U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

57–485 PDF 2010

PUTTING AMERICA BACK TO WORK 

THROUGH CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT 

(111–129) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

July 15, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland Vice Chair 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

VACANCY 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Hawkins, George S., General Manager, District of Columbia Water and Sewer 

Authority ............................................................................................................... 4 

Holloway, Caswell F., Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection ................................................................................................. 4 

Marcason, Hon. Jan, City Council Member, City of Kansas City, Missouri, 

on behalf of the National League of Cities ........................................................ 4 

Soth, Jeffrey, Assistant Director, Department of Legislative and Political Affairs, International Union of Operating Engineers, on behalf of the National 

Construction Alliance II ...................................................................................... 4 

Vander Molen, Dennis, President, Vermeer Midsouth, Inc., on behalf of the 

Associated Equipment Distributors .................................................................... 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Johnson, Hon. Hank, of Georgia ............................................................................. 30 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 34 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hawkins, George S. ................................................................................................. 35 

Holloway, Caswell F. ............................................................................................... 39 

Marcason, Hon. Jan ................................................................................................. 46 

Soth, Jeffrey ............................................................................................................. 51 

Vander Molen, Dennis ............................................................................................. 55 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Holloway, Caswell F., Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, response to request for information from the Subcommittee .............................................................................................................. 44 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 57485.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57485.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57485.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57485.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57485.005
(1) 

PUTTING AMERICA BACK TO WORK 

THROUGH CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

INVESTMENT 

Thursday, July 15, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson 

[Chairman of the Cubcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Committee will come to order and let me first 

apologize for being late, it is because of votes. And I’m aware that 

Mr. Holloway has to leave not later than 3:30, and we will try to 

make sure you get your testimony in before. 

Today’s hearing, of course, will focus on the success of clean 

water infrastructure funding and how that investment has helped 

to create and sustain jobs during the current economic downturn. 

Since Congress passed the Recovery Act, this committee has been 

tracking its progress, particularly in terms of investments of Recovery Act dollars and clean water infrastructure. Successful implementation of this legislation has been essential to our collective efforts to turn our economy around and create well-paying jobs here 

in America. I am happy to report that of the $4 billion provided by 

the Recovery Act for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has awarded 100 percent 

of these funds and capitalization grants to States. Further, according to the EPA, some 5,177 jobs were created with these monies. 

That really is good news, sometimes we can’t tell it. 

In my home State of Texas, as of May 31st, 2010, all of our funds 

have been committed and are under contract, and all of the projects 

are underway. Approximately, $172 million has been allocated for 

20 projects. And according to figures collected by this committee, 

this funding has created a sustained 286 jobs in May of this year 

alone. Those are jobs that would have been lost or never created. 

And these are 20 projects that never would have seen the light of 

day. 

I would like to see this the continued success through the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund. In order for that to happen, Congress 

needs to reauthorize the program to allow for more adequate appropriations to EPA, to make capitalization grants to States for 

2 

clean water infrastructure. This House has already passed the 

Water Quality Financing Act of 2009 which would do just that. 

Also, the Energy and Commerce Committee has done their part 

by moving their legislation to reauthorize the drinking water state 

revolving fund out of their committee. We hope that the House will 

soon have the opportunity to vote on it. The Senate has also moved 

their legislation to reauthorize both the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund out of the 

environmental and public works committee. 

It is my sincere wish that both Chambers will meet in conference 

so that we can finally get this vital legislation signed into law. We 

need to do this so that these important programs can continue to 

fund this critical infrastructure and provide more good jobs for 

working Americans. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today on the importance of continuing investment in clean 

water infrastructure. 

The chair now recognizes our ranking member, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair for holding this important hearing. The Congressional Budget Office EPA and the Water 

Infrastructure Network have estimated that it could take between 

300 and $400 billion to address our Nation’s clean water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years to keep our drinking water and 

waterways clean and safe. This is twice the current level investment by all levels of government. These needs are being well documented in our subcommittee prior hearings. It was 1 year ago 

today that we held a similar hearing on the benefits of wastewater 

infrastructure. Our Nation’s quality of life and economic well-being 

rely on clean water. Our Nation has invested over 250 billion on 

wastewater infrastructure to provide adequate wastewater treatment so that we can keep our waters clean. 

This investment has provided significant, environmental and public health benefits and contributes over $300 billion of economic 

benefits to the Nation each year. The challenge to continue providing clean water remains as our existing national wastewater infrastructure is aging and deteriorating and in need of repair, replacement and upgrading. 

In March 2009, the House of Representatives passed legislation 

that would authorize increased funding for wastewater infrastructure through a reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving 

Loan Fund administered by EPA. This bill is designed to help communities meet their growing demand for wastewater infrastructure 

needs and improve water quality. While I remained genuinely concerned regarding the adverse effects that the Davis-Bacon providing wage requirements will have on jobs and clean water. I supported the legislation on balance. If we do not start investing in our 

wastewater infrastructure now, it is going to cost our Nation billions more in the future. And when we do invest Federal funds in 

infrastructure, we need to do it in ways that will give us the best 

clean water value for the dollar. 

For many families in America, the recession is far from over as 

unemployment continues to increase. We can debate the merits and 

demerits of the stimulus package enacted in 2009, but I think we 

have a bipartisan agreement here on the committee that not 

enough money has been devoted to job creating infrastructure 

3 

projects. Today’s hearing will highlight the positive ripple effects in 

the economy provided by investments in clean water infrastructure 

projects. 

The debate has moved beyond the calculation of job creation statistics. Debating job creation and its associated statistics are irrelevant. We all know that a robust economy produces jobs. Yet, according to the Associated General Contractors, 22,000 jobs were 

lost in the construction trades market during the month of June 

and unemployment construction trades remains at 21 percent. 

These are not positive trends and it is clear that the stimulus bill 

did little to create jobs. 

Too many stimulus dollars were allocated to other types of frivolous spending while too few dollars were devoted to infrastructure 

projects that not only produce jobs, but also lasting public benefits. 

The administration claimed the stimulus package would help the 

unemployment from going above 8 percent. However the Nation 

has had an unemployment rate of close to 10 percent for the last 

year. Now some of the administration are saying that the stimulus 

package was necessary to keep unemployment from below 12 percent. Given the fact that the transportation projects and other infrastructure projects like flood damage reduction and wastewater 

treatment projects provide economic benefits to the Nation, the administration and the Congress need to place a higher priority on 

the work of the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA’s Clean Water 

State Revolving Loan benefit loan fund and Brownsville program. 

Without efficient transportation systems the Nation’s 

competitives will suffer. Without a strong economy, the Nation’s 

environment will suffer, without—it is evident that we are now 

paying a heavier price for a stimulus bill that shortchanged the infrastructure investment. 

I would like to offer special welcome to one of our witnesses, 

Dennis Vander Molen, whose company has a number of important 

facilities in my congressional district in Arkansas. I thank you, 

Madam Chair, for holding this important hearing again, and I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I now will go directly to the 

panel. Our first witness this afternoon is Councilwoman Jan 

Marcason, she is a city council member for the City of Kansas City, 

Missouri. However, today she is testifying on behalf of the National 

League of Cities. 

Next is Mr. Caswell Holloway. Mr. Holloway is Commissioner of 

the New York City State Department of Environmental Protection. 

I know you have to leave. In your testimony that you submitted, 

you talked about the timing of which this had to come and it could 

have been better used. Would you comment on that when you are 

testifying? 

And our third witness is Mr. George Hawkins. He is the general 

manager of the District of Columbia water and sewer authority. 

Our fourth witness is Mr. Dennis Vander Molen. He is testifying 

on behalf of the Associated Equipment Distributors today. 

And lastly, Mr. Jeffrey Soth, who will testify on behalf of the National Construction Alliance II. Your full statements will be placed 

in the record so we ask you to limit your testimony to 5 minutes. 

4 

STATEMENTS OF HON. JAN MARCASON, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; CASWELL F. HOLLOWAY, 

COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GEORGE S. HAWKINS, GENERAL 

MANAGER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY; DENNIS VANDER MOLEN, PRESIDENT, VERMEER 

MIDSOUTH, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS; AND JEFFREY SOTH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL 

AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION ALLIANCE II 

Ms. JOHNSON. We know we are late, and I know some of you are 

on a tight schedule now so thank you and I now recognize Ms. 

Marcason. 

Ms. MARCASON. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Boozman and members of the Committee. I am Jan 

Marcason, a city councilwoman from Kansas City, Missouri. I am 

here on behalf of the National League of Cities, the oldest and largest organization representing cities and towns across America. I 

appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on the important role of water infrastructure investment in creating jobs, protecting the environment and improving the quality of life in our 

home towns, and specifically, in my hometown of Kansas City, Missouri. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your resent visit to Kansas 

City to see firsthand the green infrastructure solutions that our 

city is incorporating in its overflow control plan. We were also 

pleased to host Chairman Oberstar who came to Kansas City to 

learn more about our infrastructure plan. As you witnessed, Kansas City is implementing an innovative and ambitious plan to improve the city’s water quality by overhauling our sewer system and 

implementing green infrastructure solutions such as rain gardens 

and bioretention facilities to intercept, store and infiltrate storm 

water runoff, thereby significantly reducing discharges of untreated 

sewage that overflows into our lakes, streams and rivers. 

Kansas City’s plan was developed with the significant input of 

our community stakeholders. We undertook a large scale community involvement project to gather information from residents about 

the kinds of improvements that they would like to see in their 

neighborhood. The Wet Weather Community Panel was comprised 

of 20 citizens and subject matter experts that met every month for 

5 years. I served as the city council liaison to that panel. It became 

clear that the community wanted more than just new pipes and 

treatment facilities. They wanted multiple benefits often called the 

triple bottom line. 

The multiple benefits include environmental, social and financial 

benefits from our infrastructure improvements. Residents and business owners both want clean water, but they also want attractive 

sidewalks to encourage walking and way to reduce speeding on 

their neighborhood streets. They want infrastructure improvements 

to encourage business development in underserved neighborhoods 

5 

in particular. And they want a system that is affordable for residents and business customers. 

The plan that Kansas City developed is a cost-effective approach 

to addressing our aging infrastructure. Green solutions actually reduced the cost of implementing our plan. In the target green pilot 

project area of 100 acres, the city will save an estimated $10 million by implementing green solutions instead of the traditional retention tanks that were first proposed to address storm water runoff. The investment our city is making will have a tremendous impact on our local economy. Our plan is a 25-year, $2.5 billion program, the largest economic development project in our city’s history. It is projected that it will create nearly 20,000 good paying 

jobs over the life of the project, some in the areas of the emerging 

technology, and others in design, engineering and construction. The 

28 communities served by Kansas City Water Services Department 

will all be direct beneficiaries of these improvements and will also 

benefit from the economic development opportunities provided by 

the system. 

Local engineering companies, nonprofit job training organizations, and educational institutions are all working together to prepare the workforce for the multitude of jobs that implementing our 

plan will require. To the extent that our water infrastructure is 

properly maintained and can adequately meet the needs of our 

communities, it will help ensure the long-term vitality of our cities. 

As Kansas City is demonstrating investment in water infrastructure and other infrastructure systems will create good paying jobs 

and enable business development that is the essential component 

to a thriving local economy. However, improving the infrastructure 

system to protect the public health and promote our local economies requires a substantial investment. 

The latest U.S. EPA clean water sheds needs survey of January 2008 documents a nearly $300 billion need for wastewater and 

storm water management over the next 20 years. My own State of 

Missouri documented needs totaling 6 per $5 billion. 

Federal assistance in meeting these needs has declined by 75 

percent over the last 20 years, while municipal costs for operation 

and maintenance of our aging systems has dramatically increased. 

Given the level of need governments at all levels must do more to 

protect and modernize our Nation’s water infrastructure systems. 

In terms of the Federal Government, this means reauthorizing and 

fully funding the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund program 

by fully funding this program and its companion, the Drinking 

Water SRF, and including requirements that States make a portion 

of such funds available as grants to local governments. 

The Federal Government can help ensure that communities have 

the resources needed to protect and maintain the wastewater and 

drinking water treatment facilities that serve our residents and 

businesses. To help fund implementation of our plan, Kansas City 

is requesting Clean Water SRF funds loans and grants from the 

State of Missouri. However, the city is relying on user fees and rate 

increases to residents to pay for our overflow control plan. So far, 

these fees and rate increases have not been insignificant. Since 

2008 the average residential water utility bill has increased 44 percent. In order to keep future fees and rates affordable to our citiVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:46 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57485.TXT JEAN
6 

zens and our businesses, the availability of funds through the SRF 

program is essential. 

The National League of Cities wants to thank the committee for 

its leadership in approving legislation and reauthorizing the Clean 

Water SRF program. NLC supported the Water Quality Investment 

Act of 2009 that passed the House last year, and continues to urge 

the Senate to bring similar legislation to the floor for consideration. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on behalf 

of America’s cities and towns. On behalf of the National League of 

Cities, I have submitted written testimony for your consideration 

and I look forward to your questions later on. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Holloway. 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Thank you, good afternoon, Madam Chair. I am 

Cas Holloway, Commissioner of the New York City Department of 

Environmental Protection, or as we are known in New York City, 

DEP. On behalf of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify about the critical water on wastewater infrastructure challenges that we face serving 9 million New Yorkers, 

8 million in the city and 1 million more upstate in New York. 

Over the past 7 years we have invested $19 billion in our water 

and wastewater infrastructure and our budgeted amount for the 

next 4 years is $6 billion. We employ 6,000 men and women who 

provide water and sewer services to the residents of New York City 

as well as commuters and out-of-towners. We manage the city’s 

water supply providing more than a billion gallons of water a day 

from a watershed that extends 125 miles from New York City. 

We have 7,000 miles of aqueducts, tunnels and water mains that 

bring water to homes and 7,400 miles of sewer lines that take approximately 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater to one of our 14 incity treatment plants every day. That infrastructure could crisscross the country twice. 

DEP also has one of the largest construction budgets in the region. We currently have $11 billion of work under construction, and 

3 billion more in planning or design. And as I noted, our capital 

budget for the next 4 years is approximately $6 billion, which we 

estimate will generate approximately 9,200 construction jobs. We 

receive 219 million in ARRA funding, and that was critical. We estimated it will create as many as 1,400 jobs to do vital work in the 

wastewater and water area that I will discuss in a minute or two. 

A majority of DEP’s capital spending over the past 8 years has 

been dedicated to meeting unfunded Federal and State regulatory 

mandates that require the simultaneous completion of massive capital projects on tight construction schedules. Some of our largest 

current projects went to bid at the height of the construction market in 2006 and 2007. Not because of a pressing public health need, 

but because of Federal and State mandates that didn’t take account of New York City’s particular needs. 

Many of our mandates could have been stretched or modified 

without any appreciable impact on public health of the environment. Which would have enabled us to build less at the same time 

and focus more resources on maintaining our current infrastructure 

in a state of good repair. 

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

one-size-fits-all mandate and enforcement approach to a strategy 

7 

that recognizes and funds the individual needs of water and wastewater utilities based on clearly demonstrated public health need 

and water quality benefits. And I think the funding that we have 

seen in the ARRA Act and its support for things like green infrastructure are really a trend in the right direction. 

Using our own history as an example, about 69 percent of the $19 billion that we spent in the last 7 years have been used to fund 

construction for Federal and State mandates and they have contributed to a 24 percent increase in water rates over that same period. 

Many of the increases that I just mentioned don’t always go 

where the cities most needs it. For example, there are still thousands of New Yorkers who lack sanitary sewer and tens of thousands of New Yorkers who lack storm sewers, completing the full 

build out of that system is an important priority for New York. But 

we have had to defer many projects until legally mandated work 

is complete. For example, as a result of a mandate, we recently 

completed construction on a $422 million tank to deal with combined sewer overflow that will have a valuable but extremely limited impact on one tributary in New York Harbor. 

What we are looking to do is move forward with a broader green 

infrastructure approach and Council Member Marcason mentioned 

that. And we think that the fact that the 2009 ARRA allowed up 

to 20 percent of the $4 billion that was put in the State revolving 

funds to be used for green infrastructure is a great step in the 

right direction. 

The ultimate success, though, is going to depend on the willingness of our regulators at the State and Federal level, that is, the 

EPA and State DEC, to embrace these new methods in a collaborative and flexible approach rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. 

Now, the grand provisions of ARRA were an extremely welcome 

return to the pattern of Federal environmental funding that drastically declined at the end of the 1980’s and essentially ended at 

the end of the 1990’s. We received $219 million, as I noted, and we 

are moving forward with nine separate projects that are going to 

reduce our energy emissions, make our plants more efficient, and 

provide update critical infrastructure that really wouldn’t have 

moved forward at all, but for this critical funding. 

Overall, ARRA has allowed DEP to move on projects that would 

have been shelved or delayed. However, using the State Revolving 

Fund Loan program did create certain difficulties as it has restrictions and administrative burdens that don’t allow us to use money 

as flexibly as we would like to. 

If Congress considered a second ARRA program, we recommend 

making it a 100 percent grant program and perhaps add an element that provides for direct grants to localities like New York 

City, with the demonstrating capacity to put dollars to work quickly and create jobs and provide the public benefit, Madam Chair, 

that you and Mr. Boozman talked about at the beginning of the 

hearing. 

We also recommend an extension of the Build America Bonds 

program which is providing our water and sewer system with more 

cost effective financing for capital projects. 

8 

Before closing, I just want to say a couple quick word about the 

Water Quality Investment Act of 2009, which embodies a comprehensive approach to clean water initiatives and infrastructure 

financing. The reauthorization of 13.8 billion over 5 years recognizes the range of needs, large and small, for water and wastewater systems. We support the 30 percent SRF funds to be used 

for forgiveness of principle and negative interest loans. We support 

authorizing 2.5 billion over 5 years for grants for combined sewer 

overflows. And we support the elements for water conservation, 

which were important parts of the Mayor’s PlaNYC program. Our 

blueprint for a sustainable city that has become a national model. 

We are pleased to see that the legislation seeks more research 

about pharmaceuticals while the presence of the potential pharmaceutical and the water supply has raised a lot of attention lately. 

It is critically important that any new regulation in this area be 

based on demonstrated public health need and not simply the 

availability of monitoring or treatment technology. 

In conclusion, I believe that ARRA has been a success when it 

comes to projects undertaken by DEP. Those funds allowed us to 

create jobs and productive assets that serve the public for years to 

come. However, much remains to be done to ensure that Federal 

standards, if they are to be imposed, actually achieve water quality 

and public health benefits and come with the funding necessary to 

carry them out. Otherwise, unfunded mandates will continue to 

substitute Federal and State judgement about system needs for the 

judgment of cities like New York with expertise and experience to 

make smart investments that have a large public health return 

with lowest cost. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hawkins. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Good afternoon. Good afternoon Chairwoman 

Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman, members of the Subcommittee of Water Resources and the Environment. My name is 

George Hawkins, the general manager of the DC Water, the utility 

that provides water to every building in the District of Columbia, 

including this one. One of my goals some day is actually to have 

D.C.’s finest up here as the drinking water and can talk to you 

about that in the days ahead. 

I am delighted to be here to testify with one fundamental message: It is my thesis that a dollar spent on water and wastewater 

infrastructure is the single best Federal dollar that can be invested 

in this country, and I would like to do a very short summary to 

suggest why. 

First is to the benefits of using DC Water as the example. Number 1, this is a dollar that achieves vital environmental improvements. In the Chesapeake Bay, we know how much attention has 

been applied to the Chesapeake Bay. There is only one place that 

achieve the 2010 goals, clean-up goals for the Chesapeake Bay nitrogen removal, that was the DC Water’s Blue Plains Treatment 

plant just in the southern part of the city. That was a billion dollar 

investment over the last 10 years made by the Federal Government, made by Washington, D.C., and with jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia, able to achieve the goals for 2010. 

9 

We will also achieve with a $900 million expenditure the next 

level of goals for the Chesapeake scheduled for 2015. So there is 

direct and immediate environmental benefits to water features and 

natural resources that are absolutely vital to us as a society. 

Second is the service which provide. There is no job, there is no 

business, there is no building, there is no home that can get a certificate of occupancy without adequate connection for water and 

sewer service. That is one of the only obligations you must have, 

and without with you cannot get in a building. I have been there 

because I used to run the permitting agency. In that respect, I believe water and wastewater can take some credit to every job in 

Washington, D.C. Because they all rely fundamentally on the service we offer. But the second feature of that is I regularly attend 

when we have disruptions to service, I will discuss in the minute 

the age of the system in our fair national capital city, but when 

this service is not available, there is an immediate negative consequence to every homeowner, to every business and to every 

neighborhood when you are not able to provide water and wastewater services. The restaurants close, the hotels close, the businesses close, because they can’t stay open without our service. 

There is a fundamental service. 

Third is obviously the jobs, DC Water has 1,200 members of 

what I call team blue. We have five unions and one of the largest 

blue collar workforces in Washington. We have direct connection to 

training programs in the high schools in the city as well as the 

University of District of Columbia. These are not only jobs, but 

many of these jobs are entry-level positions that are accessible to 

people who are not always part of the rest of the job market. We 

offer positions and opportunities that are unique in this city and 

are growing. Over the next 10 years, we anticipate we will be hiring more through contractors, 7 to 900 more jobs in order to continue improve infrastructure the city. So a dollar spent on infrastructure provides environmental benefit, provides services and 

provides jobs. 

What is the need? I will use our fair city as the example. The 

average age of the water pipes that serve this building and every 

other building in this city is 77 years. Ten percent of the pipes in 

the city were put in before 1900, 3 percent before the Civil War. 

It is no wonder that they break with regularity. We have, as a 

country, not been investing the funds needed to update these absolutely critical infrastructure. And who is surprised when the line 

straight up Pennsylvania Avenue 21st just 2 weeks ago broke when 

it was put in the ground in 1857, that is an infrastructure need 

that is critical, it is daily and in every major city in the United 

States. 

We are doing our part. Of course, we seek support from the Federal Government. I just finished 20 outreach meetings all over the 

city including one last night. We have proposed a 12–1/2 percent 

rate increase for our residents in D.C. to provide this service; that 

is no small task in the middle of a recession, but that is what we 

feel is necessary in order to improve the infrastructure that is so 

vital to all of us. 

And last, your role. There is no question in our mind that funds 

that come to us with the clean revolving fund as well as the drinkVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:46 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57485.TXT JEAN
10 

ing water revolving fund as supplemented by ARRA funds had 

been integral to our ability to provide this service, to drive additional jobs and do additional projects and to lessen the burdens on 

our rate payers. It is city agencies, in many respects, that are doing 

a lot of these expenditures. And as much as other lobbies and otherwise legitimately raise concerns about costs to their members. 

Fair enough. But remember who has been bearing the burden in 

this city and so many others, it is some of our lowest income people 

who have suffered these rate increases, including here in Washington, DC. 

I stood in front of an audience last night presenting 12–1/2 percent increase, this was after a 9 percent increase last year and a 

projected 9 percent increase next year. So we are stepping up at 

the local level with the people who serve us, and we are so grateful 

of the support that has been supported in the past from the Federal Government. But as I have suggested, the dozens, we have 97 

projects ultimately that are planned, that are connected to stimulus funds, not as many as we would have liked have been initiated, they are all under contract. The permitting process, I am now 

actually the regulated party, I was the regulator for years. We have 

been waiting to be able to get some of our permits, but there will 

be hundreds of jobs in this city connected to people who need them, 

driven by Federal funding that will then support the city that we 

so much love. So I am grateful for the opportunity, I will be delighted to answer questions. Glad to be here today, thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Vander Molen. 

Mr. VANDER MOLEN. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman 

Johnson and Ranking Member Boozman and other distinguished 

members of this subcommittee. It is my pleasure to appear before 

you today both as a small business owner who is directly affected 

by the water infrastructure investment, and also in my capacity as 

the 2010 AED chairman. AED is an international trade association 

that represents independent authorized distributors of construction, mining, forestry and agricultural equipment. And Vermeer 

Midsouth is a family-owned company which headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee, and we rent, and sell, and support Vermeer construction equipment throughout the four States of Mississippi, Arkansas, north Louisiana and west Tennessee. And of course, we 

have a couple of locations in Congressman Boozman’s areas of Russellville and Springdale. 

I appreciate the opportunity to come before this subcommittee to 

discuss how equipment distributors and other small companies are 

affected by the State Revolving Fund programs and water infrastructure investment in general. I would like to really take my 

time to highlight three key issues. 

First, the construction equipment industry has been affected as 

much as any other in this economic downturn. For us, the recession 

has been nothing short of a depression. A study conducted last year 

by Global Insight for AED and the Associated Equipment Manufacturers painted a very grim picture. From 2007 to 2009, spending 

on construction machinery fell 50 percent. Over the last 3 years, 

equipment manufacturers distributors and maintenance providers 

shed 257,000 jobs, representing a stunning 37 percent of our workVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:46 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57485.TXT JEAN
11 

force. The effects of our industry downturn have been felt well beyond the dealer yards and manufacturing plants. Global Insight 

also estimated that the equipment industry depression has cost an 

additional 274,000 jobs in a broader economy. In total, the downturn in the equipment industry has cost 550,000 jobs nationwide 

since 2006. 

My second point is that the water infrastructure investment including a multiyear reauthorization of both the drinking water and 

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs is one of the keys 

to the recovery in the equipment industry. An estimated $0.12 of 

every dollar invested in water infrastructure construction is used 

by contractors to buy and rent and service equipment. The Water 

Quality Investment Act, which would authorize more than 14 billion over 5 years for the Clean Water SRF would create an estimated 1.68 billion in market opportunity for our members over the 

life of that bill. 

I would commend this subcommittee for its leadership on this 

important legislation which will put people back to work in well 

paying, manufacturing and sales and product support jobs in communities throughout the country. 

My third and final point is that increased water infrastructure 

investment at the Federal level will have benefits well beyond the 

equipment industry. Last summer, the Clean Water Council of 

which AED is a leading member announced the results of a highly 

anticipated study regarding the economic impact of water infrastructure investment. Specifically, the report showed that a $1 billion investment in water infrastructure generates 2.87 and 3.46 billion in economic activity, and creates more than 26,000 new jobs. 

About half of those jobs are in industries outside of water and 

wastewater construction, further illustrating the broad reach of the 

initial investment. Each $1 billion invested also generates approximately 82.4 million in State and local tax revenue. 

In addition to the positive economic impact, the increased water 

infrastructure investment will have significant environmental and 

public health benefits. EPA recently released a new clean water 

sheds needs survey which estimated that as of January 1, 2008, 

national capital investment needs for wastewater pollution control 

are $298 billion. Those needs are in addition to the 334 billion investment EPA estimates to repair and rebuild our Nation’s water 

infrastructure. 

To sum it up, our Nation faces an unparalleled infrastructure crisis. Immediate and aggressive congressional action is necessary to 

ensure that our water infrastructure systems do not deteriorate 

further, and that the Federal Government has the resources it 

needs to address the crisis. The problem will be only more expensive to solve as the time goes on. It is for the foregoing reasons that 

AED urges Congress to rapidly enact long-term sewer and drinking 

water SRF reauthorization bills to dramatically increase investment and to create sustainable revenue strains and funding mechanisms. 

We look forward to working with the members of this subcommittee and with your House and Senate colleagues in a bipartisan manner to achieve these goals. Thank you for the time to 

share with you, and I would be glad to answer any questions. 

12 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Soth. 

Mr. SOTH. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Boozman and distinguished members of the Water Resources and 

Environment Subcommittee. My name is Jeffrey Soth. While I am 

the assistant director of the legislative and political department for 

the International Union of Operating Engineers, I am testifying 

today on behalf of the National Construction Alliance II, a partnership between two of the Nation’s leading construction unions, my 

union, the Operating Engineers, and the United Brotherhood of 

Carpenters and Joiners. 

The two unions of the Alliance represent nearly 1 million workers, many of the same workers who built the Nation’s clean water 

infrastructure. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to join you 

today and testify. 

Chairwoman Johnson, NCA II sincerely values the commitment 

made by Congress and the administration in the Recovery Act to 

reenergize the national economy through infrastructure investments, particularly clean water investments. Those outlays, quite 

literally, pulled the construction industry back from the precipice. 

The sector, however, is still on the ledge. But one thing is perfectly 

clear, more can and should be done by Congress to put America 

back to work through clean water infrastructure investment. Construction spending was down over 13 percent in the first 4 months 

of 2010 as compared to 2009. And as you know, 2009 was one of 

the worst years on record for the industry. 

Last year the unemployment rate peaked at over 21 percent. 

This year, the employment rate in construction reached over 27 

percent. The unemployment rate today is still over 20 percent. 

Since its peak in 2006, construction employment has fallen by over 

2.1 million jobs, or 28 percent of the construction workforce in the 

industry. 

Unfortunately, the same holds true for employment in the water 

and sewer systems sub sector of construction. I refer you to the 

chart on the last page of my testimony where you can see the precipitous drop in employment in the last 2 years from 2007 to 2009. 

Employment in the subsector dropped by over 21 percent between 

those years. 

Obviously there are thousands of carpenters and operating engineers’ families behind those numbers. The NCA II firmly believes 

that the best way to restart the ailing construction economy is to 

get Americans back to work by building the Nation’s wastewater 

systems. These investments will employ thousands of construction 

workers, clean up the Nation’s environment, improve the public 

health of Americans, and accommodate the country’s growing population. The Nation simply cannot afford to keep losing construction 

jobs. The future of the industry is quite literally at stake. 

In partnership with our construction contractors, the carpenters 

and operating engineers maintain apprenticeship and training programs to train the next generation of skilled craft workers. The apprenticeship model delivers careers, not merely jobs for hard working members of the NCA II and other construction crafts. But in 

order to bring an individual apprentice through their program, 

which for carpenters and operating engineers, typically consists of 

13 

3 or 4 years of on-the-job training and classroom instruction there 

must be continuity of work. The apprenticeship model indeed depends on employment and on-the-job training. Widespread unemployment jeopardizes the future of the industry making it impossible to deliver their required on-the-job training hours for a worker to develop his or her skills. Further congressional action is necessary to reverse this trend. 

Madam Chairwoman, despite all the committee’s hard work, the 

Nation’s water infrastructure needs call out for further investment. 

There are four steps that NCA II recommends that Congress take 

to restore employment in water and sewer construction. First, 

please continue to exercise your aggressive informal oversight of 

States and local governments, encouraging them to undertake the 

construction spending that Congress devoted to them in the Recovery Act. Members of the NCA II and other construction workers in 

Louisiana, for example, where one-third of clean water projects are 

not yet underway, need you to bring pressure to bear on the State 

government that it has failed to put your investments to work. 

Second, make another investment in clean and safe drinking 

water in the annual appropriations process. Last year’s appropriation process more than doubled the fiscal year 2009 appropriation, 

clean water infrastructure and construction workers urgently need 

more, and the sooner the better. 

Third, pass the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund Reauthorization. As the committee is painfully aware, it has been over 20 

years since the last authorization was enacted into law. Despite bipartisan support and passage of H.R. 1262 in the House Chamber 

and bipartisan support for S. 1005 in the Senate Environment Public Works Committee as it was passed, the legislation awaits Senate floor action. We are closer than ever to reauthorize the program. We would encourage you to seek immediate passage of the 

bill in the Senate without further delay. 

Lastly, NCA II urges you to support the bipartisan Water Protection and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 3202. As you know, it delivers a 

water trust fund with dedicated revenues for clean and safe drinking water investments. This approach would commit long-term financing to the Nation’s water infrastructure needs while relieving 

pressure on general revenue. 

Chairwoman Johnson and members of this subcommittee, we 

must not lose momentum on the Nation’s economic recovery, the 

economy, the construction sector in particular is still too fragile. 

We are eager to work with you in what is left in this 111th Congress to advance the cause of putting America back to work 

through clean water infrastructure investment. Thank you very 

much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Holloway, I know your time is very short, but I would like 

you to elaborate just a little bit more on the time in which the 

money was received and how it interfered with your work schedule 

and what can we do to improve that. I know that recovery money 

came at a time that we didn’t have much choice, and it had to be 

rapid turnaround. That might be what you are talking about. 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Well, I want to make sure. 

14 

In terms of the ARRA funding, we really worked closely with the 

State, and we were able to get projects funded. In fact, the bids for 

our work came in a little bit lower, so we were able to fund four 

more projects that initially we wouldn’t have been able to fund. So, 

for us, that is good. 

Our main concerns with the funding mechanism are flexibility 

and, overall, the ability to make investments that we think are 

going to the greatest needs in the system. So, while the State Revolving Funds are a good mechanism, number one, making more of 

the available moneys—grants—we believe 100 percent grants is the 

way to go. Then in terms of the State Revolving Fund, while it is 

a useful mechanism, doing direct grants to cities like New York 

City that are responsible, really, for maintaining the ultimate infrastructure we think would be an improvement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I will call on Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

Again, I know you have to go. I enjoyed your testimony, both 

your written and then your stated testimony. 

You know, I think what I am seeing is that—you know, as was 

said, you know, the Federal standards aren’t actually achieving the 

public benefit in all cases, and you know, you mentioned that a majority of your capital spending over the last 8 years was Federal 

mandates. Many times those mandates do not appear to be—you 

know, you are there on the ground, you know, knowing your city 

as well as anybody and trying desperately, you know, to keep rates 

down, and you do what you feel like is in the best interest of the 

public. Yet those don’t seem to match up many, many times, and 

we see that, you know, in the huge area that you have got, and 

then you are seeing that all throughout America. 

But as we commit to increasing funding, it does seem like there 

is a black hole out there that doesn’t address, as Mr. Hawkins 

pointed out, you know, these 1860, you know, areas that need to 

be replaced and that, you know, we are saying that we have got 

to get a standard that can—you understand what I am saying. 

Before you leave, can you just follow up on that a little bit? Then 

we will visit with the rest of the panel about it. 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Absolutely. Thank you for your consideration. I 

apologize for having to get back up to New York City, but I think 

there are a couple of things in terms of what I said in the testimony. 

First, we think that our system has incredible infrastructure 

needs. As Mr. Hawkins talked about, he has 1,200 employees; we 

have 6,000; we have 14,000 miles of pipe; we have 14 wastewater 

treatment plants, each of them with 5,000 moving parts. The state 

of good repair of that infrastructure and Federal funding—not to 

do all the work, but Federal support for decisions that we make at 

the local level we think is, number one, the best way to achieve 

what we need to do, which is treatment; and then achieve water 

quality standards. 

In terms of the standards themselves, there are certain investments. Really, this becomes an issue of scale, particularly in New 

York City, where a standard will be set. And because it is a national standard, even if it is delegated to the State, you know, the 

15 

State has the obligation to enforce what the Federal standard is. 

Then even if you are able to demonstrate through analysis—and we 

do some of the most rigorous analysis out there—that a particular 

investment either isn’t going to achieve the water quality benefit 

or isn’t needed, because the public health risk isn’t there, we would 

rather dedicate those funds then to dealing with the water maintenance and the wastewater treatment plants. We are constrained. 

We can’t do that. 

Mr. Hawkins talked about raising water rates 9 percent last year 

and 12.5 this year. We just had to raise rates. We are a couple 

months ahead of you, I guess, at 12.9 percent. That was the fourth 

double-digit year of increases. 

I think one important thing with mandates is that Mayor 

Bloomberg has made unprecedented investments in water quality, 

and he is going to continue to do so. With PlaNYC, he wrote the 

book, in a way, on creating this sustainable blueprint; but what 

mandates do is they constrain your time, the time in which you 

have to build and make certain investments, and they tend to look 

at water quality issues in this mandate and enforcement way that 

doesn’t take the overall needs of the whole system into consideration. 

So a reauthorization of State revolving funds, a grant program 

that takes those things into account and gives maximum flexibility 

to localities but also looks at the overall regulatory picture. 

I think, you know, the pharmaceuticals is an interesting example 

for us. We made a substantial investment in looking at our watershed, and we did a level of testing, and they developed, basically, 

a new science to do a level of testing to detect at the parts per trillion. 

Now, if you read the language in the bill about pharmaceuticals, 

it could be interpreted at some point down the line to say, well, the 

intention was to actually, you know, prevent these or treat them 

in the system, but that should only happen if there is a demonstrated need to do that treatment. Otherwise, you know, we 

should try to make sure that the dollars go where they are needed. 

I think, overall, we share the same goal as the committee, as the 

EPA, as our regulators: clean drinking water, clean waterways. 

The mayor wants to open up 90 percent of New York City’s waterways to recreation, but we need the maximum amount of flexibility 

to do it and on a timeline that is affordable. You know, in water 

investment, in the water investment world, the reality is, if it happens this year, next year, you can do things over a time period and 

still achieve the overall goals. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

What we are going to do is ask the members who have questions 

to ask the questions. Could you submit the responses in writing so 

that you will be able to go? 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. First, what I would like to have you elaborate on 

is the cooperative partnerships and how we could improve that. 

Congresswoman Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

I just have this one question for Mr. Holloway, and it has to do 

with your point about flexibility. 

16 

I also want to submit for the record a letter from the Washington 

Suburban Sanitary Commission, our system that really talks about 

wanting flexibility. I was curious from you what kind of flexibility 

you think that you need that you don’t have now in terms of your 

ability to spend and use Federal dollars. 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Well, flexibility for us, I think, works on two levels. One is flexibility in terms of spending the funding, and the way 

that that works right now—the way it worked in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the entire $4 billion went through 

the State revolving funds. The State revolving funds have set up— 

each State differs in terms of the rules and the requirements and 

the level of environmental review that you need to go through for 

a project to qualify. 

So, while one thing you can do is work with the State to make 

those regulations as flexible as possible, another way to do it is to 

create parts of the funding that can go directly to the localities. 

You know, we have seen this in the Homeland Security funding as 

a model that has worked where you have both, you know, going 

through the UASI funding, going through the State executive, and 

part of the funding going to the major UASI cities. That has been 

effective. So we think a mix is a way to get the flexibility. 

For example, just as an example, because in New York City, as 

I said, we have 14,000 miles of water and sewer main, we open up 

streets all the time. We try to coordinate our water and sewer replacement projects with our Department of Transportation and, in 

some cases, utility projects. We don’t do an individual environmental review. Every time we open up a street and replace a water 

main, we do a lot of environmental reviews. We don’t do them for 

those projects. It just so happens that the New York State rules require an environmental review, so none of the clean water money 

can be used for those kinds of projects. Now, the Federal grant 

doesn’t establish that restriction, but by putting it through the 

State revolving fund, that restriction then is raised for us. 

So that is flexibility on the funding side. I didn’t want to—I saw 

you were——— 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. I am just curious as to whether you have encountered any issues with respect to EPA requirements around disadvantaged communities. 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Do you mean in terms of the Davis-Bacon 

or——— 

Ms. EDWARDS. No, not disadvantaged businesses. Disadvantaged 

communities and applying Federal funding. 

In the ARRA, for example, there were requirements for serving 

disadvantaged communities, and that impacted at least our local 

ability to set priorities in a different kind of way. And I just wondered if you had encountered any of those same issues. 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. To my knowledge, we didn’t encounter that as a 

particular issue in terms of the projects that we could fund. I think 

that—but let me get back to you on that. I want to make sure that 

we—because I know we were able to ultimately define the projects 

that were able to take advantage of all the funding that was made 

available to us, but I can get back to you on that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Then, lastly, what do you perceive as your flexibility in being able to set your own priorities for Federal funding 

17 

rather than have those, you know, set either outside or by other 

kinds of regulatory requirements? 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Well, right now, for example, New York City is, 

as I am sure many—the council member and I were talking before 

this about consent orders and meeting requirements. 

One of the things that has been certainly at the Federal and 

State levels is the way that you approach, for example, combined 

sewer overflows, which is through tanks, building what is now 

called ‘‘gray infrastructure’’ and putting it in the ground. 

You know, the one example that I have been using over and over 

since I came to the agency is we have a 50-million-gallon tank that 

we are about to turn on in Brooklyn that cost $422 million to build. 

Now, that will have a substantial impact on one tributary in New 

York Harbor, and for that tributary that is undoubtedly a good 

thing, and you want to stop as many CSOs as you possibly can. 

However, when you do the modeling and you ask, ‘‘Well, for that $422 million, what is the overall water quality impact in the harbor in New York City?’’ the improvement is projected to be less 

than 1 percent. 

So then the question becomes, ‘‘Well, what would you do with 

that half billion dollars?’’ which is basically what it is. What we are 

looking at in cities—I think D.C. is making some move here, and 

Philadelphia has put in proposals. 

We think green infrastructure and trying to do more to capture, 

at the source, stormwater and being able to make these investments on a timeline. A lot of these technologies have to be tested. 

You know, of New York City’s permeable surfaces, we don’t have 

much permeable surface. In fact, we are, you know, creating the 

green infrastructure projects that will actually, meaningfully, capture stormwater and deal with it. It is something that I actually 

brought in a new commissioner for, sustainability, whose primary 

job is to deal with this issue. Now, in order for us to succeed, the 

funding is starting to be there. I think the ARRA funding that was 

specifically made available for green infrastructure is a great signal. 

On the regulatory side, though, there has to be a willingness to 

say, Well, wait a minute. If you are going to be making these investments, then green infrastructure can not only give you the 

water quality improvement but also the long-term public benefit of 

a park or a swale or trees or all of the things that those kinds of 

investments can provide. 

Are we going to be able to have the willingness to open up the 

current agreements and orders and negotiate timelines and frameworks that are going to enable us to try, fail and try again, but ultimately get to the same water quality standard in the end, which 

we think we can do? That is a big challenge, and EPA has made 

some good—we have heard some good things from the EPA on that, 

but the proof is really going to be in the pudding there. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Holloway, you passed the time for you to go. 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Well, thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. If there is any other testimony you would like us 

to know about, you may send it, and we will be happy to receive 

it. 

Mr. HOLLOWAY. Absolutely. Thank you. 

18 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Now we will go back. Thanks to all of you for your patience in 

allowing him to complete his work and to get back. 

Before we go to Mr. Boozman, our chair of the full committee has 

come in. He is always very knowledgeable, so I am going to recognize him. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just want to sit here and listen and take in the testimony. I 

wanted to thank the Commissioner from New York for his contribution and to welcome City Council Member Jan Marcason and 

to thank her for the warm welcome I received in Kansas City, the 

city of water and fountains and beauty. I had never visited before, 

and I was treated to a great eye-opening experience. Thank you 

very much. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Hawkins, you testified about all of the areas 

and of running into different roadblocks, you know, as far as getting your permits and things. It sounds like you are an old permitter, and now you are, you know, on the other side of the fence. 

You know, we have statistics about how long it takes to complete 

a road, you know, once the project—and, you know, with all of the 

hoops you have to jump through.You know, it might take 9 or 10 

years, you know, to do that. 

Tell us about, you know, the similar stuff that goes on in getting 

through the permitting process. 

I guess the other thing I would like to know—and you all are 

welcome to jump in—is how much does that cost the system, as far 

as in the road situation, if we could get rid of some of the duplication, you know, some of the permitting process, and not do away 

with what we are trying to accomplish, you know, in protecting the 

public, protecting the environment, doing things right? You know, 

if we could streamline the process, how much money would that 

save you as you try and grapple with these difficult situations? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Thanks for that question. 

If I may just for one second respond on the issue of my compatriot from New York, I would state that, as to his notion that direct grants to cities offers more flexibility, in fact, because the District of Columbia is both a city, a county and a State, that is, in 

fact, what has happened here, and we have had great flexibility as 

a result. So it does, in fact, work that way. 

The last time I actually testified before this hearing, I was here 

as the director of the Department of the Environment, which regulates my current agency. I can’t believe some of those decisions I 

made when I was a regulator, but we took 80 percent of the Clean 

Water revolving funds that we have coming into the city of the District and are distributing them to projects, greening everything you 

can imagine. We are greening police stations, parks and rec centers, libraries, median strips, roadways. 

We have this multiplicity of projects because of the flexibility we 

were able to administer since we were a city directly gaining 

money and distributing it. So I can testify that, on the only occaVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:46 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57485.TXT JEAN
19 

sion like this where the city is also the State, it does work well and 

it enables flexibility, so it is a good thing. 

As far as the permits, it is a fascinating question. Since you 

know the city, on 17th and 18th Streets, going right up through 

Adams Morgan, there is a lot of work that has been going on along 

those streets for a long time. The way this works is we, DC Water, 

produce our capital program to the District Department of Transportation 2 years in advance so they can plan ahead so that, when 

we are doing roadwork in the street or if they are working in the 

street, you coordinate it. 

Of course, ARRA—we aren’t complaining, but that came in in the 

midst of the process outside of the standard planning system. What 

started to happen is that we would initiate a project that was 

ARRA-stimulated off schedule, and we would end up with a project 

that was not coordinated with DDOT, not because anyone had done 

anything wrong. 

So a number of the projects got held up. That the standard permitting system is done in advance is for good reason: so that you 

don’t end up with DDOT resurfacing a road and then us coming in 

2 months later and digging it back up again and replacing the pipe. 

We want to do that both at the same time. 

So there have been challenges in trying to match up the existing 

permitting system, which is done with many years of advance preparation with a system that is putting new money in on a very short 

time frame, for obvious reasons. 

As to the capacity to improve the speed of decisions as far as how 

much money it would save, there is no question we spend a lot of 

money on coordination. In fact, I just authorized—we are going to 

put on the Web here in the District a visual. We just authorized 

it with the Department of Transportation. You or anyone else will 

be able to look at the city and any street on a GIS basis and see 

every project that is coming visually. So everyone becomes an overseer of us because they can all check whether or not we have managed and planned, and we are hoping that that is going to substantially increase the efficiency of being able to integrate new funding 

along with existing funding. 

The last point that is interesting about the District is, in the 

study, you have heard much about the $300 million that EPA has 

estimated for this massive need for infrastructure. The highest percapita need in the United States of America for wastewater infrastructure is Washington, D.C.—$4,315 per capita. That is not per 

customer. That is per capita in Washington, D.C. in order to improve the wastewater infrastructure for this city. 

So the need is just—it is extraordinary what we face, and we 

have charted out rate increases, and they are constant for the next 

20 years. This is going to be a system. We will get better at it because of its scale, but it is really daunting when you think of what 

we need to do for the public that we serve. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Congressman Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, a couple of quick questions. Like 

our witness from New York, airplanes to the west coast are hard 

to find. 

20 

I want to go to section 220, which no longer is in the law, and 

get to the question of whether it makes sense to put it back in. A 

couple of things come immediately to mind. One is the question 

about the greening, which we heard both from New York and 

Washington. Those are and can be alternative water supply systems as well as sanitation issues. Certainly, this is an issue that 

we are seeing a lot of in California, which is where we have serious 

problems. 

Also on the sanitation side, those alternate systems which once 

could have been funded by section 220, can supply potable water, 

such as recycled water, which, at least west of the Rocky Mountains, is a very, very big deal. 

So I don’t know if I have a question. I think it is just a comment 

to the chair and to the committee members that we give very serious consideration to reauthorizing the section 220 funding programs that they provide. 

If there are any comments from any of the witnesses, we would 

love to hear them. I would have asked the fellow from New York 

to be very specific about exactly what kinds of mandates he does 

not need. I would suggest that he probably needs those mandates 

upstream of his water supply but maybe not downstream, since his 

system exits into the ocean. But that is a question I will ask him 

in writing. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So, if anybody would like to comment on the 

220 section, I would be happy to hear that quickly, and then I am 

running. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I would have a quick comment. 

On the question of the flexibility for the mandates, DC Water has a $3.8 billion capital campaign for the next 10 years. Half of 

that is dictated by Federal mandates. So fully half of what we must 

do is not for engineering excellence—although, we, of course, will 

employ it—but the first category is what we just have to do to comply with the laws, whether or not we would have done it otherwise. 

When we prioritize all of our projects, the second category is 

health and safety. The third category is what we have to do for our 

fellow agencies. The fourth category is best engineering practices. 

Now, we hope to do all four, but some might argue that because 

it is a mandate doesn’t necessarily mean it is the engineering practice you would implement otherwise. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me. I did receive your correspondence in 

the bill, the water bill, that said it had to do with the storm drains 

and the sanitation drains being together and you needed to find 

some way to deal with that. The reason you need to deal with it 

is, when you have a storm you are dumping some really nasty stuff 

into the Potomac River. 

Is that a mandate you would like to do away with? 

Mr. HAWKINS. No. The mandate that we would like—well, not 

‘‘do away with,’’ but open to flexible interpretation. 

At the moment, our response is to combining sewers. Of course 

we want to respond to that. There are 3 billion gallons, most of 

which go to the Anacostia, actually, not to the Potomac River— 

Rock Creek. But the mandate is the solution. The solution, which 

is a consent decree, is the underground concrete and steel caverns. 

We are actually just about to start a 26-foot boring all the way up 

21 

the Anacostia River, from down at Blue Plains up to Poplar Point 

and then to RFK. 

The question is, can we open up—there is the MS4 permit system becoming more stringent——— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. For all the witnesses who are interested in the 

mandate issue and our fellow from New York, if you could, be very 

specific about how the present mandates impact you and how you 

would change the law. 

Mr. HAWKINS. OK. Sure. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am out of time in many, many ways. I thank 

you so very much. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Marcason. 

Ms. MARCASON. I am going to have to get back to you on the specifics. 

When we created our overflow control plan, we made it an adaptive plan, and I think one thing that we—with over 25 years of the 

plan, we hope that there are a lot of new emerging technologies 

that we can take advantage of. But once you have a consent decree 

in place, you are locked into the technology that you set out in your 

plan. 

So another part of that is we need to make sure that we can 

modify our plans going forward to make sure that we are able to 

capture the benefit of new ideas, new technologies, new thought 

processes that are coming down the road. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I have 18 seconds remaining here. 

That specific kind of information, how would you change the law 

to give you that flexibility? Understanding that the consent decree—you know, it is legal, but you need the flexibility. So how 

would you change the law to accomplish that? That is what I would 

like to have because, ultimately, that is what we must do here. 

Ms. MARCASON. Right. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Did you want to answer? 

Ms. MARCASON. I would rather research that and talk to the people back at the National League of Cities and in my community. 

I am sure we could come up with some good suggestions, though, 

so I appreciate the opportunity to do that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, if I may intervene at this point so 

I can get off to another matter dealing with the oil spill legislation, 

I very much appreciate this panel. I have already spoken of my session with Ms. Marcason in Kansas City and, Mr. Hawkins, of your 

splendid stewardship here in the District and of your contributions 

on the Chesapeake Bay cleanup, and of the contributions of the 

other two members of the panel. 

What is the age of the oldest sewer and the oldest waterline in 

the WSSC system? 

Mr. HAWKINS. The WSSC I can’t speak to. The WSSC serves 

Montgomery and Prince George’s. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Sure, the metropolitan area. Right. 

22 

Mr. HAWKINS. And DC Water—actually, we serve WSSC. A lot 

of their flow comes from the Blue Plains plant. We have assessed 

the age of our waterlines. Now, sewer is much harder to tell. They 

are deeper in the ground, and there is not as much pressure. We 

have waterlines in this city that were put in before the Civil War, 

and we have a report that I can send you that gives you the age 

of the waterlines. As for the sewer lines, most of our lines, we are 

not sure how old they are, so we don’t have as clear an answer. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Before the Civil War. Some of those are probably 

still wooden lines. 

Mr. HAWKINS. We believe we have gotten all the wooden lines 

out of the city distribution system. I can actually show you some 

as kind of a tour, but I think we have gotten all the wooden lines. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you still have clay pipe in the ground anywhere? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Again, nothing that we know of having clay pipe, 

but we do have—we have pipes that are remarkably old, but we 

don’t believe we have any clay or wood pipes in this system that 

we have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Clay works very well in acid soil. We have concrete, and that tends to be deteriorated by acid. 

I ask this because, all over the country, we are at a stage of— 

kind of over the tipping point of the capability of the existing water 

and sewer lines to serve the increasing demand for water and 

wastewater treatment. The replacement cost is just escalating 

enormously from the time when I started on the Hill as the clerk 

of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors in 1963. It seems like 

an eternity ago. We were talking then about aging water and sewer 

systems, and we still are, and the replacement of those systems is 

still a very costly matter whether in real dollars, actual dollars or 

in updated dollar costs. 

Since the Reagan administration terminated the grant program, 

it put smaller jurisdictions under greater financial pressure because, right at that time in 1981–1982, it was the point at which 

the wastewater treatment grant program was to switch from a preponderant 60 percent of the funds going to major metropolitan 

areas to 60 percent of the funds going to municipalities under 

250,000, even under 50,000. 

With President Reagan and his Budget and Reconciliation Act, I 

remember being on that conference committee so very clearly it is 

like it happened yesterday, and the Senate voting against our 

House proposal 5–4 without even asking the Democratic members 

on the Senate conference committee. They just voted it down and 

converted it from a $6 billion grant program to a $2 billion for 1 

year and then converted it to a revolving loan fund. That meant 

that smaller jurisdictions, rural communities, had to shoulder a 

higher cost than they otherwise would have, had there been a 

grant program. 

So now we have those costs continue, so there have been fewer 

dollars invested because municipalities had to borrow money at a 

higher cost and raise their fees. I know that in Minnesota, if you 

live anywhere within the seven-county Twin City Metropolitan 

Area, your water/sewer bill is about $15 a month. If you live outside the seven and if you are in a municipality of 2,500 or less and 

23 

if you live outside Twin City Metro Area with the same sized population area, your monthly sewer bill is around $54. 

That is a huge jump, a huge cost, to people who have fewer options. Municipalities have less revenue and less opportunity to generate the debt retirement that they need to make the investments 

in their water and wastewater treatment systems. So there is the 

continuing age of our systems, the continuing vulnerability of older 

material to deterioration. 

You mentioned, Mr. Hawkins, the blowouts that occurred, the big 

one on River Road. There was one just yesterday morning as I was 

driving in, and I heard the radio. Of course, I didn’t have to avoid 

it, it was up in Montgomery County. And then you regularly have 

these blowouts in the District of Columbia. 

How do you keep up with this? Is INI, infiltration inflow, sufficient technology? What else do you need to do to keep track of your 

system and then make the investments necessary? 

Ms. Marcason, and I will ask our other two witnesses as well. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I mean the average residential single-family bill in Washington, D.C. Is slated on September 1 to go up to $61. In New 

York, the average monthly bill is about $80, so they are very expensive. We have gone up, as I said, 30 to 40 percent over the last 

3 or 4 years. 

Our biggest challenge, I think, in many of the major cities in the 

country is that most of the systems that were put in—the average 

age of waterlines in Washington, D.C. is 77 years, so they were put 

in before most of our current ratepayers were here. What we have 

been funding for the last four our five decades is operation and 

maintenance costs of these systems—so how much it takes to keep 

it going, but not a capital replacement program. 

So in Washington, D.C., our budget for capital improvement is 

one-third of 1 percent of the infrastructure in any given year, 

which means it would take us 300 years to replace the scheme. 

The rate proposal that I have made for 2011, should the board 

decide to approve it, which they will do in September—I hope—will 

allow us to increase our capital replacement program to 1 percent 

a year, which would allow us to replace the system in 100 years. 

That is actually double the national average. The national average 

is a half a percent a year. That increased by triple when I looked 

at my compatriots to my left. We have got to hire people. We need 

trucks. We need material. These are jobs that can’t be exported. 

They must be done on the line. 

They are so meaningful to the neighborhoods and the people that 

are the recipients of the service. There is such a direct connection 

between our ability to raise the revenue to do fundamental infrastructure—the jobs, the equipment we buy, the trucks we purchase, 

and all the attendant pieces that come together. 

The biggest single challenge we have—we have a fair amount of 

knowledge of this system. We have tested it. We know what we 

need to do—is converting the awareness of our ratepayers to capital cost replacement, which literally hasn’t been on most bills for 

a long period of time. At the same time, we are also doing these 

giant, long-term control plans, which—your city has done a remarkable plan, but it is $1.5 billion or $2.5 billion. 

Ms. MARCASON. $2.5 billion. 

24 

Mr. HAWKINS. Ours is $2.8 billion. That is on top of the capital 

replacement. So it is expensive even when you are innovative, and 

you add these costs together, and they become extraordinarily 

daunting to cities of every size. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the revolving loan fund of use to you, then, in 

that construct? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Absolutely. The projects that we are doing—because of Washington, D.C., the drinking water revolving funds, for 

example, come directly to DC Water, and we are using those funds 

to replace valves. It is very operational. We are getting out into the 

system and making operational capital improvements to the system 

that we would not have otherwise made. So when you see a 

project—when you are driving around town and you see someone 

digging down, replacing a valve, that is likely a stimulus project. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh, I clap and I cheer when I see that. In fact, 

I would like you to build all those water and sewer lines about 2 

feet aboveground so people will bump into them and know what we 

have done for them, because we bury our good deeds in the water 

and sewer systems. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, that is true. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The public never sees them. 

I think Mr. Boozman will fully appreciate that and will agree 

with me on that. We want constituents to know what we have done 

on their behalf. 

Tell me, before I go to Ms. Marcason, where is the Potomac 

swimmable above Blue Plains? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I don’t know the answer to that question. It is not 

swimmable for its length—well, actually, when I was at the Department of the Environment, we had an exception for professional 

athletes in triathlons; but otherwise, the water in the Potomac or 

any of the waterways in the District are not swimmable. And I 

think that is true fairly far to the north, but I am not sure exactly 

where the cutoff is. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Certainly to Little Falls of the Potomac, the 

pumping station. 

Ms. Marcason. 

Ms. MARCASON. I think, you know, cities and towns all across 

America have the same issue. 

Our water pipes are 1850’s. Men went off to fight the Civil War, 

and came back and completed our Main Street water/sewer system. 

So it is not just the water system. We have aging infrastructure on 

our roads, in our buildings, and so it just compounds the issue. But 

we have increased our rates 44 percent since fiscal year 2008 in 

Kansas City, and we have double-digit rate increases scheduled 

throughout our overflow control plan for the next, probably, 5 to 7 

years. Depending on the success of our project, you know, that 

could be extended. I mean we hope to see a leveling off, but then 

at the end of the project, if we do have to build those big tunnels, 

they will jump up again. 

So I think that is part of the reason we are trying to make sure 

these green solutions could be an option. They are, hopefully, less 

expensive, but we are having to do a lot of testing. You know, they 

are a little bit untested. We are doing a lot of modeling right now. 

I think that is why we got an additional 5 years. We got 25 years 

25 

to do our plan. Part of that is so we can gauge the effectiveness 

of the massive project we are doing, and if that is true and since 

it did save us $10 million in one area, we hope that is something 

that could be replicated, and it could be a way that we could address this in a more cost-effective manner. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, permeable parking areas and shopping centers and sidewalks and even roadways—or at least shoulders on 

roadways—are very important, very critical support mechanisms 

for our dealing with runoff. 

Ms. MARCASON. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are having vastly more runoff than we did 

100 years ago or even 50 years ago. We have paved over more of 

America. 

Ms. MARCASON. That is right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It isn’t an increased amount of rainfall; it is an 

increased amount of runoff. We need to save that water. We need 

to get it into groundwater, and so these are very good solutions. 

Mr. Vander Molen, that doesn’t do much for equipment dealers, 

does it? You want to have more of your customers buying equipment and putting it to work. 

In the stimulus program from our committee of, roughly, $4 billion, 100 percent of that money is out. Let me just check my report 

card. Of $3.8 billion, 100 percent is out to bid; 1,962 projects out 

to bid; 1,957 are under contract; and for 1,884 projects work is underway. So your equipment is working, and there are some members of the operating engineers who are out there operating that 

equipment. 

Now, if the Senate were to rise from its slumber and pass something and move the Clean Water Revolving Fund, what would that 

do for your sector and your members? 

Mr. VANDER MOLEN. If I could say so, our industry has got a lot 

of unused resources right now that are ready to go to work. With 

jobs the way they are and with infrastructure the way it is, our 

equipment and facilities and inventories—they are ready to go to 

work. 

Congresswoman, I have to excuse myself. I have got a plane to 

catch to go back to Jackson, Mississippi. If you have got other questions that you would like to address to me, I would be glad to respond to them in writing, but I really appreciate the opportunity 

to be a witness here at this subcommittee. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for your splendid contribution. We appreciate that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, thank you very much. 

The only thing I would ask is whether or not the equipment has 

changed to the point that it interferes with your investment or the 

technology you are using on these projects. 

Mr. SOTH. Madam Chairwoman, the equipment improves dramatically from year to year. This is equipment that we are pleased 

to operate, some equipment of which is Vermeer equipment. Our 

members are pleased to take advantage of the opportunities offered 

by Congress for this job creation. We have advocated for an increase in the appropriations. 

Mr. Chairman, we have appreciated your informal oversight of 

the State and local governments on the Recovery Act. We would 

26 

just assert that more can still be done there. We appreciate your 

help, but we have got States like Louisiana that have yet to undertake a third of their construction projects. More can be done there. 

We are a year and a half, almost, into the Recovery Act, and 

States that have failed to go ahead and undertake those projects 

to which you have devoted major resources are still a problem for 

us. And with 20 percent-plus unemployment in the construction industry—and it is certainly higher for some of our local unions 

around the country—we desperately need your assistance in exercising your informal oversight, even though those State governments have complied with the letter of the Recovery Act. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are watching them, and for those who haven’t 

been in compliance and who haven’t gotten their projects under 

contract, Ms. Johnson and I have sent letters out to the Governors 

and to the heads of the Public Utilities Commissions and told them 

to get started. 

Now, unfortunately, the Senate struck our language that imposed the requirement of ‘‘use it or lose it.’’ If within 120 days you 

haven’t used your funds by obligating and getting bids out, then 

that money would go to States that could use it. The Senate struck 

that language, but we thought that was a very powerful forcing 

mechanism to get States to comply. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If you will permit me, on the question of equipment or hiring, I would say that, in fact, the low-impact development—the kind of strategies that are in Kansas City, in fact—are 

driving purchases of equipment that are quite dramatic. 

One of the weaknesses—or not weaknesses, but unknowns in the 

low-impact development arena—is to build a big concrete tunnel. 

You are pretty clear about how you maintain it over time and how 

you keep it together to attain performance. 

One of the big questions on the low-impact development is, after 

you put in this incredibly dispersed system of thousands of installations of low impact, whether it is on the streets or walkways or 

roofs, you need equipment, new equipment, to go out and maintain 

this over time. Who goes back to the rain garden 5 years after it 

was installed to make sure that, when it fills up with silt, there 

is something to remove it? We are buying new equipment to implement maintenance programs for the new Bay savers that are part 

of this street design that remove pollutants. 

So, in fact, there are enormous equipment needs in building an 

infrastructure we, in fact, don’t have to a great extent, which is an 

infrastructure around the long-term maintenance of low-impact development. 

I can also tell you that to attain the projects we are planning 

over the next 2 to 5 years, we are probably hiring 20 to 40 engineers at DC Water and a much larger number as contractors. So 

there is no question that when this work does gear up, we will directly need the kinds of services that are provided on that front. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for your energy, for your enthusiasm 

and for your remarks. We really appreciate seeing your members 

out on the job sites, running that equipment and making things 

work. 

I am going to yield at this point, and Chairwoman Johnson has 

an important announcement to make. 

27 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

As of 3:47 p.m., the oil spill has been capped, and there is no 

more leaking. That is the best news I have heard for a while. 

Now, Ms. Edwards had a question. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. That is the best 

news that we have heard in a long time, so thank you for that. 

I really appreciate your testimony today. 

Especially Ms. Marcason, I have been working really hard to try 

to pass legislation to create investments in green infrastructure 

like you are working on in Kansas City and across the country. My 

legislation, H.R. 4202, the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water 

Act of 2009, was really designed to help communities like Kansas 

City address these vexing water pollution problems. 

You know, just as I was listening to the testimony, I actually 

thought about our recent Fourth of July, and over the Fourth of 

July—I have a water system that is principally serviced by the 

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, which is serving 1.8 

million customers in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties. 

Over the Fourth of July, we had water restrictions because of a 

major flaw which was going to lead to a break—a 96-inch pipe. 

Thankfully, because of detection equipment technology that had 

been installed, the system was able to look at that and know that 

it was failing, even though it meant for our 1.8 million customers, 

water restrictions over a major holiday and when we would have 

had fireworks. So, you know, very odd. 

But WSSC, I think like Kansas City and like jurisdictions across 

the country, has a water deficit. We talk about all kinds of deficits. 

We have a water infrastructure deficit in this country, and it 

means that we are not spending what we need to on our water infrastructure that is about productivity and efficiency. It is about 

business survivability. 

Can you imagine if that 96-inch main had actually broken? It 

would have interrupted all kinds of business and commerce 

throughout our communities, and we know that those needs are 

great around the country. 

So I want to thank you all for the work that you do, but we just 

have to put people to work improving our Nation’s water and sewer 

infrastructure. In my view, there is no bad spending that goes on 

there. If in our jurisdiction we have $10 billion in unmet needs, 

that is 180,000 jobs. In your jurisdiction, it is $6.5 billion in unmet 

needs. For every billion, as you point out in your testimony, Ms. 

Marcason, that is 18,000 jobs. 

So I hope that we over these next several weeks will really also 

begin to make the commitment to green infrastructure as a technique so that we can use it in terms of prioritizing our needs in 

our communities, and that we can use green infrastructure and the 

new technologies that are available that relieve the pressure on 

these sort of high-intensity and high-cost projects in some of our 

communities. 

The legislation that I have introduced would require the Environmental Protection Agency to really examine how green infrastructure approaches can be incorporated into clean water programs, including permitting and enforcement, and we heard testimony about 

that earlier. 

28 

My question for you is that we are at this really critical time 

right now, with our infrastructure deteriorating, and investments 

really that need to be made to the most deteriorating infrastructure needs. 

Can you explain, if you would, Ms. Marcason—and particularly 

Mr. Soth—what this means in terms of creating jobs apart from 

the—you know, so the real question is improving our Nation’s 

water infrastructure. Tell me what kind of jobs. Tell me how much 

those jobs pay. Tell me what that means to our business community in terms of its productivity. 

I will start with you, Ms. Marcason. 

Ms. MARCASON. Well, we are very excited about the range of jobs 

that the green infrastructure offers. 

There is traditional engineering, because it takes an engineering 

plan. But it is also for people who like to work outside, if you like 

to work with plants—people who might not want a desk job. So we 

are doing a lot of job training with the using of plants. We have 

a training program of young people in a disadvantaged neighborhood who are learning how to lay sidewalks, permeable sidewalks. 

There are some very important construction-type jobs, and there is 

also, obviously, the engineering and the architectural and the traditional jobs. 

We see the opportunity to get young people very involved in new 

job skills, to get them excited about doing this and excited about 

the contribution they can make to making their community a safer 

and a better place to live. We feel like that is going to have the 

additional benefits of getting them invested in beautifying their 

community and having a good job. 

So we have really looked at how we can tap into the resources 

of people who have been underemployed, and we work very closely 

with our unions and with those types of job training programs in 

making sure that we do address the needs of each of the communities, but also of our workforce. It is really unacceptable to have 

such a high unemployment rate. We feel like these types of emerging jobs will have many benefits. 

I just want to say, your district is very lucky because we have 

another advocate for the green programs in our Congressman 

Cleaver, and it really does take that political will to get the communities moving in that direction. So I am sure your community 

will benefit from that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Ms. MARCASON. Did I answer your question? 

Ms. EDWARDS. You did. 

Mr. Soth, I wonder if you could tell me, though really specifically, 

tell me the kinds of jobs that your workers could be employed at. 

You know, say, in my community, it is 180,000 jobs with this $10 

billion of deficit and spending and water infrastructure that we 

have. Who is working? What kind of job are they working at? What 

are they paid at? If you are an apprentice and you start out and 

you go through the number of weeks and months and years that 

it takes to train, then, you know, where does that land you? 

Mr. SOTH. Our apprenticeship model in the operating engineers 

is typically a 4-year apprenticeship program. Oftentimes, an apprentice will start out at 50 or 60 percent of a journey-level workVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:46 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57485.TXT JEAN
29 

er’s wages and then progress. As that individual gets more on-thejob training, more classroom instruction, that individual will advance their wages to a place that they are earning journey-level 

worker wages. 

The most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics labor market data 

suggests that an average wage for a construction worker, a nonsupervisory production worker in construction, is over $23 an hour. 

Of course, operating engineers and carpenters, because of their 

skill levels, are oftentimes able to earn more money than that. 

I think projects vary, obviously, a little bit, so you will get a different composition of craft workers on each individual project, but 

it is common that you would find an operating engineer operating 

a backhoe or a crane. Obviously, there are a lot of labor union 

members—pipe layers, for example, building wastewater in the 

ditch, as we say, laying that pipe. So, really, there is a whole range 

of crafts there. A lot of that work is performed by unions, like the 

carpenters and the operating engineers, and we are pleased to do 

as much of it as we can. 

As I mentioned, the high unemployment rate has put a lot of 

pressure on the families of carpenters and operating engineers, and 

anything we can do to get back to work would be much appreciated. We would like to think that those four policies outlined and 

suggested by NCA, too, are going to be helpful in that regard in 

putting America back to work through these clean water infrastructure investments that you have been so kind to commit to restoring the American economy. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The point is there are jobs. There are jobs now, and it is infrastructure that we know that we have to fix. Otherwise, it interferes 

with our competitiveness for the 21st century. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Marcason, you indicate in your testimony that you would 

like to see the passage of H.R. 1262. 

Due to the proposed sewer overflow grant program, and the setaside is 20 percent of those grants for communities implementing 

green infrastructure and other water and energy efficiency improvements, do you feel there would be an opportunity for your district to be able to access that? 

Ms. MARCASON. Definitely. Definitely. 

We are doing a lot of demonstration projects right now, and I feel 

like we need to probably do more so we can know what is going 

to work the best. I mean this is still an emerging technology, so 

I think the investment is very important up front. Some of the 

strategies may be more successful than others, so we are working 

toward 20 percent. I am not sure that we are quite there yet, but 

I think it is going to pay off down the road if we make the investment in emerging technologies now. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. That is kind of new for everyone. I think that ends our hearing today, and let me thank all 

of you for coming as witnesses. All of you have been very helpful. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

30 


Insert offset folio 1 here 57485.006
31 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57485.007
32 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57485.008
33 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57485.009
34 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57485.010
35 


Insert offset folio 6 here 57485.011
36 


Insert offset folio 7 here 57485.012
37 


Insert offset folio 8 here 57485.013
38 


Insert offset folio 9 here 57485.014
39 


Insert offset folio 10 here 57485.015
40 


Insert offset folio 11 here 57485.016
41 


Insert offset folio 12 here 57485.017
42 


Insert offset folio 13 here 57485.018
43 


Insert offset folio 14 here 57485.019
44 


Insert offset folio 15 here 57485.020
45 


Insert offset folio 16 here 57485.021
46 


Insert offset folio 17 here 57485.022
47 


Insert offset folio 19 here 57485.024
48 


Insert offset folio 20 here 57485.025
49 


Insert offset folio 21 here 57485.026
50 


Insert offset folio 22 here 57485.027
51 


Insert offset folio 23 here 57485.028
52 


Insert offset folio 24 here 57485.029
53 


Insert offset folio 25 here 57485.030
54 


Insert offset folio 26 here 57485.031
55 


Insert offset folio 27 here 57485.032
56 


Insert offset folio 28 here 57485.033
57 


Insert offset folio 29 here 57485.034
58 


Insert offset folio 30 here 57485.035
59 


Insert offset folio 31 here 57485.036
60 


Insert offset folio 32 here 57485.037
61 


Insert offset folio 33 here 57485.038
62 


Insert offset folio 34 here 57485.039
63 


Insert offset folio 35 here 57485.040
64 


Insert offset folio 36 here 57485.041
65 


Insert offset folio 37 here 57485.042
66 


Insert offset folio 38 here 57485.043
67 


Insert offset folio 39 here 57485.044
68 


Insert offset folio 40 here 57485.045
69 


Insert offset folio 41 here 57485.046
70 


Insert offset folio 42 here 57485.047
71 


Insert offset folio 43 here 57485.048
72 


Insert offset folio 44 here 57485.049
73 


Insert offset folio 45 here 57485.050
74 


Insert offset folio 46 here 57485.051
75 


Insert offset folio 47 here 57485.052
76 


Insert offset folio 48 here 57485.053
77 


Insert offset folio 49 here 57485.054
78 


Insert offset folio 50 here 57485.055
79 


Insert offset folio 51 here 57485.056
80 


Insert offset folio 52 here 57485.057
81 


Insert offset folio 53 here 57485.058
82 


Insert offset folio 54 here 57485.059
83 


Insert offset folio 55 here 57485.060
84 


Insert offset folio 56 here 57485.061
85 


Insert offset folio 57 here 57485.062
86 


Insert offset folio 58 here 57485.063
87 


Insert offset folio 59 here 57485.064
88 


Insert offset folio 60 here 57485.065
89 


Insert offset folio 61 here 57485.066
90 


Insert offset folio 62 here 57485.067
91 


Insert offset folio 63 here 57485.068
92 


Insert offset folio 64 here 57485.069
93 


Insert offset folio 65 here 57485.070
94 


Insert offset folio 66 here 57485.071
95 


Insert offset folio 67 here 57485.072
96 


Insert offset folio 68 here 57485.073
97 


Insert offset folio 69 here 57485.074
98 


Insert offset folio 70 here 57485.075
99 


Insert offset folio 71 here 57485.076
100 


Insert offset folio 72 here 57485.077
101 


Insert offset folio 73 here 57485.078
102 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 74 here 57485.079