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

75–291 PDF 2012

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND PERMITTING, 

PART 2: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EPA TO PROVIDE 

COMMUNITIES WITH FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE 

SMART INVESTMENTS IN WATER QUALITY 

(112–95) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 25, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

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 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

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 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, 

Vice Chair 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Hon. David J. Berger, Mayor, City of Lima, Ohio, testifying on behalf of 

the U.S. Conference of Mayors ............................................................................ 19 

Hon. Ralph Becker, Mayor, City of Salt Lake City, Utah, testifying on behalf 

of the National League of Cities ......................................................................... 19 

Todd Portune, Commissioner, Hamilton County, Ohio, Board of Commissioners, testifying on behalf of the ‘‘Perfect Storm’’ Communities Coalition .. 19 

Walter L. Baker, P.E., Director, Division of Water Quality, Utah Department 

of Environmental Quality, testifying on behalf of the Association of Clean 

Water Administrators .......................................................................................... 19 

Carter H. Strickland, Jr., Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection ........................................................................................... 19 

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

Authority, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies ................................................................................................................ 19 

Alan Vicory, Jr., P.E., BCEE, Principal, Stantec Consulting (formerly Executive Director, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission), testifying 

on behalf of the Water Environment Federation ............................................... 19 

PANEL TWO

Nancy K. Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................... 49 

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, United States Environmental Protection Agency ................. 49 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. David J. Berger ............................................................................................... 60 

Hon. Ralph Becker ................................................................................................... 81 

Todd Portune ............................................................................................................ 88 

Walter L. Baker, P.E. .............................................................................................. 94 

Carter H. Strickland, Jr. ......................................................................................... 101 

George Hawkins ....................................................................................................... 105 

Alan Vicory, Jr., P.E., BCEE .................................................................................. 111 

Nancy K. Stoner ....................................................................................................... 116 

Cynthia Giles 1 .........................................................................................................

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, request to submit a bipartisan letter dated July 

12, 2012, signed by 18 Representatives, and sent to Hon. John L. Mica, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asking that 

H.R. 3145 be added to the next available full committee markup .................. 5 

Hon. Bob Gibbs, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, request to include testimony submitted on behalf of Hon. Jim Ardis, 

Mayor, City of Peoria, Illinois, and Michael F. Menke, President, Board 

of Trustees, Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage Disposal District ............... 10 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, response to question from 

Hon. Donna F. Edwards, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland .......................................................................................................... 131 

Page

VI 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Katherine Baer, Senior Director, Clean Water and Water Supply Programs, 

American Rivers, letter to Hon. Gibbs and Hon. Bishop, July 27, 2012 ......... 134 

1 Cynthia Giles did not submit a written statement. 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75291.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75291.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75291.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75291.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75291.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75291.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75291.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75291.008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75291.009
xvi 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75291.010
xvii 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75291.011
xviii 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75291.012
xix 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75291.013
xx 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75291.014
xxi 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75291.015
xxii 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75291.016
xxiii 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75291.017
xxiv 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75291.018
xxv 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75291.019
(1) 

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND PERMITTING, 

PART 2: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EPA TO 

PROVIDE COMMUNITIES WITH FLEXIBILITY 

TO MAKE SMART INVESTMENTS IN WATER 

QUALITY 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on T&I will come to 

order. Welcome. Welcome guests. This is our part 2 hearing on 

what we call integrated planning and permitting. I will open with 

my opening comments. 

Again, I would like to welcome everybody. This is an opportunity 

for the EPA to provide communities with flexibility to make smart 

investments in water quality. This is a followup hearing to one we 

held back in December on EPA’s proposed integrated framework. 

In last December’s hearing, we heard from several witnesses 

from State and local governments about how communities across 

the Nation are facing increasingly regulatory enforcement and financial pressures, not only to address sewer overflows and other 

aging wastewater infrastructure issues, but also to deal with numerous other burdensome regulatory issues that recently have become national priorities. These include more stringent and widespread regulation of stormwater discharges, nutrients and other 

pollutants in public drinking water systems which could lead to 

many communities having to install and operate, at great expense, 

treatment, removal and prevention technologies. 

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

are having to somehow deal with. A large portion of these regulatory mandates are going unfunded by Federal and State governments with the result that many municipalities have made substantial increases in investments in wastewater and public water 

infrastructure in recent years. Local communities and ratepayers 

are now increasingly getting economically tapped out. 

2 

In response to some of these issues, last year the EPA proposed 

an integrated planning and permitting policy that was intended to 

provide some flexibility in how communities managed their regulatory and enforcement mandates under the Clean Water Act. 

At last December’s hearing, we heard from witnesses about the 

proposed policy and some of the concerns they had with it. These 

include the continued central role of enforcement mechanisms in 

the integrated planning process rather than through the use of permits; inadequate consideration of stringent municipal budgets and 

affordability, especially in setting compliance timelines; and insufficient regulatory flexibility to adapt to new or changed circumstances. 

Some of the witnesses also urged EPA to be more proactive and 

collaboratively assist communities through pilot demonstration 

projects to develop flexible, practical and affordable integrated 

plans. 

I believe it is time for the national clean water strategy to evolve 

from a one-size-fits-all mandate and enforcement approach to an 

integrated strategy that recognizes the individual public health 

needs and water quality benefits of water and wastewater utilities 

and the resource limitations of communities. 

I am pleased to see that the EPA has finalized its integrated regulatory planning and permitting framework, and I hope that the 

EPA is strongly committed to implementing this new policy. There 

seems to be some willingness on the part of the Agency to make 

this a planning and permitting approach that would largely take 

this out of the enforcement action realm. 

However, I still have some concerns that some at the EPA still 

may not be willing to limit the Agency’s enforcement efforts against 

municipalities. A continued emphasis on an enforcement approach, 

including consent decrees, will undermine the flexibility that the 

EPA is ostensibly seeking to provide under this policy. Of course, 

it remains to be seen how this initiative will turn out. The devil 

will be in the details on how it is implemented. 

I would like to hear from today’s State and local government witnesses about their thoughts on the EPA’s now-finalized policy and 

whether EPA has adequately addressed their concerns. In addition, 

I want to hear from the EPA witnesses about how specifically the 

Agency plans to address the remaining concerns voiced by our 

State and local witnesses. 

And I want to also hear from the EPA and the other witnesses 

what statutory or other impediments, if any, stand in the way of 

making this an effective initiative for both communities and the 

regulators. 

Hopefully this initiative will truly give our communities the flexibility they need to prioritize their water quality requirements and 

address the huge unfunded costs associated with the growing number of mandates stemming from the EPA water rules and enforcement actions. 

Now at this time, I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for 

any remarks you may have. 

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

this hearing, and I say thank you to the witnesses for being here 

today. 

3 

As everyone in this hearing room knows all too well, one of the 

fundamental goals of the Clean Water Act was and still is to prevent the discharge of raw sewage and other pollutants into the Nation’s waters. Since the passage of the law almost 40 years ago, significant investment in infrastructure has led to significant progress 

in achieving that goal. That, in turn, has led to significant improvements in the quality of our Nation’s waters. 

Much of that progress is threatened now by aging wastewater infrastructure in need of repair and replacement and the ever-growing challenges of stormwater runoff from streets, roofs and other 

impermeable surfaces. Faced with the staggering costs these upgrades will require and the difficult economic climate, many communities are looking to the EPA and to the Congress for assistance, 

both in terms of greater financial assistance to make necessary infrastructure upgrades and repairs, and for the flexibility to utilize 

comprehensive integrated planning to prioritize these investments. 

Both elements, increased Federal financial assistance and the option of appropriate flexibility through integrated planning, are essential to ensure continued progress in addressing water quality 

concerns. 

To that end, the EPA should be commended for the commitment 

it has made to work with States, municipalities and other stakeholders in developing its integrated municipal stormwater and 

wastewater planning approach. This voluntary approach, let me 

say that again, this volunteer approach, will allow interested communities to develop and implement effective integrated plans under 

the Clean Water Act to address storm and wastewater management and to benefit from the economic efficiencies that an integrated approach will provide while still achieving their human 

health and water quality objectives. 

Yet, as the EPA has noted, the full benefits of the integrated 

planning approach may not be realized for some time as more and 

more communities come forward to develop individualized approaches to address their unique needs. 

In my view, allowing sufficient time for this approach to be 

adopted on a case-by-case basis as communities come forward 

makes perfect sense, because if the opposite were true, and regulators were more interested in expediency than tailoring appropriate responses to address local needs, EPA and the States might 

be accused of forcing communities to accept a one-size-fits-all approach. However, I expect that many stakeholders will point to the 

finalization of the integrated planning guidance as a turning point 

on how to effectively address local water quality impairments in as 

short of a timeframe as possible. 

Increasing flexibility under the Clean Water Act in the absence 

of increased infrastructure investment however, only addresses half 

of the challenge facing local communities and actually runs counter 

to the objectives of the EPA’s integrated planning framework. 

With respect to increased and new forms of infrastructure financing, communities are looking to Congress to step up to the plate. 

Unfortunately, while this is the second hearing the committee has 

held on the EPA’s plan to promote integrated planning, we have 

taken no action on renewing the Federal financial commitment to 

wastewater infrastructure this Congress. While bipartisan legislaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-25-1~1\75291.TXT JEAN
4 

tion, such as H.R. 3145, the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2011, has been introduced, there has been no legislative action on this comprehensive effort. 

H.R. 3145 not only reaffirms our commitment to our wastewater 

infrastructure systems, but it also establishes new funding alternatives to achieve our long-term infrastructure goals. 

So while EPA has done its job in responding to the needs of our 

States and local communities, this Congress and this majority has 

not been as responsive and is ignoring an opportunity to create jobs 

and improve water quality. I think this is unfortunate, and I also 

think it is a disservice to our constituents and to our districts. 

Clean water infrastructure is not, nor should it be, a partisan 

issue. Innovative infrastructure financing such as the Loan Guarantee Program and Clean Water Trust Fund in my bill, H.R. 3145, 

can leverage millions in more private financing to address our huge 

backlog of water infrastructure needs and create tens of thousands 

of new jobs. At the same time, we must preserve the locally driven 

priority system developed under the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a model that has served our communities, our States 

and our Nation well for the last 25 years. 

To that end, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a 

bipartisan letter that I and 17 of our colleagues sent to Chairman 

Mica asking that H.R. 3145 be added to the next available full committee markup. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The letter follows:] 

5 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75291.020
6 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75291.021
7 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This legislation has the 

support of several of the witnesses here this morning including the 

National League of Cities, the National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies and the Water Environment Federation, and for this support, I thank the witnesses. 

I also note with some regret that we are having a full committee 

markup tomorrow of several bills, three of which are water-related 

bills, but Chairman Mica has not included H.R. 3145 on that list, 

and I do hope that at the next available markup, he will respond 

to both what many of our colleagues support, and what many of the 

stakeholders support. 

So again, I applaud the EPA for doing its part to address the 

challenges facing our States, and I urge this majority to do the 

same. With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. The gentlelady from the District. 

Ms. NORTON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today’s 

hearing on EPA’s recently released integrated planning framework 

to work with the States toward providing reasonable flexibility and 

relief to jurisdictions like my own district, the District of Columbia, 

that are facing multimillion-dollar mandates to comply with Clean 

Water Act requirements. 

One of our witnesses, representing the National Association of 

Clean Water Agencies, is George Hawkins, general manager of the 

DC Water and Sewer Authority. The District of Columbia is currently investing in a $2.6 billion clean rivers project to address 

combined sewer overflows in the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and 

the Potomac River. The project was mandated by EPA and the Department of Justice through a consent decree entered into in 2005. 

DC Water is currently working with EPA to modify the consent decree to allow for green infrastructure to be used for a portion of the 

project. 

Mr. Hawkins, who is a wonderfully innovative manager, understands all the issues before us. He was formerly director of the DC 

Department of Environment. He has not been content to spend 

ratepayers’ funds on 20th-century technology, but seeks changes in 

the consent decree to enable DC Water to do a pilot using 21st-century green technology that will substantially reduce the cost of 

mandated upgrades. 

In addition, DC Water is undergoing a nearly $1 billion enhanced 

nitrogen removal capital program to further reduce the amount of 

nutrients discharged into the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. This massive undertaking will allow DC Water to comply with EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

permit. 

Since these projects are mandated and enforced by EPA, the District is forced to prioritize them over critical upgrades to the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in the city, some of which 

was constructed during the Civil War. Recent incidents involving 

broken water mains and sewer backups highlight the need to maintain and improve the basic water infrastructure that is critical to 

the health and public safety of District of Columbia residents, 

Members of Congress, of the Federal workforce, and visitors. 

8 

Current budgets allow DC Water to upgrade only 1 percent of 

the infrastructure this year. Although the Federal Government is 

a major user, the District of Columbia’s small pool of approximately 

130,000 ratepayers has been asked to shoulder most of the burden 

of these major capital investments. DC residents are projected to 

see their average water and sewer bill increase over $100 per 

month by the end of this decade, and despite the efforts of this 

committee, no relief in the form of Federal funding is in sight. As 

highlighted in a recent Brookings Institution report, the large gap 

between the very wealthy and the very poor in the District of Columbia makes EPA’s affordability criteria based on median household income an inappropriate measure to gauge the impact of EPAmandated projects on local ratepayers. 

I will be interested in learning from the EPA how it plans to use 

the integrated planning framework to empower its regional offices 

to consider not only the affordability of these mandated projects, 

but also the public health and water quality return on investment 

that they provide. I also hope to hear that the framework will allow 

authorities like the DC Water to reassess their existing consent decree and permit requirements to provide flexibility to ensure the 

most innovative measures such as green technology can be considered. 

I thank you and the ranking member again for this very important hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Napolitano, do you have any comments? 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes, Mr. Chair, I do. Thank you very much. We 

thank you, and Mr. Bishop, for holding this very important hearing. To me it is very critical we invest in improving our aging 

wastewater infrastructure systems and water treatment because it 

is directly supporting a clean water supply. 

As the ranking member of the Water and Power Subcommittee, 

we have held many meetings and hearings on the health of the 

great rivers and lakes in the United States. Our Nation depends 

on our downstream sources to be clean enough for drinking, for irrigation, and especially our economy. And as far as health issues 

are concerned that is also a very great concern. 

Investing in clean water infrastructure does create jobs. $1 million invested in water projects creates 12 to 16 jobs in southern 

California, according to the Economic Roundtable of Los Angeles. 

The water industry creates more jobs in southern California than 

the two leading industries in southern California, which are entertainment and housing. There is underemployment in the water industry, which indicates there is a great opportunity for job growth. 

I strongly support, very strongly support H.R. 3145, the Water 

Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2011 and congratulate 

both Ranking Members Bishop and Rahall for introducing H.R. 

3145. It provides $13.8 billion in the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund over the next 5 years, funding that is desperately needed to 

address the wastewater treatment issues facing our country. 

I commend EPA. In California, they have been great partners 

with the councils of government that I have relationships with, and 

being able to look at how this affects the small cities also. EPA’s 

most recent clean water needs survey found that the State needs 

9 

$300 billion worth of wastewater system repairs over the next 20 

years. 

This bill also incentivizes the use of green technologies to reduce 

energy consumption. Water treatment plants have had the capacity 

for solar, wind and biothermal energy production, and we must invest in those opportunities and make that information available to 

all that need it or have availability to invest in their own upgrades. 

It will help solve our water quality challenges, and I urge the committee to bring up H.R. 3145 to help our communities solve the 

clean water challenges they face. 

Providing a funding mechanism or assistance to some small cities that will never be able to afford it is a great opportunity for us 

to not only put people back to work, but to be able to solve some 

of the issues that small communities face in providing their residents with clean water, especially with regards to providing jobs 

and spurring the economy. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I believe that concludes all the opening 

remarks. I do have some written testimony. I ask unanimous consent for written testimony submitted on behalf of the Mayor of Peoria, Illinois, and the president of the board of trustees of the Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage Disposal District be included in the 

hearing record. 

Is there any objection? There being no objection, so ordered. 

[The written testimony follows:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75291.022
11 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75291.023
12 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75291.024
13 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75291.025
14 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75291.026
15 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75291.027
16 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75291.028
17 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75291.029
18 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75291.030
19 

Mr. GIBBS. I also ask unanimous consent that the hearing record 

be kept open for 30 days after this hearing in order to accept other 

submissions of written testimony for the hearing record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Today we have two panels. I welcome our first panel. I will go 

quickly through it and introduce everybody quickly and then we 

will come back to the mayor. 

Our first panelist on panel one is Mayor David Berger, city of 

Lima, Ohio. He is testifying on behalf of the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors. We also have Mayor Ralph Becker, city of Salt Lake City, 

Utah, testifying on behalf of the National League of Cities; Mr. 

Todd Portune, commissioner of Hamilton County, Ohio, Board of 

County Commissioners; Mr. Walt Baker, director, Division of Water 

Quality, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, testifying on 

behalf of the Association of Clean Water Administrators; Mr. 

Carter Strickland, Jr., commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection; Mr. George Hawkins, the general manager of District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, 

testifying on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies. And I think we have another panelist. Go ahead. 

Mr. VICORY. My name is Alan Vicory. I am a principal in the 

firm Stantec Consulting and I am here representing the Water Environment Federation, WEF. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Glad to have you here. 

Mr. Berger, the floor is yours, and I look forward to your testimony. 

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

LIMA, OHIO, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; HON. RALPH BECKER, MAYOR, CITY 

OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; TODD PORTUNE, COMMISSIONER, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE ‘‘PERFECT 

STORM’’ COMMUNITIES COALITION; WALTER L. BAKER, P.E., 

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER ADMINISTRATORS; CARTER H. STRICKLAND, JR., COMMISSIONER, NEW 

YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GEORGE HAWKINS, GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, TESTIFYING ON 

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER 

AGENCIES; AND ALAN VICORY, JR., P.E., BCEE, PRINCIPAL, 

STANTEC CONSULTING (FORMERLY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION), 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE WATER ENVIRONMENT 

FEDERATION 

Mr. BERGER. Good morning. My thanks to Chairman Gibbs and 

this committee for inviting me. I am Dave Berger, and I serve as 

the mayor of the city of Lima. Though I am a life-long Democrat, 

my office is nonpartisan, and I have worked with elected officials 

of all stripes throughout my 23 years in office. It is in that same 

spirit that I am here today testifying on behalf of the U.S. ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-25-1~1\75291.TXT JEAN
20 

ference of Mayors. Lima is currently engaged in negotiations with 

EPA over a long-term control plan for sewer overflows, so I have 

personal experience there as well. 

As a member of the Mayors Water Council, I have participated 

in the over 2 years of discussions that led to EPA’s integrated planning memorandum. We began those discussions in 2009, because 

cities were continuing to face threats of EPA enforcement and demands that cities adopt plans with astronomical costs far outside 

our financial abilities. 

After our discussions, EPA unveiled integrated planning to address sewer overflow and stormwater issues in a coordinated way. 

EPA acknowledges that its framework does not address all of the 

issues brought to them by the mayors and have told us that they 

are constrained by the Clean Water Act, in particular, from providing some of those flexibilities. 

First, I want to thank EPA for their engagement and for issuing 

the framework. The Conference recognizes that EPA put forward a 

major good faith effort to respond positively to our request for flexibility, and my written testimony highlights the positive aspects of 

the framework. But I would like to call your attention in particular 

to four positive aspects of the framework. 

First, it recognizes the need for flexibility and embraces both 

green infrastructure and adaptive management. Second, it recognizes that cities have limited resources and uses priority setting to 

provide partial relief. It recognizes that there will be disproportionate burdens on low-income households and allows consideration 

of those burdens. And finally, it acknowledges that in some cases 

integrated plans can be implemented in permits. 

However, the framework does not go far enough. The only substantive relief clearly provided by the framework is scheduling. It 

allows cities to prioritize cost-effective actions, but low-priority, 

low-benefit actions appear still to be mandated at a later date. The 

framework limits the use of permits for implementation with the 

result that, in most cases, EPA will continue to use enforcement 

tools that treat cities as criminals. The framework does not provide 

for consideration of safe drinking water regulations when setting 

priorities. And finally, and most importantly, the fundamental 

problem of affordability of controls is not addressed. 

On the affordability issue, let me tell you how this works in my 

community. Lima is a proud community of modest financial means. 

We have shrunk from roughly 52,000 to 38,000 as more affluent 

households have moved to the suburbs. Our annual household median income is $26,943—$26,943. Nearly one-third of Lima’s citizens live under the poverty threshold. Additionally, our demographic profile includes aging baby boomers that comprise a substantial and growing class of fixed income seniors. Our low-, moderate-, and fixed-income households are particularly vulnerable to 

increasing costs of basic services. 

Implementation of the proposed CSO/SSO long-term control plan 

will raise the average annual sewer bill alone in Lima to $872. 

While this increase may have little impact on our high-income 

households, its impact on our poor households will be devastating. 

Some 47 percent of the households would experience rates above 4 

percent of their income. Almost 26 percent of households would exVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-25-1~1\75291.TXT JEAN
21 

perience rate increases to their annual sewer bills between 2 and 

3 percent of their household income. 

If you add water and sewer costs together, the lowest income 

household category would be required to spend over 10 percent of 

their income for water and sewer services alone. Indeed, 73 percent 

of the households in Lima would be paying over 2 percent of their 

income for water and sewer, 73 percent. These citizens need substantive relief that the current framework does not provide. According to EPA, the Clean Water Act ties their hands from providing 

more substantive relief. 

So we need Congress to act. The financial resources of our citizens, my citizens, resident businesses and cities are limited, so the 

Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act must be crafted 

in a way that explicitly acknowledges and addresses the reality of 

those limited local resources. 

The Conference has five points to make about this. Congress 

must impose a cost cap on Federal clean and safe drinking water 

mandates. 

Congress should provide Federal assistance at levels much greater than the current State Revolving Loan Fund programs, and that 

assistance should be in the form of grants, not loans. Loans, frankly, don’t help us much. 

It must provide a shield for cities from third-party lawsuits for 

cities that are working toward long-term compliance under a permit. 

Congress should direct EPA to halt enforcement campaigns 

against local governments in favor of EPA programs for integrated 

planning, watershed planning and water quality permitting. 

Congress must also act to prohibit EPA from exacting fines and 

penalties against local governments that are engaged in good faith 

efforts and are investing capital to comply with water and wastewater regulations under permits. 

Cities are not criminals or enterprises that are tempted to pollute more to make more profit and we should not be treated as 

such. Cities are stewards of the public trust, a responsibility that 

we share with the State and Federal Governments, and should be 

accorded the respect of a shared stewardship of our environment. 

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

oversight and to remember that EPA has its authority because of 

the way the Clean Water Act was written and enacted by Congress. 

We need Congress to act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mayor Becker, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. BECKER. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Bishop and members of the subcommittee. I am Ralph Becker. I 

am the mayor of Salt Lake City, and I am here today on behalf of 

the National League of Cities, the oldest and largest organization 

representing cities and towns across America. I also serve on the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors Board of Directors. 

Salt Lake City is unusual in that from our valley at about 4,200 

feet and where the Great Salt Lake is, we see our peaks over 

11,000 feet immediately next to us. And so from our watershed 

that is supplying our waters to our ultimate discharge in the TerVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-25-1~1\75291.TXT JEAN
22 

minal Lake, we have the full spectrum of water supply and dealing 

with wastewater and stormwater. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on the important role of clean water infrastructure investment in our communities and how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 

Congress can partner more effectively with our local governments 

to make smart investments to protect water quality. On this, the 

40th anniversary that we are approaching of the Clean Water Act 

and the enormous benefits that we have all received in our country 

from that Act, it is time for this Congress to take a fresh look at 

how we can achieve those goals better. 

We congratulate and applaud EPA’s integrated stormwaterwastewater planning framework published on June 5th of this 

year. The framework recognizes awareness of struggles by municipalities in meeting requirements and the conflicts that arise when 

weighing environmental impacts. Storm and wastewater issues are 

interdependent and intrinsically tied to environmental considerations. 

We are in support of the current framework’s benefits, but as 

was mentioned by Mayor Berger, we feel strongly that affordability, flexibility and use of permitting in place of consent decrees, 

better solutions will be found. 

Speaking towards affordability, water rate and tax increases on 

residents to fund regulatory mandates should be reasonably affordable. Affordability needs to be assessed based on impacts to the 

lowest community economic level, and the integrated planning 

framework that provides communities with compliance schedules 

with options to prioritize funding for projects with greater positive 

impacts are certainly very valuable. This approach allows a community to produce a viable plan from several options to afford the 

greatest environmental benefit. 

To flexibility, a flexible approach to integrated planning would 

allow communities to prioritize needs and consider in its entirety 

the financial commitments that we make. We recommend the ability to extend the permit cycles to longer timeframes to align with 

realistic and achievable goals of water quality improvements. We 

believe that an integrated framework, now limited to consideration 

of storm and wastewater, should include pending drinking water 

treatment requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act. For 

Salt Lake City and many cities, all of these systems are integrated 

and tied to a much broader set of environmental considerations. 

As has been mentioned and I mentioned, the implementation of 

an integrated planning framework can most effectively and efficiently be achieved through the permit planning process rather 

than consent decrees. 

Moving forward, addressing the policy changes is just one part 

of the equation in addressing our Nation’s water-related challenges. 

Lack of water quality infrastructure threatens local and regional 

economies, the environment, and public health and safety. Like 

other communities, 70 percent of Salt Lake City’s water infrastructure is beyond expected design life and in need of substantial funding. We have made tremendous commitments for well over a century to that end. 

23 

We call on your support for new funding mechanisms. Even as 

local governments fund 95 to 98 percent of all water and wastewater infrastructure investment, needs in our communities continue to grow. The most recent clean water shed needs survey estimated that the 20-year investment needed to upgrade wastewater 

and stormwater infrastructure to meet the goals of the Clean 

Water Act to be over $298 billion, with an additional survey focused on drinking water infrastructure estimating needs over a 20- 

year span in excess of $334 billion. Local governments need a reliable long-term source of substantial capital to close the gap between current expenditures and anticipated needs. 

The U.S. marked the 20th century with breakthrough in investment in water infrastructure that lifted us to prominence for the 

past 100 years. We ask that you lead and serve by addressing these 

needs so we can move forward together and lead the world into the 

next century. 

As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, 

local governments remain committed to meeting the water infrastructure needs and water quality protection standards in our communities. We hope that the Federal Government remains committed to being a full partner in this important endeavor. Because 

the Nation’s cities are working to improve our aging infrastructure, 

meet Federal regulatory requirements, create and retain jobs and 

foster a climate of economic growth in our communities, a partnership with the Federal Government is essential. 

We look forward to working with you on a long-term solution to 

our Nation’s water infrastructure needs and with EPA to ensure 

that this integrated planning framework approach can help communities meet water quality protection standards in an affordable 

and flexible manner. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of America’s 

cities and towns. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Portune, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. PORTUNE. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Bishop and members of the subcommittee. My name is Todd 

Portune, and I am testifying here today on behalf of the citizens 

of Hamilton County and the citizens of the communities that make 

up what we have called the ‘‘Perfect Storm’’ Communities Coalition, so named because we are communities dealing with the perfect storm of high unemployment, high home foreclosure rates, 

stagnant economic growth and an exodus of business and industry, 

while being mandated to meet expensive CSO and SSO wet weather consent decrees and stormwater regulations. 

Our coalition very much appreciates the subcommittee holding 

this second oversight hearing. It is certainly evidence of and supports the fact of the need for congressional action and oversight 

over EPA and the integrated planning process that EPA has put 

forward through their final integrated planning and permitting policy framework. 

We are grateful for the steps forward that EPA has taken, but 

believe that it falls far short of what is necessary. We believe that 

EPA must find a regulatory approach consistent within the Clean 

Water Act and existing regulations that would provide commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-25-1~1\75291.TXT JEAN
24 

nities like mine and of our coalition the flexibility we need to meet 

these challenges in a more affordable and cost-effective manner, 

and we hope that the Agency’s final framework with your oversight 

and with congressional action will help us accomplish this goal. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, 

we were very encouraged at the first oversight hearing when there 

was interaction between Chairman Gibbs and Ms. Nancy Stoner, 

Acting Administrator for the EPA Office of Water, about whether 

EPA was open to using a pilot community project, and in particular, the 15- to 20-pilot communities in implementing the framework that was proposed by our coalition. 

Ms. Stoner answered in response to your question, ‘‘Yes, that is 

what I was talking about in terms of those who have already done 

a lot of thinking and planning. We are hoping those could be initial 

pilots for us, and others could learn from their successes.’’ 

She went on to say, ‘‘Our strategies that we are working on now 

would identify how we would like to work with communities 

through pilot projects and other means as well.’’ 

Finally, Mr. Chairman you asked if EPA would have something 

moving forward by spring, to which she replied, yes. 

Now, clearly, there is a step forward with the framework that 

has been presented. But with respect to showcase communities, 

while EPA will say that they have a showcase community aspect 

of this, the truth of the matter is that it is not a true demonstration program or showcase community process. Contrary to that, it 

is continuing the long-time practice of negotiating judicial decrees 

and leaving individual communities to figure it out by themselves. 

Under EPA’s integrated policy and the most recent green infrastructure fact sheets, all of the financial burden and legal risk involved in developing an alternative framework remains on local 

communities. Communities are given the choice of pursuing alternative approaches without direct financial, technical or related support from EPA. 

If a local community has access to money and expertise and they 

get it right, EPA will embrace them. If, however, they get it wrong, 

EPA and the DOJ will leave them subject to continued enforcement 

to figure it out a second time. And this system of forced local experiments without Federal funding is wasteful and inequitable. We 

know there is a better way, a way that does not ignore the mandates of the Clean Water Act, but does not continue the command 

and control regulatory system that is inconsistent with the financial realities of America’s cities, towns and counties. 

Our coalition has repeatedly requested that EPA establish between 15 and 20 demonstration partnerships in each of the next 5 

years in communities across the Nation currently facing expensive 

mandated wet-weather improvements. We want to see these partnerships transparently highlighted to show the Congress and other 

communities how EPA and local communities can work together to 

implement flexible, practical, affordable wet-weather solutions. And 

by working with pilot communities, EPA could demonstrate how 

the use of new innovative approaches can result in the same or better water quality results for smaller investment of local taxpayer 

dollars. 

25 

Under our proposal, the coalition’s proposal, EPA would be leading the process, working in partnership with local communities, 

lending EPA’s own significant body of resources and expertise to 

the effort. The end product will be the development of the 

foundational data and results that then can be replicated across 

the Nation with confidence of outcome and result. Anything less 

continues the current, unacceptable process of fragmented, uncoordinated and differing approaches and outcomes. There is a better 

approach, and that is for a national policy to be implemented, and 

the coalition’s process is the way. 

I would like to address the affordability question as well, Mr. 

Chairman. In my own community, we have cut our county budget 

by over 35 percent since 2007. Because of the recession, we have 

been forced to reduce our budget for all operations of the county, 

corrections, courts, law enforcement, public works projects of road, 

highway and bridge repairs; auditor, recorder, treasurer, coroner, 

all the other facets of county government have been cut by over 

$100 million in 5 years, eliminating over 1,500 jobs in the process. 

We can neither borrow money nor print money to balance our 

budget. We can only spend what we have, and consequentially, we 

have had to make due with less, with no end in sight. 

Yet in the midst of this horror story, CSO and SSO mandated 

driven sewer district spending continues to increase. Since the recession began, our bipartisan county commission has been forced to 

increase sewer rates by over 50 percent. Our sewer district, now 

facing hundreds of millions of dollars of consent decree mandated 

spending, projects another 18 percent in rate increases over the 

next 2 years. 

Since 2004, when our decree was approved by the Federal court, 

sewer rates have been increased 9 consecutive years cumulatively 

by more than 130 percent. Few, if any, people have their incomes 

increase by 10 percent a year or double every decade. 

We are spending for the entire 2012 budget for all of Hamilton County $207 million, but our sewer district budget is $380 million; 

$202 million in consent decree driven capital projects and $180 million in operations, $90 million of which is payment on debt service. 

We have spent over $400 million in consent decree mandated work 

so far. We have another $1.1 billion in 2006 dollars in phase one 

spending with a phase two consent decree program estimated to 

cost another $2 billion or more. 

There is no balance in this, Mr. Chairman. There is no fairness. 

And my constituents rightfully ask why are they paying more for 

sewer repairs each year than I raise from all of the revenue sources 

for all other county operations. How do I justify raising sewer rates 

to unaffordable levels at the very same time I cannot provide for 

police patrols, am closing down jails, cannot fix my roads and 

bridges, have endured 50 percent cuts in human service delivery at 

the same time that I have a 40-percent increase in demand for 

human services. Help. We are all in favor of clean water, but there 

must be balance to the process. 

The current EPA regulatory policies and enforcement-led approaches through consent decree simply directs local communities 

to pay for massive, expensive, and in some instances, outdated concrete and steel approaches. There has got to be a better way. 

26 

Hamilton County, Ohio, and the Perfect Storm Coalition looks 

forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, with members of the subcommittee, and with EPA in developing and ensuring the implementation of innovative flexible approaches in meeting wet weather challenges, including the creation of needed demonstration communities that will showcase EPA’s commitment to 

cost-effective, alternative approaches to expensive water quality 

challenges faced by communities like mine and those of our coalition. 

I thank you for the opportunity and look forward to answering 

the committee’s questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Baker, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. BAKER. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Walt 

Baker. I am the director of the Utah Division of Water Quality and 

currently serve as the president of the Association of Clean Water 

Administrators on whose behalf I offer testimony today. ACWA is 

the national nonpartisan professional organization representing 

State, interstate and territorial water quality officials charged with 

implementing the Clean Water Act, and in particular, the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program. 

I am pleased to come before the committee today to again 

present testimony on the integrated planning initiative. I offer abbreviated remarks drawn from my longer written testimony which 

has been submitted for the record. 

I reiterate the Association’s support for sequencing Clean Water 

Act requirements to allow municipalities to address first those 

projects that have the greatest impact on water quality. Such sequencing is not a new concept. However, a wider embrace of sequencing is important in these times of economic hardship. Moreover, EPA’s willingness to develop this initiative sends a powerful, 

clear and welcome message to municipalities, but we need to do 

more. 

Following the release of the draft framework in January of this 

year, ACWA members participated in five EPA-hosted stakeholder 

workshops, submitted written comments on the draft and held calls 

with EPA to further discuss the draft document. EPA has been 

very receptive to State comments and questions. 

At the workshop, several elements of integrated planning were 

clarified. Integrated planning does not remove the obligation to 

comply with the Clean Water Act nor the consequences of not complying with the Clean Water Act. Clear, candid and open communication with communities is critical to ensure there is a full exploration of the options and flexibilities within the Clean Water Act 

so that the parties understand what is doable and what is not doable. 

If communities are looking for amnesty from Clean Water Act 

provisions through this initiative, they are likely to be disappointed. But some uncertainty remains. Third-party lawsuits 

loom if States and EPA through integrated planning are considered 

to be deviating from their obligations to enforce the law. It is clear 

that States will take the primary role in reviewing and approving 

27 

a municipality’s integrated plans. EPA’s involvement in approving 

or vetoing the plans is less clear. 

I would like to offer the following additional thoughts on EPA’s 

final integrated planning framework and initiative as a whole. One, 

we urge EPA to further develop guidance on financial assessment 

and affordability as cost will play a central role in the prioritization 

effort. 

Two, we are pleased to see an adaptive management component 

in the final framework. Flexibility will be key to implementation. 

Three, drinking water and groundwater elements should find a 

place within the integrated planning framework. 

Four, confusion seems to exist in some EPA regions as to the 

ability of compliance schedules within NPDES permits to exceed 3 

years, let alone the 5-year life of the permit. This issue needs to 

be resolved by EPA headquarters. 

Overall, States have largely been supportive throughout the development of EPA’s integrated planning framework and remain 

supportive of the general concept of allowing municipalities to sequence Clean Water Act requirements in ways most appropriate for 

the specific entity. However, some of our concerns will not be put 

to rest until we see actual case studies progress. 

We encourage EPA to consider developing guiding principles 

based on early examples to assist others. 

Utah lost one of its native sons last week in the passing of noted 

author, educator, businessman, and motivational speaker Stephen 

R. Covey who wrote, ‘‘The main thing is to keep the main thing the 

main thing.’’ Our main thing must be to protect our precious and 

irreplaceable water resources. ACWA believes it is possible to do so 

with an eye to well thought-out approaches, mutually agreeable 

priorities, fiscal responsibility and reasonable timeframes. 

I would like to conclude by noting that the success of integrated 

planning hinges on the continued transparency, communication 

and collaboration among all involved parties throughout the plan 

development and implementation process. We look forward to continuing our work with EPA as this initiative proceeds. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share ACWA’s thoughts on 

this, and I will take any questions later. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Strickland, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman 

Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, members of the subcommittee. I 

am Carter Strickland, 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 Bloomberg, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s final integrated planning framework, which I might say 

at the outset is a very welcome development. We were involved in 

providing testimony and development of this integrated planning 

framework, and we do note that the EPA has amended it to some 

degree. 

We appreciate several clarifications. One involves the role of the 

States. It is very important to us. For example, our water quality 

data shows that our biggest challenge, like a lot of other cities, is 

combined sewer overflows. We recently, in mid-March of this year, 

28 

entered into a consent order with our State, our primary regulator, 

by which we are committing an additional $1.9 billion in traditional grant infrastructure and $2.4 billion in green infrastructure. 

We think this is the right way to go. We think it is in accordance 

with some planning efforts that we did initially. And we are obligated under both orders and SPDES permits to undertake a variety of measures with regard to both CSOs, including the development of long-term control plans over the next 5 years, 11 separate 

ones, and such measures as the cleaning of our 136 miles of interceptors, which we just completed after a 2-year effort. 

Clearly, for the framework to succeed it needs to recognize and 

where appropriate, defer to State authorities which are often the 

primary regulators. I will note that we believe that long-term control plans are, in fact, integrated plans and can become them, and 

new requirements should be held in abeyance until those plans are 

developed. 

We also appreciate the framework’s explicit reference to in the 

final version and encouragement of the use of planning for sustainability and other related documents and guidance put out by the 

EPA. These documents provide suggestions for programmatic areas 

and approaches that also match community goals while appropriately recognizing that the details of these programs cannot be 

known in advance or dictated from any central authority, but rather, must be developed by the operating entity. 

DEP supports the planning approach that would help municipalities prioritize infrastructure investments in order to maximize 

water quality benefits and encourage the use of innovative and sustainable approaches such as green infrastructure. That, after all, is 

the approach of not only the long-term control plans, but planning 

documents such as New York City’s PlaNYC, or comprehensive 

sustainability plan. 

A number of our comments and recommendations on the draft 

framework have been addressed and are consistent with the final 

framework, but since the level of detail in the framework has not 

changed dramatically since the draft version, our initial questions 

regarding the specifics of how integrated planning would be implemented remain unanswered and we think it is certainly a matter 

that the subcommittee should continue to monitor. 

For example and first, I will note that the final framework for 

the integrated plan includes a discussion of financial capability and 

refers to the EPA’s 1997 guidance document. However, New York 

City DEP has concluded our own affordability assessment and we 

have come to realize that the criteria outlined in the guidance documents do not provide the complete story with respect to affordability concerns of both the Agency and our ratepayers. 

For example, we found that the use of median household income 

as an affordability indicator has several limitations for a city like 

New York City where household incomes are not distributed 

around the median. That means that we have a lot of wealthy people and we have a lot of poor people. Approximately 20 percent 

using Federal measures of our population is living below the Federal poverty level, which is very low. 

Furthermore, the New York City Center For Economic Opportunity has noted some of the deficiencies with current measures of 

29 

poverty and developed an alternative poverty threshold measure 

based on methodology from the National Academy of Sciences. 

Based on this new threshold, a higher percentage of New York City 

residents are living in poverty than the Federal poverty rate portrays. Our study estimates 25 percent of New York City households, that is 755,000 households, over 1.6 million people, have 

wastewater and sewer costs that are 2 percent or more of their 

household income. 

These rates vary across the city. In the Bronx, for example, 40 

percent of households have a household income for which 2 percent 

or more is dedicated to water or wastewater costs. With projected 

future rate increases, the burden on this vulnerable population will 

increase, and we believe this is a significant environmental justice 

issue for this subcommittee to consider. 

Therefore our study recommends that residential affordability 

should consider income distribution, poverty, unemployment and 

other economic burdens, such as the high cost of living in New 

York City and other urban areas, all of which inform the environmental justice issues that the Federal Government is rightly concerned about. 

And affordability must consider the cumulative impact of longterm debt, which means that utilities have rising debt service that 

will cause rates to increase for the foreseeable future. For example, 

this year, New York City DEP will spend 42 percent of our operating budget, that is $1.6 billion, on debt service alone. We have 

$26 billion in outstanding debt. That debt service has increased 

176 percent between fiscal year 2002, it starts for us in July, and 

fiscal year 2011. Each community is unique, obviously, so the 

framework should provide an opportunity to bring all relevant financial indicators and information to the table. 

EPA has clarified that the integrated planning framework is limited to wastewater and stormwater. Many folks have mentioned 

that should include the Safe Drinking Water Act obligations. We 

believe that is the case. Over the last 10 years, we have spent $20 

billion total on capital costs, pretty evenly split between water and 

wastewater costs. All of that, so $10 billion each. We don’t want to 

exclude $10 billion from consideration that we spent on water services. That goes into our rate and that is paid by our ratepayers. 

In addition, the framework seeks to balance various mandates 

without recognizing the value of investment in nonmandated infrastructure. These are the replacement costs of our aging infrastructure that many folks have mentioned. New Yorkers want and deserve nonmandated, but still critical investments in programs to 

build storm sewers, replace storm and sanitary lines, replace mandated equipment according to a prudent, asset management review. 

And I think if you did a survey of the folks at this table and utilities across the country, the number one issue would be urban flooding, for which we spend a lot of money. Completing the full buildout of the storm and sanitary sewer system is an important priority for our city and others. 

Finally, the EPA’s and Department of Justice’s enforcement actions must be consistent with this framework, especially its consideration of State orders and permits, as well as the general principle 

that the details of programs will be left to operating agencies. UnVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-25-1~1\75291.TXT JEAN
30 

fortunately, over the past few years the EPA and DOJ have been 

bypassing the permit process and regulating by consent order with 

provisions that have a stifling level of detail. The Federal Government is not in the business of operating utilities, not yet anyway, 

and municipalities need the ability to make operational decisions 

based on engineering judgments. 

In closing, we see integrated planning as a way for EPA, State 

regulators and municipalities to sit down and prioritize various 

water quality efforts so that there will be less top-down decisionmaking, more collaboration and consensus among government 

agencies, for which we consider ourselves a member. This would 

vest discretion in local governments to invest scarce dollars in 

those projects that meet critical needs and achieve the greatest 

public health benefits. The EPA’s framework is a good start, but it 

is far from sufficient to realize this vision. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Hawkins. Welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Bishop. My name is George Hawkins. I am the general manager 

of the DC Water and Sewer Authority, or DC Water as we know 

it, and the chair of the Money Matters Task Force for the National 

Association of Clean Water Agencies. 

I am delighted to be here today to discuss EPA’s integrated and 

municipal stormwater and wastewater planning approach framework. It is a very good step forward. I also want to mention, I am 

grateful for the comments of Congresswoman Norton, my Congresswoman. I thought it was both eloquent and substantive, and many 

of my points will track many of the points that you made. 

I also want to offer my greetings to Congresswoman Edwards. 

Part of the flow from your district actually comes through to our 

facility at Blue Plains. You have been a strong supporter over time, 

and I am grateful for that as well. 

My points are going to be in five, a handful of points, number 

one to provide context, very consistent with what you just heard 

from my friend, Carter Strickland. 

In the last 2 weeks we have had three floods in the Bloomingdale 

neighborhood of Washington, DC. This is a neighborhood just south 

of the McMillan Reservoir just west of here, three significant floods 

in 2 weeks. 

I have been out to the citizens, I have walked the streets. We 

have mobilized all of our resources. The fundamental problem is 

the trunk sewer that serves that entire neighborhood goes entirely 

the length of Florida Avenue all the way down to the Anacostia, 

was implemented and constructed by the Federal Government at 

the turn of the century, as well as all the lines that feed into it. 

They simply are not big enough to contain the flow that is going 

into the system which is handling both stormwater and wastewater. 

The hydraulic pressure of all of the flow and the kinds of storms 

we have had is so great, it is popping off the manholes shooting 

them into the air so that we have to bolt them down, or else they 

will shoot and can hurt someone and shooting water 3 to 4 feet in 

the air coming out of the system, flooding into basements. If we 

bolt the manholes on top of those pipes, the hydraulic pressure in 

31 

the pipe, that flow has to go somewhere, and it causes sewage 

backups to go back up the pipes to businesses and residences. 

Now I have stood in front of the citizens, they are angry about 

this for understandable reasons. We have a solution to this problem, and it costs $600 million. You cannot replace one little piece 

of the sewer line anywhere, because it would connect to the next 

line, which would be too narrow. It is like trying to expand traffic 

on the beltway by doing a 200-yard addition to the road, then it 

would hit the next choke point and be backed up. 

We have to replace the whole system. It is that kind of replacement that is fundamental to the public health, welfare and every 

job in the District, but is not mandated, and it is what every system in this country, most of which were built when we urbanized 

America, at least in the Midwest and the east coast at the same 

time this bill is coming due nationwide. But that is the context. 

What our customers want is the system to work. That is what delivers every job in every house. 

Second, in comparison to that is the mandates we face. Congresswoman Norton had summarized them, I will just be brief, one is 

a $2.6 billion project to build mammoth underground tunnels larger than Metro tunnels, which all of you have been on, in a gigantic 

system underground that would take much of this flow and transport it down to Blue Plains. We are deep into building that project 

now. It is the largest public project in Washington, DC, since Metro 

underneath our feet. 

A second billion-dollar project to Blue Plains would enhance nutrient removal. The District is the only jurisdiction in the entire 

Chesapeake Bay that met the 2000–2010 goals for Chesapeake Bay 

reductions, but that has been because of expenditures made at 

Blue Plains, which is a regional expenditure, which is why the support from both Maryland and Virginia is important. That is a billion-dollar project. 

Those two projects alone is $3.6 billion of expenditures that are 

mandated. That does not talk about the MS–4, the separate storm 

sewer obligations that are coming, TMDL requirements and perhaps, although this is a challenge of what is going to be the requirement for every one of those sewer lines that go directly to the 

river, not to our plant, which needs to be done. 

Third is the reality of decreasing returns at the scale. The way 

the Clean Water Act is set up, to me one of the most successful progressive statutes in the history of government, nonetheless, has 

run into the reality of decreasing returns. The law is about eliminating pollutants, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System is how the permit system is identified. 

However, eliminating means that as you eliminate and you get 

to the margin, your costs become logarithmic and start firing up 

the scale for that next incremental improvement. It costs $15 to remove a pound of nutrient when we began at Blue Plains. Today it 

costs us $476 per pound of nutrient to eliminate nutrients at Blue 

Plains, and reducing much less for the costs. 

So we spent $1 billion to get one-tenth of the protection of what 

we had spent $100 million to do in the past, and that is only going 

to get more expensive at the margin. 

32 

Fourth point is affordability. We are doubling the percentage of 

the low-income residents of the District who are unable to pay their 

bills or stressed by paying their bills due to the costs. Now the median household income disguises that reality, because as we all 

know, Washington, DC, is a city of two income levels: one that is 

quite high and one that is quite low. 

If you take the median income to evaluate the cost of something, 

you are going to understate what that cost is to someone of significant means, and overstate the ability of our low-income residents 

to pay the same costs. When EPA evaluated the per capita costs 

of capital improvements in the country, the District of Columbia 

came up with the highest per capita costs. 

We have a very large region. It is important to remember we 

have 130,000 connections in the District. It is not a big city itself, 

and it is those connections that are paying these gigantic costs. 

Affordability, I do personally every public outreach meeting in 

the city that we do on our retail rates. I went to every ward in the 

city this spring describing the rates that we propose for 2013, 

which will equal a 50-percent rate increase in the 4 years I have 

been connected to DC Water as general manager. 

In two of those meetings, we had to have law enforcement called 

because our citizens were angry. They are angry for two reasons: 

One is they are angry about the cost, the simple escalation, even 

if it seems that it is a good value relative to other costs, well, it 

costs less than a cell phone bill, it costs less than a power bill. 

When you have a budget that has been set over time and you 

have designated a portion of that budget to a cost, and that one is 

increasing far faster than inflation, it doesn’t matter what it costs 

compared to other things, you have your budget when you are on 

a fixed income, and that budget is being exceeded by too many of 

our residents. 

The other challenge our residents tell us is what about those 

water mains. What about the challenges of the day-to-day delivery, 

and part of our challenge is our funding first goes to mandates, and 

second, to the operational needs. 

I want to point out as a point of fact, in Washington, DC, if you 

take every capital dollar spent in the District for District work, 

school, fire, police, every building, road and bridges, $1 in $3, one 

of every three capital dollars, is spent on DC Water projects. That 

is the scale of what the system is delivering. 

In that context, my last thoughts is about the integrated plan. 

It is a very important step forward. We are negotiating in the District, as the Congresswoman mentioned, the potential opening of 

our consent decree to allow for green infrastructure. There is no 

question with the leadership of Cynthia Giles and Nancy Stoner, 

and the Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin for region 3, we 

have seen a sea change in the negotiations we are undertaking 

with the Agency in order to open that consent decree. 

This is a good change, integrated planning is good, although I 

echo many of the comments you have already heard and don’t need 

to repeat them, our ratepayers, many of you, get a bill that has 

water and sewer costs on it, not divided out. So the full range of 

costs is what our ratepayers face. 

33 

But three very specific points: Number one, in order to negotiate 

the opening of our consent decree, I have already spent $2 million 

in the preparation and the analysis and the background work necessary to get to the negotiating table. That is a very difficult dollar 

figure to cover, and I will be in trouble with my board if we don’t 

actually succeed. 

But there are many jurisdictions that do not have the capability 

even to get to the negotiating table because of the level of research 

and analysis that is necessary to evaluate and compare, and to assess all these various programs and requirements and put them in 

a risk-based system. That is a detail-intensive and research-intensive effort. 

So one issue I think is very significant and I know funding is extremely very difficult, is pilot funding for those jurisdictions, particularly with financial limitations, to avail themselves of the ability to even get to the negotiating table. 

Second is the benefit of permits. Permits last for 5 years, consent 

decrees go for 20 to 25 years. There is no question that the consent 

decree enables a longer period of time, but these are in a context 

that it is a far more rigid negotiation because it is within a violation and an enforcement context. 

Expanding the use of permitting compliance schedules beyond a 

3- or 5-year span to match what you could do in an enforcement 

context would enable far more flexibility in this concept, and third 

is to go back to affordability. The affordability challenge to the people who are footing the bill is very significant, and we think that 

the 2 percent is—I am not even sure where it comes from, but I 

am not sure it is relevant in assessing the affordability of these 

kinds of changes. 

I do want to emphasize that the integrated planning framework 

is a very strong step in the right direction, and we have seen a 

much better negotiating climate with EPA today, but it is expensive and time consuming in order to get to the table, and I think 

many communities need assistance on that score. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. GIBBS. I can tell you are on the frontlines, your passion. 

Mr. Vicory, welcome and the floor is yours. 

Mr. VICORY. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman 

Gibbs, and subcommittee members. 

George Hawkins is always a hard act to follow, obviously, and I 

am pleased actually in my comments to fundamentally reiterate a 

lot of the testimony that you have heard here this morning. Actually, my function within WEF is I am currently vice chairman of 

the Government Affairs Committee, and I need to note that this 

past January, I wrapped up a 24-year career as executive director 

and chief engineer of the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, ORSANCO, an interstate compact agency to abate interstate water pollution in the Ohio Valley. 

But on behalf of WEF’s 36,000 individual professionals working 

in water quality, we are certainly pleased to be here this morning. 

The local governments, and I think in your opening comments, and 

I think you have acknowledged this, have made tremendous investments to improve water quality and achieve Clean Water Act comVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-25-1~1\75291.TXT JEAN
34 

pliance over the last 40 years, and there has been remarkable success. 

This is about an essential public service that is fundamental, as 

we all know, to public health and maintaining our quality of life, 

but we are all struggling in this economy, and as such, it is imperative that local governments invest their limited resources wisely to 

achieve the most significant environmental and public health benefits. 

And that is what this framework, we believe, seems to speak to, 

and we are very supportive of it. We have been engaged with EPA 

throughout the development of the framework, and we considered 

it a much-needed first step to provide greater flexibility to local 

governments to balance the need for investments in asset management and aging infrastructure with other water-related requirements at a pace that is sustainable and affordable. Again, themes 

you have heard already this morning. 

Common sense works. This seems to be common sense. Planning 

this locally driven, flexible and voluntary is, we believe, the way to 

go, and an approach that encourages innovation, such as green infrastructure, obviously is really where the future needs to be. 

But as we have heard in several testimonies this morning, we 

have a policy, we really don’t have implementation, and there are 

a lot of questions about that. 

WEF offers six main thought points, if you will, on implementation. Regarding adaptive management flexible longer-term schedules, we did recommend, WEF recommended that adaptive management principles be incorporated in the framework. We have 

that. We need to assure that it is actually implemented, and that 

is implemented through allowing permits, and to the extent we 

have enforcement of those on the books to be reopened. If circumstances or technologies change to provide the opportunity to 

identify, evaluate and select new projects, incorporate innovative 

solutions and make changes to ongoing projects and implementation schedules. 

Technology is moving like I have never seen it in my lifetime, so 

we need to find ways to get these emerging technologies out on the 

street to the benefit of all of us. Supporting States and making the 

integrated planning process available to all is an important thing. 

There are obstacles within EPA’s policy. The Agency needs to zero 

in on those and address them to free up this new approach that 

we are all supporting here this morning. 

We need to assure that utilities are not turned away that want 

to pursue this. George spoke quite well to the resources he has to 

deal with things. A lot of communities do not have the resources 

they have. And, really, this speaks to the idea of some level of reasonable funding to prompt and stimulate, if you will, the implementation of these approaches and to demonstrate that the principles here indeed work, and then I think you will see a lot more 

communities jumping forward, if you will, and wanting to go with 

the integrated planning approach. 

We have heard a lot also about enforcement versus permitting. 

We are very clear, I believe, as an association, a federation, that 

regulators need to use their discretion to utilize a nonjudicial implementation approach. Permits provide the flexibility. We can 

35 

write over the permit renewal process, long-term plans in those 

permits and, again, enforcement really needs to be the last resort. 

Imposition of fines and penalties, if we cannot eliminate them, 

we need to minimize them. The reality is that enforcement creates 

a counterproductive stigma at a time when local governments need 

public support to raise the rates in order to do what they need to 

do. 

And the importance, I think, spoken by the Mayor of Lima, that 

local governments need to be treated as partners, almost as clients, 

if you will, versus polluters, if you will, or even, as I have heard 

early this morning, criminals. 

We would agree the permit does not—excuse me, the integrated 

planning process does not go far enough to address the affordability 

issue facing local governments. We certainly want to confirm that 

thought. And the need to consider, for EPA to consider other economic indicators other than the 2 percent median household income. I think you have heard here this morning that that analysis 

approach really is not truly the right economic analysis approach 

for lower income communities. 

You know, at the end of the day, this is about moving an environmental needle. Water quality improvements must be the gauge 

of success, not necessarily a reduction of flow volume, this is about 

are we achieving environmental improvements, are we moving that 

needle, and that is really the cost-benefit approach that we need 

to pursue, and I think that the integrated planning process really 

begins finally to speak to that, to allow communities to have that 

flexibility. 

Innovation, and there is a lot of talk about innovation, innovation 

also is risk. And when you take innovation and risk, some efforts 

will be successful, some will be spectacularly successful, and some 

will probably not be successful. But not supporting innovation, I 

think, is probably a least desirable outcome than supporting innovation and creating the progress that innovation provides and we 

need to be open, if you will, to try and experiment and understand 

that if something didn’t quite work, then let’s not necessarily move 

to an enforcement mode, because enforcement mode basically shuts 

down all the opportunities that we have before us. 

WEF stands ready to work with our members, to help support 

the implementation of this framework. We will pursue educational 

and opportunities, including considering the needs of small and medium-sized communities who may benefit from the integrated planning process. So my conclusion, as we embark, as we all embark 

on the next 40 years of the Clean Water Act, let us strive to use 

this framework as a springboard for collaboration and partnership 

to find the best, most innovative and cost-effective solutions to 

achieve water quality improvement without saddling our communities with unnecessary debt and imposing a financial burden that 

is unsustainable. 

I look at this as an amazing opportunity to literally shift our paradigm in how we do things. This is an opportunity that I hope we 

cannot—we all cannot, we just cannot afford, in my view, for their 

to really fail and not be successful. We commend EPA for listening 

to local governments, and we look forward to working with all 

36 

stakeholders on the implementation to realize our shared goals of 

protecting human health and improving water quality. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and some of 

us are wearing this little button here that has a very simple saying, a campaign sponsored by WEF, and it says ‘‘Water’s Worth It,’’ 

water is worth it. 

Thank you for your time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, thank you for all the testimony. It has 

been great and very formative. 

I will start off the questions with just a couple of thoughts. It 

seems like there is a common theme. One is you need flexibility, 

affordability issue, issue versus enforcement versus permitting, the 

consent decrees. You could go on, but integrated plans, and the exclusion, it seems like I am hearing that it should be all-inclusive, 

not, you know, groundwater, drinking water. 

And I guess my first question, I will just throw it out to the 

panel, we talk about the affordability since that seems to be the 

major concern, the 2 percent. Do you see the EPA addressing each 

project, or, you know, if it is wastewater, combined sewer, whatever, it is separate silos instead of—it seems like if you have an 

integrated plan you have to got to have it all together, so that 

would affect the affordability, I think, formula. 

Does anybody want to expound on that, where you see the EPA, 

the folks, how they address that versus trying to do it integrated? 

Does anybody want to take a stab at it? 

Mr. BERGER. Mr. Chairman, certainly the process, up till now, 

has been very much a siloed approach, and I think the hope, the 

promise of integrated planning has been that that would be cured 

by an overall look at the total costs of compliance and the priority 

setting within that. 

I would argue at the same time that unless there is a budget cap, 

you are not really setting priorities. What you are doing is merely 

scheduling. Priorities get set when you can decide what it is you 

can fund and what you cannot. 

My community, we have gone from 530 employees to 350. I no 

longer have a secretary, and I no longer have a chief of staff. That 

is setting priorities, because we have decided to fund police officers 

and firemen. The same thing needs to happen, it seems to me, 

within integrated planning. It can’t just be a matter of all the obligations simply being lined up on a schedule and lower priorities 

still have to be addressed. There truly has to be a containment of 

costs. 

Once you have established a cost cap, once you have been able 

to define what it is that can be afforded with local, limited resources, then priority setting has a meaning. 

I also want to, I guess, contrast what is, I think, the progressive 

taxation methodology that all of us in local governments in Ohio, 

where we have an income tax or States or Federal Governments, 

essentially is based upon an ability to pay. 

When we set rates, however, that has nothing to do with the 

ability to pay. A rich person pays the same amount for a drink of 

water as a poor person does. A rich person flushes the toilet, and 

the service and service user fee that is charged for that service is 

the same as a poor household. 

37 

So when these costs associated with the mandates are levied 

across the board, the fact is, is that our rate base and rules that 

govern our ability to set those rates, in fact, impose enormous devastating charges on the poor. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. BERGER. It also becomes an enormous problem for economic 

development as well. 

Mr. PORTUNE. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. Go ahead. 

Mr. PORTUNE. I would like to echo the Mayor’s comments and 

interject an additional thought with respect to the affordability 

question. But clearly, what is missing is balance in the discussion, 

that the 2 percent, the affordability issue, all of us in urban issues 

struggle with that greatly because we all are losing the middle 

class, the middle class is going by the wayside and we have the 

very rich and the very poor. 

And the 2 percent median income approach does not take into 

consideration the undue burden that is placed on a growing majority of our residents in urban communities, number one. 

Number two, there has got to be a way to interject prioritization 

into this. I referenced it as an issue of balance, where is the balance? When my budget has gone down for all county services by 

over 30 percent in the last 5 years because of declining revenues, 

when I am laying off 1,500 individuals, when we have cut human 

services by 50 percent with a 40-percent increase in demand, but 

yet, we have to raise rates to do everything in terms of Clean 

Water Act compliance from the number one priority to the least 

priority, when I am spending $200 million total on all county operations, and $380 million on my sewer-related obligations, there is 

no balance. And there has got to be some balance interjected into 

the equation. 

The third issue, quickly, and that is that the median income 

issue, the 2 percent, is also driving third-party lawsuits because 

there is a focus on that as driving what communities can or can’t 

do without regard to the legitimate reality of affordability. And so 

as long as that is in the equation it, the unintended consequence 

is that it is serving as fuel on the fire of third-party lawsuits. 

Mr. GIBBS. My time is up. I just want a quick follow up on this. 

When you go over the 2 percent threshold, does the EPA back off 

on the, you know, on the enforcement or going after you, or are you 

saying that also opens up a third-party lawsuit issue? Can you expound a little bit? 

Mr. PORTUNE. In our case, in Hamilton County, we had an approved consent decree in 2004. And then we were sued by the Sierra Club. 

And part what we were sued over was the question that we 

weren’t doing enough quickly enough, and the affordability issue 

was front and center, part of their argument of why they intervened in our federally approved consent decree. That then resulted 

in a revised consent decree. 

But it was stressing and focusing on the 2 percent and whether 

we were meeting that across the board without regard to how 

many individuals in the city of Cincinnati, for example, lived in 

poverty, how many people were going over that in terms of annual 

38 

income as opposed to a median income, it was a major determiner 

in the challenges that were lodged against our consent decree by 

that third party. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will frame the issue in a particular way, I am going to 

frame it in a way that I think is very similar. 

It seems to me that we have a huge problem and we have two 

principal solutions, not the only solution, but two principal solutions. And one is to adopt a process or a framework that emphasizes integrated planning, that emphasizes flexibility, that emphasizes prioritization. And I think there is near unanimity among the 

panel, not perhaps total unanimity, that the EPA guidelines set 

forth in the memorandum of June 5 represents a very good step in 

the right direction. 

I don’t think any reasonable person would argue that this is all 

we need to do or that the framework is perfect, but that it does represent a good first step and that we now have, in the framework 

or the process is now 5 weeks old or 6 weeks old, we now have, 

I think, the opportunity to see it put in place, see how it evolves 

and, you know, it is incumbent on this committee and incumbent 

on the EPA and incumbent on all of the stakeholders to assess 

whether or not it is having its intended outcomes, and then we all 

need to be prepared, I think, to respond in appropriate ways, if it 

is working, and certainly if it isn’t working. 

A second piece is the financing, and I think that there is, again, 

unanimity among the panel that the financing piece of it is crucial, 

and that the framework piece can only take us so far. 

Now, the framework piece represents a new approach. We also 

need a new approach to financing, and I—you know, I talked in my 

opening statement about our bill, H.R. 3145. And I will note, I 

know that there is a lot of Ohio guys out here, and I will note that 

my principal Republican cosponsor is Congressman LaTourette of 

Ohio. This is a bipartisan bill that I really think has some promise. 

Again, is it the only answer? No, it does not. But it does have 

some real promise. And so I am hopeful in hopeful that in the same 

way that the EPA has undertaken a new approach, that the Congress will now undertake a new approach and exercise a suite of 

options that such is what my bill provides. But, Mr. Berger, you 

raised the issue of funding and particularly the issue of more grant 

funding. 

I think it is instructive that we just look at the last couple of 

years of where this Congress has gone. Fiscal year 2009 we enacted 

$4.7 billion in funding for the SRF, $4.7 billion; fiscal year 2010 it 

dropped to $2.1 billion; fiscal year 2011 it dropped to $1.5 billion; 

fiscal year 2012 it dropped to $1.4 billion; and the House Appropriations Committee passed the appropriations bill for the Interior 

and the Environment, and it drops that number to $690 million. 

So we are going in the wrong direction here, and we are exacerbating a problem that all of you on the ground are trying to resolve. And so as we go forward with the, I mean, the mantra here 

is cut spending, the mantra here is we can’t afford it, the mantra 

here is that we can’t possibly increase revenue. 

39 

That drop, from $4.7 billion to $690 million, that is the manifestation of those mantras. And so at some point, we are going to 

need voices of reason to say we have got some real problems in this 

country, and we are going to have to start to address them. 

Now with that, I will get off my soap box and I want to ask Mr. 

Hawkins, NACWA put out a press release back in ’09 in which it 

sort of, it spoke positively about a GAO report that suggested that 

a Clean Water Trust Fund was something that we should be doing, 

and it put out some potential means of funding, a Clean Water 

Trust Fund. And in the NACWA press release it said that fees potentially, underline the word ‘‘potentially,’’ could be placed on such 

things as bottled beverages, flushable products, pesticides, agricultural chemicals and pharmaceuticals. 

Would you, representing NACWA, not so much the city of Washington, DC, would you comment on the relative desirability or the 

lack thereof of those potential funding sources? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Sure, and I will get to you, on the comment you 

made on funding, I think there is a bridge between the two points 

you made, when you asked the question of how integrated planning 

can help with EPA working in silos, I have been an EPA enforcement lawyer and have ran a State agency. 

Remember that this policy only comes into to play when the municipality or the authority comes forward. So it doesn’t mean EPA 

is issuing anything differently unless a municipality is prepared to 

do the background work to come forward with the integrated plan. 

And what I can tell you is all that we are seeking to do with DC 

Water is to open up one of them, which is the long-term control 

plan for combined sewers, and that is what has cost us $2 million 

in prep work to be able to prepare the information and the analysis 

needed. 

The cost, just to get to the table to see whether the integrated— 

you start comparing a combined sewer overflow challenge to a sanitary sewer overflow issue, to an MS–4, comparing the health risk 

to them and the engineering costs, it is an enormously complex matrix that I am glad EPA has opened the door to. But separate from 

the big one, we like H.R. 3145, I applaud the proposal, but there 

is somewhere in between that most places aren’t even going to be 

able to get to the table on integrated planning because of the 

costs—just to get there, and do the analysis. 

On your second question on costs, on particular products, it is 

like a toll that if you use the road, you pay the cost to help update 

the road. As you know, in the city, we have a 5-cent cost on every 

plastic bag that has been used, a very similar concept. We raise 

that money and use it to reduce nonpoint source pollution along 

the Anacostia. 

What we found is that plastic bag use has dropped precipitously, 

because people are making different choices. It is a classic economic 

principle. Put the cost on that item which you are handling in the 

process, you have internalized that cost, classic economics, then the 

cost is borne in the product to the consumer. Likely the consumer 

will use less of it because they will start making different decisions, 

and you had a revenue stream in order to help pay for the cleaning 

of that product when it is used. 

40 

So I personally favor it. I would have to go back and connect with 

NACWA to make sure that our thinking hasn’t changed, but that 

the concept of intaking the cost of handling a waste stream and 

putting it inside the cost to the consumer, both will drive better 

consumer choices and raise revenue to be able to clean up those 

issues when they come to our facility. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. My time has expired, Mr. 

Speaker. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. BERGER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, a comment. The U.S. 

Conference of Mayors adopted in 2011 unanimously, Resolution 43, 

which pertains to CSO and SSO policy, and it was a very simple 

kind of assertion. Either provide 50 percent of the funding in the 

form of grants for our obligations at the local level or give us relief. 

Loans don’t help us. Loans are debt that have to be paid back. 

I can borrow all kinds of money at incredible rates right now, but 

I can’t pay for it. 

So SRF and all of those authorizations, they aren’t yet appropriations, don’t help us if it is just a debt to be paid by the rest of my 

community forever. 

Either it is relief or cash. That is what we need, and thus, it is 

a pretty simple choice. If these are unfunded mandates, and what 

you are hearing from local communities and from districts all 

across the country is we can’t do it, we don’t have printing presses 

like the Federal Government, the local pocketbook is very finite. 

So if the Congress has passed these as mandates and orders for 

us to execute, then you must join us to pay for it. If the cash isn’t 

there, or the political will isn’t there, then relief must come, and 

it has to come soon. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. I think we all understand that, and I think right 

now we are trying to maybe figure out some relief by having the 

integrated permit process and maybe helping the cost side to 

streamline some things, so but you are right, we have huge infrastructure issues that we are facing here and we are trying to address that, so I appreciate your comments. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very important hearing, and I was present for the earlier hearing when we 

heard from the mayor of Omaha, and we heard from Indianapolis, 

as Mayor Berger said, we have heard from cities and counties all 

over the country saying they can’t afford this, and that was a very 

eloquent, articulate plea you just made, Mayor Berger. 

And it seems to me this process is being controlled or governed 

by people who I am sure don’t think of themselves as extremists 

or fanatics, but they are sure not being reasonable, and they are 

going to end up hurting a lot of poor and lower income and working 

people in the process. 

Commissioner Portune said that his area is losing the middle 

class. Three of my dad’s sisters moved to Cincinnati when they 

were young from Tennessee. I probably had as many relatives in 

Ohio at one point as I had in Tennessee. 

But I read a lot of this testimony, and the Mayor of Peoria submitted this in writing, he said, EPA is still asking the citizens of 

Peoria to spend to the limits of affordability, even if spending more 

money will not result in meaningful water quality improvements. 

41 

As noted above, the EPA wants Peoria to eliminate as many CSOs 

as it can afford to eliminate, even though the additional CSOs 

eliminated by going from the city’s $90 million plan to EPA’s suggested plan that we estimate will cost almost $500 million, will not 

result in any meaningful water quality improvements because 

water quality standards would be met fully under the city’s plan. 

If Peoria has to spend more than five times as much as they can 

afford and they were planning to spend, then the citizens’ rates are 

going to have to go up by five times. And a lot of people can’t afford 

that, and a lot of cities can’t afford it. I heard Mayor Berger talk 

about the people he has already laid off going from, what, 530 to 

350—what was it? 

Mr. BERGER. 350. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am sure that was a painful thing for you to will 

center to lay off all those people. And just last week in Tennessee, 

the Chattanooga, the big Chattanooga newspaper, the Times Free 

Press had this story, it starts off, ‘‘The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice are expected to file 

a consent decree Tuesday ordering Chattanooga to spend hundreds 

of millions of dollars on repairs to the city’s sewer system,’’ and this 

is in spite of, they had already spent $100 million a few years earlier. 

The city of Knoxville, where I am from, had spent mega millions 

through the 1990s and the early 2000s on our system there. Then 

in 2005, we had to enter into a $530 million consent decree, and 

I am told that the Conference of Mayors, I am told that the EPA 

is foot dragging about the total cost estimate, but that the Conference of Mayors says this is going to cost hundreds of billions to 

cities all across this country that there is something like 100 or 

over 100 cities under consent decrees at this time. 

And I heard Mr. Hawkins talk about, he says in his testimony, 

the regulations continue to expand, so too have enforcement actions, and he says, costing individual communities billions of dollars often to meet a single CWA requirement. Recently, municipal 

clean water agencies were also hit with a stringent reinterpretation 

of the Clean Air Act, which, if not overturned, will force enormous 

costs on communities, and this is all coming at a time when the 

cities are in trouble anyway economically, because of the economy 

and because of various other factors. 

And, yet, everybody on this panel, and everybody on the earlier 

panel, when we had this hearing a few months ago, everybody 

wants clean water. They want it to be as clean as possible. But we 

have to have a little—we need to have a little balance and common 

sense in here. And we can’t, we can’t please, we can never please 

the fanatics and the radicals and the extremists. But we have got 

to try to have a little moderation and a little reasonableness in regard to these requirements, or we are going to really hurt cities 

and counties all over this country. 

And, as I have said at the start, we are especially going to hurt 

a lot of poor and lower income and working people. Maybe some of 

these officials who are cramming all this stuff down, as maybe with 

their higher incomes, they can afford this and it won’t hurt them, 

but it is sure going to hurt a lot of people across this country if 

42 

we don’t get a little moderation and balance in what we are attempting to do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hawkins, I 

have to thank you again for making sewers exciting enough to 

draw the general interest of the public. 

And I must say, I found your summary and your vivid explanation important, and you come, of course, from the District of Columbia. But in many ways, what you describe is emblematic of 

what is facing, as my good friend on the other side says, small 

towns and big cities like DC alike. 

Now, you know, when they call the cops on you, when you announce a 50-percent increase, I know you feel you are caught between a rock and a hard place. You mentioned the diminishing returns on investment for nutrient removal, and you made us understand why. 

On the other hand, look where you are located. You are located 

not only in the Nation’s Capital, but in the region of the iconic 

Chesapeake Bay. And part of that mandate has to do with improving the Bay’s water quality. You said, I think you said that the District was the only part of the Bay region that met its goals, the 

Chesapeake Bay goals. Is that true? 

Mr. HAWKINS. That is correct, essentially because the only major 

contributor to nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay from the District 

is Blue Plains, and Blue Plains met its goal. So there are other facilities that have met their goals, but for whole States that have 

lots of sources of pollutants, they have not as a total. 

Ms. NORTON. I see. I see. Now, what we are dealing with here 

is essentially are competing priorities, and the public wants both, 

and the public never wants the kinds of costs you are getting now. 

Do you see any way to continue along the road you are going 

without placing an increasingly oppressive burden on ratepayers? 

And if you envision that the burden that you have encountered, 

you say in only 4 years, a 50-percent increase, do you envision that 

kind of increase in the future, and if you envision anything like it, 

I would like you to suggest what EPA, consistent with its priority 

as well, and, remember, I have set this question up in light of competing priorities, what EPA can do. 

I understand, for example, that for districts like ours, which have 

a consent decree, they have increased, I don’t know if they have 

done this for the District of Columbia, they are either considering 

or have decreased the number of years that a jurisdiction have. 

Would that have an effect if it is increased from 20 to 25 years. 

Has that happened? 

What else could happen when you know that the Congress is not 

about to come to the rescue, your taxpayers can’t afford to come to 

the rescue, and yet there are priorities having to do with clean 

water and with your rivers and streams. 

Given the way that you are locked in, and the way the EPA may 

feel it is locked in by some of these consent decrees, what do you 

suggest could be done to at least bring, lower the rate of increase, 

of these increases? 

43 

Mr. HAWKINS. It is certainly the question of the day. There is no 

doubt we have done at DC Water a 20-year projection of budgets 

and rates. Obviously we could only project that part into the future 

with the requirements that we can envision today, and the history 

of the system is that there are many new requirements that come 

in over time. 

Ms. NORTON. But is that based on your consent decree, 20-year 

time limit? 

Mr. HAWKINS. No, we just did this because we wanted to have 

a financial picture for the enterprise. We do 10 years every year, 

a 10-year rolling financial plan. We extended it out 20 years just 

because I wanted to see a picture, and we see significant rate increases every single year for 20 years, not always double digit, but 

close to double digit that will yield far in advance of inflation so 

your initial part of your question is do we see these increases as 

far as we can plan into the future, we see increases faster than the 

rate of inflation. 

Ms. NORTON. OK, if that is unsustainable, given the constraints 

on all concerned, should we increase the number of years to comply, we know what that will do, of course, to nutrients on the 

Chesapeake Bay and the rest of it, but something has got to give. 

And what kinds of relief do you see as practical? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I think there are three kinds of relief. One is, the 

extension as you said, EPA and Department of Justice has been 

forthcoming. There is Atlanta, and Seattle, and Philadelphia, there 

have been new approaches taken to these solutions. One of the 

challenges is opening up existing consent decrees, where flexibility 

has been most possible is where there isn’t yet a consent decree in 

place yet, so you negotiated adaptive management from the beginning. It seems far harder for communities that stepped up sooner 

and more quickly to reopen those decisions and incorporate modified compliance schedules, but I think that part of the equation is 

a longer period of time to conduct the work so that financial components can be extended on the pocketbook. 

A second question is how you get equity on the sources of pollutants. You are correct that we are reducing the nutrients at Blue 

Plains. The challenge is that over time, the percentage of nutrients 

going into the Chesapeake Bay from the big urban wastewater 

treatment plants has declined dramatically because we have been 

successful. We know that if we—— 

Ms. NORTON. And somehow that ought to be rewarded. 

Mr. HAWKINS. And the way it is rewarded, and we are proud of 

it, and we have stepped forward and every community at this table 

has done a lot to protect the waters of the system. But what we 

know if we decrease nutrients from Blue Plains to zero, the Chesapeake Bay wouldn’t be remarkably cleaned up because we are no 

longer the major source. 

The major sources are the nonpoint source, the runoff from other 

sources way out in the hinterlands of the Chesapeake Bay. So I 

think one of the challenges that we faced is that the Clean Water 

Act wasn’t fundamentally written with those sources in mind. 

I grew up in Ohio, in Cleveland. I visited the Cuyahoga River in 

1969 and looked at it in the year where it burned for a week, so 

I know the problem that we were trying to resolve. I wrote a letter 

44 

to President Nixon that year saying that, as did everyone in my 

class, that we had to clean up that problem. It should not stand. 

The law was written to solve pollutants from point sources, 

whether industry or municipal treatment facilities. It is very unclear, and EPA is struggling with it, but to get parallel reductions 

from what are now the prevailing sources of pollutants for nutrients into the water bodies is a much more difficult challenge. And 

if you look at where the money is being spent, it is being spent disproportionately on urban populations or those that send waste to 

a treatment facility, rather than those that flow directly to the 

river. 

Ms. NORTON. But you feel mandated to continue to invest in the 

technology that goes after smaller and smaller increments? 

Mr. HAWKINS. We are absolutely mandated to do that. We will 

meet those requirements. The hard core reality of every system at 

this table is that we meet the mandates where we don’t spend the 

money on that trunk line on Florida Avenue, which causes the 

flooding in our city, which is what the citizens really are desperate—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, could just ask one more question. 

I would like to know if you wanted to do a pilot on green technology, you are now spending billions of dollars on these huge tunnels that is 20th-century technology. We understand why it is 

being used, tests that it is approved. Do you believe that green 

technology would significantly lower the increases you are encountering and have you any evidence to support that notion? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I am not yet convinced. The reason we are seeking 

to open our consent decree to do a pilot in the District is we are 

not certain about what the costs are likely to be. We are not saying 

to any of the stakeholders that we are likely to save a lot of money 

if we use low-impact development, because it is quite expensive to 

be doing a dispersed low-impact system that is broad enough to 

contain that much stormwater. We do think, however, that the 

multiple benefits that come from the expenditure, when you are 

doing work that affects the surface of the city, the city streets, the 

air quality, the stormwater retention that otherwise causes the direct flooding, the jobs, the long-term jobs, you cannot outsource jobs 

that have to be maintained for a city street. 

The job creation in the city, the multiple benefits that come from 

a low-impact development far exceed those of the tunnel. We are 

not certain yet that it actually will save money. That is why we 

want to do the pilot to get in hand measurable costs that we can 

then model to a full-scale implementation. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very interesting 

conversations. I also come from a small city, past mayor, so I understand some of the local frustrations. And I also sat on a sanitation board that dealt with the water recycling and the landfills and 

the utilization of new technology to be able to cut the costs down 

of the delivery of service to the ratepayers. 

Mr. Becker, in the West, we do have a unique set of water challenges, and recent reports have shown our water supply is diminVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-25-1~1\75291.TXT JEAN
45 

ishing while the demand is increasing. Population continues to increase, at least in California. 

How will you, as Mayor of Salt Lake City, are reintegrating 

reuse and recycling into your city’s water planning efforts? 

Mr. BECKER. Thank you. Increasingly in our city and in our region we are tapping every conceivable means that we can to use 

water efficiently. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How? Specifics. 

Mr. BECKER. We are doing a whole variety of things. Part of it 

is institutional. Part of it is us coordinating our water, part of it 

using our groundwater supply. But we know there are limits there. 

As we are seeing climate change, we are having to adapt in our watersheds to our water supply system. 

We are increasingly—we have changed our rate structure. We 

have gone to a declining block, we have gone to an inverted block 

system where the more water you use now, the more water you pay 

for. We have reduced our water use in the last 5 years by more 

than 20 percent in Salt Lake City just by changing our rate structure, by educating our community, and by offering incentives for 

people to change their landscaping and their water use and irrigation habits as well. 

So we find that we can do a lot to improve, certainly, our water 

systems. But as has been mentioned here, this is a problem that 

we face really for all of us. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Especially Western States. 

Mr. BECKER. Certainly in the Western States, where as you know 

we are the second most arid State, we rely so heavily on using our 

water well, and we are intent on continuing to do that and improve 

our efficiencies. But we really need congressional action as well. 

This just can’t happen by us working locally and trying to work 

with our EPA. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And your water smart investments. 

Mr. BECKER. I am sorry. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And your water smart investments? 

Mr. BECKER. Continually. Whether it is in simple things like metering, whether it is in our irrigation systems within our city, for 

our parks, we are continually investing and making major investments on water issues. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One of the things you mentioned to us is climate change, and that was a big bugaboo word around here. It is 

happening, and I think many States are beginning to wonder how 

they are going to be able to deal with the next cycle of drought. 

And then, of course, rains and floods and all that will other good 

stuff. 

What about groundwater, your aquifers? What is the status and 

have you worked with USGS? And how are things being the able 

to store it, because as the drought continues, the heat that is going 

through the United States is evaporating a lot of the surface water. 

Have you looked at, are you looking at being able to identify your 

aquifers and what the status is and be able to recharge? 

Mr. BECKER. We have. Thank you. Groundwater is essential for 

us, we have a very good sense of our groundwater system in our 

valley, coming out of our mountains and our recharge areas, and 

protecting those recharge areas is essential, making sure we don’t 

46 

tap too much of our groundwater is essential too, because the Great 

Salt Lake will start to move towards and interfere with the water 

we can use for potable water. 

So we know how much water we have. We are tapping it extensively, but if we overtap it, we are going to face dire consequences 

in terms of the water supply. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Overdrafting is a problem, isn’t it? 

Mr. Baker, same question but the broader statewide perspective, 

and can you discuss how in the area west in the State of Utah you 

are dealing with decreased water availability and increasing demand, and how will integrated planning help your efforts in Utah? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, I think one thing we need to do is integrate 

this wet weather discussion that we are having for the NPDES permits, with groundwater, which is not a federally permitted authority, and with drinking water. 

When I get back to my office tomorrow I will have sitting on my 

desk the first integrated plan to be submitted by a community in 

Utah. It is not a wastewater treatment plant issue, it is not a wet 

weather issue, but it is a water quality issue resulting from water 

that is coming out of a mine that is heavily laden with metals, and 

those metals are causing problems, according to the TMDL we did. 

This really becomes a water quality issue, so we need to have a 

broader perspective of this. It is not wet weather, it is not wastewater treatment plants, it is not just combined sewer, but it is 

water quality. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Which mine might that be, sir? 

Mr. BAKER. Pardon me. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Which mine might that be? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, it is outside of Park City, and so we are going 

to need to figure out how to deal with this. And just to answer another question that Congresswoman Norton had, well, how do we 

do this? 

One thing, we struggle with nutrients in Utah and we don’t 

struggle with wet weather. Mayor Becker mentioned Utah is the 

second driest State in the country. Wet weather is a blessing, not 

a curse. But this nutrient issue is ubiquitous across the country. 

What we are planning on doing with our nutrient issue, and this 

will help, I think, address some of the cost issues, is we are not 

going to go full throttle from the very beginning. 

We are going to do an incremental approach and have an adaptive management approach that will allow us to gauge the success 

and benefits of nutrient removal in a cost-effective way. The Jordan 

River bisects Mayor Becker’s city, runs the lengths of the city. Most 

of the wastewater generated in the State of Utah flows down that 

river and ultimately into the Great Salt Lake. 

For a little over a dollar a month per user, we will be able to 

eliminate two-thirds of the phosphorus loading that goes into that 

river and ultimately to the Great Salt Lake that is causing problems. And then we will take a step back and see if that is good 

enough, or if we need to go to the next step. 

So this adaptive management approach I think is going to be a 

key element in making integrated planning successful, and without 

breaking the bank. 

47 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One of the questions that was answered by 

Mr. Hawkins deals with the source, the prevailing source. We 

found in California that a lot of this comes from industry, from agriculture, that is contaminating some of our water. California gets 

three sources of water, southern California. Northern California 

provides us with the Bay Delta, which right now is a big issue in 

California. And then one is the Colorado River and the other is 

groundwater. And somehow we are trying to wean ourselves off of 

imported water by doing more recycling, conservation, education 

and desalination. 

Now, any of those areas we need to be able to get assistance, because as you have pointed out, many of the cities are too small to 

be able to know how to navigate all the paperwork that is necessary and be able to be successful without hiring attorneys, consultants and things that they cannot afford. So somehow we need 

to be able to understand that for the smaller communities. However, the larger communities also have a problem. So somehow we 

need to be able to take all of this into consideration. 

However, I have not heard anybody say anything about what 

about our Native Americans? What about their water, which sometimes they truck it in to be able to provide drinking water for the 

reservations. Those are issues that sometimes we don’t talk about, 

and I think we need to be able to concern ourselves with all Americans, not just those that fall in the communities that are incorporated but all the unincorporated and tribal areas. 

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back and I hope to be able to get 

some answers later on. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Edwards, do you have any questions? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

of our witnesses. 

I have just a couple of questions. I think there is no question we 

all know all across the country that we have huge infrastructure 

needs, we have no money, and we are running the risk—I live in 

Maryland, and maybe I can drink some clean water there, but I 

could go someplace else and it not be clean. And I don’t think that 

any of us want to be in that place. We have all traveled to countries where you can drink water in one city, but you better make 

sure to take your bottled water in another city. That is not the 

United States and we don’t want that. 

The problem, at least one of the challenges, is how do you finance 

all of the infrastructure? When you start telling customers that we 

have infrastructure that dates back to the beginning of the last 

century, and we have got to change that and it is going to cost billions of dollars, and at the end of the day, they know at least some 

of that, most of it, probably all of it, is going to have to come out 

of their pockets, no one wants to do that. 

The same thing happens, we just had a major storm here in the 

metropolitan area, and we know that we have deep needs for electrical infrastructure, and nobody wants to pay for that because it 

costs a lot of money. The Federal Government, I think, has to be 

a real partner there, but that is still taxpayer money. 

We heard from a couple of our witnesses, and I can understand 

this, that at a local level, because of those huge financial constraints, that it also means that some of our small cities, and I 

48 

have about 20-some of them, little municipalities that also have infrastructure needs, and they can’t afford it. 

So I wonder if any of you can talk about the integrated permitting process as a way to facilitate consideration of innovative financial approaches to financing the infrastructure. I would note that 

in a recent analysis of green water infrastructure in Philadelphia, 

it actually showed that a stormwater fee that was combined with 

a credit for managing water onsite could yield about $400 million 

in private investment opportunity. 

So, if you have some ideas about it, I would appreciate your sharing them with the committee. 

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, members of the committee 

and Congresswoman Edwards, there is a real practical solution 

that can help us get there within the integrated planning process. 

Our coalition has proposed a 15- to 20-community pilot demonstration project approach on an annual basis for the next 5 years 

within the context of the integrated planning framework, where 

EPA is leading the process. 

The showcase community approach that exists today places all of 

the financial burden of developing new ideas, of seeing if the alternative approaches work, in determining whether creative approaches to this solution, financial, capital, infrastructure, green 

infrastructure, green build, otherwise will work. The burden is still 

all on the local communities to take the risk, financially and otherwise. And if what we choose doesn’t work, not only are we out the 

money, but we are still facing mandates and we are still facing enforcement and the like. 

We need EPA to lead on this process. We want EPA to lead. And 

I will admit that there has been a sea change in the approach in 

our own interaction with the EPA and the like. But EPA’s approach to showcase communities is still saying let’s look at the examples where local communities have found something that has 

worked, and let’s showcase that. Well, you still have to have 

enough money and enough resources and access to expertise and 

time to be able to make that work, and the majority of the communities, and the last count I heard was there were 781 communities 

nationwide that are facing this issue at one level or another, the 

vast majority don’t have the ability to do that. 

We need EPA to lead in partnering with us, to bring their expertise to the table, to help show local communities what the answers 

are, or to allow us to explore alternatives without risk of loss or 

further risk of enforcement for having chosen the wrong approach 

if it turns out that it doesn’t work. We need to develop these alternatives over the next 5 years to make them work. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I appreciate that. Let me just reclaim my time because I would like to hear a response from Mr. Hawkins and your 

view about what it is that we could do to use some innovation. 

Mr. HAWKINS. On the financing side, we do, in fact, in the District, have an impervious area charge like Philadelphia. One of the 

other things we have done in the District is create a sustainable 

energy utility, which is something you could also perhaps do on the 

water side, which it does need an upfront investment to capitalize 

the utility. Then you make investments, particularly on the drinking water side, where then you can save money on reduced conVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\7-25-1~1\75291.TXT JEAN
49 

sumption. The saved money pays back the utility to help fund the 

next project. And if the private sector brings in half, so you do 

sharing, then the dollars that you put into the utility, the sustainable utility, whether it is water or energy, can be sustained and 

grow. 

The impervious area charge is the largest and fastest growing— 

not the largest, but the fastest growing part of our bill by far, because it is exclusively covering the $2.6 billion project. We haven’t 

created it yet like Philadelphia, but creating an incentive that if 

you do more to manage stormwater on your property, you pay less 

of an impervious charge. That is another way where there is an incentive for someone to reduce their bill by doing something that actually reduces the stormwater and can cleanse it at the same time. 

So both of those are innovative approaches that do work. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I want to thank the first panel. It was 

excellent testimony. I want to move on to the second panel, because 

I think that is where we really need to have some focus. Hopefully 

we will be done before votes at 1 o’clock. Thank you again for taking your time to come and give this very important testimony. 

At this time our second panelists can come up to the table. Welcome to the committee. First off I want to thank you for being here 

for the past 2 hours and listening to the first testimony, because 

hopefully it was beneficial to you in your role and your responsibilities as you administer the Clean Water Act. 

Our second panel, we have Ms. Nancy Stoner. She is the acting 

assistant administrator for the Office of Water for the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, and Ms. Cynthia Giles, 

the assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance of the United States EPA. 

TESTIMONY OF NANCY K. STONER, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND CYNTHIA GILES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND 

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. GIBBS. Welcome, Ms. Stoner. The floor is yours. 

Ms. STONER. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Bishop and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to 

appear before you today, along with Assistant Administrator Giles 

to discuss the U.S. EPA’s efforts to achieve better water quality improvements through integrated municipal stormwater and wastewater planning and innovative approaches for meeting our infrastructure challenges. 

We were pleased to hear from the other witnesses at today’s 

hearing, and look forward to moving forward with the integrated 

water quality planning approach as a way to offer municipalities 

an opportunity to meet Clean Water Act requirements in a more 

effective manner and in a way that achieves the highest priority 

goals more quickly. 

The EPA, States, and municipalities have often focused on each 

Clean Water Act requirement individually for protecting water 

quality. This approach may have the unintended consequences of 

50 

constraining a municipality from implementing the most cost-effective solutions in a sequence that addresses the most serious water 

quality issues first. Since last fall, we have been working to clarify 

the integrated planning approach by developing a framework document to help explain how the Agency will work with State and 

local governments. 

On June 5 of 2012, after holding a series of public workshops 

around the country to gain input on the approach, we signed a 

memorandum to EPA regions that transmitted the final framework. The framework outlines the principles we will follow in implementing the integrated approach and provides further guidance 

on developing and implementing effective integrated plans under 

the approach. 

It also outlines new flexibility to pursue innovative cost-saving 

solutions, like green infrastructure, that will help communities develop plans that prioritize their investments in stormwater and 

wastewater infrastructure. 

Let me briefly talk about what the integrated planning approach 

is and is not. The integrated approach is optional, not mandatory. 

Any community satisfied with its current approach to water and 

wastewater requirements can continue that approach. 

The integrated approach does not entail lowering existing Clean 

Water Act standards. Rather, the approach will take advantage of 

the flexibilities in existing EPA regulations, policies and guidance 

to allow municipalities to sequence implementation of their Clean 

Water Act obligations to protect water quality and public health at 

a reduced cost. 

The integrated approach relies on Clean Water Act permits as 

critical tools for protecting water quality and achieving Clean 

Water Act compliance. Permits can include the use of multiyear 

compliance schedules and can incorporate innovative solutions that 

best achieve public health and environmental goals while meeting 

the needs of the community. They also can be flexible and include 

the adaptive management approaches that several advocated for 

today. 

Integrated plans can be tailored to the needs of the community, 

and can include innovative techniques. EPA’s existing regulations 

and policies provide flexibility for the EPA and States to design solutions that meet community needs. These solutions can include innovative tools such as green infrastructure techniques and asset 

management approaches, that is actually what George Hawkins 

was talking about, asset management approaches, that provide a 

better basis for decisionmaking on a utilitywide basis and support 

the long-term financial sustainability of the municipality. 

We at the EPA look forward to working with this subcommittee, 

our State colleagues, municipalities and many other partners, 

stakeholders and citizens to implement the integrated planning approach. We are committed to maintaining improvements in water 

quality and moving forward toward full attainment of water quality 

and human health goals. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. Assistant Administrator Giles or I will be happy to respond to any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Giles, you are welcome. 

51 

Ms. GILES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me 

the opportunity to make a few comments. I am happy to be here 

today along with my colleague, Nancy Stoner, to talk about the collaboration between EPA’s headquarters and regional permitting 

and enforcement programs to improve water quality through integrated municipal stormwater and wastewater planning. 

We have made tremendous progress towards cleaner water over 

the last four decades. Our goal is to continue to make progress on 

clean water goals shared by communities across the country by 

working together to make smart choices about priorities, take advantage of innovations, and make sure that the most important 

work is done first. These principles are the foundation of the integrated municipal stormwater and wastewater planning approach 

that we have now finalized and are implementing. 

We listened to States, cities, wastewater utilities and many others in developing the final framework. We heard and have responded to the need for flexibility to adopt affordable and commonsense sequencing of work, to address the most important problems 

first, and respond to new information over the course of the community’s implementation of its plan. 

We were also encouraged that communities are increasingly embracing green infrastructure as part of an affordable solution to 

protect water and revitalize communities, and the framework supports those choices. 

We agree that the best answer will vary by community, and that 

solutions need to be tailored to each situation. Sometimes a permit 

will be the way to accomplish these objectives, sometimes an enforcement agreement, and sometimes a combination of approaches 

will work best. 

We have reached agreements with many cities across the country, including Indianapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chattanooga, and many others that include these new green 

infrastructure and integrated planning approaches. We look forward to working with these communities and many others who 

would like to pursue an integrated approach. 

I am happy to respond to any questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. You heard the first panel, and I appreciate you listening to them so you got it firsthand. I think I will 

start off. You heard the first panel discuss about the pilot community demonstration projects and what, Ms. Stoner, what you said 

back in December at our first hearing. 

Where are we, where is the EPA on that? Because it seems like 

to me if you can do that, that would highlight what is going on, 

it would maybe work out the kinks and finesse it a little bit to 

make this work, because I know you are committed to making this 

integrated permitting process work. But where are we on setting 

up some demonstration projects like pilots to work through this? 

Ms. STONER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are in a position 

where we have not turned anyone away yet from this voluntary 

program. So all are welcome. So it is not an exclusive list, but we 

are doing the very best we can to work with the resources we were 

given, to work with those communities that have stepped forward 

and indicated that they would like to work with us. That is where 

we are. 

52 

Mr. GIBBS. What are you doing to reach out to them? Are you 

taking the initiative, or are you waiting for them to come to you? 

Ms. STONER. We are absolutely reaching out to communities. 

Every regional office has been asked to work through the States. 

The permitting authorities in 46 States—the States do the permitting in 46 States, and we have asked the regions to reach out to 

the States and the States to reach out to the communities. We have 

done Webinars. We have done five stakeholder meetings. We are 

getting the word out and asking people to come work with us. 

Mr. GIBBS. Do you have a response coming back? Do you think 

you will have some setup here in the next 30–60 days going forward? What kind of response are you getting? 

Ms. STONER. Well, we are already working with a number of 

communities on both the permitting side and on the enforcement 

side, so we have a number that have already stepped forward and 

we are working with them. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Ms. GILES. I would agree. We had quite a number of discussions 

ongoing, some of which have reached conclusion, such as in the city 

of Seattle, and some of which are ongoing. So we are working with 

Philadelphia, and I believe George Hawkins mentioned in DC, and 

many other communities, Cincinnati. 

Mr. GIBBS. I would appreciate it if you would keep my subcommittee staff up to date on the progress of that so we can monitor that, especially since we aren’t going to be here much. 

A lot of things came up, the consent decrees. Is it possible, I 

think your intent, we have issues with the permitting. It is 3–5 

years, extending that, versus consent decrees. Let’s go, for example, 

a municipality entity is under a consent decree. Is the EPA willing 

to show flexibility if that entity is willing to develop an integral 

plan? What are you allowed to do and what are you willing to do? 

Ms. GILES. Absolutely. We have said repeatedly, and we will repeat again here, that we are happy to work with communities 

under existing agreements to adopt an integrated plan, and we 

have some record of amending existing agreements to do that, most 

recently, Indianapolis and Atlanta. 

Mr. GIBBS. You heard in the first panel about the third-party 

lawsuits. Can you maybe expound on that, what the challenges are 

there, if it is something we could address. I guess what I am saying, if an entity, city, whatever, has a plan and the EPA, you are 

all working hand in hand, you have set the goals and they are 

making their benchmarks, and a third party comes in and says 

hey, you are not doing it fast enough, even though the affordability 

and all that, can you expound on what those challenges are to help 

the committee understand that a little better? 

Ms. STONER. Let me address the permitting side of it. So under 

the Clean Water Act there is a permit shield provision. So any permitted entity that is in compliance with its Clean Water Act permit 

is shielded by the law from third-party lawsuits. We think we have 

the flexibility now under the existing statute and regulations to include compliance schedules in NPDES permits that will enable entities to be incorporating those long-term plans right into their permits in the 5-year increments, and to do adaptive management as 

53 

they go along and learn more. So we believe we have the flexibility 

now. 

There is one caveat to that, which is a State which does not 

allow that flexibility may not enable the permit to have that occur. 

But every State can allow those compliance schedules to be in permits if the State chooses to do so, and they can make that change 

now for any requirements that are not allowed now to be included 

in those 5-year permits. 

Mr. GIBBS. Are you at the EPA considering on the integrated permitting process to open it up more than just as you heard in the 

testimony, drinking water, groundwater, if they have challenges 

with that, or some of the other things they have to come into compliance with, just besides the sewer overflows, for example? 

Ms. STONER. Well, our focus right now is integrated the wastewater and the stormwater, but that does include those asset management issues that we were talking about earlier. So the full 

range of wastewater and stormwater, whether it is an obligation or 

whether it is providing the infrastructure necessary to provide 

those sanitary services to the public, all of that can be considered 

right now. That is the focus of our approach. 

Mr. GIBBS. To follow up a little bit, in the testimony I am trying 

to recollect here a little bit, the affordability piece, is EPA looking 

to address that? You heard from every panelist I believe that you 

get wealthier people in the community and poorer people, and unfortunately the people on the lower end of the economic scale get 

hit hardest, and some of the formula determining it, the 2 percent. 

I also couple that with would EPA be more willing to look at the 

total integrating plan, the 2 percent, and not be in silos for each 

project? 

Ms. STONER. So the framework already talks about allowing consideration of disproportionate burdens on portions of the community. It also allows consideration of State and local tools as well as 

the financial capability assessment guidance. And that number 

that people were referring to repeatedly, the 2 percent median 

household income, is not a floor or a ceiling. It is just a guide. So 

I believe the flexibility already exists in the framework that they 

are looking for. 

What I heard a lot of people saying is that they would like to 

have more resources available, and certainly the needs are great. 

But we think we have the flexibility now under the framework to 

address this as best as we can in partnership with State and local 

communities using the resources available. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I will turn it over to Ranking Member Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you both for your testimony, but more important, thank you both 

for the work that you have done over the last several months on 

this integrated framework. I think the testimony that we heard 

from the previous panel, which, as I said before, was nearly unanimous in its both endorsement and appreciation of the work that 

you have done, is something we don’t often hear in this committee. 

So I thank you for that. 

I just have two questions. The first is we now have a framework. 

We are going to have to test that framework. So my question is to 

what extent is the EPA prepared to be additionally flexible going 

54 

forward as we see whether or not the framework does, in fact, result in the desired outcomes or whether we are going to need to 

either introduce additional flexibility or whatever? 

Ms. Giles? 

Ms. GILES. Yes. We designed the framework so that we would 

allow that additional flexibility, and I think one of the things that 

you heard from all of the witnesses today on the first panel is the 

importance of being able to adapt to the specific circumstances of 

a community. So that is why we designed it in the way that we did, 

so that we can work with each community to try things that will 

work for them. And as we go, we will learn by doing. And I think 

the communities will also learn from each other about which programs work well. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. Ms. Stoner, anything to add? 

Ms. STONER. No. I agree. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. The second question. We heard from Mr. 

Portune and others in the first panel about whether they would be 

called model cities or showcase communities or pilot projects or 

whatever. So my question is this. One of the mantras of this committee has been that we should be doing more with less. Now, we 

are certainly providing the less. The EPA’s budget, if the chairman’s mark in the House Appropriations Committee is enacted into 

law, it would result in a $1.4 billion reduction year-to-year under 

fiscal year 2012, a 17-percent reduction in 1 year. 

So my question is, if we agree that this notion of having showcase communities is a really good one, that is worthy of an effort, 

does the EPA have the capacity, do you have the financial capacity 

to invest in these showcase communities, or would such an effort 

require additional appropriations, or would you have to hurt some 

other activity of the EPA in order to undertake this one? 

Ms. STONER. As you are probably aware, the State Revolving 

Funds that are the principal source of funding we have under the 

Clean Water Act and the 319 funds, they all go to the States and 

they are distributed according to formulas, and we couldn’t just 

shift money to particular communities even if we thought—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt, actually 

maybe I do. Are you saying that this is a State-based decision as 

opposed to a Federal decision? 

Ms. STONER. Well, it is the Federal law. The grant money goes 

from us to the States, and then the States distribute it. And there 

is no specific pot of money set aside anywhere that I know of for 

pilot communities on this. 

Mr. BISHOP. So to be clear, if we were to engage in pilot communities, that would require an investment on the part of the States, 

from their SRF funds, in order to make that happen. Is that correct? 

Ms. STONER. Yes, if they chose to do that. 

Mr. BISHOP. And we are handicapping, or handcuffing the States 

by virtue of the huge reductions that are proposed for the SRFs. 

So this notion, even if it is a really, really good one of pilot communities or test communities, would be really hard to pull off. Is that 

a fair assessment? 

Ms. STONER. There is no new money available for this. 

55 

Mr. BISHOP. I think that is a yes. OK, thank you very much. I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And after that, the administrative handling fees for the State upon the entities if there 

were to be such a program, or I mean if they were going to be able 

to do that. So that if you sent it to the State and the States get 

a certain amount, 5, 10, whatever percent for administering the 

programs to the cities, so you lose money in that area, right? 

Ms. STONER. The amount of money is fixed, so if one city gets 

more, another city gets less. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, you heard some of the questions that I 

had posed to some of—and thank you very much. Your western 

representatives are great with my communities, especially my 

councils of government. They have done an outstanding job. I know 

years ago they came to me because they were being asked to comply with the runoff to the ocean, and they felt that it was very hard 

for the cities to be able to keep sacred stuff from going to the ocean 

and then be fined by EPA, so they came to some agreement in that 

area. So thank you for that. 

Last December, I had asked you a question regarding the 28 different agencies that deal with the water issues and how does the 

integrated framework memorandum address integration across all 

these various agencies of the Federal Government that deal with 

water, and how do we know that we can help in being able to clarify or assist in making it a little better, less paperwork, less work, 

less funding, and as was pointed out, expensive forms, time consumed in that. 

Ms. STONER. We do have a number of efforts that are efforts at 

integrating the Federal agencies and their approach to working 

with communities. That is actually the centerpiece of what the 

urban waters effort is, which was created by Administrator Jackson, and it is to work with communities on what their priorities are 

in terms of reviving their water bodies and access to those water 

bodies and arraying all of the Federal agencies that can help put 

that together through the various mechanisms they have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You did make mention that you do reach out 

to some of the communities to be able to help them learn more, but 

I am sure, as with everybody else, your funds have been consistently diminished to be able to do that outreach. Well, that is no different for the States’ current standing, especially in California 

where many cities are going bankrupt. So there is very little way 

for them, or no way at all, for them to be able to implement any 

of the requirements. So this then becomes a great issue for entities. 

And then again, going back to the disenfranchised communities 

such as the tribes and the colonias, which have no Government, the 

colonias, so-to-speak, and the tribes, because sometimes they do not 

have the ability to be able to navigate the Federal system. Can you 

give some examples of how the integrated planning might be beneficial to these entities to be smarter and more efficient in the development and use of water, and how are you going to deal with them, 

what outreach or education will you be providing? 

Ms. STONER. So we do provide funding to tribal nations, with 

running—can you hear me now? How about now? 

56 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I think your system is gone. You can just 

speak up. I think somebody might have leaned on something. 

Ms. STONER. We do work with tribal nations. We do have some 

funding to provide to them to continue the funding to assist tribes 

in developing water quality standards and protecting those tribal 

waters. I think this kind of approach that we have will help all 

communities—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am sorry to interrupt, but my time is coming 

up. What about the nonfederally recognized tribes. 

Ms. STONER. The funding does go to federally recognized tribes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Only the federally recognized, and the others 

are out of luck? 

Ms. STONER. Just the federally recognized. That is my understanding. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That can create a problem, because there is 

the issue of health, and that is maybe something we need to be 

able to get more in tune with. There is a whole bunch of other 

questions, but can you describe some of the green infrastructure 

tools that you are proposing that water agencies use as part of the 

integrated solutions to the water management? 

Ms. STONER. Absolutely. So green infrastructure is very popular 

with communities we are working with. They find that whether it 

is swales along roads, whether it is rain gardens, green roofs, rain 

water harvesting, all kinds of approaches that they can use to reduce pollution and augment water supplies. But I think communities drive economic revitalization. We find it is very popular in 

a lot of communities and want to integrate that into their existing 

plans. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. A lot of this new technology coming up, being 

able to utilize solar panels or other means of being able to produce 

energy that will cut the cost of, say, the pumping and other stuff— 

there you go, are you working with any of the entities that are 

making these groundbreaking new technologies available and being 

able to, not promote necessarily an item or a business, but being 

able to cut the usage of electricity, for instance, to do some of the 

work? 

Ms. STONER. Yes. We are doing the best we can in terms of providing technical assistance. Just last week we provided $950,000 in 

technical assistance to communities who want to know how to get 

going on green infrastructure, how to evaluate what they can do to 

remove local barriers. I was just up at a Water Environment Federation conference on new technologies in stormwater management 

just last week also in Baltimore. I think there is a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of efforts being made both inside and outside the 

Government to disseminate knowledge about these technologies so 

everyone can benefit from them. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am sure you do—just a second more, Mr. 

Chair—you know a lot of those new technologies. But how would 

an entity that has no idea of how to get that information, how 

would they be able to know where it is? Do you give it to the Members of Congress, do you give it to the cities themselves, is it published in the Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, 

so they can disseminate it to those that don’t have your Web site, 

57 

your email address or any other way of getting in touch to provide 

this information to help themselves? 

Ms. STONER. We do all of those things that you are talking about. 

We did just redesign our Web site to make it easier for people to 

find information. We are putting together an opportunity for green 

infrastructure, not too much, and so we are working on getting the 

word out through all of those different partners that you mentioned. And the other thing that is happening is that there is lots 

of consultants who are also letting people know about these technologies and how they can help their communities in employing 

them to revitalize their waterways. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

indulgence. Thank you for your answers. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Stoner and Ms. 

Giles, I hope you don’t take this personally. We want to hear you. 

Ms. Stoner, I wonder if you could tell me, I know here in the 

metropolitan region, the Anacostia watershed runs through Prince 

George’s County where I live and represent, and last year the county received $200,000 from EPA to implement several green infrastructure initiatives. You had an opportunity to visit one that was 

supported by the EPA out in Edmonston. And I have to tell you for 

these small municipalities, when they get that, what is really essentially a little bit of money, the other municipalities, one, they 

want to compete with each other, they want to outdo each other, 

they want to do green infrastructure. Do you have plans to award 

competitive grants to municipalities on an annual basis? 

Ms. STONER. I wish I could say yes to that. So we did just give 

some money, it was actually technical assistance, to communities 

wanting to do green infrastructure. We also have urban waters 

grants. We also use Brownfields grants which can include green infrastructure. There are some communities that have gone to 

TIGER grants from the DOT to get that money. So it is really 

about putting together the pieces, what is it that a community 

wants to do, can it be funded through DOT, through HUD, through 

EPA? USDA has an urban forestry program. So that is what we 

are trying to help people do, is identify as the resources are shrinking, what are the pots of money available to help them do what 

they need to do. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I appreciate that, because these are incredibly popular, and even with the technical assistance it provides a 

little bit of resource to help communities understand what they 

have the capacity to do and then to do even the little things that 

can make a huge difference in a watershed. 

I introduced, and, of course, you know this because you helped 

me work on it before you came to the EPA, H.R. 2030, which is the 

Green Water Infrastructure Act, and among other things it would 

establish three to five centers of excellence for green infrastructure, 

these would be located throughout the United States, on the theory 

that we have to do some of this stuff regionally, that we can’t think 

about one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to green infrastructure because regions are simply different. 

You have recognized the need for establishing best practices for 

water infrastructure, green water infrastructure. Can you tell us 

58 

what practices are emerging and how you have been able to communicate that with stakeholders? 

Ms. STONER. Sure. I think there are increasing practices that are 

finding out how to harvest that rainwater. For example, putting 

the stormwater back in the ground where it can replenish groundwater and subsurface flows. That is one of the things I am seeing 

a lot of development in. We can continue to see development in 

green roofs and blue roofs. We certainly continue to see development in terms of methods for addressing stormwater runoff from 

transportation, including storage under streets, under roads. 

So there is a lot of innovation that is occurring. There is a lot 

of new businesses developing around these innovations. And, as I 

believe George Hawkins said, these are also jobs. People can build 

this and maintain it. Those are local jobs that we can create 

through those efforts. 

Ms. EDWARDS. One of the things that occurs to me is that with 

the green infrastructure practices, in our earlier panel, we heard 

a couple of allusions to, or skepticism expressed about whether 

overall it would actually save money. 

Do we have any more empirical data or are there things that we 

can investigate to look at this question? Because I think, particularly for the larger municipalities where we really need a lot of 

work, for them to be able to adopt these practices, there has got 

to be a real benefit in the cost. So how do you track that? 

Ms. STONER. We are doing a lot of work to look at the cost and 

the benefits. So the benefits are multimedia benefits. So it is pretty 

complicated to look at them. But we are looking at things like air 

pollution reduction, urban heat island reduction, as well as water 

quality, flooding reduction, enhanced water resources and so forth. 

But we are also looking at the cost. And I do think that green 

infrastructure can compare favorably from a cost standpoint with 

a lot of traditional approaches, particularly as you get to what is 

called the knee of the curve. 

So as you move out on, for example, on the reductions in combined sewer overflows or sanitary sewer overflows per gallon, as 

again George Hawkins was talking about, you can get more expensive costs out on the end of the curve. And green infrastructure can 

help a lot with respect to being cost favorable with respect to those 

additional reductions at the end of the curve. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I will submit another question for the record that 

goes to how you deal with issues around good faith efforts by local 

communities in the consent process, because that was an issue that 

came up earlier, and I think it is important to have EPA’s perspective about how it looks at that in the permitting process. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. We are going to wrap up. I appreciate you all being 

here and listening to the first panel. I hope that, I am sure you did, 

from the first panel catch their passion and their dedication. And 

we are all committed to reach a goal of cleaner water, but the challenges and demands that these local communities go through and 

the expenses. Hopefully you heard the message of flexibility, the affordability issue and the challenges that they have, and we look 

forward to working with you in the future as we implement the integral plans. 

59 

So thanks for being here, and this concludes this hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

60 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75291.031
61 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75291.032
62 


Insert offset folio 33 here 75291.033
63 


Insert offset folio 34 here 75291.034
64 


Insert offset folio 35 here 75291.035
65 


Insert offset folio 36 here 75291.036
66 


Insert offset folio 37 here 75291.037
67 


Insert offset folio 38 here 75291.038
68 


Insert offset folio 39 here 75291.039
69 


Insert offset folio 40 here 75291.040
70 


Insert offset folio 41 here 75291.041
71 


Insert offset folio 42 here 75291.042
72 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75291.043
73 


Insert offset folio 44 here 75291.044
74 


Insert offset folio 45 here 75291.045
75 


Insert offset folio 46 here 75291.046
76 


Insert offset folio 47 here 75291.047
77 


Insert offset folio 48 here 75291.048
78 


Insert offset folio 49 here 75291.049
79 


Insert offset folio 50 here 75291.050
80 


Insert offset folio 51 here 75291.051
81 


Insert offset folio 52 here 75291.052
82 


Insert offset folio 53 here 75291.053
83 


Insert offset folio 54 here 75291.054
84 


Insert offset folio 55 here 75291.055
85 


Insert offset folio 56 here 75291.056
86 


Insert offset folio 57 here 75291.057
87 


Insert offset folio 58 here 75291.058
88 


Insert offset folio 59 here 75291.059
89 


Insert offset folio 60 here 75291.060
90 


Insert offset folio 61 here 75291.061
91 


Insert offset folio 62 here 75291.062
92 


Insert offset folio 63 here 75291.063
93 


Insert offset folio 64 here 75291.064
94 


Insert offset folio 65 here 75291.065
95 


Insert offset folio 66 here 75291.066
96 


Insert offset folio 67 here 75291.067
97 


Insert offset folio 68 here 75291.068
98 


Insert offset folio 69 here 75291.069
99 


Insert offset folio 70 here 75291.070
100 


Insert offset folio 71 here 75291.071
101 


Insert offset folio 72 here 75291.072
102 


Insert offset folio 73 here 75291.073
103 


Insert offset folio 74 here 75291.074
104 


Insert offset folio 75 here 75291.075
105 


Insert offset folio 76 here 75291.076
106 


Insert offset folio 77 here 75291.077
107 


Insert offset folio 78 here 75291.078
108 


Insert offset folio 79 here 75291.079
109 


Insert offset folio 80 here 75291.080
110 


Insert offset folio 81 here 75291.081
111 


Insert offset folio 82 here 75291.082
112 


Insert offset folio 83 here 75291.083
113 


Insert offset folio 84 here 75291.084
114 


Insert offset folio 85 here 75291.085
115 


Insert offset folio 86 here 75291.086
116 


Insert offset folio 87 here 75291.087
117 


Insert offset folio 88 here 75291.088
118 


Insert offset folio 89 here 75291.089
119 


Insert offset folio 90 here 75291.090
120 


Insert offset folio 91 here 75291.091
121 


Insert offset folio 92 here 75291.092
122 


Insert offset folio 93 here 75291.093
123 


Insert offset folio 94 here 75291.094
124 


Insert offset folio 95 here 75291.095
125 


Insert offset folio 96 here 75291.096
126 


Insert offset folio 97 here 75291.097
127 


Insert offset folio 98 here 75291.098
128 


Insert offset folio 99 here 75291.099
129 


Insert offset folio 100 here 75291.100
130 


Insert offset folio 101 here 75291.101
131 


Insert offset folio 102 here 75291.102
132 


Insert offset folio 103 here 75291.103
133 


Insert offset folio 104 here 75291.104
134 


Insert offset folio 105 here 75291.105
135 


Insert offset folio 106 here 75291.106
136 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 107 here 75291.107