also allows States to set aside a part of their State Revolving Loan Fund’s 

money for this purpose. 

Finally, we want to know the wisest investments we can make 

to achieve clean water. Senator Gillibrand’s bill, the Long Island 

Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act, addresses this issue for 

the waters of Long Island. 

This bill reauthorizes two existing programs that helped New 

York and Connecticut develop, adapt, and implement the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management bill and 

helped restore the coastal habitat. 

I look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses on these 

bills and how we can promote flexibility, technical assistance and 

good planning. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I now recognize Senator Duckworth for an 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you to Chairman Boozman for 

convening this important conversation and to all of our witnesses 

for joining us today. Welcome to rainy DC where the cherry blossoms are not as in full bloom as we would like but still lovely nonetheless. 

I believe that infrastructure issues broadly can be a bright spot 

of bipartisanship for this Subcommittee and our full Committee as 

well as Congress. Whether it is rural areas or urban areas, coastal 

or plains States, communities across this country are grappling 

with finding ways to provide infrastructure that is strong and safe. 

Not only are there challenges all across this country, these challenges are often similar. They also have a pressing need to 

prioritize this issue now all across the Nation. 

As we discuss three bills before us today, I would like to highlight that each bill in its own way addresses issues I hear so many 

communities in Illinois complaining about. They provide communities with the capacity they need to take care of themselves and 

their residents. 

The Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act will supply local governments the technical capacity so that they may better comply with 

requirements under the Clean Water Act. The Small and Rural 

Community Clean Water Technical Assistance Act has a similar 

objective. In this bill we provide small communities the work force 

capacity they would not otherwise have access to. 

Finally, everyone should support programs like the Long Island 

Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act which would give the region the capacity to coordinate restoration activities with other 

Federal activities. 

Clearly, capacity can come in different shapes and sizes. However, regardless of the form, the returns are substantial and in 

some cases, critical. 

I am excited to work with all of you and hope that our hearing 

today will be the first of many to come where we will come toVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:46 May 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25243.TXT SONYA
11 

gether, hear ideas, and consider solutions to these very urgent 

issues. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam 

Ranking Member. 

I am very grateful for this subcommittee hearing today and for 

including my bill, the Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act, on the agenda today. 

I would like to welcome my friend, Erin Crotty, and thank her 

for her testimony today. We went to high school together. Erin is 

the Executive Director of Audubon New York and a former commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 

Audubon New York has been an important partner in protecting 

the Long Island Sound. I am so pleased Erin could be here today 

to give the perspective of those who work on the ground every day 

and see the benefits of Federal investment in restoring the Sound. 

Thank you, Erin, for being here and for traveling from New 

York. 

Mr. Chairman, the legislation I re-introduced this Congress, 

along with Senators Blumenthal, Schumer, and Murphy is identical 

to the bills that have unanimously passed this Committee in previous Congresses. 

It has strong bipartisan support from the New York and Connecticut delegations in the House, as well as from the local communities in the Long Island Sound Watershed. 

Long Island Sound is an estuary of national significance that contributes up to $37 billion to the regional economy each year. To 

protect this resource, my legislation would reauthorize through fiscal year 2023 our Federal commitment to helping our communities 

in New York and Connecticut restore and maintain the health of 

Long Island Sound and its ecosystems. 

For every $1 in Federal funds appropriated to the Long Island 

Sound program, $87 is leveraged from other sources. We have seen 

the results from our investment. Federal funding has already 

helped to significantly reduce by millions of pounds the amounts of 

nitrogen entering the Sound from sewage treatment plants. 

We have protected thousands of acres of habitat land, but there 

is still work to be done to reduce pollution and protect vital ecosystems in and around the Sound for millions of my constituents 

who live and work near it and want to enjoy its natural resources 

for recreation. 

I thank the Committee for once again considering this legislation. I hope we can move quickly through Congress so we can get 

it to the President’s desk. 

Thank you both. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Let us now go to our witnesses. 

Mr. Gray. 

12 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR, 

CITY OF LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. GRAY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. 

My name is Rick Gray, and I am the Mayor of the city of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a city of 60,000 people in 7 square miles. 

The Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act is a positive step in acknowledging that we need to approach our water and wastewater 

issues in a more practical and cost effective manner. 

Attached to my testimony is a letter signed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National 

Association of Counties that encourages all Senators to co-sponsor 

this legislation. 

During intense rain storms, due to impervious services and our 

combined stormwater/wastewater system millions of gallons of untreated wastewater can be caused to overflow into our river. 

The city has been proactively implementing a comprehensive 

stormwater program to improve water quality, meet regulatory 

compliance, and address stormwater challenges using gray as well 

as green infrastructure. 

Since 1999 the city of Lancaster has been implementing a Stateapproved, long-term control plan investing $80 million in gray infrastructure improvements. We are close to meeting the 85 percent 

captured goal set forth by EPA. 

If Lancaster used gray infrastructure, this remaining 15 percent 

would cost an estimated $300 million. 

After more than a year of evaluation and many public input sessions, Lancaster determined that a $140 million investment in 

green infrastructure with other gray system improvements over the 

next 25 years could accomplish the remaining compliance for the 

system. 

In 2011 Lancaster adopted a green infrastructure program establishing an integrated stormwater management to reduce combined 

sewage overflows in a more cost effective and environmentally sustainable manner. 

Lancaster has completed 45 green infrastructure programs at a 

cost of over $10 million. This has resulted in the capture of 45 million gallons of stormwater annually. EPA Region 3 and EPA Headquarters have lauded our program and held Lancaster up as a 

model for other cities to replicate. 

Yet EPA’s Enforcement Division continues aggressive actions including threats of civil penalties in the seven figure range to press 

us to use costly gray technology rather than allowing Lancaster 

time to implement a more sustainable green solution. 

Lancaster’s story illustrates that a new direction for EPA is necessary, one that will allow cities the flexibility to opt for more sustainable and resilient green infrastructure technologies. 

Since the beginning of Lancaster’s implementation we have had 

significant rate increases. I believe they were 130 percent since 

2003 plus a stormwater fee. Rate increases for our customers disproportionately affect the disadvantaged populations of our community. 

13 

This is a community in which 29 percent of our households have incomes of less than $20,000. These programs are shared by many 

cities. 

The Mayors’ message to Congress is that renewing public water 

infrastructure and delivering safe water is becoming less affordable. Sewer and stormwater mandates are expensive and may not 

address the highest local environmental or public health concerns 

of a city. 

I would like to call your attention to four important points of the 

Nation’s mayors. One, codify EPA’s integrated planning and permitting policy. Integrating planning should be designed to allow 

cities to develop comprehensive plans and establish a plan of investment over time to reach these goals. 

Two is achieving long-term control of stormwater through permits. We urge Congress to create a path of long-term goals that 

exist through the permitting process rather than by way of consent 

decrees. 

Third is renewed congressional support for exercising flexibility 

in existing clean water law. 

Fourth is eliminating civil fines in consent decrees for local governments that develop integrated plans and make reasonable 

progress in improving their waters. 

I wish to thank the Committee for this opportunity to speak before you today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:] 

14 


25243.005

Introductions 

Written Testimony of Mayor J. Richard Gray 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife 

March 28, 2017 

Good morning Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Duckworth, and members of the 

Committee. I thank you for this invitation to give mine and the Conference of Mayors' 

perspective on water and wastewater issues in the United States. 

My name is Rick Gray and I am the Mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I have spent the last 

several years in negotiations with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and USEPA over Long 

Term Control Plans to solve combined and sanitary sewer overflow problems in Lancaster. 

Let me start by commending Senators Fischer, Cardin, Brown, and other co-sponsors for 

introducing the Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act. This bill is a positive step toward 

acknowledging that as a nation, we need to approach our water and wastewater infrastructure and 

compliance issues in a much more practical and sustainable manner. Our communities and more 

importantly, our citizens, do not have unlimited funds to implement every rule and regulation in 

a silo, without considering what benefits might result. As we are fond of saying at the 

Conference of Mayors, "If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority." 

This bill addresses many of the problems and solutions that are outlined in my testimony. It 

would also help reestablish the federal-state-city partnership where together we determine what 

investments need to be made first based on our environmental and public health priorities. 

Attached to my testimony is a letter signed by the Conference of Mayors, National League of 

Cities, and National Association of Counties that supports the bill and encourages all Senators to 

cosponsor this important piece of legislation. 
15 


25243.006

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

GREEN VERUS GRAY 

The City of Lancaster, incorporated in 1818, serves as the seat of Lancaster County. The City has 

a population of approximately 60,000 and encompasses a land area of 7.34 square miles, nearly 

50% which is impervious. The City is part of the Lower Susquehanna River watershed, the 

largest tributary draining to the Chesapeake Bay. Lancaster is one of about 770 cities with a 

combined sewer system (CSS), which drains approximately 45% of the land area of the City. 

Most of the time, the City's Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (A WTF) is able to manage 

and fully treat the volume of water entering the CSS. However, intense rainstorms cause millions 

of gallons of untreated wastewater to overflow into the Conestoga River annually, much of 

which is runoff generated from impervious surfaces including buildings, streets, alleys, and 

parking lots. 

The remaining areas of the City drain into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), 

which must also meet water quality requirements as part of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. The 

City has been proactively implementing a comprehensive stormwater program to improve water 

quality, meet regulatory requirements, and address local stormwater challenges using traditional 

"gray infrastructure", as well as green infrastructure or "GI." 

Since 1999, Lancaster has been implementing a State-approved Long Term Control Plan (L TCP) 

and has invested $80 million in traditional gray infrastructure improvements to maximize the 

capture and treatment of combined sewage including a biological nutrient reduction (BNR) 

project that made the City's A WTF the first system in the state to meet nutrient removal 

requirements. We are on the cusp of meeting the 85% capture goal set forth in that LTCP and 

CSO guidance documents from EPA. A list of these completed projects are presented in Exhibit 

1 in Appendix 1. 

Lancaster was at a proverbial fork in the road, knowing that the next logical iteration of gray 

technology projects was to invest up to $300 million in storage for the remaining combined 

sewage overflow volume- approximately 15% that is not already captured and treated. After 

more than a year of evaluation and planning by national experts in green infrastructure and many 

public input sessions with our residents and businesses, Lancaster determined that the best course 

of action was to pursue a $140 million investment in GI, together with other gray system 

improvements, such as selective sewer separation projects over the next 25 years. 

So in 2011, Lancaster became the first Third Class City in Pennsylvania to adopt a Green 

Infrastructure ( G I) Plan, establishing the framework for strategic and integrated storm water 

management to reduce combined sewage overflows in a more cost effective and environmentally 

sustainable manner. GI reduces and treats stormwater at its source before it combines with raw 

sewage while delivering other environmental, social and economic benefits including protecting 

and improving water quality, providing natural stormwater management, and reducing energy 

use; neighborhood redevelopment, increasing recreational opportunities, and improving public 

health through cleaner air and water; and, reducing future capital and O&M costs that burden the 

rate payers from a totally gray infrastructure approach. Gray storage requires not only major 

capital investments to construct, it is an energy intensive solution requiring pumping stored 

2 
16 


25243.007

combined sewage, which is mostly comprised of stormwater, to a treatment facility for further 

treatment before pumping the discharge to local waterways. Furthermore, the O&M costs for 

gray storage over the design life of that facility is likely greater than GI technology. 

Since 2011, through concerted and coordinated project planning Lancaster is demonstrating that 

a comprehensive, integrated approach to stormwater management using GI can help to achieve 

clean water goals, by cost-effectively integrating GI into planned capital improvement projects to 

reduce the adverse effects of stormwater runoff. Lancaster has completed 45 GI projects at a cost 

of over $10 million that has captured 45 million gallons annually of storm water. These projects 

are presented in Appendix 2. EPA Region 3 and EPA Headquarters have lauded our program and 

held up Lancaster as a model for other cities to replicate publicly since 2012. Yet the 

EPA/Department of Justice enforcement approach employs aggressive actions, rigid methods, 

and threats of large civil penalties to press cities like Lancaster to use costly technology rather 

than allowing time to implement a more sustainable (and affordable) integrated set of green and 

gray solutions. 

And the process is very onerous. Since 2008, we have made over 15 filings with EPA and the 

State, have received 5 responses or comments from the agencies, and have had 20 

meetings/calls/tours. 

Lancaster's story illustrates that a new direction for EPA is necessary: one that will allow cities 

like Lancaster the flexibility to opt for more sustainable and resilient GI technologies that will 

make their cities more livable and desirable for their residents and businesses. Lancaster's 

residents have fully embraced this technology and, in fact, are demanding GI projects be built in 

their neighborhoods. 

AFFORD ABILITY 

The median household income of Lancaster is significantly lower than most other cities in 

Pennsylvania, and it has significant poverty and disadvantaged populations compared to these 

other cities. 29% of Lancaster households have income less than $20,000. Lancaster also has a 

higher percentage of rental properties than the state average. These rental properties often house 

the lowest income households in the City. Since the beginning of Lancaster's implementation of 

our long term control plan for our combined sewer system and replacements of our two water 

treatment plants with membrane filtration (due in large part over concern of the water quality 

entering the city from agricultural practices upstream of our plants), Lancaster has been forced to 

impose significant rate increases for water and sewer customers that disproportionally affect the 

disadvantaged populations in the City. See Exhibit 3. Future rate increases must reflect the 

reality oflow income populations and their associated rate impacts. The conventional consent 

decree LTCP approach, requiring a minimum of2% ofMHI for rates, is not affordable for our 

urban centers that have the majority of the nation's disadvantaged populations as their residents. 

3 
17 


25243.008

Exhibit 3 

Relative Increase in Typical Residential Sewer Bill 

240 

120 

1():) 

The United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) 

I have attended many conferences and meetings with the USCM and other professional water 

organizations and can say with confidence that while every city has a unique story to tell, they 

also share much in common regarding the high cost and impossibly short time schedules to 

comply with aggressive controls of combined and sanitary sewer overflows, as well as 

stormwater regulations. The USCM has provided a series of mayors over the last five years to 

Congressional Committees testifYing on behalf ofintegrated Planning and the need for EPA to 

promote flexibility when implementing the Clean Water Act. 

The basic message to Congress from the Conference of Mayors is that renewing the public water 

infrastructure simultaneously with delivering uninterrupted services including safe and adequate 

water is becoming less affordable; and unfunded mandates related to sewer and storm water are 

expensive and may not address the highest local environmental or public health concerns of a 

city. Mayor David Berger appeared before this Committee in 2016 and stated " ... we are on a 

dangerously unsustainable path when it comes to providing water and wastewater services in an 

affordable manner." The situation has not changed appreciably for the better. 

• Local governments are stuck on an unsustainable financial treadmill when it comes to 

providing water and wastewater services; decisions made by Congress and the 

Administration to eliminate or reduce financial assistance without reducing unwarranted 

and costly mandates has placed a severe financial burden on our nation's cities and our 

citizens. 

4 
18 


25243.009

• The net effect of mandates and infrastructure investment (both capital and operations) 

puts cities in increasingly higher long term debt with accompanying rate hikes that have 

the effect of raising basic service rates to levels that are unaffordable to a growing 

percentage of the 80% of Americans served by these systems. 

Some Solutions 

Codify EPA's Integrated Planning and Permitting Policy 

Integrated Planning is designed to allow cities to develop comprehensive plans for their water, 

sewer, and stormwater needs, and establish a plan of investment over time to reach these goals. 

Cities should be able to sequence investments based on local priorities and on those issues that 

local government has identified to be of environmental and/or public health significance. And, 

cities and state and federal agencies, should be acutely aware of the importance ofaffordability 

to Americans served by public sewer/wastewater systems. 

• The Mayors believe that future investments should be prioritized to first ensure the 

sustainability of existing public water infrastructure and associated public health, 

economic and environmental benefits. 

• Additional improvements that will achieve additional benefits should be prioritized 

second. 

• Investments that do not have commensurate public health, economic and environmental 

benefits do not belong on the priority list. 

• Define Affordability and stop the use of Median Household Income (MHI) as the critical 

metric for determining investment level. It puts 50% of households on an unfair and 

burdensome financial impact. 

State/EPA Enforcement to Achieve Long Term Control of Stormwater Through Permits 

Cities need substantially more time to reach these unprecedented levels of control. That is what 

the experience has been in the cities with consent decrees. Local elected leaders have a 

documented record of directing public investments to clean and protect our lakes and streams, 

but we can't get there if that means bankrupting our most vulnerable citizens with plans that 

overemphasize energy intensive gray infrastructure and downgrade the contribution of Green 

Infrastructure. Cities and their Mayors urge Congress to create a path to reach long term goals 

through the existing permit process rather than by way of consent decrees. Longer permit terms 

with compliance schedules, coupled with regulatory oversight and a commitment by cities to 

reasonable progress, is preferable to the consent decree model. 

Renew Congressional Support for Exercising Flexibility in Existing Clean Water Law 

The current Clean Water Act (CWA) allows EPA to use flexibility, some of which, it has 

neglected or refused to exercise. For example, the CW A allows EPA flexibility in water body 

attainment designations. EPA also can grant variances where compliance with requirements have 

overly-burdensome impacts on permittees. 

5 
19 


25243.010

A classic consent decree example is the Lima, OH case where there is a river that is designated 

as "fishable and swimmable". The river in question dries up in the summertime and is only 4 

inches in depth in the wintertime. No one will ever swim or fish there. Yet, the City is held to 

that standard of compliance and, as a result, a very costly fix. 

The Conference of Mayors believes that EPA has a burden to prove that these types of 

designations are, in fact, achievable before requiring cities to spend to the level of economic 

hardship, even if that requires reevaluating use attainability or allowing variances until a goal can 

be reasonably reached. 

Assessing City Fines in Consent Decrees 

Eliminate civil penalties for local governments who develop an integrated plan and put good 

faith efforts and reasonable further progress into improving their water. Cities are not private 

entities where penalties impact our profit margin - Civil penalties only hurt the citizens, the 

customers, of our communities. Eliminating civil penalties is a change to EPA culture where 

officials may measure success in the high dollar amount of civil penalties and the high cost of 

compliance. Eliminating civil penalties can help reduce costs for a substantial number of our 

low- income citizens who spend a significant portion of their income on water and wastewater 

bills. 

A recent review by the USCM arrays the civil fines for 31 local sewer/wastewater utilities that 

have completed a consent decree with EPA. The fines range from minor (Troy, ID, $14,500 

2014); to severe (Delaware County, PA $1,375,000, 2015), (see Appendix 3). City consent 

decrees can be accessed using the hyperlinks in Appendix 4. Because EPA uses Median 

Household Income (MHI) to set expected compliance costs, those costs, as well as the civil fines, 

result in regressive and disproportionate impacts on low income households, but also creeps up 

to the middle-class households. 

The regressive financial impacts of fines and compliance costs are illustrated for Delaware 

County, PA, (see Appendix 5). Delaware County was assessed a $1.375 million civil penalty in 

addition to the $300 million in estimated cost to comply with the consent order. To illustrate the 

disproportionate impact on residents, the USCM made 2 assumptions: 1- rates for residential 

customers are uniform, therefore payment of the fine is spread uniformly over all income groups. 

The same uniform distribution of costs applies to paying over time for the long-term compliance 

plan. The financial impact table in Appendix 3 indicates that nearly 70% of the fine and the longterm plan compliance costs will be borne by households with under $100,000/year; 57% of the 

fine and plan costs will be borne by households making under $75,000 a year. The County MHI 

is $64,174. Households with income of greater than $100,000/year contribute only 30% of the 

costs. Merely saying that each household will only be responsible for $6.72 in fine payment 

share ignores the fact that EPA is extracting $1.375 million, mostly from low and middle class 

households, for no environmental benefit whatsoever. There is no accompanying EPA rationale 

for why these limited resources are best spent on fines and overly costly consent decrees. 

For many years cities relied on technical support from state and federal regulators concerned 

about public health and safety. The prevailing wisdom, and hence the most common practices, 

6 
20 


25243.011

were to build infrastructure to move stormwater and sewage away from people and into 

treatment and discharge. Congress directed EPA to establish guidance on how cities should 

manage storm and sewer flows. The direction the EPA took was to aggressively enforce against 

cities to halt past practices in favor of control plans. The enforcement actions taken by EPA were 

based on use of their Congressional authority to fine cities. These fines are not the result of 

negligence or malfeasance on the part of cities. 

Cities should be treated as the co-regulators they are-attempting to achieve the greatest 

environmental benefits they can with limited resources-rather than as criminals subject to 

costly enforcement actions that impose draconian fines and penalties. And finally, state and 

federal agencies should not substitute their necessarily limited economic and technical judgment 

for that of the communities who know their systems best. 

7 
21 


25243.012

Appendix 1 

Exhibit 1 -List of Completed Gray Infrastructure Capital Projects 

and Current Capital Projects 

Clty of Lane-aster WastEwater Bureau 

Capital Projects 2000 to Current 

Completed Capital Pro'ect> Ye.:trCompfete 

North Pumping Station Grinder Installation 2000 

SusquehaMa Pumpfng Station Upgrade 2000 

VI/WTP BNR Pilot Project 2001 

Water Street Sewer and Ena.leside Sewer Culvert Rehabilitation 2002 

WWTP BNR Pro'ect 2006 

WWTPAct 537 Upgcarle Pro'ECt 2008 

South Activated Sludge Tank Rehabilitation zoos 

lime Stabilization System 2008 

WWT'P Belt Filter Press Refurbishment zoos 

Stevens Avenue Pumping Station Interim Valve and Comminutor 2008 

City of lancaster Sewer Replacements -2008 2009 

Flow MonitorinR ProR.r am 2009 

WWTP Control Building HVAC 2009 

WWTP South Train F-fow Oivers1on 2009 

WWTP Facilities Plan {Phase 1 of 3) I 2010 

WWTP Aerator Gear Box Repair 2010 

Stevens Avenue PumpinQ: Station Generator 2010 

Conestoga Gardens Comminutor 2010 

North and Stevens Avenue Force Ma!n Condition Assessment (Phase 1) 2010 

North and Stevens Avenue Forte Main Condition Assessment (Phase 2) 2012 

Engleside and Stevens Avenue sar Screens 2012 

Main Pumping station Upgrade 2012 

Stevens Avenue Pumping Station Expansion 2013 

Conestoga Gardens Expansion 2013 

WWTP Grit and S<reenings Facilities 2013 

Total Completed Capitol Projects 

Current <apital Projects ConstrtKtion to Start 

North Pumping Statlon Expansion and Surge control System 2014 

North cso Diversion Chamber 2014 

North Pumping Station Preliminary Tre-atment Building 2014 

AWWTP SE-condary Clarlfier Upgrades 2016 

2016 Collection System Improvements 2016 

2016 Flow and Rainfall Monitorlna: 2016 

AWWTP DO Control and BNR Improvements 2017 

Maple Grove Pumping Statlon Expansion and Interceptor upgrades 2017 

Total Current Capital Projects 

8 

Total Cost 

$300,000 

$670,000 

$230,000 

$730,000 

$2,500,000 

$1,700,000 

$130,000 

$6,940,000 

$695,000 

$152,000 

$1,100,000 

$450,000 

$655,000 

$540,000 

$110,000 

$160,000 

$700,000 

$120,000 

$150,000 

$121,000 

$1,017,000 

$3,226,000 

$5,660,000 

$3,240,000 

$8,570,000 

$39,866,000 

Budgeted Total Cost 

$12,300,000 

$1,600,000 

$6,000,000 

$5,100,000 

$600,000 

$300,000 

$7,700,000 

$6,300,000 

$39,900,000 
22 


25243.013

Appendix 2 

Exhibit 2 -List of Completed Green Infrastructure Projects 

9 
23 


25243.014

Year Project Name Description Cost 

2011 6th Ward Park Gl Park s 13.000 

2011 Walnut & Plum Intersection/Lancaster Brewery Company Gl Street/Intersection Improvement s 358.000 

2012 East Fulton Gl Sreet $ 60.000 

2011 East Grant Gl Sreet $ 36,000 

2012 East Grant Gl Sreet s 40.000 

2012 City Hall Annex Expansion Gl Green Roof s 70.000 

2012 Fire Station #3- Green Roof Gl Green Roof s 124.000 

2012 Recycling Center Gl Bioretention s 5,000 

lOll Alley NE 10 • Spruce St. Gl Alley s 21.000 

2013 Brewery Alley- Alley 45 Gl Alley $ 99.000 

2013 Hand Ave Gl Alley s 106.000 

2013 Reynolds Ave GIAIIey $ 110.000 

2013 Charlotte St. Curb Extension GIStreet s 14.000 

2013 Alley 117 (NW) GIAIIey s 53,000 

2013 Alley 42 {NW) Gl Alley $ 55.000 

2013 317 N. Mulberry G1 Private/Porous Paving s 75.000 

2013 Steeple View Lofts Gl Private/Porous Paving s 76.000 

2013 Mulberry Studios Gl Private/Subsurface lnfittration Bed s 61.000 

2013 Mulberry Partners. LLC Gl Private/Porous Paving, Trees $ 117.000 

2013 Green Alley· NW 114 GIAIIey s 69.000 

2013 James Street Greening GIStreet $ 165.000 

2013 W. Liberty restriping Project Gl Street $ 2,550.000 

lOB Community Mennonite Gl PrivateiPorous Paving, Bioswales $ 148.000 

2013 Streetscape. Phase Ill Gl Park $ 200.000 

20B Snavely & Dosch Gl Private/Bioretention $ 127.000 

lOB Mulberry Street Tv.'O~Way Conversion Gl Straet $ 2.000.000 

1013 Public Parking Lot: South Plum Street Gl Parking Lot s 213.000 

lOB Public Parking Lot: Dauphin Street GJ Parking Lot s 159.000 

1014 Public Pal'king Lot: Penn Ave. Gl Parking Lot s 147,000 

2014 Public Parking Lot: East Mifflin Streat Gl Parking Lot $ 134.000 

2014 New Dauphin StandS. Broad St Gl Street/Intersection Improvement $ 80.000 

2014 Tee Centro Gl Private/Porous Paving s 5.300 

2014 Groan Alley· SW 148 Alley Gl Alley $ 130,000 

2014 Brandon Park Gl Park $ 627.000 

1014 Crystal Park Gl Park s 476,000 

2014 Rodney Park Gl Park s 476.000 

lOIS Two Dudes Painting Company Gl Private/Porous Pave. Bioretention s 93.000 

2015 Ocean Avenue Gl Sreet $ 72,000 

10 
24 


25243.015

Exhibit 2- List of Completed Green Infrastructure Projects- continued 

2015 O..watering Building GIGreenRoof $ 135,000 

2016 Oxidation Building (Model Building #1 RepL) Gl Green Roof s 123,000 

1016 Green Alley- sw 56 Gl Alley s 67,000 

1016 Green Alley· SW 101 GIAI!ey s 52,000 

l016 Green Alley- SW 105 Gl Alley $ 36,000 

20!6 Chlorination Building Gl Green Roof s 123,000 

l0l6 Alley 156 and 142 SW GIAIIey s 163,000 

Compk>tE'd Gl ProjJ?"cts. $ 10,063,300 

11 
25 


25243.016

APPENDIX3 

City State Civil Penalties Year 

Atlanta GA $700,000.00 1998 

Troy ID $14,500.00 2014 

Chicago IL $675,000.00 2014 

Anderson IN $250,000.00 2001 

Elkhart IN $87,000.00 2011 

Evansville IN $490,000.00 2011 

Fort Wayne IN $538,380.00 2007 

Hammond IN $225,000.00 1999 

Mishawaka IN $28,000.00 2014 

South Bend IN $88,200.00 2011 

Indianapolis IN $1,177,800.00 2006 

Fitchburg MA $141,000.00 2012 

Chicopee MA $115,000.00 2006 

Lawrence MA $254,000.00 2006 

Kansas city MO $600,000.00 2010 

StLouis MO $1,200,000.00 2013 

Perth Amboy N.T $17,000.00 2012 

Jersey NJ $375,000.00 2011 

Oswego NY $99,000.00 2010 

Akron OH $500,000.00 2009 

Lima OH $49,000.00 2014 

NEOhio OH $1,200,000.00 2010 

Toledo OH $60,000.00 2002 

Euclid OH $150,000.00 2011 

12 
26 


25243.017

Delaware PA $1,375,000.00 2015 

Pittsburg PA $1,200,000.00 2008 

(Allegheny) 

Scranton PA $340,000.00 2013 

Williamsport PA $320,000.00 2010 

Chattanooga TN $476,400.00 2013 

Seattle WA $350,000.00 2013 

King County WA $400,000.00 2013 

13 
27 


25243.018

APPENDIX4 

Water Penalties and Project Costs 

Akron, 11113/2009 

Several projects, $500,000 civil penalties in total 

https://www.epa.gov/siteslproduction/lilcs/documents/cityofakron-cd.pdf 

Anderson 2001 

$250,000 civil penalties, stipulated penalties for non-compliance 

https: I I WW\N. epa. go vIs ites/producti on/til es/2 0 16-0 21 documents/ anderson-eel. pdf 

Elkhart 09/06/2011 

Projects before 2029, $87,000 civil penalties in total 

https://\\'\vw.epa.gov/sites/production/lilcs/20 16-02/documents/elkhart-cd.pdf 

Evansville 

Project costs 500 million, $490,000 penalties 

https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admprcss.nsf/e51 aa292bac25b0b85257359003d925f/b80b93f22d92 

4e4d85257814006e453e!OpenDocumenll 

Fitchburg 10/02/2012 

$141,000 civil penalties in total 

https://www.epa.gov/sitcs/produclion/files/documcnts/citvoffitchburg-cd.pdf 

Ft. Wayne IN Superfund site 

Hammond Sanitary District IN 1999 

$225,000 civil penalties in total, contribution of2 million to a project, others 

https :/ /www. epa. gov Is ites/prod ucti on/ fi I es/2 0 16-02/ documenls/hsd -cd. pdf 

Lima OH 11/19/2014 

Nashua NH 12/26/2005- amendment in 2009 

The project required in 2009 costs $21 million 

https:l/www.epa.gov/enforcement/city-nashua-new-hampshire-combined-sewer-overflow-cleanwatcr-act-sctllemcnt 

Omaha NE ~1~] 

$1,116,000 Grant for sewer-2011 

Mishawaka IN 2014 

$28,000 civil penalties in total 

https :/ lwww.epa. gov Is ites/prod ucti on/fi I es/2 0 14-0 5 I documentslm i sha waka-cd. pdf 

14 
28 


25243.019

New Bedford MA superfund site for two companies 

.https:/ /www. cpa. gov I en !i.Jrccmen lire fer en cc-news-rc 1 easc-avx -corp-pay-366-m i IIi on -settl em en t 

Northeast Ohio regional sewer district 2010 

$1,200,000 civil penalties in total 

total cost of implementing $2,996,000,000, with additional cost $2,251,000,000 

Philadelphia, PA 02/1112015 

82 million project, 5 years to complete. 

Delaware 08/17/2015 

200 million project, 1.375 million penalties 

https://wwv ... epa.gov/newsreleases/pennsvlvania-watcr-utility-reduce-sewage-dischanresdclaware-rivcr-and-local-creeks 

City of Troy WWTP, March 2014 

$14,500 penalties, 

Oswego 03/29/2010 

$99,000 civil penalties in total 

https://www.cpa.gov/sites/production/tiles/documents/cityofoswego-cd.pdf 

Kansas city, MO 05/18/2010 

$600,000 penalties to the UST, Project costs $2.5 billion over 25 years 

https:l/www.epa.gov/enforcement/kansas-city-missouri-clean-water-act-settlement#civil 

South Bend 12/29/2011 

$88,200 civil penalties in total, the project costs $509.5 million 

https:!/www.epa.gov/sites/productionlfiles/documents/cityofsouthbend-cd.pdf 

StLouis. MO. 07/05/2013 

$1,200,000 civil penalties 

l:llps:/ /www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/?O 13-09/documents/stlouis-cd.pdf 

Indianapolis 2006 

$1, 177,800 civil penalties 

Two amendment in 2009 and 2010 but nothing changed about the penalties 

https:/ /www.cpa.gov /sites/production/tiles/20 13-09/documcnts/indy06l 0-cd.pdf 

Chicopee, MA 2006 

$115,000 fines 

15 
29 


25243.020

hllps :/ /voscmitc.cpa.gov I opa/admprcss.nsli'b853d6fc004accbf8525 72a000656840/5c 7 Sa 73 7 4 fO I 

d9cd8525 7 J b90052f75d!OpcnDocument 

Greater Lawrence sanitary district, MA 10/31/2006 

$254,000 Fine, $18 million investment on projects 

https:/ /yoscmite.cpa.\!ov/opa/admpress.nsJ/dcee J 26c0635d65f85257 J fc006e9e20/3818d7489a41 

bba5 85 25 7218006d3b08! Open Document 

Perth Amboy, NJ 09/28/2012 

$17,000 civil penalties 

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/city-perth-amboy-settlement#penalty 

Jersey city, NJ, 09/29/2011 

$375,000 civil penalties, 

https:l/www.epa.gov/cnforcement/jcrsev-city-municipal-utilitics-authority-jcmuasettlcment#penalty 

Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN), Pittsburg, PA 01/24/2008 

$1.2 million penalties, 3 million project 

https :/ /www. epa. gov I en fo rccment/ allegheny -county -sanitary -authority -a] co san -settl em en t 

Scranton, PA 01/31/2013 

$340,000 civil penalties 

https://www.epa.gov/enforcemcnt/scranton-sewer-authority-scranton-pennsylvaniasettlement#penaltv 

Williamsport, PA, 08/05/2010 

$320,000 penalties 

htlps://www.cpa.gov/enforcement/williamsport-clcan-water-act-settlcment 

Atlanta, GA, 09/24/1998 

$700,000 penalties 

https://www.epa.gov/cnforcement/city-atlanta-clean-water-act-settlemem 

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan 2005 

$500 million project 

hrtps://www.epa.gov/entorccment/louisville-and-jct1Crson-county-mctropolitan-sewer-districtsettlement 

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metro) 

$700 million project 

https :/ /www. cpa. g ov I cnlixccmen t/mctropo l itan-go vern men t-nash vi llc-an d-da v idson-countytcnn-agree-extcnsive-sewer-svstcm 

Chattanooga. TN, 04/24/2013 

$476,400 civil penalties 

16 
30 


25243.021

https://wwvv',cpa,gov/cnforcemcnt/citv-chattanooga-tenncssce-seltlemcnt#civil 

Toledo, OH 12116/2002 

$500,000 civil penalties, 

https :/ /www.epa. gov /sites/production/files/20 13-09/ documents/toledo-eeL pdf 

Youngstown, OH, 05/09/2002 

$60,000 civil penalties 

Chicago, IL, 01/06/2014 

$675,000 civil penalties 

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/metropolitan-water-reclamation-district-greater-chicagosettlement#civil 

Euclid, OH, 10/14/2011 

$150,000 civil penalties 

https://w\vw,epa.gov/enforcement/city-euclid-ohio-combined-and-sanitary-sewer-overtlowclean-water-act-scttlcmcnt 

Seattle/ King county, WA 07/03/2013 

King county penalties $400,000, Seattle penalties $350,000. 

https :1 /www. epa. gov I en foreement/ seattle-washington -and-king-county-washingtonscttlemcnt#penalties 

17 
31 


25243.022

Appendix 5 

Cost Distribution Estimates for Delaware County Consent Decree 

Civil Penalty and Long-Term Compliance Cost 

Delaware 

County 

PA Long-Term 

Fine Control Plan 

Estimated 

1,375,000.00 Number Cost I Cumulative Cumulative Cost 

MHI (dollars) of Per Cost Number % $300,000,000 

64174 Households Household by Income of of by 2023 

Total 

Households 204,571 $6.72/HH Group Households Households $1,466.48/HH 

Less than 

$10 000 11,191 75,203.52 75,203.52 11,191 5.47 16,411,377.68 

$10,000 to 

$14,999 8,058 54,149.76 129,353.28 19,249 3.94 11,816 895.84 

$15,000 to 

$24,999 17,880 120,153.60 249,506.88 37,129 8.74 26,220,662.40 

$25,000 to 

$34,999 18,556 124,696.32 374,203.20 55,685 9.07 27,212,002.88 

$35,000 to 

$49,999 26,009 174,780.48 548,983.68 81,694 12.71 38 141,678.32 

$50,000 to 

$74,999 34,558 232,229.76 781,213.44 116,252 16.89 50,678,615.84 

$75,000 to 

$99,999 25,884 173,940.48 955,153.92 142,136 12.65 37,958,368.32 

$100,000 to 

$149,999 32,467 218,178.24 1,173,332.16 174,603 15.87 47,612 206.16 

$150,000 to 

$199,999 14,555 97,809.60 1,271,141.76 189,158 7.11 21,344,616.40 

$200,000 or 

more 15,413 103,575.36 1,374,717.12 204,571 7.53 22,602,856.24 

18 
32 


25243.023

Appendix6 

Letter of Support 

19 
33 


25243.024

NLC NATIONAL 

LEAGUE 

OF CITIES 

March 21, 2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

United States Senate 

454 Russell Senate Office 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Ben Cardin 

United States Senate 

509 Hart Senate Office 

Washington, DC 2051 

Dear Senators Fischer, Cardin, and Brown: 

The Honorable Sherrod Brown 

United States Senate 

713 Hart Senate Office 

Washington, DC 20510 

On behalf of the nation's mayors, cities, and counties, we are writing to express our support for your bill the 

Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act, and we urge your colleagues to support it as well. The legislation would 

codify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Integrated Planning and Financial Capability policies 

as useful tools for local governments to comprehensively deal with wastewater and stormwater investments 

as well as unfunded mandates. 

Local governments are at a crossroads. Cities and counties spend over $115 billion per year to provide safe 

and reliable water and sewer services and maintain a vast physical infrastructure of pipes, pumps and plants. 

While we thank Congress for providing $2 billion annually to the water and wastewater State Revolving Fund 

programs, these loans are not enough to cover the estimated costs to maintain and replace our aging 

infrastructure. Additionally, local governments, our residents, and businesses must spend additional resources 

to comply with numerous environment and non-environmental federal and state unfunded mandates, which 

further limits the money available for water infrastructure. 

Furthermore, both the state and EPA's enforcement agencies increasingly regulate in a silo. While our cities 

and counties may be working to meet a multitude of standards in various water and wastewater 

requirements, the states and EPA often do not collaborate across the policy programs. This often create 

further, unnecessary unfunded mandates. However, the legislation would address many of these concerns by 

creating a policy shift that costs no federal money and creates some spending flexibility for our citizens. 

Specifically, the bill would allow local governments to work with their state and EPA to prioritize investment in 

wet weather overflows and flooding collectively, rather than individually, by codifying various EPA 

memorandums on water tools and affordability. And the bill would allow consideration of other service costs 

including drinking water. Since our water and wastewater systems are paid for by the ratepayers, the bill will 

help reduce costs for a substantial number of our low-income citizens who spend a significant portion of their 

income on water and wastewater bills. The measure would also allow local governments who undertake 

integrated planning to incorporate green infrastructure 
34 


25243.025

components into municipal stormwater, combined sewer overflow (CSO) and other water plans in a more cost 

effective way. 

Thank you again for your leadership on this issue. On behalf of the nation's cities, counties and mayors, we 

thank you for your consideration of our request. If you have any questions, please contact us: Carolyn Berndt 

(NLC) at 202-626-3101 or Berndt@nlc.org; Julie Ufner (NACo) at 202-942-4269 or jufner@naco.org; or Judy 

Sheahan (USCM) at 202-861-6775 or jsheahan@usmayors.org. 

Sincerely, 

Tom Cochran 

CEO and Executive Director 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors 

cc: Members of the Senate 

Matthew D. Chase 

Executive Director 

National Association of Counties 

Clarence E. Anthony 

CEO and Executive Director 

National League of Cities 
35 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I did not go to school with him, but I do want to especially thank 

Dennis Sternberg for being here from Greenbrier, Arkansas. I have 

had the opportunity to work with him for the last several years. 

He does a tremendous job. 

As of January 2017 Mr. Sternberg has spent 38 years in the 

water and wastewater industry in Arkansas with 29 of those years 

spent working in almost field positions as a field rep, EPA program 

manager, USDA circuit rider, and wastewater technician trainer. 

He and his Rural Water Association staff are committed to the 

future of rural communities by assisting utilities throughout the 

State with their many challenges that rural, small utilities continue to face. 

He holds the highest in water and wastewater licenses in Arkansas. In 2006 he received the Executive Director of the Year Award 

from the National Rural Association. In 2009 the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture and National Rural Water Association recognized 

Dennis for leadership in emergency response preparations. 

Thank you for many, many years of service to the people of Arkansas. Now you can give your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS STERNBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARKANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION 

Mr. STERNBERG. Thank you, Senator. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Boozman and members of the Committee. It is an honor to be here and we are grateful that you have 

included a voice for rural America at this hearing. 

My name is Dennis Sternberg, and I am the Executive Director 

of the Arkansas Rural Water Association, a non-profit association 

of 563 small and rural community water utilities in Arkansas. 

I am also a representative of the National Rural Water Association which has over 31,000 community members. Our mission is to 

enhance drinking water and wastewater service, safety, compliance, and quality in small and rural America. 

My main message to the Committee today is that the small and 

rural communities in all States strongly support S. 518, the Small 

and Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance Act. 

We urge the Committee and the Senate to pass it as soon as possible to help small communities with the operation of their wastewater utilities and compliance with all the Federal regulations 

under the Clean Water Act. 

We are very appreciative of Senators Wicker and Heitkamp’s 

sponsorship of the bill, and I will explain why the legislation is 

helpful and merits enactment. 

Most all of our country’s sewer systems or wastewater utilities 

are small. Approximately 80 percent of the country’s approximately 

16,000 wastewater utilities serve a population of fewer than 10,000 

persons. 

In Arkansas, for example, approximately 340 of the 370 community wastewater utilities serve small communities. In Illinois it is 

approximately 700 of 800; in Maryland, it is 130 of 170; and in 

Mississippi, it is approximately 270 of 300. 

Small and rural communities have more difficulty affording public wastewater service due to lack of population density and lack 

36 

of economies of scale. This challenge is compounded by the fact 

that rural communities have lower average median household incomes and often have higher rates of poverty. 

Likewise, we have a much more challenging time complying with 

our Federal Clean Water Act permits and operating complex wastewater treatment systems due to the lack of technical resources in 

small communities. While we have fewer resources, we are regulated in the exact same manner as a large community. 

S. 518 provides a solution to the lack of technical resources in 

small communities by providing technical experts—we call them 

circuit riders—in each State, to be shared by all small and rural 

communities who are in need of assistance. 

A circuit rider is a person with expertise in wastewater treatment operation, maintenance, governance, and compliance who 

constantly travels the State to be available onsite to any community in need of assistance. 

For these circuit riders to be effective and helpful, they must be 

available to travel directly to any given community to work specifically with a community’s leaders with unique treatment and personally educate that operator, mayor, or other local officials on how 

to solve their problems. 

They have to be available when the community needs the help 

which can be nights, winters, after natural disasters, and weekends. Also, they must be non-regulatory to gain the trust of the 

local communities. 

The small town of Kensett, Arkansas, provides a good recent example of technical assistance. Last year the Kensett Waterworks 

called for help with their sewer systems concerning a problem with 

their activated sludge plant. The plant had suddenly become upset 

and out of compliance. 

A rural water circuit rider was dispatched and traveled to the 

community, inspected the plant and their records and noticed a decline in the sample results over a 4-month period. The circuit rider 

disassembled the activated sludge return pump and line to clean 

them and found the cause of the problem. The line had been 

blocked by biological growth. 

After clearing the lines and pumps, the circuit rider recommended they feed some artificial enzymes and food supplements 

to try to jump-start the recovery of the activated sludge plant. 

In addition to providing the technical solution to their problem, 

this assistance saved the community approximately $1,000 per day 

in potential fines. If enacted and appropriated, S. 518 would allow 

for thousands in similar assistance events each year throughout 

the Nation. 

Senator Wicker had a similar bill pass about a year ago to provide small communities with circuit rider assistance for the Safe 

Drinking Water Act and drinking water treatment utilities. 

However, we have not been able to have that legislation, Public 

Law 114–98, specifically cited in the EPA appropriations bill which 

is preventing that technical assistance funding from reaching rural 

Arkansas, Mississippi, Illinois, Maryland, and other States. 

Any assistance you can provide to correct these issues with the 

EPA Appropriations Subcommittee is greatly appreciated. This 

committee is very important to rural and small town America. We 

37 

are grateful for the opportunity to testify today and grateful for the 

numerous opportunities this committee has provided rural America 

to testify and to be included in crafting of the Federal water and 

environmental legislation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sternberg follows:] 

38 


25243.026

TESTIMONY OF 

DENNIS STERNBERG 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

OF THE 

NRvVA 

ARKANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE 

March 28, 2017 

S. 518, The Small and Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance Act 

Good afternoon Chairman Boozman and Members of the Committee. It is an honor to 

be here and we are grateful that you have included a voice for rural American at this hearing. 

My name is Dennis Sternberg, and I am the Executive Director of the Arkansas Rural 

Water Association - a non-profit association of 563 small and rural community water utilities 

in Arkansas. I am also a representative of the National Rural Water Association which has 

over 31,000 community members. Our mission is to enhance drinking water and wastewater 

service, safety, compliance and quality in small and rural communities. 

My main message to the committee today is that the small and rural communities in all 

states strongly supportS. 518, the Small and Rural Community Clean Water Technical 

Assistance Act and we urge the committee and the Senate to pass it as soon as possible to 

help small communities with the operation of their wastewater utilities and compliance with all 

the federal regulations under the Clean Water Act We are very appreciative of Senator 

Wicker and Heitkamp's sponsorship of the bill and I will explain why the legislation is helpful 

and merits enactment 

Most all of our country's sewer systems or wastewater utilities are small. 

Approximately 80 percent of the county's approximately 16,000 wastewater utilities serve a 

population of fewer than 10,000 persons. In Arkansas, for example, approximately 340 of the 

370 community wastewater utilities serve small communities (i.e. less than 3 million gallons 

per day of flow). In Illinois, it is approximately 700 of 800; in Maryland, it is 130 of 170; and in 

Mississippi, it is approximately 270 of 300. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) lists of 

"publicly-owned treatment works" in these states are available on the internet at 

www.ruralwater.org/docs/potws. 

NRWA- Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries. Water. and Wildlife, 3/28/2017 

Page 1 of3 
39 


25243.027

Small and rural communities have more difficulty affording public wastewater service 

due to lack of population density and lack of economies of scale. This challenge is 

compounded by the fact that rural communities have lower average median household 

incomes and often have higher rates of poverty. Likewise, we have a much more challenging 

time complying with our federal Clean Water Act permits and operating complex wastewater 

treatment systems due to the lack of technical resources in small communities. While we 

have fewer resources, we are regulated in the exact same manner as a large community -

and often operating similarly complex treatment systems that are smaller in scale but no less 

sophisticated to operate and trouble-shoot. Many small communities may only have one 

operator with multiple duties, not just wastewater treatment - while a large community may 

have a team of technical experts including engineers, chemists, and highly trained operators -

all as part of their full-time staff. S. 518 provides a solution to the lack of technical resources 

in small communities by providing technical experts, we call them Circuit Riders, in each state 

to be shared by all small and rural communities who are in need of assistance. A Circuit 

Rider is a person with expertise in wastewater treatment operation, maintenance, governance 

and compliance who constantly travels the state to be available on-site to any community in 

need of assistance. For these Circuit Riders to be effective and helpful, they must be 

available to travel directly to any given community to work specifically with a community's 

unique treatment and personally educate that operator, mayor, or other local officials on how 

to solve their particular problem. They have to be available when the community needs the 

help which can be nights, winters, after natural disasters, weekends, etc. Also, they must be 

non-regulatory to gain the trust of the local communities. Every small community wants to 

provide quality wastewater to protect their citizens and the environment, but they need to 

know, often with hands-on demonstration, just how to operate their wastewater systems. 

Circuit Riders operate free of charge to small communities which often saves the community 

many thousands of dollars from having to hire consultants or open themselves to civil 

penalties under the Clean Water Act- they only work in the interest of the small community 

they are assisting. 

I started working for Arkansas Rural Water Association as a Circuit Rider. In this 

position, I traveled to every, yes every, small town with a sewer system to help them at some 

point. I often visited communities just to check in on them, develop a peer-to-peer 

relationship and keep educating them on how to best operate their utilities. 

The small town of Kensett, Arkansas provides a good recent example of technical 

assistance. Last year, the Kensett Waterworks called for help with their sewer systems 

concerning a problem with their activated sludge plant. The plant had suddenly become 

upset, the clarifier was not settling and they were experiencing pass-through to the chlorine 

contact chamber resulting in cloudy, dirty looking effluent and noncompliance. A rural water 

Circuit Rider traveled to the community and inspected the plant and their records and noticed 

a decline in the sample results over a four month period. After discussing several ideas, it 

was found that the return sludge pump didn't appear to be working properly. This finding led 

Circuit Rider to disassemble the pump and line to clean them. At this point, they found the 

cause of the problem- the line had been blocked by biological growth. After clearing the 

lines and pumps, the Circuit Rider recommended they feed some artificial enzymes and food 

supplements to try to jump-start the recovery of the plant. A follow-up visit after four days 

found that conditions had greatly improved. In addition to providing the technical solution to 

their problem, this assistance saved the community approximately $1,000 per day in potential 

NRWA- Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife, 3/28/2017 

Page 2 of 3 
40 


25243.028

fines. If enacted and appropriated, S. 518 would allow for thousands of similar assistance 

events each year, every Circuit Rider can visit over 20 communities in a month. 

Senator Wicker had a similar bill pass about a year ago to provide small communities 

with Circuit Rider assistance for their drinking water treatment utilities. However, we have not 

been able to have that legislation, Public Law 114-98, specifically cited in the EPA 

appropriations bill which is preventing that technical assistance funding from reaching rural 

Arkansas, Mississippi, Illinois, Maryland and other states. Any assistance you can provide to 

correct this issue with EPA appropriations subcommittee is greatly appreciated. The reason 

why this authorization and the similar drinking water authorization need to be specifically 

cited in the appropriations bill is because they contain a critical mandate that the EPA must 

follow Congressional intent and give preference to the type of technical assistance that small 

communities find to be most beneficial. Again, we would be grateful for any help in getting 

this message to the EPA appropriations subcommittee. 

The technical assistance provided in the example from Kensett, Arkansas, was funded 

by the Department of Agriculture. This technical assistance under the EPA would not be 

redundant with USDA assistance because there is currently a tremendous unmet need for 

assistance as a result of EPA's Clean Water Act regulations. In Arkansas, approximately 

one-third of our small wastewater utilities are having a very hard time modifying their 

treatment to comply with EPA's new standards for ammonia in their effluent. Any new EPA 

supported Circuit Riders would be focused on EPA rule compliance that is currently not being 

met and is not the focus of USDA funded technical assistance which is dedicated to 

furthering USDA's mission objectives. 

The Small and Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance Act would 

authorize two new technical assistance provisions under CWA that are similar to provisions 

currently authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act. First, S. 518 would establish a 

federal Clean Water Act (CWA) technical assistance program, administered by the EPA, to 

assist small public wastewater treatment systems (those serving not more than 10,000 

people) in complying with CWA regulations. The bill would authorize $15 million a year over 

five years for technical assistance. Second, the bill would authorize states administering 

Clean Water SRFs to use up to two percent of their state grant to fund technical assistance 

initiatives to small wastewater treatment works in their respective states. A similar program 

currently is authorized and operating within the states' Safe Drinking Water SRF. 

This committee is very important to rural and small town America; every federal dollar 

that has been granted to the many thousands of small towns to build, expand, and maintain 

their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure through the state revolving funds was 

authorized by this committee. Also, every federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water 

or the Clean Water Act was likewise authorized by this committee. We are grateful for the 

opportunity to testify today and grateful for the numerous opportunities this committee has 

provided rural America to testify and be included in the crafting of federal water and 

environmental legislation and policy. 

NRWA- Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wik:IHfe, 3/28/2017 

Page 3 of 3 
41 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Crotty, you are welcome to go now. I will give you some 

extra time if you would like to tell some stories about Senator Gillibrand. 

STATEMENT OF ERIN M. CROTTY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AUDUBON NEW YORK 

Ms. CROTTY. I think I will take a pass on that, Senator. 

Good afternoon Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member 

Duckworth, and Senator Gillibrand. I really want to thank you for 

allowing me to testify on Senate Bill 675, the Long Island Sound 

Restoration and Stewardship Act. 

I would especially like to thank Senator Gillibrand from my 

home State for being a champion for our shared environment and 

for sponsoring this critically important legislation. 

My name is Erin Crotty. I am the Executive Director of Audubon 

New York and also Vice President of the National Audubon Society. Audubon’s mission is to protect birds, their habitats, and the 

places they need to survive throughout their entire life cycle. 

For decades Audubon’s united network of members, volunteers, 

chapters, national, New York State, and Connecticut offices have 

worked hard to protect and restore Long Island Sound and its watershed. Here is why. 

Long Island Sound is a globally significant ecosystem for birds, 

fish, and other wildlife. It is a 1,320-square-mile estuary of the Atlantic Ocean and borders 600 miles of New York and Connecticut. 

The Sound supports 54 important bird areas which are the most 

important places for birds, 14 of which are globally important. 

It is an estuary of national significance. The Sound is home to 

one of the most important tern nesting sites on earth, Great Gull 

Island, with approximately 10,000 pairs of common terns and more 

than 1,000 pairs of the federally endangered roseate tern. 

The Sound supports over 1,200 species of invertebrates, 170 species of fish, and dozens of species of migratory birds, including the 

federally threatened piping plover and red knot. Twenty-three million people—7 percent of the total U.S. population—live within 50 

miles of the Sound, and it is 5 miles from the heart of the country’s 

most populated city, New York. The Sound generates an impressive 

$9.4 billion annually to the regional economy. 

It is for these reasons that Audubon strongly supports the Long 

Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act. The Act authorizes 

the Long Island Sound program in the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the Long Island Stewardship Act through fiscal year 

2023. 

The Act authorizes up to $40 million annually for grants to support the Sound’s Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan 

and up to $25 million annually to procure and enhance sites within 

the Sound’s watershed and adds critical functions to the Long Island Sound Study Office including to study the environmental impacts on the Sound’s source waters. 

The Act is a common sense approach to modern estuary protection and helps meet the Federal Government’s share of the funding 

needed. The Federal funding, which is often the driver for projects 

42 

moving forward, will be leveraged with other Federal, State, local, 

and private investment. 

On average, the estuaries of the National Estuaries Program, of which the Long Island Sound Study is one, raises $18 for every $1 

provided by the EPA. That is a significant and meaningful leverage 

ratio. 

While the health of the Sound has improved, threats do continue. 

For nearly 30 years this comprehensive effort has resulted in measurable improvement to the Sound’s health, and Audubon has been 

there every step of the way. 

Water quality has improved, habitat has been restored, and open 

spaces protected, which has resulted in the Sound teaming with 

wildlife and people. Nitrogen is being reduced from wastewater 

treatment plants, habitat is being restored, millions of people are 

being engaged, and dead zones are shrinking. Bald eagles are nesting, and species are returning—like the humpback whales and 

bluefish, yet the health of the Sound is still threatened. Today’s 

threats are more diffuse and challenging. 

A changing climate, extreme weather events, acidification, nitrogen discharges from stormwater and septics, aging and broken infrastructure, brown tide, invasive species, development pressure, 

and rising sea levels are literally squeezing out the habitat for 

birds and other wildlife. These are the challenges facing the Sound 

today. The collaborative and integrated effort enabled by the Act is 

more important than ever. 

The Sound’s CCMP was updated in 2015, and the vision is one 

of clean water that is protected and nourished, abundant and diverse wildlife, flourishing commercial fisheries, accessible harbors, 

and a public that protects and sustains the ecosystem. 

The Act helps us—governments at all levels—the private sector, 

non-governmental organizations, including Audubon, and the public reach that vision. 

The Nation’s National Estuaries Program faces an uncertain future. The Trump administration has reportedly proposed to eliminate funding for EPA’s Categorical Grants which Audubon believes 

includes the 28 estuaries of the NEP, including the Sound. 

The NEP is a cost effective, non-regulatory program that harnesses the power of on-the-ground stakeholders by providing them 

with a structure to collaborate, develop, and implement a long-term 

plan to guide their efforts. 

Over one-half of our country’s population lives within 100 miles 

of coasts, and more and more people are moving there. With a leverage ratio of 18 to 1 and $4.2 billion leveraged with an investment of $230 million in EPA grants, the NEP has proven to be a 

highly effective and efficient program. 

Audubon strongly encourages Congress to resist this short sighted effort to cut the program. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. Help 

us make a difference for the birds, the wildlife and the people that 

rely on the Sound for survival and a high quality of life by taking 

action on Senate Bill 675, the Long Island Sound Restoration and 

Stewardship Act. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Crotty follows:] 

43 


25243.029

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF ERIN M. CROTTY 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AUDUBON NEW YORK 

VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY 

FOR THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER AND WILDLIFE 

UNITES STATES SENATE 

MARCH 28, 2017 

Good afternoon Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Duckworth, and Members of the Environment 

and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife. Thank you for allowing me to 

testify on Senate bill 675 the "Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act." I would like to 

especially thank Senator Gillibrand from my home state of New York for being a champion for our 

shared environment and for sponsoring this critically important legislation. 

My name is Erin Crotty and I am the Executive Director of Audubon New York and Vice President of the 

National Audubon Society. Audubon's mission is to protect birds and the places they need to survive. 

Our growing wingspan of one million passionate and active members, a strong National Office, two 

statewide Audubon offices in New York and Connecticut with 18 sanctuaries and nature centers, thirtythree local Audubon Chapters, and thousands of annual visitors and volunteers have worked for 

decades to protect and restore long Island Sound and its watershed ("the Sound"). Audubon connects 

our vast and powerful network along the migratory flyways of the Americas through science, advocacy, 

education and on-the-ground conservation programs. At its best, Audubon's network unites to tackle 

big challenges facing birds that cannot be solved by any single part of the network alone -like 

protecting the Sound for birds and people. We help people throughout our vast and beautiful country 

satisfy the universal need to make a difference. My testimony is on behalf of One Audubon and it is my 

sincere hope that my testimony today makes a difference. 

America's coastal habitat is critically important to the survival of birds. Protecting and restoring coastal 

habitat is one of the five conservation strategies of Audubon's 2016-2020 Strategic Plan: Extending our 

Conservation Reach Together. We focus on the most threatened and iconic bird species that rely on 

coastal habitats-estuaries, islands, beaches, and the marine environment-throughout the 

hemisphere and work to strengthen their populations while preserving the places they need to survive 

throughout their lives. The work needed to accomplish this goal also protects coastal communities 

against the threat of sea-level rise due to a changing climate. 

The Significance of the Sound to Birds, Other Wildlife & People 

The Sound is a globally significant ecosystem for birds, fish and other wildlife. It is a 1,320 square mile 

estuary of the Atlantic Ocean and borders 600 miles of the New York and Connecticut coastline. The 

Sound supports 54 Important Bird Areas ("IBAs"). Identifying I BAs is a collaborative effort of 19 

partners throughout the world to identify, monitor, and protect the most important places for birds. 

14 of the Sound's I BAs are identified as global meaning they are places of critical conservation value at 

the international scale, supporting bird species of global conservation concern and/or significant 

numbers of birds. (Please see the map of the Sound's I BAs at the end of this testimony.) 

The Sound is home to one of the most important tern nesting sites on Earth, Great Gull Island, with 

approximately 10,000 pairs of Common Terns and more than 1,000 pairs of the federally endangered 

1 
44 


25243.030

Roseate Tern. The Sound supports over 1,200 species of invertebrates, 170 species of fish, and dozens 

of species of migratory birds, including the Roseate Tern and federally threatened Piping Plover and 

Red Knot. 

23 million people (7% of the total US population) live within 50 miles of the Sound and it is five miles 

from the heart of the country's most populated city- New York. The Sound generates an impressive 

$9.4 billion (2015) annually to the regional economy. The Sound is an estuary of national significance. 

The Importance of the Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act 

It is for these reasons that Audubon strongly supports the long Island Sound Restoration and 

Stewardship Act ("the Act") and we are grateful to Senator Gillibrand for sponsoring this critical piece 

of legislation. The Act authorizes the long Island Sound program in the Environmental Protection 

Agency ("EPA") and the long Island Stewardship Act through fiscal year 2023. The Act authorizes 

funding for projects to restore and preserve the Sound and its ecosystems, including much needed 

funding for upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, wetlands protection and restoration, and nonpoint source control and abatement. The Act also adds to the long Island Sound Study Office the 

responsibility to study environmental impacts, including the impacts of sea-level rise and the 

development and implementation of adaptation strategies, on the Sound watershed; conduct 

planning; develop and implement public education strategies; and conduct monitoring to ensure the 

projects and programs are working effectively. The Act requires a biennial report to Congress, an 

annual crosscutting budget, and critical federal agency coordination. Finally, the Act authorizes up to 

$40 million annually for grants to support the Sound's Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan 

(CCMP) and up to $25 million annually for grants to procure and enhance sites within the Sound's 

watershed. 

The Act is a common sense approach to modern estuary protection and helps meet the federal 

government's share of the funding needed to further improve water quality, protect and improve 

habitat, educate and involve the public, and ensure sustainable and resilient communities based on 

sound science and inclusive management. The federal funding authorized under the Act will be 

leveraged with other federal, state, local, and private investment. On average, the estuaries of the 

National Estuaries Program, of which long Island Sound Study is one, raises $18 for every $1 provided 

by the EPA. That is a significant and meaningful leverage ratio. Oftentimes, this federal funding is the 

driverfor projects moving forward. 

While the Health of the Sound Has Improved, Threats Continue 

As stated above, the Act is linked to the Sound's CCMP. CCMPs are long-term plans that contain 

actions to address water quality and living resources challenges and priorities which are identified at 

the local level through stakeholder engagement. For nearly 30 years, this comprehensive effort has 

resulted in measurable improvement to the Sound's health and Audubon has been there every step of 

the way. Water quality has improved, habitat has been restored, and open spaces protected which has 

resulted in the Sound teaming with wildlife and people. 

As of 2016, both Connecticut and New York have nearly attained the goal of reducing nitrogen by 

58.5%. Over 1, 750 acres of habitat in New York and Connecticut were restored from 1998 to 2015-

that equates to an area nearly the size of Delaware. 335 miles of migratory corridors in rivers for fish 

passage have been opened up. Millions of people have been engaged and educated about the 

2 
45 


25243.031

importance of the Sound to their quality of life. "Dead" zones- oxygen-depleted areas- are shrinking. 

Menhaden are returning. Humpback whales and dolphins have been seen in the Sound in recent years. 

Thousands of terns and laughing Gulls gather in the Sound during fall migration to feast on baitfish. 

Vast schools of striped bass and bluefish, and even schools of tuna are being pursued by fishermen. 

Birds that were once rare on the Sound are becoming regular, including Parasitic Jaegers, Northern 

Gannets and Razorbills. Vast flocks of gulls and Brant, Greater Scaup and long-tailed Ducks gather in 

the Sound at this time of year to take advantage of plankton blooms to fatten up for breeding season. 

Tens of thousands of Semipalmated Sandpipers and other migratory shorebirds gather on the Sound's 

shores. Osprey have recovered from the brink of extirpation to hundreds of pairs. Bald Eagles are 

nesting along the Sound. 

Yet, the health of the Sound is still threatened. And, the threats today are more diffuse and challenging 

than they were 30 years ago. A changing climate, extreme weather events, acidification, nitrogen 

discharges from stormwater and septics, contaminants leaking from aging and broken infrastructure, 

harmful algal blooms, brown tide, user conflicts, invasive species, funding needs outpacing available 

funding, pressure from development as more people flock to our coastal communities, and rising sea 

levels are literally squeezing out the habitat for birds and other wildlife- these are the challenges 

facing the Sound today. The collaborative and integrated effort enabled by the Act is more important 

than ever. 

The Sound's CCMP was updated in 2015 and the vision is one of clean water that is safe to swim in and 

charged with life; water protected and nourished by coastal wetlands, publicly accessible, litter-free 

beaches and preserves, and undeveloped islands; abundant and diverse wildlife; flourishing 

commercial fisheries; harbors accessible to the boating community; and a regional consciousness and a 

way of life that protects and sustains the ecosystem. This vision is linked to a plan of action (the CCMP) 

for clean waters and healthy watersheds, thriving habitats and abundant wildlife, sustainable and 

resilient communities, and sound science and inclusive management. The Act helps us- governments 

at all levels, the private sector, non-governmental organizations (including Audubon), and the publicreach that vision. 

Examples of Audubon New York & Connecticut On-the-Ground in the Sound 

Audubon New York is an active player in the protection of the Sound and our field efforts are focused 

on reducing threats to, and increasing populations of, priority bird species. Our experienced staff 

protect priority nesting birds by installing fencing around nesting areas, building nest exclosures to 

keep predators out, and monitoring sites for birds, threats, and nesting success. We help track 

progress toward meeting the recovery goals for federally listed endangered and threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Building from our stewardship efforts, we engage and educate the public through our Be a Good Egg 

campaign. Be a Good Egg integrates beach outreach, community education, and engagement in 

conservation activities to reduce threats to the Sound's coastal habitats. Be a Good Egg changes public 

perceptions and behaviors to reduce threats to nesting and resting shorebirds. We reach tens of 

thousands of people through our communication channels, including public and school programming. 

We secure thousands of pledges from people committing to share and respect the shore and engage 

volunteers to assist with stewardship activities and actions that directly benefit the Sound's birds and 

3 
46 


25243.032

the places they need to survive. Be a Good Egg connects beach users to nature and encourages them 

to be active players in the protection of the Sound. 

Working with governmental and non-governmental partners, Audubon Connecticut has worked to 

permanently preserve more than 2,000 acres of critical coastal habitat since the turn of the 21" 

century. Key actions include protecting critical buffers and watershed protection habitats of global 

I BAs (East River Marsh in Guilford, Hammonasset Beach State Park in Madison, Menunketesuck Island 

and the Salt Meadow Unit of Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge in Westbrook and Barn 

Island Wildlife Management Area in Stonington). 

Our staff and more than 200 volunteers work with local, state and federal governments and private 

landowners at 31 coastal sites where Piping Plovers, American Oystercatchers, least Terns and other 

coastal waterbirds nest or gather for migration to ensure nesting success while preserving public 

access. Audubon volunteers contributed more than 4,000 hours towards monitoring and stewarding 

of Piping Plovers and least Terns along the coast of Connecticut in 2016 alone and contributed to 

record breaking breeding success for Piping Plovers and American Oystercatchers. In 2015, there were 

a record number of 62 pairs of Piping Plovers that produced an all-time high of 116 fledged chicks. In 

2016, we had an all-time high count of nesting pairs of both oystercatchers and plovers-- 63 pairs 

each. 

The National Estuaries Program Works - Defend its Funding 

In closing, I would like to point out that the nation's National Estuaries Program (NEP) faces an 

uncertain future as the Trump Administration has reportedly proposed to eliminate funding for EPA's 

Categorical Grants. Audubon and many partners believe this includes the 28 estuaries of the NEP, 

including the Sound. The NEP works from the northwestern shores of Alaska and Oregon, down to the 

Gulf Coast with estuaries in Alabama and Mississippi and all along the eastern shores from Florida to 

Maine. 

The NEP is a cost-effective, non-regulatory program established by Congress in 1987 that harnesses the 

power of on-the-ground stakeholders working hard to protect and restore estuaries by providing them 

a structure to collaborate and develop and implement a long-term plan to guide their efforts: the 

CCMP. Over one-half of our country's population lives within 100 miles of coasts and more and more 

people are moving there. With a leverage ratio of 18:1 and $4.2 billion leveraged with $230 million in 

EPA grants from 2003 to 2013, the NEP has proven to be highly efficient and effective. Audubon 

strongly encourages Congress lto resist this short-sighted effort to cut funding. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Help us make a difference for the birds, other wildlife, 

and people that rely on the Sound for survival and a high quality of life by taking action on S. 675 the 

"long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act." Thank you again for your consideration. 

4 
47 


25243.033

Important Bird Areas 

long Island Sound Watershed 

• 

• 

•• 

.. 

• • 

• • 

• 

Important Bird Areas in New York (north shore from east to west) 

1 Great Gull Island, Southold 

2 Orient Point to Plum Island, Southold 

3 Crane Neck to Misery Point, Brookhaven 

4 Nissequogue River Watershed/Smithtown Bay, Smithtown 

5 Huntington and Northport Bays, Huntington, Northport 

6 Oyster Bay Area, Oyster Bay 

7 Muttontown Preserve, Hempstead 

8 Little Neck Bay to Hempstead Harbor, North Hempstead 

9 North Brother/South Brother Islands, New York City 

10 Pelham Bay Park, New York City 

11 Huckleberry Island, New York City 

12 Marshlands Conservancy, Rye 

13 Edith G. Read Wildlife Sanctuary, Rye 

14 Butler Sanctuary, MT Kisco 

5 

Status 

Global 

State 

State 

Global 

Global 

State 

State 

State 

State 

State 

State 

State 

State 

State 
48 


25243.034

Recognized Important Bird Areas in Connecticut 

1 Aton Forest, Inc. State 

2 Audubon Center Bent of the River State 

3 Audubon Greenwich (including Quaker Ridge) State 

4 Bafflin Sanctuary Complex State 

5 Barn Island Wildlife Management Area Global 

6 Connecticut College Arboretum, Waterford State 

7 Couch Hill Preserve State 

8 Cove Island Park State 

9 District of Willimantic Chimney Swift Roosts Global 

10 East Rock Park State 

11 Falkner Island Unit of McKinney NWR State 

12 Good Hill Farm Preserve State 

13 Great Captain's Island State 

14 Greenwich Point Park State 

15 Hammonasset Beach State Park Global 

16 lighthouse Point Park State 

17 Mamacoke Island State 

18 Menunketesuck and Duck Islands State 

19 Milford Point/Wheeler Marsh Global 

20 Naugatuck State Forest State 

21 Northwest Park State 

22 Quinnipiac River Tidal Marsh Global 

23 Salt Meadow Unit of McKinney NWR Global 

24 Sandy Point Global 

25 Silver Sands State Park and Charles Island State 

26 Station 43 State 

27 Stratford Great Meadows Area Global 

28 TNC's Devil's Den, Weston State 

29 Topsmead State Forest State 

30 West River Memorial & Edgewood Park State 

31 White Memorial Foundation Global 

32 Wimisink Preserve, State 

33 Woodbury Chimney Swift Roost Global 

34 Great Meadows State 

35 Lyme Forest Block State 

36 Macedonia Forest Block State 

37 Meshomasic Forest Block State 

38 Miles Wildlife Sanctuary and Housatonic State Forest Block State 

39 Mouth of the Connecticut River Global 

40 Shepaug Forest Block State 

6 
49 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Ms. Crotty. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you so much, Ms. Crotty, for your 

testimony. I have two basic questions. 

Can you tell the Committee, for the record, what would be the 

environmental and economic impact if Congress no longer funded 

the Long Island Sound Program? Can you more fully describe the 

level of coordination between the Federal Government, State, local, 

and NGO stakeholders to carry out projects to restore and protect 

the Sound? 

I ask this because that leverage is really significant. I think it 

is important for the Federal Government to know it is not just Federal dollars at stake here. It is a lot of other dollars that come because of Federal leadership. 

Ms. CROTTY. Thank you, Senator. 

The Long Island Sound Study Program of EPA really is the 

lynchpin or the catalyst, if you will, of pulling all of the parties 

working on restoring Long Island Sound which is a bi-State effort 

and involves all of the levels of government and certainly not-forprofit organizations and municipalities. 

It really is that glue that holds us together and working toward 

a common vision in the CCMPs in order to protect and restore this 

estuary of national significance. The money we find from the Long 

Island Sound Program is often the catalyst for a project to move 

forward. 

All of these programs are co-funded. It is very rare when you 

have a wastewater treatment plant upgrade, a habitat restoration 

project, or an open space project that is not leveraged with private 

and public dollars. 

It would be extremely detrimental to the progress we have made 

and certainly all of the challenges that we have left if the reauthorization did not happen. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you so much. 

Ms. CROTTY. Thank you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

I am going to ask Mr. Gray a question. I would like you to respond also, Ms. Crotty. It is going to be about green. 

Mayor Gray, according to your testimony it costs the city of Lancaster $80 million to capture 85 percent of flows from your combined sewers. I assume capturing the remaining 15 percent is difficult because the technology gets difficult to do that. 

In many cases in Arkansas, we have situations where that happens, but there is really no measurable difference as far as the 

streams and things like that. That little extra is costing you so 

much, $300 million. 

To me it is a classic example of the diminishing returns that you 

get at some point. I do not really know where that is, but at some 

point you get really diminishing returns. 

It also points out the need to try new approaches, which you are 

doing. You have gotten a lot of credit for it, and yet you really do 

not get credit for it as far as enforcement. Tell me about the barriers you faced to using the green infrastructure approach. 

50 

Ms. Crotty, again, the potential of having a portion of $300 million in green is a lot of green, and if that would or would not be 

beneficial, trying to figure out the commonsense approach with 

these things. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAY. Senator, all politics are local. In Lancaster we have 

combined green infrastructure with park improvement, intersection 

improvement, and private alley improvement. We funded through 

the State Revolving Fund loan, we got many demonstration 

projects on the local level. 

In doing that, when we do a park, for example, and put in green 

infrastructure, we have one park with six basketball courts, all 

with drain fields underneath them, all of which are impervious. 

When we do those types of projects, the people of Lancaster know 

the neighborhood, know the improvements that have been done in 

their neighborhood. It becomes a cost effective problem at a certain 

point. How are we going to pay for this? 

After 3 or 4 years of doing improvements, green infrastructure 

improvements with visible side benefits, the public was ready, and 

we imposed a stormwater fee. You would think the people would 

be up in arms with a stormwater fee, but people related to it as 

visible improvements in their neighborhoods, their parks, their 

streets, their intersections, and the rain gardens we have put all 

over the city. 

They have seen visible improvements which with infrastructure 

very often you cannot see what is being done. When it came time 

to impose a stormwater fee to pay for a lot of this, two people 

showed up at the city council to oppose it, lawyers for the two biggest parking lots in the city. The residents were ready to say, we 

are willing to do our part. 

Through a little creative politics over a 3- or 4-year period, the 

people in the community actually bought into it and were actually 

agreeable to doing it. 

The problem with the gray infrastructure, the cost of the gray infrastructure, is they want it done now. It must be done immediately. You have to put in a holding tank or put in two holding 

tanks at $300 million. 

As compared to green infrastructure which takes time to put in 

and time for its benefits to be realized, a sense of urgency I think 

is one of the biggest problem, the sense of urgency imposed upon 

us. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Ms. Crotty. 

Ms. CROTTY. Thank you, Senator. 

I think that example is quite fascinating. I think what we have 

found all across New York State, particularly on Long Island, is 

when you have the ability to be flexible and devise local smart solutions from the start, that is sort of the best outcome, being able 

to integrate green infrastructure, resiliency, design into clean 

water infrastructure projects funded by multiple parties including 

State and Federal Government. 

That is the best solution, making sure the various regulatory 

statutes build into regulations the kind of flexibility that localities 

need in order to comply. 

51 

You just described a real quality of life issue. The green infrastructure and resiliency components built into some of these local 

projects become a real important part of the quality of life for their 

community. 

It makes it nicer, more accessible, and also improves the environment. You definitely have had two big wins there in terms of your 

public policy priorities. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sternberg, I understand the Trump administration has 

promised eliminating a key program for rural communities, the 

USDA’s Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program. 

I have 776 small and rural communities throughout my State 

that serve 1.4 million customers. I am hearing from them that 

without this program, their ability to guarantee public sewer and 

wastewater systems would be impaired. 

Can you share with me how important a program like the Water 

and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program is to small and rural 

communities? 

Mr. STERNBERG. Thank you, Senator. That is a very good question. 

It is the same thing in Arkansas. We have 700 community water 

systems and 370 wastewater systems. The majority of the systems 

in Arkansas and in most States are those 31,000 community water 

systems that represent national rural water across the Nation. 

Small, rural communities go the USDA Loan Grant Program for 

their improvements or upgrades. It has happened for over 70 years. 

That is the best program out there. It does not cost the Federal 

Government anything because they pay it back. They have less 

than one-half percent delinquency rate. 

That type of program we need. That is infrastructure that we are 

going to continually need. For that system to go out on the private 

market is not going to be the same cost back to the ratepayers. It 

will be exorbitant. 

There is only so much money in the State Revolving Loan Fund. 

In Arkansas the majority of the larger systems are accessing that, 

so the competition is going to be greater. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Am I correct in saying the bills we are discussing today might be supplemental but certainly cannot take 

over the function of this program? 

Mr. STERNBERG. Exactly. No. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Can you share with me why technical assistance is also very important to rural communities and how technical assistance authorized in the Wicker bill would work in partnership with other programs? 

Mr. STERNBERG. The technical assistance for the small and rural 

communities with populations of 10,000 and under are the ones 

that do not have the expertise like Little Rock or Jonesboro where 

they have engineers, chemists, and different ones available and the 

licensed operator at the highest level to troubleshoot those types of 

things. 

They rely on Rural Water. Rural Water has technicians out there 

right now through USDA. We have some contracts through EPA 

52 

and some through our State SRF on the drinking water side, but 

they are designated to certain systems. 

There will be no duplication, and it is needed, drastically needed. 

We train more water and wastewater operators in the State of Arkansas than any other agency, including the primacy agency. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I tried getting bifocals, and it looked like 

this table under me was curved, and they made me dizzy, so excuse 

me while I do this. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I am an optometrist, so I will give you some 

help. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Would you, please, because I got my first 

pair, and they just drive me crazy. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter 

into the record three letters in support of the USDA Water and 

Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program as well as the Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Without objection. 

[The referenced letters follow:] 

53 


25243.035

March 28,2017 

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife 

U.S. Senate 

524 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Water, and Wildlife hearing, Legislative Hearing on S, 518, a bill to amend the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act to provide for technical assistance for small treatment works, S. 692, the 

Woter Infrastructure Flexibility Act of20!7, and S.675 the Long island Sound Restorotion and 

Stewardship Act 

Dear Senator Duckworth: 

American Rivers protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers, and conserves clean water for 

people and nature. Since 1973, American Rivers has protected and restored more than 150,000 

miles of rivers through advocacy efforts, on-the-ground projects, and an annual America's Most 

Endangered Rivers® Campaign. Headquartered in Washington, DC, American Rivers has 

offices across the country and more than 250,000 members, supporters, and volunteers. As the 

nation's leading river advocate, American Rivers seeks tn ensure the quality and quantity of our 

nation's rivers and floodplains are protected as we rehabilitate our nation's water infrastructure 

and protect our iconic waters, 

S. 518, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for technical 

assistance for small treatment works, S.692, the Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act of2017, and 

S.675 the Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act are all geared towards protecting 

clean water. 8.518 and S.692 provide funding and flexibility for public treatment facilities to 

better comply with the Clean Water Act. S.675 provides funding to protect one of American's 

iconic waters, Long Island Sound. American Rivers would like to thank Senator Duckworth and 

the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife for holding a hearing on these important 

bills. 

S. 518, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for technical 

assistance for small treotment works 

The EPA recognized in their 2012 Clean Water Needs Survey that small communities need $7.7 

billion for Secondary Treatment work, $6.! billion for Advanced Treatment, and $0.9 billion for 

CSO correction, $6.6 billion for conveyance system repair, and $11.3 billion for new conveyance 
54 


25243.036

systems.' When putting the cost of work needed for treatment facilities compared to amount of 

people served, the cost per capita is significant and small communities need help. 

American Rivers believes that S.518 will be a valuable asset to small community treatment 

works. The legislation will authorize $15 million a year for five years, totaling $75 million, for a 

new grant program for much needed technical assist for small treatment works. It will also 

authorize states to use up to two percent of a capitalization grant for the Clean Water state 

Revolving Loan fund for technical assistance for small treatment systems. This technical 

assistance will allow small treatment works to become aware of new approaches and 

technologies that can help them better serve their customers as well as meet their Clean Water 

Act obligations. 

8.692, the Water Il!frastructure FlexibilityA.ctof2017 

The Environmental Protection Agency calculates that our wastewater infrastructure needs $271 

billion in investments? Water utilities across the country are oftentimes inadequately sized, rely 

on out of date technologies, or have been impacted by decades of deferred maintenance. Fiscal 

pressures on municipalities are great and funding is limited. Some municipalities are growing 

and stormwater and wastewater water management systems cannot keep up with the demand. 

Other municipalities are not as populated as they once were which means fewer ratepayers. In 

addition to population shift municipalities have to deal with climate change impacts in whether 

patterns. Some communities are experiencing drought and others are experiencing increased 

flooding and storm surges. This exacerbates the problems that they are already experiencing 

from outdated infrastructure. It is vital for our communities to develop sustainable strategies that 

maximize benefits per dollar investment. Our municipal governments and wastewater agencies 

need real help in updating pollution control plants. 

In 2012 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the integrated Municipal 

Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Approach Framework {Framework). The Framework 

outlines principles for allowing communities to structure plans for addressing multiple Clean 

Water Act obligations so as to sequence costs which would help make compliance more 

affordable overall. The Framework explicitly disallows for the delay in permits and enforcement 

actions based on the new integrated plan. We support parties coming together to discuss changes 

to compliance schedules however we want to ensure that these agreements do not preclude the 

enforcement agencies from modifYing and enforcing permit terms as necessary. Clean Water Act 

protections for public health and the environment must he preserved and followed in an 

integrated approach. This ensures wastewater and stormwater water services benefit the 

ratepayer, taxpayer, communities, and the environment. 

Integrated planning and permitting offers a more holistic approach to the management and 

planning of a community's water services. This allows municipalities and water utilities to better 

be able to use smarter and more sustainable approaches to protect clean water while still 

delivering reliable services. Natural and nature-based solutions such as green stormwater 

1/d 

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2012 Report to Congress, (2016) 

available at https:/lwww.epa.gov/sites/productionl!iles/20 !5-12/documents/cwns _ 2012 _report_ to_ congress-508-

opt.pd( 

110114th Stn-ot. HW Suite 1400 Washinqton.OC 2000'~5637 pho110 202.:!41./SSO fax 202.!41.9240 Ameri<:anRI,.rs.orq 
55 


25243.037

infrastructure are able to reduce polluted runoff, recharge drinking water supplies, and increase 

community green space. 

Green infrastructure is an approach to water management that protects, restores, or mimics the 

natural water cycle. Green infrastructure is effi:ctive, economical, and enhances community 

safety and quality oflife. It means planting trees and restoring wetlands, rather than building a 

costly new water treatment plant. Green infrastructure incorporates both the natural environment 

and engineered systems to store water, conserve ecosystem values and functions, and provide a 

wide array of benefits to people and wildlife. 

American Rivers believes that S. 692 will promote the use of integrated planning and permitting 

while still requiring compliance with the Clean Water Act. While the EPA's Frameworlc was 

introduced in 2012, few communities have taken advantage of the flexibility it outlines. We hope 

that this promotion of integrated planning and permitting will spur more communities to use this 

approach to meet their Clean Water Act obligations. 

The Act also promotes the use of green infrastructure which is a way for communities to reduce 

the flow of stonnwater into their sewage treatment facility thereby lessoning the load of water 

that the treatment facility has to treat. The Act's promotion of green infrastructure as a viable 

stormwater solution will help more communities implement this multi beneficial compliance 

mechanism. 

American Rivers appreciates that the Act works to better define the term "affordability." While 

we recognize that "public health and, environmental benefits associated with improved water 

quality" are listed in as a consideration we believe that there should be a greater emphasis on 

them. Discussions of affordability are critical but they should not be used as an excuse to defer 

real progress in meeting Clean Water Act standards that protect public health and the 

envirooment. 

8.675 the Long Island Sound Restoralion and Stewardship Act 

We would also like to extend our support for S. 675, the Long Island Sound Restoration and 

Stewardship Act. Generations of Americans have lived on and made a living off of the Sound, 

the penultimate destination for much of New England's freshwater. The health of the Sound is 

extremely important for the coastal communities ofNew York and Connecticut. By providing 

upgrades to wastewater facilities, wetland protection and restoration, and addressing longstandingpotlution issues, S. 675 will further the improvements that have been made in repairing 

the Sound. 

American Rivers has been pleased to work with partnerS to restore the rivers that feed the Sound 

and provide such an important role in the fisheries, water quality, and recreational opportunities 

in the Sound. American Rivers is committed to worlcing in the Connecticut River Watershed, 

which provides 70010 of the fresh water input to Long Island Sound. Over the past two decades 

we have worlced with partners to remove outdated dams on coastal Connecticut rivers and in the 

Connecticut River Watershed. Recent dam removals on the Eight Mile River have improved 

watet quality, created more flood resilient communities, as well as improved habitat for 

recreational and commereial fisheries that depend on connected rivers. 

1101141h St,..t. NW Suite 1400 Washington, OC 2000>-5637 phone 202.347.7550 fax 202.347.9240 AmerlcanRivers.o'l) 
56 


25243.038

Much of the vitality of the Sound's communities relies on tourism and healthy fisheries. S. 675 

will promote fishery recovery and habitat restoration by increasing the federal share of grants 

and requiring federal agencies to coordinate efforts in the Sound. This legislation buttresses 

watershed-wide coordination. No river, wetlsnd, or estuary exists in isolation; restoration work 

must take place on a broad, collaborative basis. Once enacted, this bill will ensure that federal 

land management agencies work together to restore this incredible resource while extending the 

authorization for necessary grants under the Clean Water Act. 

If any questions arise please email or call Meghan Boian: mboian@americanrivers.org or 202-

243-7037. 

Sincerely. 

Meghan M. Boian 

Associate Director for Policy & Government Relations 

110114th Stn!e~ !IW SUite 1400 W.tshington, DC 20005·5637 phone 202.347.7550 faJ< 202.347.9240 AmericanRivers.org 
57 


25243.039

Man:h28,2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Sherrod Brown 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Ben Cardin 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C.20510 

Dear Senators Fischer, Brown, and Cardin: 

On behalf of the- dean watar utility members of the National Association of Clean 

Water Agencies (NACWA), I am writing in support of S. 692, the Water Infrastructure 

Flexibility Act (WJPA), bipartisan legislation that establishes strong tools within the 

Clean Water Act (CW A) to help municipalities more affordably comply with the 

statute. 

There is little doubt: that our nation~s water quality has significantly improved since 

enactment of the CWA in 1972, largely due to investments in wastewater and 

storm water infrastructure made by Congress and America's ratepayers.. In fact, since 

the laWs enactment) the number of waterways deemed ftsbable and swimmable has 

increased nearly 50%. Yet improvements in water quality have become more difficult 

ro achieve as sources of pollutants have grown more complex and the Nation)s 

municipal dean water infrastructure has continued to age. At the same tinu::, the 

current structure of the CW A, which hasn't been signifK~tly reformed in over thirty 

years, has led ro an accretion of costly regulations for local ratepayers - in many cases 

with diminishing environmental returns. 

Paying for dean water services has primarily rested with ratepayers who have seen 

dean water bills increase nearly twice the rate of inflation each year for the past 

decade. Today, 40% of households across America are paying more out of their 

disposable incomes for wastewater and stormwater management than what EPA says 

is affurdable. 

S. -692 proposes common sense reforms to the CWA to address this affordability 

challenge. Speciftcally) the legislation codifies Integrated Planning which is an 
58 


25243.040

NACWA S.692 Support Letter 

Mat:eh 28,2017 

Page2of2 

important new tool that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched several years ago. The initiative 

enables communities to meet their permit obligations under the CW A in a holistic, prioritized manner that 

accounts for ratepayer afford ability concerns while ensuring progress toward water quality goals. By codifYing 

Integrated Planning as a permanent compliance feature under the Act, communities can undertake long·tenn 

planning in reliance of it. 

Equally as important, the legislation requires EPA to adopt new affordability guidelines that do not rely on a 

single economic indicator co determine whether a community of ratepayers can afford compliance obligations. 

The clean water community has urged EPA to adopt revised affordability standards for many years and we are 

pleased this legislation will finally accomplish this goal. 

Further, the legislation would establish an office of Municipal Ombudsman at the EPA to provide 

municipalities with technical assistaoce to comply with rhe CWA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Many 

communities, especially small, rural communities, often have insufficient technical capacity and expertise to 

manage the increasingly complex regulatory compliance obligations under these starutes. The Office of 

Municipal Ombudsman can ensure that these communities receive technical support they may need to navigate 

these statutory requirements and ensure compliance to avoid violations and/or federal enforcement actions. 

Finally, the legislation includes provisions to ensure that the EPA integrates the use of green infrastructure 

throughout its CW A compliance programs. Green infrastructure uses natural landscape features such as 

vegetation, soils, and other elements to manage stonnwarer in a way that reduces pressure on aging 

underground in&asrructure. Municipalities are increasingly installing green infrastructure throughout the 

urban environment as an alumarive to grey infrastructure approaches in an effort to build more resilient water 

management systems, reduce costs and improve quality of life attributeS in local neighborhoods. 

NACW A appreciates your leadership on this important legislation and looks forward to working with you and 

your Senate colleagues co enact it. 

Sincerely, 

tJk ,!:{;.. JrAdam Krantz 

ChiefExecudve Officer 
59 


25243.041

March 23, 2017 

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth 

524 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510 

Dear Senator Duckworth: 

RWA 

!lllNOIS RUIIAl WAtER 

ASSOOATiON 

The Illinois Rural Water Association represents 776 small and rural communities 

throughout our state (membership attached) that serve over 1.4 million rural customers. 

We are writing to urge you to include $600 million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

{USDA) Water & Waste Disposal Loan & Grant Program in the Agriculture 

Appropriations Subcommittee's fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill. As you are aware, 

the President's "America First• FY 2018 Budget proposes to eliminate these programs. 

For 70 years, USDA's Water & Waste Disposal Loan & Grant Program has been the 

solution for Illinois' small and rural water infrastructure needs and is largely responsible 

for the success of delivering water and sanitation to almost every comer of 

rural America. 

Small and rural communities have more diffiCUlty affording public water service and 

compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act due to a lack 

of population density, lack of economies of scale and lack of technical expertise. Water 

service is often a much higher cost per household in rural America. 

Through Congressional authorizations and appropriations, USDA has been able to 

expand water service to thousands of small communities and rural areas - often for the 

first time. The delivery of drinking water and sanitation to rural America has been one of 

the great economic and public health accomplishments of the second half of the twentyfirst century. Every federal dollar that has been granted to the many thousands of small 

towns to build, expand, and maintain their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure 

through the USDA was provided by Congress. Millions of rural Americans now have 

access to safe public or "piped" drinking water that their parents did not have. 

Thousands of rural communities now have public sewer or wastewater systems that 

have allowed for the elimination of millions of questionable septic tanks, cesspools, 

straight pipes, or worse. This rural water infrastructure development has been the 

engine of economic development and agricultural advancement in rural communities. 

The President's budget asserts that the USDA rural water programs are "duplicative" 

and that "rural communities can be served by private sector financing or other Federal 

investments in rural water infrastructure, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's 

State Revolving Funds. • 

Small and rural communities respectfully disagree with these assertions and urge 

Congress to continue funding for the USDA rural water initiatives. If Congress does not 
60 


25243.042

retain USDA water infrastructure funding in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations process, 

federal water funding will by-pass rural America and be absorbed by large metropolitan 

water projects. 

While we strongly support robust funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA) State Revolving Funds {SRFs), we believe they can't replace the USDA water 

infrastructure initiative. 

• Over 91% of the country's 50,366 community drinking water systems serve less 

than 10,000 persons. Most of the SRF funding is awarded to larger communities 

that have more administrative expertise to complete the necessary application 

process. In 2016, 72% of EPA's Drinking Water SRF funding was awarded to 

larger communities. In 2015 (the most recent reporting period), 77% of EPA's 

Clean Water SRF was awarded to larger communities. 

• USDA prioritizes funding to rural and small communities with populations of 10,000 

or less that meet strict needs based criteria (high cost per household and local 

economic conditions). Rural Development is unique that all their customers are 

rural. In FY 2016, 85% of the projects served populations of 5,000 or less and 

70% of all projects served populations of 2,500 or less. 

• Most projects currently funded under the SRFs would not able to meet USDA 

limitations on ability to afford water infrastructure, meaning USDA would 

determine these communities could afford the project without federal 

subsidies. Current USDA projects would not receive the same prioritization 

under the SRF awarding criteria. Elimination of the USDA rural water program 

will disproportionately impact the most economically disadvantaged communities 

in the country. 

• Small community water projects can be more challenging for funding agencies to 

fund because they are smaller in scale - meaning numerous, very complicated 

applications must be completed and approved compared to one large 

project. Moreover, due to lack of economies of scale and lower median 

household incomes in rural America, water infrastructure is often less affordable 

(i.e. a much greater cost per household). This means that a rural water 

infrastructure project may pose a greater financial risk compared to the 

metropolitan project and, very importantly, requires some portion of a grant, not 

just a loan, to make the project feasible. 

• USDA has a mission emphasis on rural economic development which is not a 

consideration under the SRFs. 

• USDA currently has a nationwide backlog of 955 small and rural community 

applications totaling $2,545,600,208. Elimination of USDA rural water 

infrastructure funding would end the possibility of funding for these communities 

- and many more that have not completed the USDA application process. 
61 


25243.043

The backlog truly represents rural and small community water infrastructure projects 

that can't access alternative sources of funding. By definition, they can't access private 

funding sources because USDA requires applicants to show they can't obtain 

commercial funding, the so-called "credit elsewhere" criterion. 

USDA-supported water Infrastructure projects would become unaffordable if they were 

to rely solely on commercial or private financing. The ratepayers would not be able to 

afford their water bHis if the total cost of the project were financed by the 

ratepayers. This dynamic is especially acute in low-income communities with expensive 

water utility infrastructure needs. Congress has determined that there is a federal 

interest in subsidizing some of these water infrastructure projects based on need - the 

community's lack of ability to afford the project combined with the public health ot 

environmental urgency of the project. Under the USDA water infrastructure funding 

program, communities are only subsidized by the amount necessary to make the project 

affordable to that specific community, based on a ratio of water rates and local median 

household income. 

It is also important to note that the last assessment conducted by the Office of 

Management and Budget to determine program effectiveness of federal programs found 

the USDA water program was awarded the highest rating possible. The review was 

designed to measure how effectively your tax dollars are being spent and included 

program purpose and design, strategic planning, program management and program 

resuHs and accountability. 

Thank you for your continued commitment and assistance to rural America. Small and 

rural communities urge you to continue to make USDA's rural water initiatives a priority 

in this year's appropriations bills. 

Sincerely, 

Frank R. Dunmire 

Frank R. Dunmire, 

Executive Director 
62 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you so much. 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, while I support all these 

bills I think there is always room for improvement. For example, 

I would like to work with all of you in making sure many of the 

medium-sized communities in my State are not left out. 

Mayor Gray, as you discussed, the city of Lancaster has long 

been working on a green infrastructure plan since 2011. Can you 

share some of the primary and secondary benefits of using green 

infrastructure to address stormwater and wastewater projects? 

Mr. GRAY. Certainly, Senator. 

There have been three categories of improvements which we 

have seen. Environmental benefits include recharging groundwater, 

protecting and improving water quality, providing natural 

stormwater management, mitigating the heat island effect, and reducing energy use. All come from our green infrastructure programs. 

Social benefits include increasing recreational opportunities, improving health through cleaner air and water, and improved psychological well being. Plus, it makes the city more attractive to the 

kind of people you want in the city, the millennials. 

A week does not go by that I am not stopped by some younger 

person who tells me they like that the city prides itself on being 

a green city. They like it, they want to move there, they want to 

be a part of it. 

Finally, economic benefits include the future cost of stormwater 

management as well as increasing property values. I will give you 

an example. We have a lot of private alleys in Lancaster which are 

just what they sound like, alleys owned by the property owners on 

both sides. 

We put green alley in one of these private alleys. Within a week, 

the price of a house for sale on the green alley had gone up $2,500. 

There was a small notation in the newspaper advertising it as 

being on ‘‘the green alley.’’ They are all over the city now. 

We find people who are willing to part with their own money, 

$500 a property owner to put in these types of things. There are 

so many benefits that come from it that are past stormwater benefits. Again, environmental, social, and economic benefits all come 

from green infrastructure. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I always find my mayors to be 

the most practical problem solvers. I think you just demonstrated 

that in your answer. 

Mr. GRAY. We have to be, Senator. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. You do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

The Senator from Nebraska. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mayor Gray, since you just received that great compliment from 

the Ranking Member, I have a question for you. 

In your written testimony, you mentioned that the current EPA 

enforcement approach employs aggressive actions, rigid methods, 

and threats of large civil penalties. What are the consequences for 

such an approach for small cities like Lancaster? 

63 

Mr. GRAY. We have one consent decree we operate under already 

from the American with Disabilities Act. My predecessor was sued 

and rightfully so, and they entered a consent decree. 

Now, for everything we do with our sidewalks and streets, we 

have to go to Philadelphia and get approval from a Federal judge 

who is very nice and sympathetic, but it has taken it out of our 

hands. The practical things have been taken out of our hands. 

We met with the EPA, and the EPA region was very supportive 

of our green infrastructure program. Politically, I sold it to people 

that we have to get ahead of the EPA. We want to do this before 

they make us do things. We want to be positive about it. We want 

to be friends with the EPA. We want them to be our friends. 

They supported us for years. If you went to a Chesapeake Bay 

meeting and they were having a slide show, there would always be 

a couple of slides the EPA would put up about Lancaster. This is 

what we want, this is what we want you to do. 

A few years ago enforcement got involved. I am not sure the region and the enforcement division talk to each other because it was 

a totally different attitude. It was you have to do this, it must be 

done now. 

Negotiations have proceeded which are quite costly to the city, 

between experts and lawyers and whatnot. We spent a lot of money 

at this point talking with the EPA. We are trying to work out 

something with them. 

For example, to impose a civil penalty, I am not going to pay it. 

I was in private practice. I represented clients who had civil penalties that came off their bottom line. Where does the civil penalty 

of the city of Lancaster come from but out of the taxpayers’ pocket? 

We are negotiating with them right now. It sort of shocked us 

when they came with that kind of attitude because we thought we 

had a different relationship with them. 

Senator FISCHER. My apologies; I gave your city the Nebraska 

pronunciation of Lancaster instead of Lancaster. 

Mr. GRAY. You are forgiven, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. How would provisions within the Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act help to give cities and counties a stronger 

seat at the table in addressing really the long-term strategic water 

infrastructure needs that you have? 

You said you are working with the EPA and redevelop a good 

working relationship. Do you think my bill would help with that? 

Mr. GRAY. Absolutely. We think we do have a good working relationship with one part of the EPA. We support their goals, and we 

support their efforts. 

The bill has a couple of things in it that would really be different 

and change the culture. The permitting, to have permitting and including this all in permitting rather than doing it through a consent decree, there is a 20-year decree, do it for 5 years. Look at it, 

work together on it, and see what your abilities are. 

There are provisions in there for affordability. Again, the city of Lancaster has 29 percent of its families that have $20,000 or less 

income. Affordability is an important issue to us. We want to do 

it, we want to do it right. How much can we afford for it? 

Finally, the provision that you take out the civil penalties is another approach. Why not use that money to implement green infraVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:46 May 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25243.TXT SONYA
64 

structure or gray infrastructure? Why penalize us for what has 

happened in the past? 

Senator FISCHER. You mentioned how under the current structure, cities are faced with the need to increase rates on the families 

with a regressive impact on those most in need or on a fixed income. I am concerned about that as well. A 2 percent increase on 

utility rates means a great deal for working families. 

Can you explain why the median household income benchmark 

is harmful to low and fixed income families? 

Mr. GRAY. Not really. 

Senator FISCHER. Do any other panel members wish to address 

that? 

Mr. Sternberg. 

Mr. STERNBERG. The median household income for that city or 

area, you still have the lower income people who will be affected 

through it all. There are similar situations in Arkansas. We have 

that same problem. 

You set it at the median household income so the lower income 

people are still getting hit harder because of their poverty or whatever the case might be. It is something that really needs a hard 

look. 

Mr. GRAY. Again, 29 percent of our population makes less than 

$20,000 per year. We estimated that if you did that it would be 

around $700 a year for water. Right now in the city of Lancaster, 

you might pay $200 a year. It would impact the low and moderate 

income people. That would be a substantial increase. 

Senator FISCHER. That is what we are trying to address in the 

bill to make sure those people who have low or fixed incomes are 

not hurt disproportionately by the legislation we are putting forward and that we are still able to make sure that those water infrastructure projects are going to get done. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here and share a story. 

I was helping a local councilman from Baltimore City during the 

elections this year, so I did something that Senators do not normally do, I was actually knocking door to door for this candidate. 

I was not on the ballot in Baltimore City. 

There was a theme from every person who answered the door. 

That was the water bills in Baltimore and the affordability to the 

ratepayers. 

I recognized that we have a real problem. That is you have an 

aging water system that needs desperate repair that costs a lot of 

money that has yet to be fully implemented. Certainly in Baltimore 

City it has not been fully implemented. Then you have the pressure 

on the ratepayers that is beyond their affordability. 

We have to figure out a way to deal with this real problem in 

our community. I thank the Chairman for his leadership on this 

issue. The two of us have joined together on several initiatives to 

try to deal with water issues. 

65 

I am working now with Senators Fischer and Brown on a bill 

that we think would make the water more affordable by an integrated planning process. We require a lot of different plans. If we 

integrated together we can save considerable resources for local 

governments, and by the way, take a more holistic approach rather 

than taking a look at the specific program. 

We are hoping that will help deal with some of the affordability 

issues. We are also looking at the median income standard for Federal assistance. It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

share this with you. 

I got the numbers for Baltimore City because I found they were 

kind of shocking. Baltimore City shows a relatively high median income but when you take a look at the poverty levels in Baltimore 

City, we have a large number of people, the majority of people fall 

under the poverty level. The median income as the sole indicator 

for eligibility we think is just the wrong approach. 

We are offering those suggestions in an effort to try to make the 

Federal partnership more available, particularly to those jurisdictions that are really being stressed on their ratepayers. 

I wanted to make those comments. Thank you for the hearing. 

I would be happy to hear from any of our witnesses who would like 

to respond as to other ways we can provide relief to the ratepayers 

and still get the type of modernization of our water infrastructure 

that is desperately needed, particularly in our older communities. 

Mr. STERNBERG. I would just say, Senator, as far as rural and 

small communities, that is why what Senator Duckworth brought 

up about the USDA Loan and Grant Program is so important. 

If it goes away, water rates will go up in rural and small America. There is no way around it. You hit on the larger systems having the same issue. I think Congress is doing starting something 

with WIFIA program, funding some of that for the larger utilities. 

I think that is great. 

You are right. You have to be more inventive in how we go about 

doing things like that, but the USDA Loan and Grant Program for 

infrastructure is vital. It has to be put back in place. 

Senator CARDIN. I strongly support the initiative that came out 

of this Committee. It does not take away, though, the need for us 

to have the basic partnership programs that help in regard to 

water infrastructure. 

Ms. CROTTY. Thank you, Senator. 

I was going to mention that under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Model, having the ability to give hardship grants and 

grants to municipalities can be very critical at times. 

The other thing I was going to mention was Senator Boozman 

raised the prospect of having a large infrastructure investment 

coming out of Congress potentially this year. Having clean water 

as part of that larger bill I think would be a tremendous investment in not only jobs and our economy but also a benefit to our 

environment and our high quality of life. 

We do find in New York State sometimes the grant money that 

does not have to be paid back, it is not the low interest, long-term 

loan but actual grants, having the flexibility to be able to give out 

the grant money becomes a real critical point for some of the 

projects in rural parts of the State and less affluent areas. 

66 

Senator CARDIN. I would point out that you are correct. There is 

strong interest in an infrastructure bill. It is going to be more difficult to deliver than just interest because we have to come together. 

What we urge you all to do—and you will have our support—is 

whatever infrastructure bill comes out, make sure water is included in it. That is not a foregone conclusion because the interest 

on things you see more visibly like roads and bridges usually gets 

more attention than things that are underground that people do 

not see and recognize the desperate need. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from Baltimore City. I would ask 

it be made a part of our record. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Without objection. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 

67 


25243.044

------------------

ClTY OF BALTIMORE 

f )Hi,,! 

March 28,2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

u.s. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Sherrod Brown 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senators Fischer, Brown and Cardin: 

DEPARTMENT OF WORKS 

The Honorable Ben Cardin 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.c. 20510 

On behalf of the ratepayers of the City of Baltimore, I am writing in strong support of the Woter 

Water 

Infrastructure 

Act 

Flexibility Act (WI FA), b~partisan legislation that establishes strong tools within the Clean 

(CWA) to help municipalities more affordably comply with the statute. 

over 

The State of Maryland faces over a $9 bHiion Investment challenge In clean water Infrastructure needs 

investment 

the next twenty years and nearly a $9 billion in drinking water Infrastructure needs. As we face this 

affordable cost 

challenge, we are increasingly under pressure to provide clean and safe water services at an 

to our ratepayers. According to a 2013 national survey of wastewater treatment 

operators, 

next decade, 

clean 

with 

water rates are expected to increase at double the rate of Inflation, or more, over the 

sewer rates In many urban areas at two to th~ times the national average - and 

every 

these 

year 

rates do not reflect charges for drinking water services. Baltimore has had to increase Its rates 

our 

since 2000, with several of those years requiring double-digit Increases. We just increased 

rates for water by 9.9 percent and for wastewater by 9 percent this fiscal year and w!U do so again 

for the next two years. Much of the pressure on rates Is being driven by a variety of factors induding 

managing 

repairing and 

wet 

replacing 

weather-related 

old pipes and treatment systems, meeting more stringent federal standards, and 

challenges In the face of changing precipitation patterns. 

Agency 

The WIFA proposal codifies Integrated Planning, an initiative launched by the Environmental Protection 

management 

(EPA) as an alternative compliance approach to address municipal wastewater and stormwater 

municlpafitles 

needs uoder the CWA. Integrated Planning (IP) has proven an effective tool enabling 

enabling 

to prioritize CWA compliance obligations without sacrl!k:ing overall water quality and 

draft an 

them to more afford ably finance required investments. Baltimore was one of the first cities to 

and 

Integrated Plan that holistically evaluated and ranked the scheduling not only our wastewater 

mandated 

stormwater projects, but drinking water projects as well. The evaluated projects included both 

and aging infrastructure-driven 

prioritizing 

improvements. This process proVides a framework for 

and investing in capital projects that will produce the most enVironmentally and financially 

sound results, paired with real community benefits. 
68 


25243.045

The lqislatlon also provides municipalities flexibility to consider alternative compliance approaches, 

such as green infrastructure, to meet water quality standards. In Baltimore, investing In green 

Infrastructure wUI not only help with our stormwater challenps, but will also provide our communities 

with tangible and visible connections to environmental solutions they help pay, something that most 

underpvund or faciHty imjJrovement projects cannot provide. Finally, the legislation requires EPA to 

update Its Financial Capability Assessment Guidance so that the agency moves away from a one-slze..flts.. 

all national affordabillty standard to one tailored for Individual community needs. AffordabUity Is very 

important to Baltimore as 26 percent of our population Hves at or below the federal poverty line. 

The WIFA provides important relief for Maryland communities, we appreciate your leadership In 

shepherding this legislation, and urge Congress to enact It as quldcly as possible. 

Sincerely, 
69 

Senator BOOZMAN. Let me ask Mr. Sternberg a couple quick 

questions. Can you explain to the committee why circuit riders that 

actually come to your community are more effective in providing 

technical assistance than other approaches like Webinars? 

Has EPA shifted support for rural technical assistance away 

from the circuit riders in your experience? 

Mr. STERNBERG. The first part of it is the reason for the circuit 

riders and the need to go to the local communities versus the 

Webinars, you are one on one with that operator, that mayor, and 

that council. You can show them their actual problem with their 

system. 

In a classroom or a Webinar, you are just seeing different portions and functions at treatment plants. There is no trust there. 

You are just reading something or hearing something. When you 

are with those circuit riders, or those circuit riders are there, you 

build that bond and trust. 

The next issue that comes up with that utility, they will call 

them and call them quickly. That is the reason for the circuit riders. You share that cost across all the small and rural communities. It is not just one engineer coming out there that costs that 

system to come up with a solution to it. That is where the circuit 

riders are so vital to this project. 

As far as the EPA, we have lost funding through EPA on water 

technicians. Back in 2009 we had a groundwater technician fully 

funded. That runs about $110,000 a year, I think it was. Our trainer that was fully funded back then. We are subsidizing that by 

about 45 percent. 

We do not get the money because they spread out the cost to the 

Webinars and different things like that. There is nobody going on 

site like the circuit riders. That is where it happens. The rubber 

meets the road. That is where it is at. 

Senator BOOZMAN. In your testimony, you mentioned the circuit 

riders providing emergency response. Can you give some examples 

of that? Is anyone else out there providing that type of assistance? 

Mr. STERNBERG. In Arkansas we are very proud of what we do 

in Arkansas Rural Water. We actually have seven big mobile generators we can deploy. An example would be February 27, 2014, my 

birthday, the tornadoes came through and hit Mayflower, Arkansas, and hit Vilonia, Arkansas. It was an F–4. It demolished the 

towns in both communities. 

I was not actually in the State at the time. My staff called me, 

and I said deploy whatever assistance they need. Find out and 

identify the need. Within 24 hours, we had every water system, the 

water and wastewater system in Mayflower, the water and wastewater system in Vilonia, up and running. We had no SOS or SSOs, 

sanitary sewer overflows on the sewer system. 

We have four small mobile generators that we use VFDs for that 

we can actually run three-phase motors so we use them on the 

sewer lift stations. We had them on pickup trucks moving around 

station to station. Hardwired them, pumped all the sewer down so 

we never had overflows. We continually had them making the 

rounds. 

The emergency response is very beneficial to the utilities. We are 

the first call. They do not call ADEM, they do not call the health 

70 

department, they do not call ADEQ. They call Arkansas Rural 

Water, and it works. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mayor Gray, just from years of hearing testimony always being on water, I can sympathize with the situation 

you are in as far as your community. I do not know if you are a 

Republican, a Democrat, or whatever; I could care less. 

Mr. GRAY. It does not matter at the local level. It really does not. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Exactly. I am thinking of a community in Arkansas with a good friend running the community and working 

very, very hard, really doing much the same things you have done 

and is kind of the poster child for getting on the stick. He happens 

to be a liberal Democrat, so there is no rhyme or reason to this 

thing. It is just communities in general. 

There is a finite amount of money, and we do have to be wise 

and use some common sense as to the final part that you are lacking that cost $300 million. We have had testimony from the person 

that runs the unit in Decatur, Washington. They have spent, I 

think, $1 billion, and do not hold me exactly responsible. 

They have done a great job. The taxpayer rates have gone up dramatically. They are wanting, I think, another $1 billion to 

ratchet down small amount which everyone agrees would not make 

any difference in the quality of the river. 

If you spend a lot of money, relatively speaking, you would not need to spend $1 billion, but just think what you could do with 

some of the greenery that you are doing not only to help the wildlife but also the quality of life in our communities and the adjacent 

things. 

Again, we appreciate your story. 

We will go now to Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one final 

question. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Sternberg to elaborate a little bit on how the 

circuit riders perform in emergency situations, kind of elaborate on 

what we talked about just now but in terms of do they or do they 

not help in coordinating with local agencies and other Federal 

agencies in the event of an emergency? 

How is that integrated, and how do you see that happening on 

the ground when there is an emergency and you have to respond 

and have all different levels of government, vertical and horizontal? 

Mr. STERNBERG. I can give you an example in Mayflower and 

Vilonia. We are recognized as one of the emergency responders. We 

work with ADEM, we work with the Arkansas Department of 

Health on all public water systems. 

The first call we have, if we get a call from a water system with 

an emergency, we contact the health department and make sure 

they are aware of it. They ask us to provide reports back to them 

of our findings. They know we are going to be deployed. 

My field staff is in the field anyway and live all across the State. 

Normally I have someone who can get there within an hour and 

a half just because of where my staff lives. 

We work with all the local agencies. When we came to the city 

of Mayflower, we checked in with the city of Mayflower. They were 

the ones who requested us. When they request us we come with all 

our equipment and our manpower. 

71 

We have the county, the Office of Emergency Services officer 

there. They contact and stay in communication with ADEM at the 

State office. We stay in communication with the health department. 

If they get any request through ADEM, it goes to the health department and comes to Rural Water. We are part of the Arkansas 

Water Agency Response Network. We work very closely with them, 

and there is no duplication of what we are doing. It works very 

well. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. They are part of your team. You talked 

about how it is so important to have a person that is there on the 

ground that you know and trust. Do you do emergency training 

programs when it comes to water emergency response and that sort 

of thing? Is that something on an annual basis with all the different agencies along with the circuit riders? Is that being done? 

Mr. STERNBERG. Actually, I am on the national level. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. You are a busy man. 

Mr. STERNBERG. I know. I have too many titles. I am the Chairman of the National Rural Water Association Emergency Response 

Committee. We meet at least twice a year. We do a 1-week training 

located somewhere throughout the Nation. This year we are going 

to Florida. Last year, we were in Louisiana, and 3 years prior to 

that we did it in Lonoke, Arkansas. We have moved around to different places. 

We have invited other State circuit riders to come in to be 

trained and continually update them on new things out there. It 

is continuation of that work. 

In-State, my staff is all trained. Every month they come in, they 

are assigned different duties, to check out the generators, make 

sure they are maintained, making sure the load bank has been 

done on them. We actually load bank those generators so we know 

even if the motor is running on that generator that does not mean 

that generator is putting out power. 

All our generators have multi-voltage electric switches on them. 

When we pull up on site, it does not matter what voltage that system has. We can set it and forget it and go with it. We did it for 

a reason that way. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Wonderful. Thank you so much. 

Mr. STERNBERG. Thank you. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank all of you for being here. 

Any follow up questions will be submitted to the witnesses for response. This record will be open for 2 weeks for additional submissions. 

Thank you all for sharing our stories and commenting on the legislation before us. I think today we have demonstrated that this is 

an issue where there really is a lot of common ground. We are 

going to be working very, very hard. 

Senator Duckworth and I had a great meeting yesterday talking 

about areas we are going to be working hard to get some things 

done. 

With that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you again very 

much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

72 

[The referenced legislation follows:] 


25243.046

US AV' GOVERNMENT HE"KATED? INFORMz\T!ON 

GPO 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S.518 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for technical 

assistance for small treatment works. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

lVL\RCH 2, 2017 

II 

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Ms. HEITKAMP, Mr. BOOZ!\IAL'I, Mr. BARRASSO, :Mr. 

CRAPO, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. HIROl\0, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. lVIANCHIN, 

Mr. RISCH, Mr. SCfL\TZ, and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read t'vice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 

provide for technical assistance for small treatment works. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Small and Rural Com5 munity Clean Water Technical Assistance Act". 
73 


25243.047

2 

1 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL TREATMENT 

2 WORKS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.-Title II of the Federal Water Pol4 lution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following: 

6 "SEC. 222. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL TREAT7 MENT WORKS. 

8 "(a) DEI<'INITIONS.-In this section: 

9 "(1) QUALIFIED NONPROFIT SMAJ,L TREAT10 MENT WORKS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVJDER.-

11 The term 'qualified nonprofit small treatment works 

12 technical assistance provider' means a nonprofit or13 ganization that, as determined by the Adminis14 trator15 "(A) is qualified and experienced in pro16 viding training and technical assistance to small 

17 treatment works; and 

18 "(B) the small treatment works in the 

19 State finds to be the most beneficial and effec20 tive. 

21 "(2) Sl\L~LI, TREATMENT WORKS.-The term 

22 'small treatment works' means a publicly uwned 

23 treatment works serving not more than 10,000 indi24 viduals. 

25 "(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-The Administrator 

26 may use amounts made available to carry out this section 

•S 518 IS 
74 


25243.048

3 

1 to provide grants or cooperative agreements to qualified 

2 nonprofit small treatment works technical assistance pro3 viders to provide to owners and operators of small treat4 ment works onsite technical assistance, circuit rider tech5 nical assistance programs, multi-State, regional technical 

6 assistance programs, and onsite and regional training, to 

7 assist the small treatment works in achieving compliance 

8 with this Act or obtaining financing under this Act for 

9 eligible projects. 

10 "(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-'l'here 

11 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

12 for grants for small treatment works technical assistance, 

13 $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022.". 

14 (b) WATER POI~I,lJTION CONTROl, REVOLVING l;OAN 

15 FUNDS.-

16 (1) IN GENERAL.-Section 603 of the Federal 

17 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383) is 

18 amended19 (A) in subsection (d)-

20 (i) in the matter preceding paragraph 

21 (1), by inserting "and as provided in sub22 section (e)" after "State law"; 

23 (ii) by redesignating subsections (e) 

24 through (i) as subsections (f) through (j), 

25 respectively; and 

•S 518 IS 
75 


25243.049

4 

1 (iii) by inserting after subsection (d) 

2 the following: 

3 "(c) ADDITIONAl" USE OJ:;' FrNDS.-A State may use 

4 an additional 2 percent of the funds annually allotted to 

5 the State under this section for qualified nonprofit small 

6 treatment works technical assistance providers (as the 

7 term is defined in section 222) to provide technical assistS ance to small treatment works (as the term is defined in 

9 section 222) in the State.". 

10 (2) CONI<'ORMING 1L~ENDMENT.-Section 

11 221(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

12 (33 U.S.C. 1301( d)) is amended by striking "section 

13 603(h)" and inserting "section 603(i)". 

0 

•S 518 IS 
76 


25243.050

MCC17144 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION s. 

s.0q~ S.L.C. 

To provide for integrated plan permits, to establish an Office of the Municipal 

Ombudsman, to promote green infrastructure, and to require the revision 

of financial capability guidance. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mrs. FISCHER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on _______ _ 

A BILL 

To provide for integrated plan permits, to establish an Office 

of the Municipal Ombudsman, to promote green infrastructure, and to require the revision of financial capability guidance. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the [" ______ Act 

5 of 2017"]. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATOR. 

7 In this Act, the term "Administrator" means the Ad8 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 
77 


25243.051

MCC17144 

2 

1 SEC. 3. INTEGRATED PLANS. 

S.L.C. 

2 (a) INTEGRATED PLA.t'fS.-Section 402 of the Fed3 eral Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 "(s) INTEGRATED PLAN PERMITS.-

6 "(1) DEFINITIONS.-In this subsection: 

7 "(A) GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE.-The 

8 term 'green infrastructure' means the range of 

9 measures that use plant or soil systems, per1 0 meable pavement or other permeable surfaces 

11 or substrates, stormwater harvest and reuse, or 

12 landscaping to store, infiltrate, or 

13 evapotranspirate stormwater and reduce flows 

14 to sewer systems or to surface waters. 

15 "(B) INTEGRATED PLAN.-The term 'inte16 grated plan' has the mean1ilg given in Part III 

17 of the Integrated Municipal Stormwater and 

18 Wastewater Planning Approach Framework, 

19 issued by the Environmental Protection Agency 

20 and dated June 5, 2012. 

21 "(C) MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE.-

22 "(i) IN GENERAL.-The term 'munic23 ipa:l discharge' means a discharge from a 

24 treatment works (as defined in section 

25 212) or a discharge from a municipal 

26 storm sewer under subsection ( p). 
78 


25243.052

MCC17144 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

3 

"(ii) INCLUSION.-The term 'municipal discharge' includes a discharge of 

wastewater or storm water collected from 

multiple municipalities if the discharge is 

covered by the same permit issued under 

this section. 

"(2) INTEGRATED PLAN.-

"(A) IN GENERAL.-The Administrator (or 

a State, in the case of a permit program approved under subsection (b)) shall inform a municipal permittee or multiple municipal permittees of the opportunity to develop an integrated 

plan. 

"(B) SCOPE OF PERMIT INCORPORATING 

INTEGRATED PLAN.-A permit issued under 

this subsection that incorporates an integrated 

plan may integrate all requirements under this 

Act addressed in the integrated plan, including 

requirements relating to-

"(i) a combined sewer overflow; 

"(ii) a capacity, management, operation, and maintenance program for sanitary sewer collection systems; 

"(iii) a municipal stormwater discharge; 
79 


25243.053

MCC17144 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

4 

"(iv) a municipal wastewater discharge; and 

"(v) a water quality-based effluent 

limitation to implement an applicable 

wasteload allocation in a total max:tmum 

daily load. 

"(3) COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES.-

"(A) IN GENERAL.-A permit for a municipal discharge by a municipality that incorporates an integrated plan may include a schedule of compliance, under which actions taken to 

meet any applicable water quality-based effluent 

limitation may be implemented over more than 

1 permit term if the compliance schedules are 

authorized by State water quality standards. 

"(B) INCLUSION.-Actions subject to a 

compliance schedule under subparagraph (A) 

may include green infrastructure if implemented as part of a water quality-based effluent 

limitation. 

"(C) REVIEW.-A schedule of compliance 

may be reviewed each time the permit is renewed. 

"( 4) EXISTING AUTHORITIES RETAINED.-
80 


25243.054

MCC17144 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

5 

"(A) APPI~ICABLE STANDARDS.-Nothing 

m this subsection modifies any obligation to 

comply with applicable technology and water 

quality-based effluent limitations under this 

Act. 

"(B) FLEXIBILITY.-Nothing in this subsection reduces or eliminates any flexibility 

available under this Act, including the authority 

of-

"(i) a State to revise a water quality 

standard after a use attainability analysis 

under section 131.10(g) of title 40, Code 

of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the 

date of enactment of this subsection), subject to the approval of the Administrator 

under section 303(c); and 

"(ii) the Administrator or a State to 

authorize a schedule of compliance that extends beyond the date of expiration of a 

permit term if the schedule of compliance 

meets the requirements of section 122.4 7 

of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 

(as in effect on the date of enactment of 

this subsection). 

"(5) CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY.-
81 


25243.055

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

6 

1 "(A) IN GENERAL.-Nothing m section 

2 301(b)(1)(C) precludes a State from author3 izing in the water quality standards of the 

4 State the issuance of a schedule of compliance 

5 to meet water quality-based effluent limitations 

6 in permits that incorporate provisions of an in7 tegrated plan. 

8 "(B) TRANSITION RULE.-In any case m 

9 which a discharge is subject to a judicial order 

10 or consent decree as of the date of enactment 

11 of the [ Act of 2017] resolving 

12 an enforcement action under this Act, any 

13 schedule of compliance issued pursuant to an 

14 authorization in a State water quality standard 

15 shall not revise or otherwise affect a schedule of 

16 compliance in that order or decree unless the 

17 order or decree is modified by agreement of the 

18 parties and the court.". 

19 (b) MUNICIPAL OMBUDSMA.''J.-

20 (1) ESTABLISHMENT.-There lS established 

21 within the Office of the Administrator an Office of 

22 the Municipal Ombudsman. 

23 (2) GENERAL DUTIES.-The duties of the mu24 nicipal ombudsman shall include the provision of-
82 


25243.056

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

7 

1 (A) technical assistance to municipalities 

2 seeking to comply with the Federal Water Pol3 lution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and 

4 the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f 

5 et seq.); and 

6 (B) information to the Administrator to 

7 help the Administrator ensure that agency poli8 cies are implemented by all offices of the Envi9 ronmental Protection Agency, including regional 

10 offices. 

11 (3) ACTIONS REQUIRED.-The municipal om12 budsman shall work with appropriate offices at the 

13 headquarters and regional offices of the Environ14 mental Protection Agency to ensure that the munici15 pality seeking assistance is provided information16 (A) about available Federal financial as17 sistance for which the municipality is eligible; 

18 (B) about flexibility available under the 

19 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

20 1251 et seq.) and, if applicable, the Safe Drink21 ing Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.); and 

22 (C) regarding the opportunity to develop 

23 an integrated plan, as defined in section 

24 402(s)(1)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution 

25 Control Act (as added by subsection (a)). 
83 


25243.057

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

8 

1 ( 4) PRJORITY.-In carrying out paragraph (3), 

2 the municipal ombudsman shall give priority to any 

3 municipality that demonstrates affordability con4 cerns relating to compliance with the Federal Water 

5 Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or 

6 the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 

7 seq.). 

8 (5) INFORMATION SHARING.-The municipal 

9 ombudsman shall publish on the website of the Envi1 0 ronmental Protection Agency11 (A) general information relating to12 (i) the technical assistance referred to 

13 in paragraph (2)(A); 

14 (ii) the financial assistance referred to 

15 in paragraph (3)(A); 

16 (iii) the flexibility referred to in para17 graph 3(B); and 

18 (iv) any resources related to inte19 grated plans developed by the Adminis20 trator; and 

21 (B) a copy of each permit, order, or judi22 cial consent decree that implements or incor23 porates an integrated plan. 
84 


25243.058

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

9 

1 (c) MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT.-Section 309 of the 

2 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1319) is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 "(h) lMPLEMEN'rATION OF INTEGRATED PLANS 

5 THROUGH ENFORCEMENT TOOLS.-

6 "(1) IN GENERAL.-In conjunction with an en7 forcement action under subsection (a) or (b) relating 

8 to municipal discharges, the Administrator shall in9 form a municipality of the opportunity to develop an 

10 integrated plan, as defined in section 402(s). 

11 "(2) MODIFICATION.-Any municipality under 

12 an administrative order under subsection (a) or set13 tlement agreement (including a judicial consent de14 cree) under subsection (b) that has developed an in15 tegrated plan consistent with section 402(s) may re16 quest a modification of the administrative order or 

17 settlement agreement based on that integrated 

18 plan.". 

19 (d) REPORT 1'0 CONGRESS.-Not later than 2 years 

20 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

21 shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public 

22 Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transpor23 tation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

24 and make publicly available a report on each integrated 

25 plan developed and implemented through a permit, order, 
85 


25243.059

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

10 

1 or judicial consent decree since the date of publication of 

2 the "Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater 

3 Planning Approach Framework" issued by the Environ4 mental Protection Agency and dated June 5, 2012, includ5 ing a description of the control measures, levels of control, 

6 estimated costs, and compliance schedules for the require-

? ments implemented through an integrated plan. 

8 SEC. 4. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROMOTION. 

9 Title V of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

10 (33 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) is amended11 (1) by redesignating section 519 (33 U.S.C. 

12 1251 note) as section 520; and 

13 (2) by inserting after section 518 (33 U.S.C. 

14 1377) the following: 

15 "SEC. 519. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GREEN 

16 INFRASTRUCTURE PROMOTION. 

17 "(a) IN GENERAL.-The Administrator shall ensure 

18 that the Office of Water, the Office of Enforcement and 

19 Compliance Assurance, the Office of Research and Devel20 opment, and the Office of Policy of the Environmental 

21 Protection Agency promote the use of green infrastructure 

22 in and coordinate the integration of green infrastructure 

23 into, permitting programs, planning efforts, research, 

24 technical assistance, and funding guidance. 
86 


25243.060

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

11 

1 "(b) DUTIES.-The Administrator shall ensure that 

2 the Office of Water3 " ( 1) promotes the use of green infrastructure in 

4 the programs of the Environmental Protection Agen5 cy; and 

6 "(2) coordinates efforts to increase the use of 

7 green infrastructure with8 "(A) other Federal departments and agen9 c1es; 

10 "(B) State, tribal, and local governments; 

11 and 

12 "(C) the private sector. 

13 "(c) REGIONAL GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PR0-

14 MOTION.-The Administrator shall direct each regional of15 fice of the Environmental Protection Agency, as appro16 priate based on local factors, and consistent with the re17 quirements of this Act, to promote and integrate the use 

18 of green infrastructure within the region that includes19 "(1) outreach and training regarding green in20 frastructure implementation for State, tribal, and 

21 local governments, tribal communities, and the pri22 vate sector; and 

23 "(2) the incorporation of green infrastructure 

24 into permitting and other regulatory programs, 

25 codes, and ordinance development, including the re-
87 


25243.061

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

12 

1 quirements under consent decrees and settlement 

2 agreements in enforcement actions. 

3 "(d) GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION-SHAR4 ING.-The Administrator shall promote green infrastruc5 ture information-sharing, including through an Internet 

6 website, to share information with, and provide technical 

7 assistance to, State, tribal, and local governments, tribal 

8 communities, the private sector, and the public regarding 

9 green infrastructure approaches for10 "(1) reducing water pollution; 

11 "(2) protecting water resources; 

12 "(3) complying with regulatory requirements; 

13 and 

14 "( 4) achieving other environmental, public 

15 health, and community goals.". 

16 SEC. 5. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY GUIDANCE. 

17 (a) DEFINITIONS.-In this section: 

18 (1) AFFORDABI!JITY.-The term "affordability" 

19 means, with respect to payment of a utility bill, a 

20 measure of whether an individual customer or house21 hold can pay the bill without undue hardship or un22 reasonable sacrifice in the essential lifestyle or 

23 spending patterns of the individual or household, as 

24 determined by the Administrator. 
88 


25243.062

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

13 

1 (2) FINANCIAL CAPABILITY.-The term "finan2 cial capability" means the financial capability of a 

3 community to make investments necessary to make 

4 water quality or drinking water improvements. 

5 (3) GUIDANCE.-The term "guidance" means 

6 the guidance published by the Administrator entitled 

7 "Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Finan8 cial Capability Assessment and Schedule Develop9 ment" and dated February 1997, as applicable to 

10 the combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer 

11 overflows guidance published by the Administrator 

12 entitled "Financial Capability Assessment Frame13 work" and dated November 24, 2014. 

14 (b) USE OF MEDIA.~."l" HOUSEHOLD INCOME.-The 

15 Administrator shall not use median household income as 

16 the sole indicator of affordability for a residential house17 hold. 

18 (c) REVISED GUIDANCE.-

19 (1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 1 year after 

20 the date of completion of the National Academy of 

21 Public Administration study to establish a definition 

22 and framework for community affordability required 

23 by Senate Report 114-70, accompanying S. 1645 

24 (114th Congress), the Administrator shall revise the 

25 guidance described in subsection (a)(3). 
89 


25243.063

MCC17144 S.hC. 

14 

1 (2) USE OF GUIDANCE.-Beginning on the date 

2 on which the revised guidance referred to in para3 graph (1) is finalized, the Administrator shall use 

4 the revised guidance in lieu of the guidance de5 scribed in subsection (a)(3). 

6 (d) CONSIDERATION AND CONSULTATION.-

? (1) CONSIDERATION.-ln revising the guidance, 

8 the Administrator shall consider9 (A) the recommendations of the study re10 ferred to in subsection (c) and any other rel11 evant study, as determined by the Adminis12 trator; 

13 (B) local economic conditions, including 

14 site-specific local conditions that should be 

15 taken into consideration in analyzing financial 

16 capability; 

17 (C) other essential community investments; 

18 (D) potential adverse impacts on distressed 

19 populations, including the percentage of low-in20 come ratepayers within the service area of a 

21 utility and impacts in communities 1vith dis22 parate economic conditions throughout the en23 tire service area of a utility; 

24 (E) the degree to which rates of low-in25 come consumers would be affected by water in-
90 


25243.064

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

15 

1 frastructure investments and the use of rate 

2 structures to address the rates of low-income 

3 consumers; 

4 (P) an evaluation of an array of factors, 

5 the relative importance of which may vary 

6 across regions and localities; and 

7 (G) the appropriate weight for economic, 

8 public health, and environmental benefits asso9 ciated ·with improved water quality. 

10 (2) CONSULTATION.-Any revised guidance 

11 issued to replace the guidance shall be developed in 

12 consultation with stakeholders. 

13 (e) PUBLICATION AND SUBMISSION.-

14 (1) IN GENERAL.-On completion of the revi15 sion of the guidance, the Administrator shall publish 

16 in the Pederal Register and submit to the Com17 mittee on Environment and Public Works of the 

18 Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 

19 Infrastructure of the House of Representatives the 

20 revised guidance. 

21 (2) EXPLAl'JATION.-If the Administrator 

22 makes a determination not to follow 1 or more rec23 ommendations of the study referred to in subsection 

24 (c)(1), the Administrator shall include in the publi-
91 


25243.065

MCC17144 S.L.C. 

16 

1 cation and submission under paragraph (1) an ex2 planation of that decision. 

3 (f) EFFECT.-Nothing in this section preempts or 

4 interferes with any obligation to comply with any Federal 

5 law, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

6 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 
92 


25243.066

MCC17258 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

s.b 1 s S.L.C. 

s~ 

To amend and reauthorize eertain provisions relating to Long Island Sound 

restoration and stewardship. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and Mr. 

MURPHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on _______ _ 

A BILL 

To amend and reauthorize certain provisions relating to Long 

Island Sound restoration and stewardship. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Long Island Sound 

5 Restoration and Stewardship Act". 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

7 (a) LO:'\G ISLA."\D SO"C~D RESTORATION PR0-

8 GRAM.-Section 119 of the Federal Water Pollution Con9 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1269) is amended-
93 


25243.067

MCC17258 S.L.C. 

2 

1 ( 1) in subsection (b), by striking the subsection 

2 designation and heading and all that follows through 

3 "The Office shall" and inserting the following: 

4 "(b) OPPICE.-

5 "(1) ESTABLISHMENT.-The Administrator 

6 shall7 "(A) continue to carry out the conference 

8 study; and 

9 "(B) establish an office, to be located on 

10 or near Long Island Sound. 

11 "(2) ADMINISTRATION AND STAF'PING.-The 

12 Office shall"; 

13 (2) in subsection (c)-

14 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph ( 1), 

15 by striking "Management Conference of the 

16 Long Island Sound Study" and inserting "con17 ference study"; 

18 (B) in paragraph (2)-

19 (i) in each of subparagraphs (A) 

20 through (G), by striking the commas at 

21 the end of the subparagraphs and inserting 

22 semicolons; 

23 (ii) in subparagraph (H), by striking 

24 ", and" and inserting a semicolon; 
94 


25243.068

MCC17258 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

3 

(iii) in subparagraph (I), by striking 

the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

(iv) by adding at the end the following: 

"(J) environmental impacts on the Long 

Island Sound watershed, including-

"(i) the identification and assessment 

of vulnerabilities in the watershed; 

"(ii) the development and implementation of adaptation strategies to reduce 

those vulnerabilities; and 

"(iii) the identification and assessment of the impacts of sea level rise on 

water quality, habitat, and infrastructure; 

and 

"(K) planning initiatives for Long Island 

Sound that identifY the areas that are most 

suitable for various types or classes of activities 

in order to reduce conflicts among uses, reduce 

adverse environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, or preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental, security, 

or social objectives;"; 
95 


25243.069

MCC17258 S.L.C. 

4 

1 (C) by striking paragraph ( 4) and insert2 ing the following: 

3 " ( 4) develop and implement strategies to in4 crease public education and awareness with respect 

5 to the ecological health and water quality conditions 

6 of Long Island Sound;"; 

7 (D) in paragraph (5), by inserting "study" 

8 after "conference"; 

9 (E) in paragraph (6)-

10 (i) by inserting "(including on the 

11 Internet)" after "the public"; and 

12 (ii) by inserting "study" after "con13 ference"; and 

14 (F) by striking paragraph (7) and insert15 ing the following: 

16 "(7) monitor the progress made toward meeting 

17 the identified goals, actions, and schedules of the 

18 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, 

19 including through the implementation and support 

20 of a monitoring system for the ecological health and 

21 water quality conditions of Long Island Sound; 

22 and"; 

23 (3) in subsection (d)(3), in the second sentence, 

24 by striking "50 per centum" and inserting "60 per25 cent"; 
96 


25243.070

MCC17258 S.L.C. 

5 

1 ( 4) by redesignating subsection (f) as sub2 section (i); and 

3 (5) by inserting after subsection (e) the fol4 lowing: 

5 "(f) REPORT.-

6 "(1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 2 years 

7 after the date of enactment of the Long Island 

8 Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act, and bienni9 ally thereafter, the Director of the Office, in conI 0 sultation with the Governor of each Long Island 

11 Sound State, shall submit to Congress a report 

12 that13 "(A) summarizes and assesses the progress 

14 made by the Office and the Long Island Sound 

15 States in implementing the Long Island Sound 

16 Comprehensive Conservation and Management 

17 Plan, including an assessment of the progress 

18 made toward meeting the performance goals 

19 and milestones contained in the Plan; 

20 "(B) assesses the key ecological attributes 

21 that reflect the health of the ecosystem of the 

22 Long Island Sound watershed; 

23 " (C) describes any substantive modifica24 tions to the Long Island Sound Comprehensive 

25 Conservation and Management Plan made dur-
97 


25243.071

l\iCC17258 S.L.C. 

6 

1 ing the 2-year period preceding the date of sub2 mission of the report; 

3 "(D) provides specific recommendations to 

4 improve progress in restoring and protecting 

5 the Long Island Sound watershed, including, as 

6 appropriate, proposed modifications to the Long 

7 Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and 

8 Management Plan; 

9 "(E) identifies priority actions for imple10 mentation of the Long Island Sound Com11 prehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

12 for the 2-year period following the date of sub13 mission of the report; and 

14 "(F) describes the means by which Federal 

15 funding and actions will be coordinated with the 

16 actions of the Long Island Sound States and 

17 other entities. 

18 "(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.-The Adminis19 trator shall make the report described in paragraph 

20 (1) available to the public, including on the Internet. 

21 "(g) ~~KUAL BUDGET PLAN.-The President shall 

22 submit, together with the annual budget of the United 

23 States Government submitted under section 1105(a) of 

24 title 31, United States Code, information regarding each 

25 Federal department and agency involved in the protection 
98 


25243.072

MCC17258 S.L.C. 

7 

1 and restoration of the Long Island Sound watershed, in2 cluding3 "(1) an interagency crosscut budget that dis4 plays for each department and agency5 "(A) the amount obligated during the pre6 ceding fiscal year for protection and restoration 

7 projects and studies relating to the watershed; 

8 "(B) the estimated budget for the current 

9 fiscal year for protection and restoration 

10 projects and studies relating to the watershed; 

11 and 

12 "(C) the proposed budget for succeeding 

13 fiscal years for protection and restoration 

14 projects and studies relating to the watershed; 

15 and 

16 "(2) a summary of any proposed modifications 

17 to the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conserva18 tion and Management Plan for the following fiscal 

19 year. 

20 "(h) FEDERAL ENTITIES.-

21 "(1) COORDINATION.-The Administrator shall 

22 coordinate the actions of all Federal departments 

23 and agencies that impact water quality in the Long 

24 Island Sound watershed in order to improve the 

25 water quality and living resources of the watershed. 
99 


25243.073

lV!CC17258 S.L.C. 

8 

1 "(2) METHODS.-In carrymg out this section, 

2 the Administrator, acting through the Director of 

3 the Office, may4 "(A) enter into interagency agreements; 

5 

6 

and 

"(B) make intergovernmental personnel 

7 appointments. 

8 "(3) FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN WATERSHED 

9 PLA.t"\JNING.-A Federal department or agency that 

10 owns or occupies real property, or carries out activi11 ties, within the Long Island Sound watershed shall 

12 participate in regional and subwatershed planning, 

13 protection, and restoration activities with respect to 

14 the watershed. 

15 "(4) CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE CON16 SERVATION AND J.VIANAGEMENT PLAN.-To the max.-

17 imum extent praeticable, the head of each Federal 

18 department and agency that ovvns or occupies real 

19 property, or carries out activities, within the Long 

20 Island Sound watershed shall ensure that the prop21 erty and all activities carried out by the department 

22 or agency are consistent with the Long Island Sound 

23 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

24 (including any related subsequent agreements and 

25 plans).". 
100 


25243.074

MCC17258 S.L.C. 

9 

1 (b) LONG ISLAl'\TD SOUND STEWARDSHIP PR0-

2 GRAM.-

3 (1) LONG ISLAl"\TD SOUND STEWARDSHIP ADvi4 SORY COMMITTEE.-Section 8 of the Long Island 

5 Sound Stewardship Act of 2006 (33 U.S.C. 1269 

6 note; Public Law 109-359) is amended7 (A) in subsection (g), by striking "2011" 

8 and inserting "2023"; and 

9 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

10 "(h) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.-The Federal 

11 Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply 

12 to13 "(1) the Advisory Committee; or 

14 "(2) any board, committee, or other group es15 tablished under this Act.". 

16 (2) REPORTS.-Section 9(b)(1) of the Long Is17 land Sound Stewardship Act of 2006 (33 U.S.C. 

18 1269 note; Public Law 109-359) is amended in the 

19 matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 

20 "2011" and inserting "2023". 

21 (3) AUTHORIZATION.-Section 11 of the Long 

22 Island Sound Stewardship Act of 2006 (33 U.S.C. 

23 1269 note; Public Law 109-359) is amended24 (A) by striking subsection (a); 
101 


25243.075

MCC17258 S.L.C. 

10 

1 (B) by redesignating subsections (b) 

2 through (d) as subsections (a) through (c), re3 spectively; and 

4 (C) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated), 

5 by striking "under this section each" and in6 serting "to carry out this Act for a". 

7 ( 4) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made 

8 by this subsection take effect on October 1, 2011. 

9 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.-There are authorized to be appro11 priated to the Administrator of the Environmental Protec12 tion Agency such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal 

13 years 2018 through 2023 for the implementation of14 (1) section 119 of the Federal Water Pollution 

15 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1269), other than subsection 

16 (d) of that section; and 

17 (2) the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act of 

18 2006 (33 U.S.C. 1269 note; Public Law 109-359). 

19 (b) LONG ISLAND SOUND GRA.~TS.-There is author20 ized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Envi21 ronmental Protection Agency to carry out section 119(d) 

22 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

23 1269(d)) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 

24 through 2023. 
102 

Æ 


25243.076

MCC17258 S.L.C. 

11 

1 (c) LONG ISLAND SOUND STEWARDSHIP GRA.l'\''l'S.-

2 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Adminis3 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry 

4 out the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act of 2006 (33 

5 U.S.C. 1269 note; Public Law 109-359) $25,000,000 for 

6 each of fiscal years 2018 through 2023.