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

71–739 PDF 2012

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND PERMITTING: 

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EPA TO PROVIDE 

COMMUNITIES WITH FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE 

SMART INVESTMENTS IN WATER QUALITY 

(112–68) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 14, 2011 

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. Jim Suttle, Mayor, City of Omaha, testifying on behalf of the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors ........................................................................................... 24 

Hon. Joe Reardon, Mayor/CEO, Unified Government of Kansas City, Kansas, 

and Wyandotte County, testifying on behalf of the National League of 

Cities ..................................................................................................................... 24 

Todd Portune, Commissioner, Hamilton County, Ohio, Board of Commissioners ................................................................................................................... 24 

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 .......................................................................................... 24 

Carter H. Strickland, Jr., Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection ........................................................................................... 24 

David Williams, Director of Wastewater, East Bay Municipal Utility District, 

testifying on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies ..... 24 

Katherine Baer, Senior Director, Clean Water Program, American Rivers ....... 24 

PANEL TWO

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

States Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................... 125 

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, United States Environmental Protection Agency ................. 125 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Jason Altmire, of Pennsylvania ..................................................................... 136 

Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, of Virginia ..................................................................... 138 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 139 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Jim Suttle ........................................................................................................ 141 

Hon. Joe Reardon ..................................................................................................... 170 

Todd Portune ............................................................................................................ 188 

Walter L. Baker, P.E. .............................................................................................. 192 

Carter H. Strickland, Jr. ......................................................................................... 198 

David Williams ........................................................................................................ 201 

Katherine Baer ........................................................................................................ 207 

Nancy K. Stoner ....................................................................................................... 212 

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

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

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

California, request to submit the report entitled, ‘‘Water Use Efficiency 

and Jobs,’’ prepared by the Economic Roundtable, 2011 .................................. 7 

Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York, request to submit H.R. 3145, a Bill to amend the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for State water 

pollution control revolving funds, and for other purposes ................................ 53 

Page

VI 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, responses to questions from 

Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York .......................................................................................................... 218 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Diane Linderman, P.E., PWLF, President, American Public Works Association, written statement ........................................................................................ 220 

1 Cynthia Giles did not submit a written statement. 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 71739.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 71739.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 71739.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 71739.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 71739.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 71739.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 71739.007
(1) 

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND PERMITTING: 

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EPA TO PROVIDE 

COMMUNITIES WITH FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE 

SMART INVESTMENTS IN WATER QUALITY 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The committee of water resource and environment 

will convene. And welcome, everybody. Today we are going to have 

two panels, and we will get to our first panel here in just a few 

minutes. And we have a second panel from the EPA officials. 

I will start off here with my opening statement. First of all, 

again, I would like to welcome everyone to the hearing today on the 

‘‘Integrated Planning and Permitting: An Opportunity for EPA to 

Provide Communities with Flexibility to Make Smart Investments 

in Water Quality.’’ 

It is well known that the needs of municipalities to address 

wastewater infrastructure are substantial. Our existing national 

wastewater infrastructure is aging, deteriorating, and in need of repair, replacement, and upgrading. Old and deteriorated infrastructure often leak, have blockages, and fail to adequately treat pollutants in wastewater. 

There are well over 700 cities and towns around the Nation with 

combined sewer systems which periodically experience combined 

sewer overflows during wet weather conditions. Many more communities have problems with sanitary sewer overflows, where untreated wastewater can get released into the environment or into 

people’s homes. 

In recent years, EPA has stepped up enforcement actions against 

many municipalities in an effort to force them to eliminate their 

CSOs and SSOs. These enforcement actions have resulted in many 

larger cities and smaller municipalities entering into enforcement 

settlements by signing consent decrees with the EPA or States to 

implement enforceable plans to eliminate combined sewer overflows 

and sanitary sewer overflows. Many of these settlements are costly 

to implement, especially in the face of dwindling EPA infrastructure funds. 

2 

Many States could end up spending as much as $1 billion to $5 

billion each, or even more in some instances, to implement the 

terms of many of these settlements. But it doesn’t stop there. In 

recent years, numerous other regulatory issues also have become 

national priorities, and are placing additional burdens on municipalities. 

For example, many of our Nation’s wastewater utilities are being 

forced to install extremely expensive, advanced waste treatment to 

remove to next increment of pollutants. In addition, EPA has initiated a controversial national rulemaking to establish a potentially 

far-reaching, burdensome, and costly program to regulate 

stormwater discharges. This could lead to communities facing the 

prospect of substantially increased cost for controlling pollutants 

from stormwater runoff. 

Further, EPA has been pressing the States and local governments to adopt a new framework for managing nutrient pollutions. 

This includes strict numerical nutrient standards, the tough total 

maximum daily load reduction goals, and stringent nutrient effluent limits for many municipal dischargers. This will force many 

municipalities to install and operate extremely expensive nutrient 

treatment and removal technologies at their wastewater treatment 

plants. 

Moreover, many communities face increasingly regulatory burdens under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their public drinking 

water systems. All these initiatives are adding additional layers of 

regulatory requirement and economic burdens that our communities are having to somehow deal with. Unfortunately, each of 

these EPA regulatory programs are being managed in a stovepipe 

or silo approach, with each program imposing on—its own requirements on communities, without regard to what any of the other 

programs are doing. And EPA has been exhibiting an attitude with 

respect to their regulatory requirements that everything is a priority. 

Many of the Federal regulatory mandates imposed on communities reflect a one-size-fits-all approach that does not account for 

individual municipality-specific public health and other needs, and 

requires the completion of massive capital investments on tight 

schedules. Many of our communities’ construction dollars are not 

being dedicated to the projects they need in order to protect public 

health and the environment most cost effectively. 

A large portion of these Federal, not to mention State, regulatory 

mandates are being unfunded by the Federal and State governments. Rather, local governments are being forced to pay for more 

and more of the cost of these mandates with the result that local 

communities and rate payers are increasingly getting economically 

tapped out. Regulators need to realize that their unfunded mandates do not just impact local governments, but hurt the economically struggling citizens of those communities who face increased 

user rates or taxes they can ill afford. 

As a result of many communities becoming financial squeezed, 

representatives of local government are increasingly voicing concerns over EPA’s policies and unfunded mandates, including the 

cumulative impacts of multiple layers of regulatory requirements 

being imposed on them and over how EPA is dealing with commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
3 

nities to address the regulatory mandates that EPA is imposing on 

them. 

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. 

There may be some cause for optimism that the EPA is finally 

starting to hear municipalities’ concerns. I am very pleased to hear 

that the EPA has announced that it plans to create a new integrated regulatory planning and permitting approach to help EPA 

regional offices and States and local governments in integrating 

and prioritizing Clean Water Act regulatory requirements. Of 

course, it remains to be seen how EPA’s proposed initiative will 

turn out. I guess the devil is always in the details. 

I have been hearing some mixed signals coming out of EPA. 

There are some indications that the EPA may not be willing to 

limit its enforcement against municipalities. I am concerned that a 

continued emphasis on enforcement approach, including consent 

decrees, will undermine the flexibility that the EPA is ostensibly 

seeking to provide. 

On the other hand, 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. 

I want to hear from our EPA witnesses specifically which approach it is going to be. And I want to hear from EPA and 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 the water quality requirements, 

and address the huge unfunded costs associated with the growing 

number of mandates stemming from EPA water rules and enforcement actions. 

At this time I yield to my ranking member, the Honorable Tim 

Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you very much for holding this hearing. 

One of the basic tenets of the Clean Water Act is to prevent the 

discharge of raw sewage and pollutants into the Nation’s waters. 

Despite the significant progress that has been made on this effort 

since 1972, many cities and communities are facing the need to 

make large wastewater infrastructure investments to address ongoing Clean Water Act violations, or to address aging wastewater infrastructure repairs and replacements. In light of the current fiscal 

crisis, communities are looking to Congress and to the Environmental Protection Agency for assistance. 

First and foremost, communities are looking to Congress to 

renew the Federal commitment towards investment in wastewater 

infrastructure, as could be accomplished through the enactment of 

the bipartisan bill H.R. 3145, the Water Quality Protection and Job 

Creation Act of 2011, which I will speak about a bit more in a few 

moments. 

4 

Second, communities are looking to EPA for flexibility to continue progress towards improving the Nation’s waterways, while focusing investment on addressing the most pressing health and welfare issues, first. As we will hear today, EPA has proposed to draft 

an integrated planning framework that has the potential to dramatically improve water quality over time, as well as promote the 

use of integrated, sustainable, and cost-effective approaches to solving decades-old waste and stormwater issues. 

I am encouraged by the seriousness of this effort from all parties, 

and look forward to providing any assistance necessary in moving 

this issue forward. The reality, however, is that we would be less 

in need of integrated planning and flexibility if we had adequate 

investment in wastewater infrastructure. 

Communities across the Nation want to do the right thing in 

making the necessary improvements to their wastewater infrastructure, and to address ongoing water quality concerns, such as 

combined sewer overflows and other wet weather issues. However, 

these efforts cost money. And in the ongoing fiscal situation, money 

can be a very difficult thing to come by. This lack of available resources has prompted communities to seek additional flexibility 

from the EPA to address these concerns. 

To some extent, Congress is partially to blame for the lack of sufficient wastewater infrastructure funding. For one reason or another, Congress has failed to reauthorize appropriations for the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund for the past 24 years, over two 

decades. This has not been for lack of trying. Over the past few 

Congresses under both Republican and Democratic leadership, this 

committee has developed legislation to increase the level of funding 

to address ongoing water quality needs. 

Mr. Chairman, the American economy also needs jobs. And this 

Congress has a responsibility to support programs that create jobs. 

That is what spending on wastewater infrastructure systems will 

do. And it will, plain and simple, create jobs. For every $1 billion 

we spend on wastewater infrastructure, we can create approximately 28,000 jobs in communities across America, while improving our public health and the environment. It is a win-win proposition. 

The importance of investment in wastewater infrastructure is 

clear, and the need is great. In the 2008 clean water needs survey, 

States documented almost $300 billion in wastewater treatment, 

pipe replacement and repair, and stormwater management projects 

that need to be filled over the next 20 years. In 2010, Congress appropriated $2.1 billion for wastewater infrastructure projects 

through the clean water SRF. However, this number was reduced 

to $690 million in 2011, and could go even lower in the current fiscal year. This is a far cry from the $15 billion a year we would 

need to spend to address the needs identified by the States to modernize and repair our aging systems. 

In October I joined with my colleagues Ranking Member Rahall 

and Congressmen LaTourette and Petri to introduce the bipartisan 

Water Quality Protection and Jobs Creation Act of 2011 to partially 

close this gap. This legislation renews the Federal commitment to 

addressing our Nation’s substantial needs for wastewater infrastructure by investing $13.8 billion in the State Revolving Funds 

5 

over the next 5 years. H.R. 3145 is similar to prior bills reported 

by this committee, and approved by the House by wide bipartisan 

margins. 

However, the bill also recognizes that significant additional resources beyond the traditional clean water SRF may also be necessary. To that end, H.R. 3145 establishes two complementary new 

initiatives for the long-term sustainable financing of wastewater infrastructure. 

The first is a direct loan and loan guarantee programs based, in 

part, on the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act, or TIFIA, and the second, a clean water infrastructure trust 

fund. These funding innovations, when implemented in concert, 

would leverage billions of additional dollars to meet local wastewater infrastructure needs, create jobs, and protect our public 

health and environmental quality. 

I am pleased that this bipartisan legislation has broad support 

among groups ranging from local governments, such as the National League of Cities, to contractors and labor, such as the Associated General Contractors of America and the National Construction Alliance, to public works utilities such as the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, to name just a few. I urge you, Mr. 

Chairman, to hold a hearing on this important bipartisan legislation in the near future. 

With respect to the issue at hand, I applaud the professionalism 

of the dedicated staff at the Environmental Protection Agency for 

hearing the concerns expressed by local communities, and for working with States and local governments, as well as utilities and environmental groups seeking flexibility in addressing ongoing water 

quality programs in a systematic manner. I look forward to hearing 

more about their efforts today. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I look forward to this hearing, 

and any comments that any may have on our desire to move our 

wastewater infrastructure bill in this Congress. Thank you very 

much. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cravaack, you have a statement? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop, for holding this important hearing on integrating the 

EPA’s planning and permitting process. These improvements would 

offer communities the opportunity to make smarter investments in 

their wastewater infrastructure. 

I would like to welcome today’s witnesses, and I look forward to 

hearing your testimony about the management of our country’s 

vital water resources. 

I understand that while a tremendous investment to build and 

maintain—a properly planned and maintained water infrastructure 

and resources provide tremendous value to the communities they 

serve. In these tough economic times, it is irresponsible for the 

EPA to enforce a one-size-fits-all approach to enforcing standards. 

Every municipality is different, with its own needs and priorities. 

The EPA should keep in mind the unique situation and needs of 

local communities before committing to action. For ideal water resource management and infrastructure, it is important to discourage the EPA from enforcing regulations without local interaction. 

The Agency should be working with municipalities to determine 

6 

and implement projects that best meet the needs of an affected 

community. 

I look forward to hearing from you and our witnesses and their 

thoughts on what steps that are needed to create a different relationship between the municipalities and the EPA. Thank you 

again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ 

testimony. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Napolitano, proceed. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Ranking Member Bishop, for holding this hearing. 

Coming from local government, I have dealt with this issue on 

a firsthand basis. So, clearly, investing in the clean water infrastructure does create jobs. 

And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the 

record a recent report by the Economic Roundtable in Los Angeles, 

California, titled ‘‘Water Use Efficiency and Jobs.’’ This can be 

found on the Web site www.economicrt.org, entitled ‘‘Water Use Efficiency and Jobs,’’ produced by the Economic Roundtable. This is 

a joint effort by cities, wastewater treatment plants, engineers. Everybody got together in California. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The executive summary of the report entitled, ‘‘Water Use Efficiency and Jobs’’ follows. The complete report can be downloaded 

from the Economic Roundtable’s Web site at: http:// 

www.economicrt.org/summaries/WaterlUselEfficiencylandl JobslStudy.html.] 

7 


Insert offset folio 8 here 71739.008
8 


Insert offset folio 9 here 71739.009
9 


Insert offset folio 10 here 71739.010
10 


Insert offset folio 11 here 71739.011
11 


Insert offset folio 12 here 71739.012
12 


Insert offset folio 13 here 71739.013
13 


Insert offset folio 14 here 71739.014
14 


Insert offset folio 15 here 71739.015
15 


Insert offset folio 16 here 71739.016
16 


Insert offset folio 17 here 71739.017
17 


Insert offset folio 18 here 71739.018
18 


Insert offset folio 19 here 71739.019
19 


Insert offset folio 20 here 71739.020
20 


Insert offset folio 21 here 71739.021
21 


Insert offset folio 22 here 71739.022
22 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. This report highlights the following. One million dollars invested in water jobs—water projects 

creates 12 to 16 jobs in our area. The industry creates more jobs 

in southern California than the two leading industries in southern 

California—that is entertainment and housing. There is under-employment in the water industry, which indicates there is an opportunity for job growth. 

The availability of health and sufficient water resources is drastically declining. Droughts have plagued the southeast and southwest regions of the country. The Colorado River and Missouri River 

basins are overused and sometimes abused. Climate change is diminishing our water resources. Mother Nature just hands it out to 

us. 

And contamination is affecting our water supply. I can tell you 

in southern California they closed the beaches. We have such a 

long coastline that this does affect our wastewater treatment 

plants. 

As the ranking member of water and power subcommittee, we 

have held many hearings on the health of our great rivers and waters and lakes. Our Nation’s health depends on downstream water 

sources to be clean enough for irrigation and drinking water, and 

could lead to many increases in diseases and illnesses. We don’t yet 

know the—where it comes from. 

We must invest in improving our wastewater treatment, because 

it will directly support a clean water supply. 

I do strongly support 3145, the Water Quality Protection and Job 

Creation Act of 2011, and congratulate Ranking Members Bishop 

and Rahall for introducing it. It provides $13.8 billion in Clean 

Water State Revolving Funds over 5 years. Fund is desperately 

needed to address the wastewater treatment challenges facing our 

country. Many areas cannot afford to do it, including some Native 

American areas, Native American tribes. 

EPA’s most recent clean water needs survey found that the States need $300 billion worth of wastewater system repairs over 

the next 20 years. It also incentivizes the use of green technologies 

to reduce energy consumption. Water treatment plants have a capacity for solar, wind, biomethane energy production. And we must 

assist in those investment opportunities, and also get the private 

sector to begin to get interested in the investment. Incentivize and 

assist them in helping our communities. 

I can tell you that the sanitation district in Los Angeles has long 

been using the recovery of biomethane. They used electricity. They 

now use solar to be able to reconvert it to electricity. It will help 

solve our water quality challenges. 

I think working together, not pointing fingers, but actually congratulating EPA, because if it weren’t for them we would have a 

much sorrier state of affairs in our health, and I trust that we will 

be hearing a lot more on this, and look forward to working cooperatively. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Duncan, you have an opening statement? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is 

a very important hearing. And we have made tremendous progress 

in both clean air and clean water areas over the last 40 years. 

There are some people and some groups who don’t like to admit 

23 

that, and who don’t like to admit that we have the toughest clean 

air and clean water laws in the entire world. 

But I do realize—I chaired this subcommittee for 6 years—I do 

realize that there is a lot of work that needs to be done in cities, 

and especially some in the northeast, where their wastewater and 

clean water systems are very old. 

But we have got to have a little balance and common sense in 

these areas, and not go ridiculously overboard. And I was concerned when I read the—some of the testimony of Mayor Reardon 

from the National League of Cities, and he says in the past 3 years 

the city of Kansas City has had to increase sewer fees by 40 percent to meet the—decree requirements that EPA and DOJ are proposing. Sewer fees would have to increase 400 percent in the next 

5 years. Four hundred percent? With all due respect, our citizens 

simply can’t afford more. 

And then I noticed the testimony of Mr. Portune from Hamilton 

County, Ohio. He said the EPA required—or will testify the EPA 

required total investment is projected to cost over $3.1 billion in 

2006 dollars, and virtually every penny of that comes from our 

community rate payers. And that is what concerns me. 

I have noticed over the years that almost all the environmental 

radicals come from very wealthy or very upper income families. 

And perhaps they can pay whopping increases like 400 percent in 

5 years. After a 40-percent increase in the past 3 years. And those 

are in years of 21⁄2- or 3-percent inflation. 

We have got to come to our senses on some of this stuff. Not only 

are we going to really harm a lot of poor and lower income working 

people, but then some people who say, ‘‘Well, let’s let the poor people out of it, let’s just put these costs on the businesses.’’ Well, the 

businesses then have to raise their prices, and that hurts the poor 

and lower income people. 

So—and this same thing has happened in the city of Knoxville. 

The Knoxville utilities board—the city of Knoxville, where I am 

from, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars improving all of 

their wastewater and clean water systems all through the 1990s 

and early 2000s. Then the EPA came in and with a decree that required a 10-year, $530 million expenditure on top of all the money 

that had already been spent. And I can tell you in times of weak 

economies there is not many cities that can afford the types of requirements that are being expected or demanded. 

And so, that is why I think this hearing is so very, very important. And I thank you for calling this hearing. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. At this time I want to welcome our first 

panel. I will introduce our panel. 

At my far left, your far right, is Mayor Jim Suttle, city of Omaha. 

He is testifying on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Next 

to him is Mayor Joe Reardon. He is the mayor and CEO of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas. 

He is testifying on behalf of the National League of Cities. Next to 

him is Mr. Todd Portune. He is the commissioner of Hamilton 

County Board of Commissioners—that is Cincinnati area. 

Mr. Walt Baker, director of division of water quality, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, testifying on behalf of the Association of Clean Water Administrations. Next to him is Mr. 

24 

Carter Strickland, Jr. He is the commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 

Next to him we have Mr. David Williams, director of wastewater, 

East Bay Municipal Utility District, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. It doesn’t say on my 

paper, but I know from testimony he is from Oakland, California, 

right? 

Ms. Katherine Baer, senior director of the clean water program, 

American Rivers. Welcome. 

And we will start down at this end with the mayor of the city 

of Omaha. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JIM SUTTLE, MAYOR, CITY OF OMAHA, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; HON. JOE REARDON, MAYOR/CEO, UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, AND WYANDOTTE COUNTY, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; TODD PORTUNE, COMMISSIONER, HAMILTON COUNTY, 

OHIO, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; 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; DAVID WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, EAST 

BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF 

OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES; AND KATHERINE BAER, SENIOR DIRECTOR, CLEAN 

WATER PROGRAM, AMERICAN RIVERS 

Mr. SUTTLE. Well, thank you and good morning. My name is Jim 

Suttle. I am the fiftieth mayor of the city of Omaha. My background is I am a professional engineer. I have served as a public 

works director, an officer and executive vice president of one of the 

top 10 largest architecture engineering companies in the Nation. I 

have also served as a city councilman, city planner, et cetera. 

I am testifying on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and 

I have been actively involved in our water council that has been 

working directly with EPA on the discussions regarding this integrated planning memorandum. I am here today to tell you why the 

mayors of this Nation are concerned about the rising cost of water 

and wastewater infrastructure, and what we hope EPA’s memo will 

address. 

But the fact is still there, that we need congressional oversight 

to ensure that this process works, and that this process is modified 

to fit reality. We need true partnerships with EPA and the Congress to ensure that the plan achieves what the mayors have asked 

for: a flexible and cost-effective way to achieve clean water goals, 

but in a reasonable and pragmatic manner. 

I want to cover with you five issues. And let’s change those to 

five must-do’s that have to be in this modification to the EPA policies. 

Aside from the recent exceptions, where EPA has been more 

flexible, I want to talk about this first issue of affordability. The 

trend has been in a 4–2–20 model; 4 overflows or less a year, a 2 

25 

percent of median household income as a target for local spending 

on the long-term control plan, and 20 years or less to comply to the 

schedule of implementation on the timeframe. 

This approach locks in local government to overly costly and 

overly prescriptive and overly restrictive plans. There is no room 

under this approach for innovation. There is no room under this 

approach for cost efficiencies. Let me give you an example, in very 

fundamental terms. A household with 25,000 annual income pays 

$1,000 a year for water and sewer bills is thus allocating 4 percent 

of that income to these needs. If a $250 increase in the rates raises 

the household spending to 5 percent, a $500-a-year increase in the 

rates raises it to 6 percent. 

EPA and the Congress should no longer ignore the regressive financial impacts caused by unfunded Federal mandates on the lowand moderate-income households. In Omaha, in a 10-year period, 

residential rates for sewers will go from $7 annual to $50 annual. 

Do the math, and look at the logic. 

But now let’s talk about businesses. Businesses and other organizations are often significant rate payers, because of their large uses 

of municipal water supplies. For businesses, wastewater is a variable cost of doing business. But history has demonstrated that this 

industry is footloose, and will leave a community to seek favorable 

water and sewer rates. I have 11 industries threatening to leave 

Omaha at the present time. And one of those will see its sewer bills 

raise over the next 10 years from roughly $50,000 a year to $1.8 

million a year. If these industries leave, the cost of the burden for 

the sewer system—still is there—gets reallocated to those that remain. 

Second point, in addition to the affordability, I want to leave 

with you is achieving water quality goals is better accomplished 

through a permitting process, rather than enforcement via the consent decrees. Every morning mayors and local government officials 

wake up as criminals, as defined by the EPA’s enforcement strategy. It doesn’t matter if the mayor was elected 10 years ago or took 

office yesterday. They are, by definition, criminals under this process, because their wastewater system has sewer overflows that primarily result from a natural act: rain water. 

The message via the mass media of our citizens—to our citizens 

is that mayors are not trustworthy, and that they condone water 

pollution. I can think of no other Federal administration policy that 

has done so much damage to the intergovernmental partnership 

between the Federal and local elected officials than this EPA policy. EPA can accomplish the same water quality goals through a 

permitting process, and by helping States and local governments 

develop watershed water quality programs to protect the precious 

resources that we have. 

The third point that we need as a must is green infrastructure 

and green credits. 

The fourth is new technology that must be factored in to all of 

our future planning and construction and operational costs. 

And finally, the fifth point is that we need a grants program so 

that the partnership is in place 50/50 between the Federal Government and local government, to get the job done. 

26 

So, what can Congress do? We need the Congress to provide oversight, and to remember that EPA has this authority because of the 

way the Clean Water Act was written. We need a paradigm shift. 

We need to do it together: local, State, and Federal officials exercising practical leadership and working together to determine what 

our environmental and spending priorities should be. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Reardon, the floor is yours. 

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

Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the committee. I 

am Joe Reardon, mayor and CEO of the Unified Government of 

Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas. It is a long title. We 

are a city of about 155,000 people. 

We cherish clean water, and we are doing all we can to ensure 

that clean water is part of the future of our city. We are encouraged by the recent EPA integrated planning memorandum that articulates a more cooperative approach to watershed management. 

It acknowledges the tough balancing act that cities like ours must 

make in addressing our water issues, while being sensitive to the 

economic conditions of our citizens in these tough economic times. 

The simple fact is that people in Kansas City, Kansas, are suffering the effects of this recession. It has hurt many of our families. 

And as mayor, I am obligated to do all I can to make sure the city’s 

resources are used to better their condition. The path is not an 

easy one, as you all are aware. Our current unemployment stands 

at 9.8 percent. Our real property values have declined 15 percent 

since the recession began, putting further strains on our families 

and our government’s resources. 

We have a diverse community. More than half of our citizens are 

minorities. Our per capita income is one of the lowest in the State, 

at nearly $29,000 a year. A quarter of our residents are at or below 

the poverty line. Many live on fixed incomes. 

And in the midst of all of that, we have made real commitments 

to improvements in clean water and our environment. We have increased our sewer rate charges, now by 50 percent in the last 4 

years. We are spending $20 million annually on stormwater and 

sanitary sewer systems. But as the city in these most challenging 

of economic times, we are making difficult and critical decisions 

about investments of the precious tax dollars from our citizens each 

year. 

Our annual budget is currently $244 million. And as was mentioned, we are currently in consent decree negotiations. And in 

order to meet the requirements being proposed by the EPA and Department of Justice, sewer fees would have to increase 400 percent 

in the next 5 years. For a family, this could mean a sewer bill of 

over $100 a month. For too many of our citizens, that forces them 

to make impossible choices. 

The cost of meeting the combined sewer overflow mandate would 

be nearly four times our entire annual municipal budget. And this 

is in the midst of our city reducing its workforce by nearly 300 persons, freezing salaries, instituting furloughs, and drastically reducing major infrastructure investments to deal with the economic reality we all are facing. Citizens expect and deserve their governVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
27 

ments to work cooperatively to solve problems and reach our national goal of cleaner water. 

So, today I come before you to say that the EPA’s most recent 

memo is a step in the right direction. Now this memo must become 

a reality at the local level. Because the fact is my city and cities 

like mine need a Federal Government that is acting more like a 

partner and less like an adversary, moving away from lawsuits and 

consent decrees and towards real solutions. We need a consistent 

source of funding. In fact, we need a new perspective on funding. 

The reality is that the benefits of clean water literally flow to everyone. But the costs associated with addressing the issue are 

borne by just a few and, in many cases, poorer communities. We 

need a process that allows us to prioritize our investments in clean 

water in a way that will maximize water quality benefits and public health and safety conditions. We need a regulatory environment 

that specifies performance objectives, rather than the behavior or 

manner of compliance, preserving the important role that local governments have in deciding how to move their communities forward. 

We want an approach that looks at the entire watershed in an 

integrated way, assessing costs and approving solutions that are 

not redundant and inefficient. The EPA’s memo is a good step in 

opening up those possibilities. The devil, however—and this was 

mentioned—is always in the details. And it will be the framework 

that is being prepared that provides the detail. 

I ask the EPA and you to consider a framework that honestly 

looks at the real situation cities face on the ground. Given that we 

are currently in consent decree negotiations, I offer up my city for 

a pilot study with the Federal Government to develop and implement a different approach, an approach in which the city and Federal Government work together as partners, not adversaries. 

Let’s create a new approach of cooperation and partnership with 

a goal of developing a solution that is cost-effective and affordable, 

instead of a system and a process based on adversarial and unfunded mandates that citizens that you and I represent cannot afford. 

Let’s explore more diversified and alternative funding mechanisms than simply looking down at cities and our citizens to shoulder the entire cost burden. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me an opportunity 

to testify today. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Portune, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. PORTUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, members of the subcommittee. My name is Todd Portune, and I serve as county commissioner for Hamilton County, Ohio. The city of Cincinnati is our 

county seat. 

I am here today testifying not only on behalf of my constituents, 

but also on behalf of the Perfect Storm Communities Coalition. The 

coalition is made up of 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 

required to meet expensive CSO/SOO wet weather consent decrees 

and stormwater regulations. 

28 

We appreciate EPA’s announcement that it has crafted a new 

policy to allow municipalities to prioritize through water quality investments, and to create a new integrated permitting approach. 

However, we believe that Congress must ensure such EPA policy 

changes are implemented in a meaningful manner, and that they 

result in real cost-effective wet weather solutions for communities 

dealing with these challenges. 

Congress should provide oversight and direction to the EPA in 

promoting cost-effective tools such as green infrastructure and 

other alternative measures, innovative wet weather solutions, and 

the like. We believe allowing communities to prioritize these solutions will ensure that practical, accountable, and affordable remedies are approved and used to reduce and eliminate CSO violations. 

The EPA memorandum to regional offices on integrated 

stormwater and wastewater planning directed these offices to provide as much flexibility as possible. However, we believe that congressional oversight is necessary, and we recognize that this hearing is extremely timely, and can help assure that this flexibility is 

actually realized by communities such as ours. 

Because many coalition members in other communities are now 

operating under judicial or administrative consent decrees, it is 

also important that EPA and the Department of Justice make a 

clear written commitment to updating and modifying these decrees 

more frequently in the future, so that their terms do not delay or 

hinder regulatory flexibility from truly taking effect. The committee’s oversight into whether existing and future consent decrees are 

regularly and effectively revised across the Nation will be important. 

The cost of using traditional methods to meet Federal wet weather mandates are enormous, costing billions of dollars per community, and leading to massive rate increases for local taxpayers, as 

we have heard already here today. Under normal economic conditions, these mandates are not affordable. In the current economy, 

incurring these costs will have long-term negative effects. In my 

own community of Hamilton County, our judicial consent decree 

has been enforced since 2004. Thus far, nearly $400 million of 

sewer district funds have been raised and spent locally to address 

CSO and SSO issues. 

The EPA-approved implementation plan is expected to cost an 

additional $800 million in the next 7 years, and that is just phase 

1 of a 2-phase plan, the total projected cost being over $3.1 billion 

in 2006 dollars, virtually every penny of it being paid for by local 

rate payers. A major chunk of our phase 1 spending is slated to 

construct a deep tunnel that EPA has required. And as a result, 

our rate payers are facing double-digit rate increases and have 

seen that for the past 3 years. We are in the middle of an expected 

8 percent rate increase per annum for the next 5 years. 

To put all of this into perspective, our general fund budget for 

2012 for Hamilton County was just over $205 million. We have declining revenues, 10-percent unemployment. We have had to lay off 

over 1,500 employees in the last 4 years to balance our budget, and 

we have not spent any money at all on improving other public faVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
29 

cilities. Yet we are facing this enormously expensive consent decree. 

Across the Nation, affected communities recognize the need to 

manage their stormwater and improve water quality at a cost affordable to local taxpayers. We believe that traditional gray infrastructure approaches, however, are more expensive and unnecessary, and that communities must be allowed to prioritize their investment using more cost-effective and accountable solutions. Examples of these include reducing other sources of pollutants in a 

watershed approach, enhancement and restoration of instream 

aquatic habitats, implementing green infrastructure technology to 

control stormwater runoff using creek bed stabilization, and reducing erosion by diverting high flows. 

And keeping water out of the system using green infrastructure 

methods is much less expensive to treat as well, on the down side, 

and further allowing us to keep rates lower for our rate payers. 

In closing, members of the committee, the coalition seeks to work 

with your subcommittee. We believe and we have asked EPA to establish 15 to 20 demonstration partnerships in each of the next 5 

years in communities across the Nation currently facing these wet 

weather challenges as a means to highlight partnership communities and promoting green infrastructure, and to develop the data 

that is necessary to ensure even-handed enforcement of existing 

policies, and to ensure flexibility across the board, nationwide. 

The Perfect Storm Communities Coalition looks forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as 

well as EPA, in developing and ensuring the implementation of innovative, flexible approaches in meeting these wet weather challenges. Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Baker, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you. Good morning Chairman Gibbs and 

Ranking Member Bishop and members of the subcommittee. My 

name is Walt Baker. I am the director of the Utah division of water 

quality. By way of background, I am a professional engineer. I have 

worked in consulting for a number of years before moving to the 

State where now for over 27 years I have worked at implementing 

Clean Water Act programs for the State of Utah. I am here representing the Association of Clean Water Administrators. 

Our association, which is 50 years old this year, is a national 

nonpartisan voice of State and interstate officials responsible for 

implementation of water protection programs throughout the Nation. Our members work closely with EPA as co-regulators responsible for implementing Clean Water Act programs. We are on the 

front lines of Clean Water Act monitoring, inspection, and compliance, and enforcement across the country. In 46 States we are the 

clean water permitting authorities. We are dedicated to Congress’ 

goal of maintaining the chemical, biological, and physical integrity 

of our Nation’s waters. 

I am pleased to be able to present testimony on behalf of the association today regarding EPA’s recent efforts to explore the concept of integrated planning and integrated permitting. 

The backbone of our Nation’s infrastructure is aging. In the current economic climate, this infrastructure liability, coupled with adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
30 

dressing the demands of increasing population and meeting other 

water quality challenges such as nutrients, sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater has taxed the 

ability of many of our communities and utilities to keep up. 

A thoughtful identification of approaches to promote cost effective and synergistic solutions has never been more important than 

it is today. We are encouraged by EPA’s October 27th memo, which 

focuses on the need for integrated planning in the area of 

stormwater and wastewater requirements, while still meeting 

Clean Water Act objectives. 

The use of jointly negotiated and reasonable compliance scheduling permits is a valuable tool that accords flexibility while also 

allow the integration of planning elements. States have vast experience in using them to allow permittees to bring technology online 

to come into compliance with standards. 

In Utah, compliance schedules are tailored to the individual circumstances of our communities, in order for the community to 

plan, design, and construct its project. Often times we provide financial assistance to communities to accomplish those activities. A 

compliance schedule can beneficially be used to phase in integrated 

plan elements and to provide a community with sufficient and adequate time to come into compliance. 

Now, there are a few areas of integrated planning and permitting 

that we think merit attention in the coming months, and I would 

like to identify a few of those. 

One, it is important to think about the effective integrated planning on existing State consent decrees and orders. Re-opening existing consent decrees may be appropriate, but this should be done 

on a case-by-case basis, after deliberation by the parties involved, 

so as to minimize the risk of third-party lawsuits. 

Two, Clean Water Act programs that ignore the individual circumstances of States and municipalities can turn into a black hole 

that consumes precious time and resources, and can distract us 

from addressing the most pressing water quality problems. There 

are circumstances, certainly, where a national one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate and warranted. There are circumstances 

where, clearly, it is not. 

Three, we are encouraged that EPA’s offices of water and enforcement and compliance assurance have jointly committed to an 

integrated planning concept. Communication between these offices 

at both the headquarter and regional level has not always been 

what it could or should be. These distinct offices must improve 

their ability to work together and with the States, if this initiative 

is to be successful. 

Four, EPA has suggested it plans to work to identify communities in which to pilot these approaches. Early on, States must be 

directly involved with this identification process. 

Let me conclude by again saying that State regulators are very 

supportive of EPA’s development of a framework for integrated 

planning and permitting. The association has previously called 

upon EPA to streamline, consolidate, and eliminate duplicative aspects of Clean Water Act programs and to provide the States a list 

of the Agency’s priorities. The framework may be a step in accomplishing those program improvements. 

31 

However, as the permitting authorities, we must focus and maintain that focus on the objective set forth in the Clean Water Act 

which is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. 

It is our job under the Clean Water Act and complementary 

stand-alone State authorities to protect water quality. Our success 

in doing so will center on implementation. 

We look forward to working with EPA and other stakeholders on 

this framework that allows us to promote reasonable, innovative, 

and cost-effective solutions with the greatest environmental benefit. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Strickland, welcome. The floor is yours. 

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

Ranking Member Bishop, and committee members. 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, I thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today about EPA’s integrated planning 

framework, a subject of great interest at DEP, as our budget and 

operations are significantly affected by Federal laws and regulations. 

To give the committee some background on my agency, DEP 

manages a regional water supply system that serves 8.4 million 

New York City residents, plus commuters and visitors—millions a 

year—and 1 million persons who reside in nearby counties. DEP 

provides over 1 billion gallons of water each day from several watersheds that extend more than 125 miles from the city through a 

vast network that includes over 6,000 miles of water mains and 

distribution. 

On the wastewater side, average across the year our system 

treats approximately 1.3 billion gallons a day of wastewater, collected again through a network of about—over 7,000 miles of sewers, 95 pump stations, and 14 in-city treatment plants. In wet 

weather this system can treat up to 3.5 billion gallons per day. In 

addition to our treatment plants, we also have four combined sewer 

storage facilities. 

DEP has one of the largest capital budgets in the region to maintain these services, with $14 billion of work currently under construction or design. Our capital program will generate almost 3,000 

construction jobs per year over each of the next 4 years. 

DEP is funded almost exclusively through rates paid by our customers, which have gone up 140 percent in recent years. Last year 

was our first single-digit rate increase in the last five. So even Federal assistance, primarily in the form of grants, has accounted for 

less than 1 percent of our budget since Mayor Bloomberg took office 

in 2001. If you add ARRA funding, it is less than 2 percent, even 

though 69 percent of the $22 billion we spent in capital investments since 2002 has been the result of Federal mandates. And I 

point out that this amount, $22 billion since 2002, is for both 

wastewater split roughly equally, and it is more than any other 

capital need for other social needs in our city. 

32 

Cities prioritize needs to produce a balanced budget every year, 

and that experience has shaped draft prioritization legislation developed by NAC1, and you will hear more about that. We are encouraged that EPA has recognized that such an approach is critical. 

Although EPA’s integrated planning framework is new and still 

taking shape, I am hopeful that the program will bring more collaboration. 

We certainly face a lot of mandates, not only CSOs treatment 

plant upgrades, but also stormwater discharges and nutrient loadings. And the cost of maintaining the status quo is pretty significant. We have, looking forward, 25 percent of our budget is due to 

mandates, and that flexibility allows us to build out sewer networks and the like to those thousands of New Yorkers who lack 

sanitary sewers or storm sewers. 

Since DEP and many other utilities manage drinking water-related programs, as well as wastewater programs, our customers 

pay one rate for both water and wastewater services. For that reason, it is critical that EPA expand the integrated planning framework to include both mandates for drinking water programs and 

wastewater programs. 

We certainly have many questions about how the integrated 

planning process would work, including the fundamental issue of 

the overall metrics or standards that will be used to prioritize investments across these silos, and the criteria that EPA or delegated 

State programs would use to provide a successful integrated program. While these are difficult questions, we are confident it can 

be done. 

I would point out that in planning documents such as Mayor 

Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030, our sustainability plan, this document, 

New York City green infrastructure plan, and my agency’s strategy 

2011 through 2014, our administration is taking on the same challenge of articulating goals and identifying ways to measure 

progress towards them, often with innovative technology. We think 

our experience will be useful, as we discuss these matters with 

DEP. 

Our general support for integrated planning is based on the assumption that the process will result in regulators and municipalities agreeing that not all wastewater stormwater problems are 

equal, or drinking water problems, for that matter, in terms of 

costs and benefits. Here is one example. 

In New York City, water quality data for New York Harbor support the conclusion that CSOs are the dominant water quality 

issue. And we are planning our investments accordingly. And that 

stormwater runoff is a lesser issue. While CSOs contribute slightly 

over 50 percent of the total flow, as compared to stormwater discharge and direct drainage, CSOs are estimated to contribute approximately 97 percent of total pathogen loading, citywide. As we 

understand it, the integrated planning process will provide a way 

for New York City to discuss with its regulators the merits of focusing on CSO abatement efforts. 

Finally, I would point out that this effort, integrated planning effort, is congruent with another initiative we have great hopes for, 

which is the agency’s efforts to come up with a regulatory review 

33 

plan to meet the Executive Order 13563, which also recognized the 

need for flexibility in the use of cost benefit principles. We are particularly interested in EPA’s commitment to review its application 

of the CSO policy and the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule, or the LT2 rule. Without such a review, New York 

City will be forced to cover at a cost of $1.6 billion a 90-acre reservoir for which we show no public health benefit. It is a significant 

cost for no benefit. 

We do believe that EPA could better coordinate the efforts of its 

enforcement office, which all too often are independent of its program offices, such as the office of water. 

In conclusion, we are cautiously optimistic, and we welcome congressional oversight of both the integrated planning framework and 

EPA’s regulatory review process. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Williams? 

The floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, members of the subcommittee, I am David Williams. I am the president 

of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. And I am 

here testifying on behalf of NACWA this morning. I am also the director of wastewater at the East Bay Municipal Utility District, 

serving communities along east San Francisco Bay. And I am also 

an elected board member of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in Martinez, California. 

NACWA applauds the subcommittee for holding this hearing. We 

feel you have an important responsibility to communities and rate 

payers to encourage EPA to act boldly and timely. 

Yesterday there was a dialogue held here in DC. Over a dozen 

utility leaders, key stakeholders, including State regulators and 

NGOs, and EPA staff Cynthia Giles and Nancy Stoner, we discussed the elements of the integrated planning framework. I felt it 

was a very productive meeting and served as a good kickoff for listening sessions that EPA has planned over the coming months 

across the country. 

So, we have had four decades of success with the Clean Water 

Act. But we have also had significant mounting regulations under 

the Clean Water Act dealing with SSOs, CSOs, stormwater, nutrients, and others. And these, of course, have been driven by water 

quality standards and TMDLs. 

There has also been a lot of enforcement. We currently have 

about 100-plus communities, wastewater communities with consent 

decrees, amounting to billions and billions of dollars. And we also 

have Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory burdens. 

EPA itself estimates that there is a gap of $300 billion to $500 

billion in infrastructure investment needed over the next 20 years. 

And this is above and beyond regulatory compliance costs. So, simply put, in the absence of a new approach to compliance and 

prioritization, the future of maintaining—let alone adding to—the 

water quality gains that we have achieved is at risk. 

My agency, East Bay MUD, offers a good example. In the 1980s 

we had a problem with overflows from our interceptor along San 

Francisco Bay, creating a public health concern. So the communities—our satellite communities—and East Bay MUD, collaboVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
34 

rated with EPA, and we put together a wet weather program that 

resulted in expending $350 million on wet weather treatment facilities by East Bay MUD, and $350 million of improvements in the 

collection system by the communities. It was a huge success. We 

reduced overflows into San Francisco Bay, untreated overflows 

from over 10 per year to less than 1 in 5 years. 

However, recently in 2000—these facilities were built in the 

1990s—in 2000 a new interpretation of the secondary treatment 

rule as it applies to these wet weather facilities and new regulations dealing with trace metals and organics resulted in us being 

under a court order to cease discharging from these facilities. This 

undoubtedly will result in a very large capital program, estimated 

to be $1.5 billion to $2 billion, this while we are still paying off the 

bonds from the first program. 

Our communities are already struggling with budget deficits and 

double-digit rate increases. So we feel that something like integrated planning is good in that it would seek to prioritize the regulations, such that those with the highest net environmental benefit 

would be put at the top of the list, and you would spend the limited 

public resources to do those projects. 

So, we had this dialogue yesterday. There was an outline of the 

framework presented by EPA. We thought it was well thought out 

and comprehensive. We felt EPA was sincere and serious in their 

efforts to move this initiative forward. And the attendees all appeared to be pretty much on the same page, thinking that this was 

a good idea. 

One of the key issues that we struggled with was how it would 

be implemented. So EPA explained you can do it via permit or a 

consent decree, or maybe some hybrid. But all seemed to favor that 

a permit would be the better approach. NGOs tend to like permits, 

because it is an open, participatory process. Whereas, the regulated 

community often do not like consent decrees because of the stigma 

of enforcement, the negotiations are often times contentious, trying, 

long, drawn-out, and costly, and if you have a permit you do have 

a permit shield. 

So, one of the questions that the group struggled with was how 

do you actually do this, given the constraints of a 5-year permit 

term? If you have an integrated plan that is, say, on the order of 

25 years, how does that fit into a 5-year term? You need to have 

the certainty that the investments that you are going to be making 

in these prioritized regulations will actually be codified in a permit. 

So, one idea is perhaps could you have some legislative approach 

that you could have a longer term permit that is associated with 

integrated planning when you have approved plans in place? 

Another issue is—that needs more discussion is flexibility. And 

we are talking about real flexibility, in terms of compliance with 

rules, guidance, and even regulations that have not yet been adopted and are on the horizon. We need relief mechanisms such as 

variances where they are appropriate. And also the issue of equity, 

so people who already have consent decrees in place, that they 

would be allowed to open those up and examine them from an integrated permitting approach. 

EPA noted that we also need to look at the possibility of joint 

plans coming forward, where you have various jurisdictions at the 

35 

municipal level, say with stormwater, that would get together and 

jointly put together an integrated plan. 

And finally, we need to have the flexibility to address circumstances where there is new technology, or where financial circumstances within the communities have changed. 

So, in summary, we are at a crossroads. NACWA recognizes the 

subcommittee’s concern with Clean Water Act cost of compliance, 

and we share this concern. Now is the time to put something in 

place: a new framework. NACWA has shared with the subcommittee its draft legislation for a viable integrated permitting 

approach. We want you to know we stand ready to help in any way 

we can. And I thank you for allowing me to testify. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Ms. Baer, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Ms. BAER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bishop, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here 

to testify today. My name is Katherine Baer, and I am senior director of the clean water program for American Rivers. Founded in 

1973 with offices throughout the Nation, we are a leading voice for 

healthy rivers and the communities that depend on them. 

EPA’s effort to create a more integrated approach to water management warrants support. For too long, there have been unnecessary silos between the management and planning for stormwater, 

wastewater, and drinking water, thus missing important opportunities to use smarter and more sustainable approaches to protect 

clean water. 

As long as the fundamental standards and requirements established in the Clean Water Act to protect public health and the environment are preserved, this integrated approach could greatly benefit rate payers, communities, and the environment. 

I will briefly address the following main points with respect to 

integrated permitting: first, the need to maintain strong clean 

water safeguards; and second, the opportunity this presents to advance a more sustainable and cost effective approach. 

The Clean Water Act is responsible for improved water quality, 

nationally. Since 1972, the number of streams, rivers, and lakes 

meeting water quality standards has doubled. And yet, 40 percent 

of America’s rivers and 46 percent of our lakes are too polluted for 

fishing, swimming, and aquatic life. And every year up to 3.5 million people get sick from sewage-contaminated water. 

The challenges to clean water range from population growth, 

sprawl, increasingly severe and frequent floods and droughts that 

all strain existing infrastructure. Meeting these challenges requires 

us to direct limited dollars towards cost-effective solutions that 

produce multiple community benefits. 

At the same time, the fundamental structure and goals of the 

Clean Water Act must be preserved. Water quality standards are 

the backbone of the Act, and serve to protect human health and the 

environment. 

Any integrated permitting approach must achieve the Clean 

Water Act’s goals in the most sensible, efficient way, and not weaken the Act’s fundamental protection of streams and rivers that provide drinking water for roughly two-thirds of all Americans. 

36 

As this hearing is about smart investments in clean water, which 

are sustainable approaches that maximize benefits for dollar invested, we can no longer invest solely in outdated infrastructure 

approaches that focus exclusively on pipes, pumps, and reservoirs. 

Instead, we must better integrate the built and natural environments. 

Healthy flood plains, small streams and wetlands, and 

streamside buffer zones are key parts of our water infrastructure, 

and should be considered a first line of defense against floods, 

droughts, and pollution. In both developed and developing areas, 

we must integrate techniques such as green roofs and rain guards 

to reduce, re-use, and clean our water. 

Such smart infrastructure approaches have far-reaching and 

multiple benefits: reducing stormwater runoff and sewage overflows; recharging drinking water supplies and creating green space, 

made all the more valuable in the current fiscal crisis. In many 

cases, these forward-thinking infrastructure approaches will cost 

less than traditional strategies. 

Sanitation District No. 1 in northern Kentucky developed an integrated watershed plan that included green and gray infrastructure approaches that will save rate payers $800 million and 

produce better clean water results than the original all-gray infrastructure plan. 

In Bremerton, Washington, a city of 40,000, the city has used 

both green and gray approaches to reduce combined sewer overflows. A program to disconnect downspouts kept water out of the 

sewers and, instead, soaked it into the ground. Using this and 

other methods, such as permeable pavement, Bremerton calculated 

that it was 10 times cheaper to treat the water naturally, even 

with the cost of providing an incentive payment to homeowners. 

Because the integrated permitting approach under discussion 

today is driven largely by the question of how best to pay for clean 

water, approaches that are cost-effective and address multiple 

problems at once are, of course, ideal. 

However, I note that existing funding sources are not always 

aligned to support this integration. Bonds, for example, are often 

limited in their ability to fund anything other than fixed and central treatment plants. 

But there is now increasing interest in aligning funding to support better integration. In recent years, for example, EPA has provided clear guidance to the State on defining green infrastructure 

projects eligible for the SRFs, and States are leveraging this money 

for a broad range of projects to save water, save energy, and 

achieve clean water. 

Similarly, local governments are finding that providing a financial credit for treating stormwater on site is creating a market for 

local contractors and expanding local job opportunities. Efforts to 

formally recognize natural assets as part of the process are also underway. So, for example, protecting a city’s drinking water supply 

through source water protection should be valued as an asset 

against which to borrow for further investments. 

Although Federal funding does not appear to be increasing, we 

encourage EPA to look for ways to prioritize existing Federal resources towards integrated approaches, and to encourage innovaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
37 

tive financing options. And we continue to support the reauthorization of the SRF. 

The innovative approaches demonstrated in communities in 

Washington and northern Kentucky are working across the country, and recognized by EPA as a cost-effective way to meet Clean 

Water Act requirements and offer new job development and economic growth opportunities. Yet, such sustainable approaches remain in the minority at this point. 

We agree that there is a benefit to moving toward more integrated infrastructure through better planning, evaluation, and sequencing of investments, but only if smarter infrastructure is driving this process. Green infrastructure, water efficiency, and other 

innovative solutions must be analyzed on equal footing with traditional approaches. 

People and businesses across the country, regardless of their 

means, need clean water. Upholding the Clean Water Act’s goals 

for public health and the environment, as well as requirements for 

public participation, are critical to the success of this effort. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I will start off questionings here. Well, it 

is pretty evident to me—I appreciate all the testimony that—really 

come to a head on this issue, where we have had for—since the 

Clean Water Act went in place in the early 1970s, building infrastructure and doing a lot of good work, that, an enforcement mechanism versus an integrated approach, I think it is pretty clear 

which way we should go. Our next panel will have more discussion 

on that. 

But I am a little bit intrigued. Two things I want to cover in my 

questions is the watershed approach and then get to talk about 

permits. I want to start off with Mr. Strickland. In your testimony 

you talk about combined sewer overflows contribute slightly over 

50 percent of the total flow during stormwater—compared to 

stormwater discharges. But then the CSOs, approximately 90 percent of the total pathogen loading, citywide. 

Now, I guess I am a novice here, but I would conclude during a 

storm event, and you got all that stormwater coming in to the combined sewer overflow, that is why you get the 97 percent. So I 

guess my question is, if we were able to take a watershed approach 

and deal with stormwater way above your sewage treatment plant, 

and keep that from getting in, that would solve a lot of the problems. See where I am headed there? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, that is correct. And, in fact, that is what 

we do, Mr. Chairman, with our green infrastructure plan. 

You know, maybe a few background facts that will explain that. 

We—our city, about half of our city, is a separated system, or direct 

discharge, and about half is in a combined system. But the loading, 

the pollutant loadings, overwhelmingly, as I testified, and as you 

noted, come from our combined sewer system and combined sewer 

overflow. So that is where we want to spend the money. 

And we have long-term control plans coming up over the next 

few years that will certainly take account of those sources and 

loadings. However, right now we are negotiating with our State 

agencies, our primary regulator, an MS4 permit. And our concern 

is that, while we have that watershed planning on the horizon, in 

38 

terms of long-term control plans, we—there is a possibility of having a very costly—with little benefit—separated stormwater controls. 

Mr. GIBBS. I guess for the record, for anybody that wants to respond, is it safe to say that—I know we got some aging infrastructure out there in our treatment plants—that we are doing a pretty 

good job on sanitary systems, specifically, when stormwater systems aren’t involved with that? Is that—you all shake your heads— 

that has been pretty good there? 

So, the issue really is during a storm event, how we handle all 

that gray water. I guess we call it gray water, right? 

Is there anything—anybody can respond—that either at the 

State level or at the Federal level, where laws would need to be 

changed to give you the ability to work in the entire watershed? 

I am thinking of most cities, you know, your sewage treatment 

plants down at the end of the watershed, and you got all that 

water coming in, to have this watershed approach, is there anything that is limiting your ability, under local laws or not having 

the ability to move out in the entire watershed, it is outside your 

jurisdiction? Mr. Suttle? 

Mr. SUTTLE. Well, in the State of Nebraska we do not have legislation. We have been arguing about it for 40 years on the watershed side. But yes, those of us that are in the profession, engineering and many others, support the watershed concept. But we would 

need enabling legislation in Nebraska in order to do that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, Mr. Baker? 

Mr. BAKER. Back in the 1970s and the early 1980s, we had 

basin-wide plans. EPA and the Federal Government were heavily 

invested in developing those 208 Water Quality Management 

Plans. When the construction grants program went the way of the 

dinosaur, replaced by the State Revolving Fund program, that left 

a void, I think, in long-term planning. 208 Plans served as a guiding plan that integrated municipalities and what they did with 

their wastewater. 

So, what we are left with, I think, is kind of independent permittees in communities, and not integrated master plans. So I think 

that is one thing that came out of the canceling, if you will, of those 

208 Water Quality Management Plans. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, Mr. Williams? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree. The 208 Plans were sort of the watershed 

approach, and NACWA has supported a watershed approach for 

some time. With no funding for those plans, it tends to be everybody is on their own. There are some efforts to try to do it, but 

often times it is on a pollutant-specific basis, as opposed to a more 

holistic approach. 

Another concept is since the Nation does have a huge issue with 

wet weather—and it is something that legislation, I think, changes 

to the Clean Water Act—is the issue of wet weather standards. So 

actually, dealing with the wet weather issue head-on through development of wet weather standards, which we currently don’t 

have. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I am out of time. I will get to the rest of my 

questions on the next round. Mr. Bishop. 

39 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to all of 

you, thank you for some very important and helpful testimony. 

I should observe that a rare thing has happened today. There 

has been near unanimity among all of you, and that unanimity has 

been positive, with respect to an EPA policy initiative. And I think 

that ought to be noted for the record, with some gratitude. 

I have a question for Mr. Suttle and Mr. Reardon. Mr. Suttle, 

you talked about a 50 percent share, Federal Government and local 

government. Mr. Reardon, you talked about a consistent source of 

funding. I am presuming that you are looking to the Federal Government to be at least a piece of that consistent source of funding. 

I gave the numbers in my opening statement. We spent $2.1 billion 

for the SRF in 2010, a little under $700 million in 2011. Likely 

that it is going to go down again, fiscal year 2012. We now have 

statutory caps on spending, going forward. So the prognosis going 

forward is decidedly unfavorable, in terms of the Federal Government supporting wastewater infrastructure, clean water infrastructure. 

But I have a very specific question. The—and that is whether 

your two organizations have conducted any analysis of what the 

balanced budget amendment, which, as you know, is one of the 

principle policy priorities of the majority, what impact that would 

have, if we were to have a balanced budget amendment take on the 

force of law, what impact that would have on the ability of the Federal Government to assist local government in dealing with this 

very real and very—I would say—unachievable need to upgrade existing systems? 

So, Mr. Suttle and Mr. Reardon? 

Mr. SUTTLE. Well, I think one of the things that needs to be put 

in perspective in addressing what you are talking about is that all 

cities and all States in this Nation must have balanced budgets. 

We cannot do deficits in our operating costs. Now, we can go into 

debt, but we have to service that debt. 

Now, Omaha is one of 16 cities right now enjoying a AAA bond 

rating from Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. And we worked hard 

to get that back. Moody’s is telling us over and over—as Standard 

& Poor’s—that the $1.3 billion debt that the city of Omaha is now 

having is too high. But they like the way we are servicing it. But 

when you add $1.7 billion on top of that, we are going to the moon, 

ladies and gentlemen. And that is not going to work. And that is 

our dilemma, at the local level. 

I realize at the Federal level you are wrestling with all kinds of 

things. But we still get back to that basic question in Econ 1 that 

revenues minus expenses should always be a positive number. And 

we are not working that way very well in Federal Government. But 

local government and State government is. 

Mr. BISHOP. You do recognize there is a difference between how 

the Federal Government accounts for its expenditures and 

local—— 

Mr. SUTTLE. I do understand that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Local government can bond capital investments; 

Federal Governments can—does not. So—— 

Mr. SUTTLE. And I understand that. 

40 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. There is a real difference there. But 

that doesn’t diminish your point. I understand. 

Mr. SUTTLE. No, and it doesn’t, but—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I understand the point you are making. 

Mr. SUTTLE. If we are going to be partners, as we were in the 

1970s and 1980s. We were partners. And we had financial partnership. And we worked it through all kinds of means. We worked it 

through bonds, we worked it through State Revolving Funds, we 

worked it through grants. 

But here we are, at another point in time, and these numbers 

are horrific. Horrific numbers. This debt burden cannot be put on 

the shoulders of local government. 

Mr. BISHOP. But—and I don’t want to put words in your mouth. 

And, Mr. Reardon, I want to give you an opportunity. 

But I think what I hear you arguing for is an increased investment on the part of the Federal Government in helping local governments step up to these very real needs. 

Mr. SUTTLE. Yes, and let’s recognize the other priorities going on 

right now. This whole question, or issue—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I want to give Mr. Reardon a chance, because I am 

running out of time. 

Mr. SUTTLE. This whole question and issue is about, really, adding a tremendous overhead cost to the economy. And we are not 

gaining anything. We are supposed to be looking at how we create 

jobs. But the jobs need to be in manufacturing and the service industry, as we—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I would gently take issue with you. I heard 

Mr. Williams talk about, I believe, a $700 million investment that 

took place several years ago that you said yielded tremendous results. Is that not correct? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I—Mr. Chairman, will you let Mr. 

Reardon—— 

Mr. REARDON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. We are practical at the local level. The benefits of clean water, which we absolutely believe in, can’t be shouldered by individual communities. 

We will not solve the problem. We need you as a partner, not just 

on the regulatory side, but also financially, to figure out how we 

are able to fund this in a way that doesn’t shoulder so much of the 

burden—— 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. 

Mr. REARDON [continuing]. On local communities and really 

cause, I think, an economic issue in cities that—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, I thank you. And the legislation that I filed 

would be a means. Not the only, but a means of the Federal Government coming to the table to be that partner that you are seeking. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cravaack, do you have any questions? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all the 

testimony. One of the other things I saw throughout the panel here 

is a frustration. And a frustration that I have, too, is on the congressional side. We have a $3.5 trillion budget and $1.6 trillion of 

41 

that is borrowed money. Forty-seven percent of our debt is foreignowned, and 30 percent of that is owned by the Chinese. 

So, on your local levels—and I commend your AAA rating on— 

as a mayor. And I truly believe the answers to the questions we 

have on the Federal level actually initiate at the local level. 

So, with that said—and Mr. Suttle, if you could—if you were sitting here in my position, knowing what you know about the Federal situation in regards to our debt, and how we are placing a burdensome amount of debt on future generations, also understanding 

what you have just told me today about being a mayor of your— 

in your community, what is your answer? What would you be telling—what could you say? How would you solve this problem? 

Mr. SUTTLE. I think we need to focus on the proper priorities 

that are going to get the U.S. economy going, and get us solidly 

into the number one seat, and that is jobs. Construction jobs are 

great. But at this point, we need to really get our economy going, 

and what turns the engine. And I would ask you to set that as a 

priority. 

Jim Clifton’s new book—he is the CEO of Gallup—is an excellent 

book for all of us to read on what we need to do on jobs. And what 

we are talking about today is fine, well, and noble goals, and we 

support it. But it is not addressing the jobs initiative to turn our 

economy and propel us, and keep us ahead of the Chinese. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I agree, sir. Jobs, you know, does this other 

thing, too. By creating jobs within the—in the private sector, it also 

creates revenue. That is from taxes, as well, which has—we create 

more revenue for—and then it can also assist us in the plans that 

we have. 

Mr. SUTTLE. Back to that equation I said: revenue minus expenses should always be a positive number. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Yes, sir. Mr. Portune? 

Mr. PORTUNE. Mr. Cravaack, if I may, to add to the answer to 

your question, though, we certainly understand, both in Hamilton 

County as well as the Perfect Storm Coalition, the tremendous fiscal challenges the Federal Government faces. 

And that is one of the reasons why while we are not opposing 

by any means Federal investment in this problem, again, to put it 

in perspective, $3.1 billion for our problem alone—and look at the 

dollars that you are talking about on a Federal level, and we are 

just 1 of 781 communities—but our focus has been more on regulatory flexibility. Because for every dollar that we save, that is the 

same as a dollar we receive from the Federal Government that we 

have gained, in terms of flexibility. 

We presented a very detailed green build infrastructure program 

for our overall wet weather improvement plan, long-term control 

plan. It will have saved us $1 billion off of that $3.1 billion price 

tag. It was not approved. We do have the ability, within our consent decree, to work up alternatives and present those. But we are 

still under very strict timetables. And if they are not approved by 

the regulators, we have to go forward with the same gray build approach, which is much more expensive. So we end up spending 

money on both sides without any flexibility at all. 

Flexibility is truly key here. And flexibility, in terms of allowing 

local governments the ability to make these investment decisions 

42 

on where to apply our dollars, the green build approach, keeping 

water out of the system, it ends up being able to accomplish the 

same results cheaper and quicker. It serves the dual purpose of 

also—by keeping stormwater out of the system, we end up having 

to treat less effluent, and that saves money. 

And, from a jobs perspective, as these rates go up, nothing is 

going to do more to chase people and business out of my community than the increase in sewer rates. Not the rate of our taxes, not 

anything else that is going on. It is the increase in rates. 

So, flexibility that allows us to save money is important. And 

that is also why we focused on urging 15 demonstration project 

communities a year for 5 years, to help build the data that will 

allow for uniform application of these alternative approaches across 

the Nation, so that you don’t have different outcomes, depending 

upon what EPA region you are in, or even within a region, depending upon who the regulators are that show up. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. I am out of time. 

But just to let you know, I grew up in Hamilton County, so—I grew 

up in a small town called Madeira. 

Mr. PORTUNE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PORTUNE. It is a great town. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I am out of time, and I yield back, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. I didn’t know you were a Buckeye. Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Suttle, that report I was referring to, I would hope that maybe you would have 

somebody review it and maybe share it with the mayors, because 

it does cover some of the things about jobs—created jobs with the 

water industry, with the green technology, with all of the things we 

have been talking about here. Any of you welcome to it. 

Mr. Baker, I was a little bit confused when I saw ACWA. To me, 

it is a California Association of Water Agencies, and it kind of 

threw me for a loop there. 

Question is, have you done a survey on the analysis on the economic value that water infrastructure development brings to a 

community or to a region? And specifically, have you looked at the 

number of direct, indirect, and induced employment opportunities 

that water investments can bring to the area? 

The reason I ask this is in our area, in LA County, we can point 

to the positive impacts on jobs and the economy that the investments have made. And in the case of LA County, over 14 occupations directly benefitted from water investments. And we make 

more jobs, as I stated before, in water than we do in the movie industry or in the fields, in agriculture, in many areas. 

From your perspective, what would it take to conduct this sort 

of assessment by your association? And is it something they might 

do so we could get a sense of the value of investing on our water 

resource infrastructure? 

Mr. BAKER. Let me speak to not so much broadly nationally, but 

what we are doing in Utah, because we are faced with many of the 

same issues that other States are. Nutrients are a very important 

pollutant source right now that we are addressing in Utah. We 

don’t have the Chesapeake Bay-type problem as we are a headwater State. But nutrients is the number one polluter in our State. 

43 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Nature cost? 

Mr. BAKER. The cost to address nutrients. That is the biggest 

pollution source. If we were to look at—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is it nature cost? Is it induced by nature? Is 

it industrial pollutants? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, it is both. It is agricultural runoff, it is urban, 

it is wastewater treatment plants. The nutrients are sucking the 

oxygen out of our streams. And it is the leading cause of impairment of our streams in Utah. So, although we are a headwater 

State, it is very important for us to address nutrient pollution. 

What we have done is undertake a two-pronged study. One, to 

look at the cost of removing nutrients, so that we know what the 

impact would be to our rate payers and municipalities. The second 

is to determine what would be the benefit? For example, drinking 

water. If we don’t have to treat drinking water to remove these pollutants, what is the benefit? What is the recreational benefit that 

comes to the State of Utah for having cleaner water? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. I am running out of time. But you translated it into economic evaluation? 

Mr. BAKER. Correct. Yes. Both on the cost side, what the cost 

would be to remove it, and what the benefit would be if we were 

to remove it. We are looking at that economic analysis in Utah. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Love to see that report, sir, if you wouldn’t 

mind sharing it with us. 

Mr. BAKER. We have got half done. The other half will be done 

in the spring of this year. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. And, Mr. Williams, welcome. Coming from California, glad you came to this cold weather and shared 

it with us here. 

I would like to speak to your position associated with the city of 

Oakland and the issues facing the San Francisco Bay Delta area 

in respect to water, of course. We are acutely aware of the controversy regarding the management of water in California, and the 

perplexing problem of how to move massive amounts of water from 

mountains to the north to the agricultural fields and the heavily 

populated areas in the south, impacts associated with moving 

water from north to south, expanding populations, agricultural runoff, as was just heard, aging wastewater treatment plants, the 

water infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera. 

State of California is working with the Federal Government and 

local entities to find solutions to our escalating water quality concerns. Recent agribusiness in Central Valley has been pointing fingers at the wastewater treatment plants in northern California as 

being the culprits in degraded water quality conditions in the Bay 

Delta ecosystem. 

Would you—what type of integration has been proposed by 

EPA—aid or lead to more confusion, with respect to how Oakland 

manages its wastewater? And if yes, please explain why. If no, 

what benefits could occur? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is a—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Big issue, north versus south. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, if you have a couple hours—— 

[Laughter.] 

44 

Mr. WILLIAMS. So you are correct. The whole issue of water in 

California, and moving water from north to south, and the impact, 

particularly in the Bay Delta, as you are aware, Sacramento Regional, a large treatment plant that is tributary to the Delta, 

has—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Sacramento. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, Sacramento has a large price tag that is associated with their new permit for removing nutrients from their 

wastewater. 

The POTW community that is further downstream in Suisun 

Bay, which is then tributary to San Francisco Bay, are very concerned about having these limits put in their permit, as well. And, 

in fact, the agency that I am a member of the board of directors, 

Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, has a permit that the 

water contractors had said they need to have nutrient limits put 

in that permit. 

The key issue, from the wastewater community perspective, is 

that what is the science based on? Because it is going to end up 

costing literally billions of dollars if it is implemented in terms of 

permit limits. We have looked at it from the wastewater community perspective. We think the science is not complete, at this 

point, and it needs to be more robust. There has only been a couple 

reports that have been utilized to essentially act as a springboard, 

for putting these limits into permits, which will require removing 

the nutrients. 

So, we are fully supportive of doing what is needed. But we believe that the sound science is extremely important. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

all of you all for your testimony. I didn’t hear the entire testimony, 

but I appreciate it. 

I am just—I wanted to ask a question if any of you all used stimulus money or had stimulus projects in your regions, or that you 

directly accessed funds for those. If you could talk about them a little bit, Mr. Strickland. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Sure. We, in New York City, got on the wastewater side—I can’t speak to the rest of it, but we received $221 

million in stimulus funds; $150 million of that is going towards 

three large sludge vessels, vessels to transport sludge that are 

being built in Texas. 

So, you know, the rest are being spent on plant upgrades and the 

like. We—— 

Mrs. CAPITO. This is in New York? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. This is in New York City. 

Mrs. CAPITO. In New York City. OK. I thought you said—did you 

just say Texas? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. They are being built—vessels are being built. 

Mrs. CAPITO. In Texas? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. In Texas. 

Mrs. CAPITO. OK. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That we brought up. So that—we find that is 

a significant benefit, certainly, and we are happy to receive it. 

45 

Mrs. CAPITO. But these projects haven’t actually gone—I mean 

they are partially forward, but not—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We haven’t received shipping yet. We are on 

track. And I will say that it adds—if you consider ARRA spending, 

we have received—2 percent of our capital spending over the last 

9 years has been from the Federal Government. Without that, it is 

1 percent. So it was helpful. It was wonderful. It will create jobs. 

It certainly hasn’t spoken to the larger issue of defraying costs and 

helping us out. 

And I will say that, you know, one thing—localities are spending 

the money and are spending quite a bit of money. I think the key 

question here is what are we getting for it? And for example, if 

local—we are all in the business of providing service to our customers. To the extent that those—what we are asking for is having 

Federal mandates match those customer service priorities, one of 

which—one of the basic ones is providing clean water and drinking 

water. 

These are not mandates, but New York City has committed to 

spending $5 billion on a third water tunnel which will create some 

redundancy in-city, and several billion dollars to create—to fix our 

Delaware aqueduct, which has a leak every day. Those are obviously construction jobs, money that will be spent, but it is meeting 

our—the priorities that we determine are foremost. And to the extent that we have competing mandates that come down that don’t 

match local priorities, it will bump out those local needs. 

Mrs. CAPITO. OK. Let me ask another question, because my time 

is going kind of fast here. 

I know in a lot of construction projects that are involved with 

Federal funding, that the timeline to get projects from the time it— 

you know, concept, idea concept to actually turning the dirt has become longer. And we all know time is money. Are you finding this 

with your projects? And is there a way that you could streamline 

this process, understanding that we are in financial constraints, 

here? 

Certainly one of the things we are looking at on the—in the 

transportation bill is to try to streamline the permitting process 

and make it more simultaneous, so we can cut the timeline, so that 

the money can go farther. 

Does anybody have a comment on that? Mr. Portune? Well, I said 

that—— 

Mr. PORTUNE. Senator Portman, also from Cincinnati, but 

that—— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Portune. 

Mr. PORTUNE [continuing]. Is not me. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Yes. 

Mr. PORTUNE. We do occasionally confuse our mail, though. That 

is correct. No, it is Portune, Hamilton County commissioner—— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Yes. 

Mr. PORTUNE [continuing]. Thank you, Representative. Certainly 

any way in which you can condense the timeframe it is going to 

end up saving money. 

Now, in our sewer system, though, our district, we have very few 

Federal dollars that are involved. Only $6 million, and that came 

46 

from the State Revolving Loan Fund that ultimately came out of 

stimulus money. The vast—— 

Mrs. CAPITO. What is the total cost of your project? 

Mr. PORTUNE. $3.1 billion from—— 

Mrs. CAPITO. And only $6 million of that is Federal dollars? 

Mr. PORTUNE. At this point, that is correct. Now, we don’t—we 

haven’t spent all of that. We spent over $400 million to date. We 

have over $800 million in the next 7 years budgeted to complete 

phase 1. Total project cost is $3.1 billion. But a very, very small 

amount has been tied back to Federal investment at this point. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Have you had to raise the rates on your individual—— 

Mr. PORTUNE. Yes, we have. We have. We went through a stretch 

of double-digit rate increases, starting in 2008. We now are in the 

midst of 5 consecutive years of 8 percent rate increases. And if you 

project it out over the life of the system, we are looking to doubledigit rate increases again to fund the balance of phase 1, all of 

phase 2. 

In real dollars, the quarterly bill of—your typical residential 

homeowner in Hamilton County today is $167 related to their 

sewer bill. Projecting those rates forward at the end, that figure is 

going to increase to over $2,800, quarterly, in order to fund the system. It is just—it is not sustainable. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Per resident? 

Mr. PORTUNE. That is correct. It is just simply not sustainable. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Wow. That is pretty stark. 

Mr. PORTUNE. It is. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Yes, right. 

Mr. PORTUNE. It is. We are—— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. PORTUNE. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

of our witnesses today. I appreciate the hearing. 

I know I live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed community, just 

outside of the city here. We have been under a consent decree that 

started in 2005 for the next 12 years, related to storm—to wastewater overflows, sewage overflow. And under that decree, it covers 

5,400 miles of sewer mains, and an estimated $500 million or so 

of enhancements that are needed to the system. 

I have been particularly curious—and it is a separate system 

from—stormwater from sewer. But I have been particularly curious 

about the way in which we can use green infrastructure techniques. I was pleased to see the guidance issued by the EPA about 

integrating those techniques into these comprehensive plans. 

And—but one of the things we run into, of course, is, you know, 

depending on the region, whatever those techniques are that need 

to be implemented could be slightly different, the technologies 

are—and it is unfortunate that there are communities obviously 

implementing green infrastructure technologies, but there is no 

way for one community—it is difficult for one community to learn 

from another about what those technologies are, and sort of an efficiency standpoint. 

47 

I have introduced the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act 

of 2011. It is H.R. 2030. And I would love to, given the testimony 

that we have heard today, to really encourage some of our Republican colleagues to come on board this, and particularly commend 

it to our chairman, because it is really clear—and we have had the 

support of NACWA and American Rivers and others—that already 

communities across the country are trying to figure out the best 

ways to implement green infrastructure so that it is more efficient, 

cost effective, it accounts for maintenance costs that are ongoing for 

these systems that result in consumers like me and others having 

to foot a huge bill for maintenance and enhancements. 

But we need to figure out a more national strategy, looking at 

various regions to make sure that we are doing this in the best way 

possible. And H.R. 2030 creates 3 to 5 centers for excellence that 

are regionally based, to help us come up with those strategies. 

And so, in the time remaining, I am particularly interested in 

hearing from a couple of our witnesses about what you know, in 

terms of cost effectiveness and efficiencies in systems. 

And, Mr. Portune, please. 

Mr. PORTUNE. Representative, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Again, we presented a detailed 

green infrastructure plan that was not approved by EPA and the 

Department of Justice in total, although as testified, we were given 

the opportunity to present alternatives—though not approved, so 

we end up dual designing and double spending, if we want to go 

down that path. 

We estimated that we would save $1 billion off of a total price 

tag of $3.1 billion, in terms of our total project, as one example of 

the kinds of savings that are attainable through a green build infrastructure approach. 

Your bill is—I commend you on that, because the Perfect Storm 

Coalition of Communities has also advocated the development of 

demonstration projects—and there is existing authority within the 

Clean Water Act already for that to be done; you don’t need to 

amend the Act at all, just simply it is a matter of policy, and with 

oversight of this committee, that could be done—we are advocating 

15 pilots communities on an annual basis for 5 years that would 

then—they would then develop the data necessary that other communities could look to, to rely upon as to how effective these alternative techniques could be. 

And that would also inform EPA, in terms of their enforcement 

practices, to ensure that you don’t have inconsistent results, depending upon what region that you are in, or again, even within 

an existing region, depending upon who the regulators are that 

show up on that particular—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. In my remaining time, if I could hear 

from American Rivers, I think that would be helpful. And we will 

have a chance to speak with the EPA after this panel as well about 

those things, and some of the considerations they have in these 

green infrastructure projects. Ms. Baer? 

Ms. BAER. Thank you, Representative Edwards, and for your 

leadership on this issue, as well. 

Yes, we have seen from the examples that have come in across 

the country that the cost effectiveness results have really borne out 

48 

so far. And we know, you know, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle are 

all forecasting, you know, cost effectiveness benefits and savings in 

the billions. But not only that, I think they are also showing the 

multiple benefits that is accruing to their communities is really 

where they are also getting additional benefits. 

So, for example, in Philadelphia, in addition to meeting—forecasting to meet their clean water standards, they are seeing more 

local jobs, cleaner air, less heat-related fatalities, less time spent 

in traffic, cooler temperatures, just an array of community benefits 

that I think aren’t necessarily counted on our books right now, but 

really should be part of this equation, when we talk about the cost 

and benefits of investing in our communities and clean water, simultaneously. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Bucshon, do you have any questions? 

Dr. BUCSHON. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

also point out that some of our successes in the United States, by 

comparison to other countries—probably three or 4 years ago I read 

an article in National Geographic or Smithsonian—I can’t remember the one—talking about Sao Paolo, Brazil, and the river that 

goes through the city and the fact that, for 100 miles south of the 

city, nothing lives in the river. Nothing. No plants, no animals, 

nothing. 

So, I do think we have had some successes over the years, and 

we obviously have a challenge now, with upgrading our infrastructure. But I think that we have made some progress over the years. 

For Mr. Williams the question is, I mean, one of the big, I think, 

complaints that I hear from people, not only as it relates to this, 

as it relates to Federal regulation, is the bar keeps changing in a 

lot of different areas. And not only recently, but historically. And 

I see that, you know, you put in this comprehensive wet weather 

program, spending $350 million, and then now you have been told 

to stop discharging from your wet weather treatment plants. 

Do you know what the reason—why that was? Were the discharges not being treated properly, according to EPA, or—what 

was the reason why they moved the bar on you? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. There was a couple reasons. One was that the discharges from these wet weather facilities that are not the main 

POTW—they are remote facilities that collect the peak flows off of 

our interceptor—they were—sedimentation and high-rate disinfection, the intent was to protect public health by disinfecting, but 

they did not meet secondary standards. So that was one issue. 

The second issue was that in 2000 the California Toxics Rule was 

promulgated, which deals with trace metals and trace organics. 

And these facilities did not meet the discharge limits from that 

rule. 

Dr. BUCSHON. When you first designed your program, though, 

they met—did it meet standards at the current time, when you 

spent this kind of money to build it? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The—when the program was first developed, the 

interpretation of EPA was that these were appropriate facilities, 

and the treatment technology essentially was a best available control technology, best practical control technology. There was a reinterpretation of that. 

49 

I think the more interesting point is that the facilities were—the 

issue of beneficial use was protection of public health. And at the 

time we built the facilities, and leading up to building those, we did 

studies that showed that the runoff, the urban runoff from the 

stormwater, in terms of metals and trace metals and organics, pesticides, that type of thing, was a much higher contributor. 

So, this whole issue of integrated planning—you might say, in 

this community, where would you get the biggest bang for your 

buck of limited resources? Would it be to prioritize stormwater 

issues, which are now contributing the majority of the load of metals and organics, versus ceasing discharges from these treatment 

facilities that 20 years ago were deemed to be the best available 

control technology and have indeed succeeded for what they were 

designed for? 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you. Ms. Baer, we keep talking about green 

infrastructure today, and if—I will address this to you first. But 

could somebody describe to me green infrastructure that we are 

talking about? I mean exactly what are we talking about, compared 

to just the regular way to deal with this? 

Because it is interesting to me that, as outlined by Mr. Portune, 

that they proposed so-called green infrastructure things, but the 

EPA actually denied that. So I will let you address that, first. 

Ms. BAER. Yes, sure. Thank you. Green infrastructure is sort of 

a suite of approaches or practices, and we would consider them 

processes, either natural techniques or engineered approaches that 

either protect, restore, or sort of recreate natural processes. So that 

would be, for example, protecting a wetland or in a city, building 

a green roof, or using permeable pavement to let water naturally 

soak through or capture systems. So, a whole suite of technologies 

and approaches that could be considered green infrastructure, 

broadly. 

And then, I think in recent years we have seen more and more 

communities start to use green infrastructure. And now we are incorporating them into their specific permits and plans. EPA came 

out with a memo last year, I believe, officially recognizing and encouraging the use of green infrastructure as part of stormwater 

and sewer overflow permits. 

I am not familiar with the situation, the specific situation there, 

but I know recently there have been a number of long-term control 

plans and consent orders for CSOs that have actually included an 

integrated green infrastructure in those plans, often on a sort of 

adaptive management technique. So it is certainly something that 

is being recognized by EPA and used more frequently, and has— 

it should have an increasing role. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, can I have just a second for Mr. 

Portune to comment on a question on that? 

Why do you think your green infrastructure plan was denied by 

EPA? What was the reason? 

Mr. PORTUNE. The primary reason is that the—as I understand 

it—is that the results are not as well understood or as guaranteed 

as you can get with traditional gray-build infrastructure. So, from 

an engineering perspective, it is much easier to determine what the 

end result is going to be of constructing a deep tunnel in a particular area to hold water back until it can be treated, as opposed 

50 

to what—the benefit that you may get from green roofs or permeable materials or disconnecting downspouts from the system, or 

any combination of all of those things. 

So, we were given the opportunity within our consent decree to 

propose alternatives and to more or less develop those, and make 

the case for them by a particular date. But that is where the flexibility issue becomes very important. Because while we were given 

that opportunity to propose alternatives, we were not given the 

flexibility of timing in meeting results or objectives. 

So, we have to still come up with one alternative, and no guarantee that the green will be approved. We end up—if we want to 

pursue that, we spend on both sides of the equation. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just a couple questions. I want to follow up a little 

bit on that. 

You talk about in your testimony, silos. You got enforcement over 

here, you got other areas of the EPA. I guess I am concerned. 

The stormwater regulations: I mean it is pretty clear—I think it 

has been completely clear in the testimony that if we can get that 

water out of the regular sanitary system, then we will solve a lot 

of problems. 

Now, in issues like when you have retention basins for storm 

and—do you see new regulations on the stormwater or not being 

able to talk to another part of the EPA? What would you say that 

is a problem? Or you were talking about the flexibility. You might 

want to expound on that, because I am a little concerned about proposed new stormwater regulations, and how it affects you to get to 

what we need to get to, and give you the flexibility. 

So, Mr. Portune? 

Mr. PORTUNE. I guess I will begin. I—in—speaking in the main, 

a broad, comprehensive approach that allows local communities the 

ability to—or the flexibility to—in a pool of limited resources to 

make investment decisions based upon what results can be accomplished the best quicker and cheaper. 

No one wants to backslide on the benefits of the Clean Water 

Act. My citizens want to live in a clean environment. They don’t 

want polluted streams or rivers or anything like that. But we also 

have to recognize the affordability question is very important. And 

we have to balance the tension between doing everything and rigid 

enforcement versus what my citizens can actually afford to do, and 

give local governments the flexibility to be able to make those decisions and to place those investment dollars in the wisest way, 

based upon local needs and interests and affordability. 

So, looking at it comprehensively, I would just simply add, Mr. 

Chairman, that it—we haven’t touched upon it much today, but we 

are very concerned also about the fact that we do know that other 

regulations are being contemplated. And what happens when we 

spend all of this money dealing with effluent and fecal coliform levels, and things of that nature, and then all of a sudden there are 

new regulations that require us to get all of the pharmaceuticals 

and oils and gases and other toxins, and we have no money? And 

how do we answer that question of our citizens? 

So, would certainly urge Congress to weigh in on these issues to 

ensure that there is broad oversight flexibility on a local level, and 

51 

that we be given the opportunity to apply our dollars in the best 

way. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Reardon? 

Mr. REARDON. Just to add, I think, from my perspective, if we 

continue down the path of consent decrees and an adversarial relationship, it is very difficult to get the flexibility and the ongoing 

dialogue and the changes of circumstances when cities have to 

come back and constantly ask for a consent decree to be reopened. 

We haven’t reached that point yet; we are in the midst of it. 

But this—you all know when you get into that adversarial relationship, it creates barriers, effectively, to being flexible and innovative and considering the reasonableness of issues. And so I just 

would continue to encourage you all to think about a different way 

of doing business with us. 

We, as mayors of cities, want to work with you. We want to work 

with the EPA. We want to find solutions. That is what we do every 

day, is find out how to move forward. And a different atmosphere 

to get that done is—— 

Mr. GIBBS. As we saw in a lot of testimony, the consent decree 

doesn’t help you in the media and the general public, so it adds 

fuel to the adversarial relationship. 

Yes, Mr. Suttle? 

Mr. SUTTLE. I want to answer your question and the previous 

congressman’s questions with this thought process. Go back to 

what I said in my testimony of the 4–2–20 rule. That is the way 

the policies are put. 

The four relates to four bypasses per year to the river. So if my 

city or any city here comes up with 1 to 10 green solutions, how 

do you measure that against 4 bypasses in—per year? It doesn’t 

compute. We are looking at the wrong statistics. We need to be 

looking at the quality of what is going into the river. And if we are 

doing 1 to 10 green solutions or new technology solutions, what difference is that really making in the qualitative flow this year, 

versus 5 years from now? 

We are not talking about the realities of life. And we have got 

to get away from this hard fast 4–2–20 concept to really measuring 

performance. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Mr. Baker? 

Mr. BAKER. Just one comment as far as statutory revisions, or 

what we can do to further this concept, that we do have some institutional barriers. When we talk about silos that maybe EPA are in, 

we must recognize States are in their own silos. In my agency I 

have stormwater permitting folks, I have municipal wastewater 

permitting folks, I have groundwater folks, and I have standards 

folks. And we need to communicate. And EPA, at its highest level, 

needs to communicate within its different offices. 

In Utah, if I was to talk to our 10 largest permitees, there is only 

one municipality among them. The rest are singular, special service 

districts that have nothing to do with stormwater. They don’t manage a stormwater system. Salt Lake City is the exception to that. 

Otherwise the major permittees don’t care about stormwater 

issues. They care about their municipal wastewater permit. 

And so, under a holistic approach, if we can look within the watershed and bring all the players and stakeholders to the table to 

52 

talk about what we jointly need to do, that will be a barrier we will 

need to break down. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. I am out of time here, but I just wanted to comment on the permits. Typically, the permits are 5 years, correct? 

So, I am convinced that the way to do this is through the permitting process and not the consent decrees, and give you the flexibility. And maybe one thing we should be thinking about is maybe 

a concept of a conditional permit that would go on, say, ‘‘Here is 

your plan,’’ and hopefully it is a comprehensive integrated plan for 

the watershed, but it is conditional on meeting certain benchmarks 

that you agree on during the permitting process. Would that be 

something that would be a concept that would be favorable? OK. 

Yes? 

Mr. BAKER. I would say, though, that hasn’t been a huge impediment. Even though we have got a 10-year plan that needs to be implemented, having a 5-year permit cycle has not been an impediment in my State. I don’t know if we are an outlier in that regard. 

We have used a consent decree or a compliance schedule within 

the permit itself, and had that schedule roll over from permit to 

permit, if necessary, because of the expanded timeframe. 

Mr. GIBBS. I guess I just raised the question because changes in 

elected officials at every level, public policy changes. You know 

what that does for certainty. 

Yes, Mr. Williams? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, just at the dialogue yesterday that was an 

issue that engendered a lot of discussion. There was a lot of concern about that. The fact that if everyone is holding hands and saying, ‘‘Yes, this is OK,’’ rolling things over, but every time you open 

up a permit and it goes forward into a renewal, there is opportunities to derail whatever it was that you had in place. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Mr. Bishop, do you have any questions? 

Mr. BISHOP. I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

you. But before I get to my questions, let me just do a little housekeeping. 

I request unanimous consent to enter into the record two statements, one from Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, and one 

from Congressman Gerry Connolly. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[Please see the table of contents section entitled, ‘‘Prepared 

Statements Submitted by Members of Congress’’ for the statements 

of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Hon. Gerald E. Connolly.] 

Mr. BISHOP. And I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record information regarding the bipartisan bill that I have filed, 

along with Mr. LaTourette, H.R. 3145, which I made reference to 

a couple times. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

53 


Insert offset folio 23 here 71739.023
54 


Insert offset folio 24 here 71739.024
55 


Insert offset folio 25 here 71739.025
56 


Insert offset folio 26 here 71739.026
57 


Insert offset folio 27 here 71739.027
58 


Insert offset folio 28 here 71739.028
59 


Insert offset folio 29 here 71739.029
60 


Insert offset folio 30 here 71739.030
61 


Insert offset folio 31 here 71739.031
62 


Insert offset folio 32 here 71739.032
63 


Insert offset folio 33 here 71739.033
64 


Insert offset folio 34 here 71739.034
65 


Insert offset folio 35 here 71739.035
66 


Insert offset folio 36 here 71739.036
67 


Insert offset folio 37 here 71739.037
68 


Insert offset folio 38 here 71739.038
69 


Insert offset folio 39 here 71739.039
70 


Insert offset folio 40 here 71739.040
71 


Insert offset folio 41 here 71739.041
72 


Insert offset folio 42 here 71739.042
73 


Insert offset folio 43 here 71739.043
74 


Insert offset folio 44 here 71739.044
75 


Insert offset folio 45 here 71739.045
76 


Insert offset folio 46 here 71739.046
77 


Insert offset folio 47 here 71739.047
78 


Insert offset folio 48 here 71739.048
79 


Insert offset folio 49 here 71739.049
80 


Insert offset folio 50 here 71739.050
81 


Insert offset folio 51 here 71739.051
82 


Insert offset folio 52 here 71739.052
83 


Insert offset folio 53 here 71739.053
84 


Insert offset folio 54 here 71739.054
85 


Insert offset folio 55 here 71739.055
86 


Insert offset folio 56 here 71739.056
87 


Insert offset folio 57 here 71739.057
88 


Insert offset folio 58 here 71739.058
89 


Insert offset folio 59 here 71739.059
90 


Insert offset folio 60 here 71739.060
91 


Insert offset folio 61 here 71739.061
92 


Insert offset folio 62 here 71739.062
93 


Insert offset folio 63 here 71739.063
94 


Insert offset folio 64 here 71739.064
95 


Insert offset folio 65 here 71739.065
96 


Insert offset folio 66 here 71739.066
97 


Insert offset folio 67 here 71739.067
98 


Insert offset folio 68 here 71739.068
99 


Insert offset folio 69 here 71739.069
100 


Insert offset folio 70 here 71739.070
101 


Insert offset folio 71 here 71739.071
102 


Insert offset folio 72 here 71739.072
103 


Insert offset folio 73 here 71739.073
104 


Insert offset folio 74 here 71739.074
105 


Insert offset folio 75 here 71739.075
106 


Insert offset folio 76 here 71739.076
107 


Insert offset folio 77 here 71739.077
108 


Insert offset folio 78 here 71739.078
109 


Insert offset folio 79 here 71739.079
110 


Insert offset folio 80 here 71739.080
111 


Insert offset folio 81 here 71739.081
112 


Insert offset folio 82 here 71739.082
113 


Insert offset folio 83 here 71739.083
114 


Insert offset folio 84 here 71739.084
115 


Insert offset folio 85 here 71739.085
116 


Insert offset folio 86 here 71739.086
117 


Insert offset folio 87 here 71739.087
118 


Insert offset folio 88 here 71739.088
119 


Insert offset folio 89 here 71739.089
120 


Insert offset folio 90 here 71739.090
121 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

Mr. BISHOP. A couple things. Mr. Portune, you entered into or 

your community entered into the consent agreement that you have 

made reference to several times in 2004. Is that correct? 

Mr. PORTUNE. It was originally entered into at that point. Subsequent to that we were sued by the Sierra Club, and that resulted 

in an amended and restated consent decree that was then ultimately approved after that. 

Mr. BISHOP. When? 

Mr. PORTUNE. I’m sorry, sir. I don’t—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me—— 

Mr. PORTUNE. If I could—I want to say 2009, but I want to be 

precise on the date, and—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me—can I just ask what I really want to focus 

in on? 

Mr. PORTUNE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. You indicated that the consent decree that you entered into in 2004 suggested that you could propose alternative 

technologies, and you proposed a set of green technologies that 

would have saved you about $1 billion. Is that right? 

Mr. PORTUNE. That is a part of the amended and restated decree, 

not the original decree in 2004—— 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So that amended and restated decree, which 

was pursuant to a legal action by the Sierra Club, was entered into 

in 2009. Is that correct? 

Mr. PORTUNE. That is my recollection, sir. But I will supplement 

you with the exact date. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. The reason I am asking is it seems to me that 

there was—communities have been reluctant, for understandable 

reasons, to pursue green technologies because they had not been 

widely used. And thus, the evaluation mechanisms were not as well 

developed as they could have been. 

One of the things that the Recovery Act—the much maligned Recovery Act—although, Mr. Strickland, I was interested to hear you 

say that—did I hear you say 3 ships are being built at a cost of 

$150 million? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am assuming one or two people are working on 

building those ships. Am I right about that? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Probably a little bit more. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, thanks. Just wanted to be clear. There was a 

required set-aside in the monies that went to the State Revolving 

Fund of 20 percent for green technologies. 

And my understanding—Ms. Baer, maybe you can help me with 

this—my understanding is that every State met that required setaside. Am I right about that? 

Ms. BAER. That is correct. Every State met or even exceeded that 

amount. 

Mr. BISHOP. So there is now an increased usage of these technologies and modalities, which presumably would provide a greater 

frame of reference to evaluate their effectiveness. Am I right about 

that? 

Ms. BAER. Yes, I think that is right. Both the States and the financing authorities, and the States are now more comfortable lendVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
122 

ing or granting out for those approaches, and the demand for those 

have been really high. In fact, there was a backlog of projects during that time period. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Because this strikes me as a very positive development. That, the ARRA requirement, coupled with the October 

27th memorandum from the EPA, which clearly embraces green 

technologies—and I would say, Mr. Suttle, you make the point that 

we need to live in the real world, and we have to accept the hard 

realities of life. And I think you are absolutely right. And it seems 

to me that the EPA’s memorandum having to do with both integrated approaches and green technologies is the EPA’s embrace of 

that very hard-headed assessment, which is that we have to accept 

the hard realities of life. 

I mean I think we are on a good path here, going forward. And 

I am hopeful that the use of green technologies can both be more 

cost effective and become more broadly accepted, so that the EPA 

has a sufficient database to assess whether or not they actually 

work. And perhaps if, you know, the consent decree had been—you 

know, maybe if you were entering into it now, perhaps we would 

have had a different outcome. I don’t know. 

Mr. PORTUNE. If I may? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, please. 

Mr. PORTUNE. Thank you. First of all, just a footnote. Our decree 

was approved by the parties in June of 2009. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. PORTUNE. The court, however, didn’t give its approval until 

2010. So that is a little—off on the dates. I am sorry, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. 

Mr. PORTUNE. But it was 2009 when the parties agreed. I think 

that you are certainly on to something there. And it again is a reason why the idea of having pilot demonstration project communities may be one important for the committee to consider. They 

could be looked to to develop the data to a sufficient degree that 

it is then universally accepted and applied across the board. That 

is one of the reasons why our coalition of communities has focused 

so much on a demonstration project component of moving forward 

with a flexible approach and congressional oversight. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Anybody else have any more questions? Go ahead. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I didn’t know I was next. Thank you, Mr. 

Chair. 

Several of you have indicated the need for private investment. 

But have anybody—does anybody have any suggestions how to encourage that investment in water protection, development, and 

management? And what would it take to encourage that? Has anybody been able to attract it? And has that been part of the dialogue 

for the League of Cities and Conference of Mayors and the counties? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I will take a first shot at this. One way to attract private investment is certainly to work through local codes. 

And it is part of our green infrastructure plan, going forward, to 

require new development, redevelopment, to manage stormwater 

on site. So that is certainly one way to go about it. We estimate 

123 

over the 20-year life of our plan, that will attract some $900 million 

in green infrastructure investments. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Have you found any such investors yet? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. It will happen developer by developer. So these 

rules actually haven’t been finalized. They will be finalized probably this month. And when development cycle picks up, that will 

be built into the cost of new buildings and redevelopment. 

One reason we are—we like this approach is at that time, when 

you are building a new roof and you want to build a green roof or 

what have you, you can build in technology that will be about .3 

to 1.3 percent of overall development costs. So it is cheap to do it 

when you are building something new. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Ms. BAER. Yes. I would add briefly that we have seen in places 

that have adopted fee and credit systems to charge for partial base 

stormwater runoffs, and Philadelphia, where they have a charge 

for—based on how much surface you have that is creating the pollution source. But then they give a full credit to people if they are 

able to retain water on site, which is most cost-effectively done 

with green infrastructure. 

This has then created a market, so there is a whole suite of contractors who build, install, maintain green roofs who are now benefitting from that. And in discussions we have had with people, people are very excited about those business opportunities. And so that 

is a way to create sort of private market for investment, by having 

a strong local code that improves this. 

And so, we have heard from other folks—small business in Maryland, for example, that—the regulations in that State for strong 

protected stormwater standards, encourage environmental site design. One small business owner told us he has quadrupled his employees because of that. So I think there is opportunity there. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So there is a market, but there is no concerted 

effort to try to identify for major projects, or to be able to help communities know where to go and find these investors is—am I right? 

Anybody? Yes, sir? 

Mr. SUTTLE. I was told you asked about private investors coming 

in to the infrastructure market. U.S. Conference of Mayors does 

support having a mechanism in place where private investments 

can be done through some type of a financing mechanism. But we 

are going to need some changes in the tax code to incentivize that. 

If you are inferring that the private industries can come in too 

and take over treatment plants and other water systems—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, no, sir. Not at all. 

Mr. SUTTLE. OK. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am referring strictly to—— 

Mr. SUTTLE. To have them come in as investors, there needs to 

be a reason for them to do that, and they have to have some incentive from the tax sides. Because they are looking at it as an investment. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. Well, bonds usually are the way many 

communities go to be able to do major projects. And that, to me, 

would be something that would be attractive to Wall Street investors and others. Yes? No? 

124 

Mr. SUTTLE. Well, I think it would. But we need to look at it in 

a bigger picture of how those investors think when they buy those 

bonds. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct, and that is something that should 

be—along with the other steps that we are taking, be as another 

option. 

Mr. SUTTLE. The point is well taken. It also gets us back into 

this debt issue, and that is how much debt can we absorb on the 

side of the government, the city, or the sewer agency, and how 

much is going to come over here and be investors from another—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would really love to see the agencies move 

in that direction to start maybe finding out where these opportunities could be found. 

Mr. Suttle, you mentioned your concerns that businesses would 

leave Omaha if the water and sewage rates were increased. Do you 

believe those businesses will stay in Omaha if the sewage overflows 

into the river, or if the quality of water was compromised? Do you 

know any businesses that might have left because of the increase 

to the cost of clean water? 

Mr. SUTTLE. Well, I have 11 industries that have kind of organized and we have been dealing with now for over a year. We had 

an impasse some 4 weeks ago, and I now have—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. I need to cut it, sir. I am running out 

of—— 

Mr. SUTTLE. Yes. I now have lawyers in my office, because they 

are on their way to sue. 

One of those industries is going to sue—and I made reference to 

it—its bill will go up here, starting next year. And it is on its 

course to a $1.8 billion annual—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do—— 

Mr. SUTTLE. This is all overhead cost. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. SUTTLE. And they cannot absorb it. I don’t want to be spending my time trying to figure out how to keep these 11 industries 

in Omaha. I want to spend my time on getting 11 new industries 

to Omaha. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Understood, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, 

one last question. 

Have any of you tried to educate your Members of Congress on 

the reality of issues when it deals with your entities? Any of you? 

Mr. PORTUNE. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You have? And staff? Because staff is important. It is critical. Because if we don’t understand the issue, and 

then you come and try to pass a bill, that is not helpful to us. So 

may I suggest you continue educating them? Because this is where 

you will find the support that you will need. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I just wanted to conclude here. On your 

last statement you talked about the 11 businesses that might be 

leaving Omaha, and their cost, and the cost that rate payers—we 

have heard that common theme. 

The irony of it is if the rates go up so high you are going to lose 

population in the urban centers, and you are going to have less resources to deal with this issue. You are going to push industry 

125 

probably offshore, but you are also going to push residents out in 

the rural areas, and that creates other problems. So, I think the 

irony of the whole thing is it just kind of comes and goes around. 

But I want to thank you for coming in today. I think we had a 

great discussion, and it was very informative and helpful as we 

move forward, because it is obvious that we are at a point where 

we have got to change the culture and how we kind of address 

these issues and give you the flexibility, because you are all dedicated to make sure we have clean water for your communities and 

across America. So again, thank you for being here. 

And I am going to excuse you for the—well, stand at ease so the 

next panel will have a chance to get their seats. But you are more 

than welcome to stay and listen to the next panel. Thank you. We 

will be at ease for just a couple minutes. 

At this time I would like to welcome Ms. Stoner. Ms. Stoner is 

the acting assistant administrator for water of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. And I think Ms. Giles must have 

just stepped out for a moment. But I think, Ms. Stoner, we can 

probably just go ahead with your opening statement. 

Thank you. 

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 

Ms. STONER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Bishop. It is a pleasure to be back here again before the subcommittee, and to talk with you, along with Assistant Administrator Giles, who will join me in a moment, to discuss our efforts 

at EPA to improve water quality for communities nationwide 

through integrated municipal stormwater and wastewater planning. 

It is actually great to see that many of the ideas that we are promoting in terms of integration, prioritization, and green infrastructure have so much support from the first panel and all the communities that they represent and the organizations that they represent. 

We have come a long way in improving water quality in the U.S. 

public health and the environment since Congress enacted the 

Clean Water Act almost 40 years ago. We have significantly reduced pollution entering streams, lakes, bays, and other waters nationwide, and our Nation’s public water systems provide water that 

meets national health-based standards for contaminants in drinking water in nearly all cases. 

However, there is significant drinking water and water pollution 

challenges that remain. Population growth, increases in impervious 

services, aging infrastructure, complex water quality issues, and 

the current economic challenges are stressing implementation of infrastructure and programs needed to fully attain Clean Water Act 

goals, and we certainly have heard about that this morning. 

Many of our State and local government partners find themselves facing difficult financial conditions, and we recognize these 

126 

challenges. EPA is working with State and local governments to develop and implement new approaches that will achieve water quality goals at lower cost, while creating jobs and strengthening the 

economy. 

So we view these challenges not just as challenges, but also as 

an opportunity, an opportunity for developing new products, new 

services, better ways of doing things. And that is what we are talking about today. 

In the past, EPA, States, and municipalities have often focused 

on each Clean Water Act requirement individually, rather than 

managing their various water quality investments as a single coordinated effort. Such an approach may constrain a community’s 

ability to address its most serious water quality issues in a costeffective manner. And so, we believe a new commitment to integrated water quality planning and management offers municipalities an opportunity to meet Clean Water Act requirements in a 

more cost-effective manner to spend their dollars better, and in a 

way that achieves the highest priority goals more quickly. 

To further reinforce this commitment, in October Assistant Administrator Giles and I signed a memo to EPA’s 10 regional offices, 

emphasizing the Agency’s commitment to integrated approaches to 

managing municipal stormwater and wastewater. The approach 

would provide interested municipalities with opportunities to develop a comprehensive plan that balances competing Clean Water 

Act requirements, allows municipalities to focus their resources on 

the most pressing public health and environmental protection 

issues. 

Let me briefly describe for you what the integrated planning approach is and is not. 

First, the integrated approach is voluntary, not mandatory. The 

development of integrated plans is best done by municipalities 

themselves, not by EPA. But we stand willing to work with States, 

municipalities, and partners to help them develop these plans. 

Second, integrated plans should be tailored to the needs of the 

community, and can include the innovative techniques that we 

have been talking about today. The EPA’s policies provide flexibility for EPA and States to evaluate a municipality’s financial capacity, and to design solutions that meet the community’s needs, 

including all the green infrastructure techniques. 

Third, integrated planning approach does not entail lowering existing Clean Water Act standards. And we have heard a lot of support for that today. The approach takes advantage of the flexibilities in existing EPA regulations, policies, and guidance, including 

the potential for long-term compliance schedules to allow municipalities to sequence implementation of their Clean Water Act obligations to protect water quality and public health at a reduced 

cost. 

Finally, this effort is still under development. We are currently 

developing a framework document. We will fully describe our initial 

thoughts on the integrated planning concept. This document will be 

informed by significant input from States, communities, and other 

stakeholders. 

Cynthia and I look forward to working with the subcommittee, 

our State colleagues, cities, counties, utilities, and many other partVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
127 

ners, stakeholders, and citizens, and we are committed to listening 

carefully to the needs of States and municipalities as we work together to most effectively protect water quality and public health. 

Mr. GIBBS. I would like to welcome Ms. Giles. Ms. Giles is the 

assistant administrator of the office of enforcement and compliance 

assurance of the U.S. EPA. Welcome. 

Ms. GILES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me 

the opportunity to make a few comments. I am here—happy to be 

here today, along with my colleague, Nancy Stoner, to talk about 

the collaboration between EPA’s headquarter’s and regions’ permitting and enforcement programs to achieve better water quality 

through integrated municipal stormwater and wastewater planning. 

We have made a lot of progress in clean water over the last 40 

years, as has been mentioned here today. Investments in clean 

water treatment and infrastructure, as well as good work in permitting and enforcement at the State and the Federal level have 

all contributed to these successes. Governments at all levels, as we 

heard here today, as well as wastewater utilities, are in agreement 

that we need to maintain the existing standards to protect people’s 

health and to protect clean water under the Clean Water Act. 

What we are working on now, and what we are discussing here 

today are ways we can continue to make progress on the goal we 

all share, cleaner water, by making smart choices about priorities, 

taking advantage of innovations, and making sure that the most 

important work is done first. That is what many communities have 

been asking us to do, and that is the effort we have launched, 

working with States, utilities, and communities across the country. 

This effort is not about expanding enforcement. Sometimes an 

enforcement agreement is a helpful way to address the many complex issues that communities face in addressing stormwater and 

extensive wastewater systems. Often a permit is a useful mechanism to accomplish those goals. 

One of the topics that is on the table in this effort is the best 

way to get a community on the path towards cleaner water that 

sets priorities and sequences the work to get the most benefits upfront. We are open to everyone’s ideas on this subject. 

We also agree that when new approaches are identified and that 

can make more progress or achieve the goals at a lower cost, then 

it is appropriate to make changes in the existing agreements. We 

have done that on a number of agreements recently, and that continues to be an approach that makes sense where better answers 

are identified. 

EPA has been, and we will continue to work with all the interested parties to better use the existing flexibilities to reach these 

common goals. 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I guess I will start off with the first questions. 

First of all, I want to appreciate for you sitting through the last 

panel to hear their testimony and their responses to the questions. 

And it is pretty obvious to me—I hope it was to you—that, you 

know, the concern about enforcement versus permitting, or consent 

decrees versus permitting. And from your testimony, from both of 

128 

you, the gist I get from you just saying that, you want to move EPA 

towards the more permitting concept, versus consent decrees and 

enforcement? Is that a correct statement? 

Ms. GILES. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that what we are saying 

is that the right option for each community is definitely an issue 

that is on the table. We are open to both options. We think there 

are some advantages in permits, and there can be sometimes advantages to pursuing it through enforcement. 

You have heard many of the people on the prior panel say that 

one of the things these communities are looking for is certainty and 

a schedule over the long term. Sometimes a consent decree is a 

good vehicle for providing that degree of certainty. However, even 

within an enforcement document there are plenty of flexibilities 

that we have, and have been exercising. 

I would note that the Mayor Suttle, representing the Conference 

of Mayors, made quick reference to the fact that they have noticed 

recently greater degrees of flexibility by EPA in working with communities in consent decrees. I am pleased to hear that they have 

noticed that. That is something that we have been really working 

on, and we can continue in this effort to do that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, to carry that further, would you say that enforcement actions would be the last resort, and permitting would 

be the first priority? 

Ms. GILES. I think the answer will vary by community. I would 

say that where we have longstanding issues in a community, especially where there is significant health or environmental threats involved, and there has been longstanding violations, enforcement, of 

course, remains an option on the table. 

But we are committed to and have been working with communities on—and are going to continue to do so—committed to having 

flexibilities in the system—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, well, let’s talk about communities that are currently under a consent decree. Would they have the option, the 

flexibility, to go this other route? Or would they—or they would not 

have that option? 

Ms. GILES. Yes, they would have that option, and we have—there 

is—let me give you one recent example where the city of Indianapolis, who is under a consent decree, came to us and said, ‘‘We have 

a better way to achieve the clean water results that we are trying 

to achieve here, and we think it will save us money.’’ We looked 

at that, we agreed, we amended the consent agreement. And I 

think that everyone has been very pleased that we have been able 

to find cheaper, better solutions to these problems. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Stoner, do you think the current permitting process allows enough flexibility? Or do you need more flexibility to 

say, a municipality that adopts the integrated plan, and maybe it 

is going to take 10 or 15 years—do you need a different type of a 

permit schedule, or do you have that flexibility under current law, 

or do you have any limitations that we need to address? 

Ms. STONER. We think we have a lot of flexibility now, including 

to have compliance schedules that are longer for a lot of different 

elements that you would find in a Clean Water Act permit. I think 

there is improvement to be made, innovation to be made, in terms 

of watershed permits, in terms of multi-agency permits—for examVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
129 

ple, having stormwater and wastewater under the same permit. I 

think there are things that we can do. We feel like we can do those 

things, most of those things that need to be done, under existing 

law. 

Keep in mind, though, Mr. Chairman, that States run 46 of the 

programs. So it is very key to think about how States will work in 

this process. A permitting process will be largely State-run, and so 

that is why we are working very closely with States, to explore the 

flexibilities they have under their State water quality standards 

and their permitting programs. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, because I am just concerned if a municipality 

adopts the plan and everybody agrees on the goals, but it is going 

to take maybe 15 years to get there, and they set their priorities, 

that halfway through, when things change and agendas change, 

that they might be reluctant to move forward that way if they don’t 

have the long-term assurance that, you know, they have got some 

protections. 

Ms. STONER. We think we can find those mechanisms to provide 

longer term schedules. But the other benefit that you actually get 

from permitting is that they are—those permits are reissued every 

5 years. So, as circumstances change, and innovation—which we 

spent a lot of time talking about today—as new techniques are developed, new products are available, they can be incorporated into 

the next permit. 

So, the adaptive management approach works very well with 

permitting. 

Mr. GIBBS. Now—just my last question, because I am out of time. 

Does the permit give the municipalities, the local governments, assurances from third-party lawsuits, some protection versus—because my understanding of the consent decrees, those are sometimes issued just to protect the local municipality from third-party 

lawsuits. 

Ms. STONER. Well, let me start, and then let me ask my colleague 

to join me. 

So there is a permit shield provision in the Clean Water Act. So 

an entity that is in compliance with its clean water permit is in 

compliance with the law, and is shielded from third-party lawsuits. 

Mr. GIBBS. Even though they might not be in compliance right 

away, but they would be in compliance to what the permit sets. 

Ms. STONER. The scope of the obligation—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Ms. STONER [continuing]. Is what the permit says that it is. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, OK. 

Ms. STONER. That is right. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, that is very helpful. 

Ms. GILES. And consent decree is another vehicle that can lay out 

a long-term course of schedule—setting priorities and schedules 

that is available to deal with some of these questions. And it is the 

case that where the Federal Government has entered into a Federal court consent decree, that that sets the standard that citizen 

groups would expect to hold municipalities to. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Mr. Bishop? 

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

Thank you both. 

130 

You know, we frequently hear the EPA described as taking a 

one-size-fits-all approach. And yet, Ms. Giles, I just heard you twice 

in response to questions from the chairman, talk about finding the 

right option for the community, which seems to suggest that you 

don’t take a one-size-fits-all approach. 

So, could you, A, respond to the concern that the EPA takes a 

one-size-fits-all approach, and do so—if it is not true, which, presumably, it is not, given your testimony, can you give us some examples of how the EPA is—presents flexible responses and flexible 

plans for communities that relate to those specific communities? 

Ms. GILES. Yes. First let me agree, that we understand and completely hear these communities, that their circumstances differ and 

the scope of the problems that they are facing varies. So you heard 

the commissioner from New York talk about that CSOs are their 

principal issue and they need to address those. Other communities 

have stormwater problems that are dominant over CSO issues. 

Other communities have separated storm-sewer issues. 

We try to craft our solution that—in a way that is tailored to the 

issues that the community is facing. And part of this integrated approach is to make sure we are doing that, we are looking across 

the spectrum of Clean Water Act obligations and concerns that the 

community is facing, and tailor our solution to those. Let me give 

you one example, you asked for an example. 

Mr. BISHOP. Please. 

Ms. GILES. We recently reached agreement with the city of Cleveland’s system. And they wanted to come forward with a lot of green 

infrastructure solutions, which we embraced in our agreement with 

the city. And it was very much this adaptive management learnby-doing approach that we have been talking about here, where 

they were going to take some blighted areas in the city and convert 

those to places that will capture stormwater, providing clean water 

benefits, reduced stormwater, and revitalization of the communities 

where those green spaces would be located. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you very much. And Ms. Stoner, I just— 

I think you answered this, but I think it is so important, so I just 

want to make sure we are all clear. 

The flexibility, if you will, that is embodied in the October memorandum, I think most everyone has welcomed that. We have heard 

people—and it is clear that this is flexibility that would be applied 

prospectively. 

We have also heard people express the opinion, the concern, that 

this flexibility also ought to be available to communities that are 

currently operating under consent decrees. 

Just be clear. Does the EPA currently provide or will it provide 

that kind of flexibility to communities that are currently operating 

under consent decrees? 

Ms. STONER. Yes. We already have done it in a number of cases, 

as Cynthia mentioned. And we are open to better ideas that will 

achieve more environmental protection cost-effectively for these 

communities, even for communities that are currently under consent decrees. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Ms. Giles? 

Ms. GILES. I agree. 

131 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. All right. Thank you both very much. I yield 

back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Administrator Stoner, and thank you for being diligent in your effort to protect and help our water resources. I can tell you that we have had 

multiple hearings in the past on EPA, and it is not always being 

treated as kindly. And I tell you EPA, my region in San Francisco, 

has always been very responsive to my councils of government. And 

thank you for that. 

Ms. STONER. Great. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And then I also heard that there is always 

new regs coming up. And maybe very minimally. Can you shed 

light on why? Because I know there is new pollutants being found 

that—they endanger health and endanger marine life, endanger 

agriculture, E. coli, et cetera, et cetera. Would you elaborate, just 

minimally? Because I have other questions. 

Ms. STONER. Yes. The first point I would like to make is that 

most of the obligations that we have been talking about today are 

not new. They are actually very old obligations that came into effect in the 1970s or the 1980s, with the combined sewer overflow 

policy. That is 1994. So these are actually longstanding obligations, 

not new obligations. 

It is certainly true that as we identify new problems, we do try 

to find new ways to address them. There was a question about 

stormwater regulations. Those are not done yet. But what we are 

contemplating is actually mechanisms that would help municipalities like the ones that we saw here today address their stormwater 

problems. That is what we are working on. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There are—with the coordination of—in fact, 

in my district, in LA County, water is used in many areas 17 times. 

It is re-used, recycled, which requires coordination of county, local, 

State, and Federal agencies. And what you are proposing is common sense, to evaluate waste, integrate, and work together. 

There are 28 Federal agencies alone dealing with water, Federal 

agencies, most often in separate silos of regulation and mission. Do 

you see this as a—the proposed integration effort as a tool to integrate across the various agencies, or do you see this primarily an 

effort to clean up things within EPA? 

And then, as a followup to that, do you see this effort as a model 

for other water programs in EPA? 

Ms. STONER. This is more of an integration effort among levels 

of government, the Federal, State, and local, than it is across. But 

one of the main ways in which we fund green infrastructure in 

communities across the U.S. is by actually putting together funding 

opportunities from different Federal agencies. So HUD has money, 

DOT has money, USDA has money—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK, OK—— 

Ms. STONER [continuing]. EPA has—so we put it all together to 

achieve a package that will achieve that community—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So you do talk to each other. 

Ms. STONER. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

132 

Ms. STONER. And we are working closely together, particularly 

on that kind of initiative—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is the new technology part of it, addressing 

the new technology, the green technology, the methodology, et 

cetera? 

Ms. STONER. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Then another question that I have is several individuals have spoken to the need for private investments. 

From your perspective, what will it take to convince private investors to put up money to support water infrastructure and water reuse, recycling, et cetera? And have you helped, do you know if you 

can help, or how do we address this? 

Ms. STONER. Well, I think there is lots of good information in reports coming out about what a good investment it is, particularly 

water and wastewater infrastructure, how many jobs are created, 

how many different kinds of jobs are created, and how it is beneficial for U.S. manufacturers, how we have a positive trade surplus 

for water and wastewater services. There is all kinds of information out there that I think the savvy investor is already on to, in 

terms of this investment. Hopefully more will be on over time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. There are so very many other 

questions I would have, and I would put them into writing later, 

Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Edwards. Do you have questions? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to both 

of you also for your patience. 

You know, on the earlier panel, when I described ‘‘our consent 

decree,’’ I don’t want to suggest at all that it is a bad idea for us 

to have entered into a consent decree covering the Washington 

Suburban Sanitary Commission, which, you know, has a responsibility for providing clean water for over 2 million of our residents. 

In fact, I actually think that the implementation and the existence 

of the consent decree actually helped us to move forward in a way 

that we may not have under other circumstances. 

Before this consent decree in the Metropolitan Washington suburbs, we had 4.8 million gallons of sewer overflow in 2004. After 

the consent decree in 2010 we had 581,000 gallons of overflow, and 

there has been a lot of work that has gone into the system and into 

the coordination that has taken place in the jurisdiction around 

these issues. And so I think the consent decree, in fact, put us on 

a long-term pathway for dealing with these issues. That may work 

in some communities and other things may work in other places. 

I note also that we—about a quarter of our overflow is still related to fats, oils, and grease, stuff that actually should be dealt 

with with a lot of public education. 

But I want to turn my attention to the idea of green infrastructure, because I also note that in the $500 million or so of enhancements in the WSSC system, under the consent decree about a third 

of that is dedicated to green infrastructure. And so it seemed to 

be—at least in our working locally—that EPA, our department of 

the environment, and the utility were able to come up with a strategy that also incorporated green infrastructure. 

And so, I want to give you an opportunity, Ms. Stoner, to comment on the kinds of things that EPA is looking at when it conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:06 May 08, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\12-14-~1\71739.TXT JEAN
133 

siders green infrastructure as part of these plans, and also give you 

an opportunity to give us some thoughts about the importance of 

creating, at least regionally, as I have thought about regionally, 

these centers for excellence for developing green infrastructure 

techniques and technologies, and the benefit that would have to 

communities. 

Ms. STONER. Thank you. But both of those questions are related, 

because green infrastructure is an evolving field. So we know very 

well already what a lot of green infrastructure techniques can do 

at the site level. What we are working toward—and this is really 

important for these consent decrees and for permitting—is to see 

what they can do at a sewer shed level, at a watershed level. 

And so, that is where the technology is evolving, and the research is evolving. And so that is something that communities can 

share with each other, is what techniques they are using, how they 

are working, how they are measuring results. And that will help 

us move forward in using more of these over time, achieving greater results, and creating the wide range of jobs that are associated 

with implementing green infrastructure. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Ms. Giles? 

Ms. GILES. Well, I am very pleased to hear that your consent decree is working so well for your community, and that we were able 

to find a way to advance some of these innovative technologies. 

I would add that I hear the same thing from many communities. 

When we started out, maybe a little more challenging relationship, 

but evolved to a very collaborative relationship, where we are mutually trying to find solutions to these problems, and helping to create a pathway forward for these communities that provides them 

both certainty and the clean water that they are very much in 

favor of achieving. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And then finally, Ms. Stoner, I wonder 

if you can tell me how the EPA plans to identify municipalities 

that could make the best use of an integrated plan approach, and 

whether these municipalities have already begun implementing 

some of the techniques and areas most in need of new strategies. 

Ms. STONER. Yes. So we are working to come up with an approach, again, in discussions with many others. But part of it is 

that they have done some thinking about how to prioritize for their 

community, what the tradeoffs are, what the sequencing would be, 

what smart investments are. 

One thing we don’t want to do is delay further improvement 

while we plan. So we are looking for communities who have done 

that planning to be some of our leaders, and to demonstrate for 

others how it can be done. 

That being said, we are open to talking to all about where they 

are in the process. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And what role do you think the Federal Government has in helping to develop the private sector to mature the 

technologies? 

Ms. STONER. I think that we do have some innovation efforts, 

partnership efforts that we have underway that are led by our office of research and development office out in Cincinnati. And we 

are trying to work to help spur interest in investment in these new 

technologies. 

134 

If I could quickly tell a story, I was up in the Three Rivers Conference in Pittsburgh a little over a year ago. And they had vendors 

outside the conference itself. And I went around and talked to all 

the vendors there. And there were probably 50, 75 vendors. And all 

except one—the one imported rubber products from overseas— 

every other vendor made their product in the USA. So those are 

all products that are innovative products that are water and wastewater investment products being made in the USA and implemented, serviced in the USA. That is creating jobs. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And I look forward to seeing you tomorrow in Edmonston in our Green Street Project. Thank you. 

Ms. STONER. I look forward to it, as well. 

Mr. GIBBS. Got just a couple more questions. You heard a lot in 

the previous panel my concerns, my questioning about the 

stormwater and sanitary water. In your October memorandum to 

your regional offices for achieving water quality through the integrated municipal planning and permitting, you placed a lot of emphasis on stormwater, in addition to the wastewater permitting. 

How does the EPA—how do you plan to integrate the stormwater 

and wastewater permitting process? 

Ms. STONER. Well, that is what we spent yesterday over at 

NACWA talking about, how to do that, because they are often separate permits. So I think there are ways of doing it as a combined 

permit, as a watershed permit, maybe also using a memorandum 

of agreement or memorandum of understanding. There are other 

approaches. That is where we need to do some innovation on the 

permitting side. 

But we think we have the tools we need, we just need to figure 

out how to do it together. 

Mr. GIBBS. What is the status on any new stormwater regulations? 

Ms. STONER. We are continuing to work on those. We are behind 

schedule. 

Mr. GIBBS. Do you have a time table? 

Ms. STONER. Not one that I can share with you today. We are 

working hard on that. We consider them very important. 

And as I mentioned, part of the point of the stormwater regulations is to help communities figure out how to cost-effectively address stormwater pollution. So it would be very beneficial to the 

communities we saw here today. 

Mr. GIBBS. Will you be supplying a report to Congress on the 

proposed stormwater regulations? 

Ms. STONER. We will be submitting the report to Congress before 

we are proposing anything. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. GIBBS. And we will have time to have a hearing if we need 

to, or to have feedback, back and forth? 

Ms. STONER. I look forward to hearings on the issue with you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, that is great. Just one last question. You heard 

a lot of discussion on the previous panel about doing maybe 15, 20 

pilot projects, because there are over 700 communities that have 

this issue. Are you open to developing a pilot plan to—with this integrated approach? 

135 

Ms. STONER. 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. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is going to be laid out here in the near future? 

Ms. STONER. Our strategy that we are working on now would 

identify how we would like to work with communities through pilot 

projects and other means, as well. 

Mr. GIBBS. Do you think we will have something moving forward 

by spring? 

Ms. STONER. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Great. I am done with my questions. Is there any 

more questions over here? 

I guess this will conclude our hearing. And thanks for coming. 

And one thing I do have to say in kind of a closing statement— 

I said it to the last panel, and—because this is kind of changing 

the whole paradigm of how we operate. And it is quite clear to 

me—and I hope it was to you, when you heard the last panel— 

where municipalities and States improve this infrastructure and 

move towards making progress in this area, in clean water. 

But if we don’t do it right, they are going to lose resources. Because as you heard from the mayor from Omaha, 11 businesses, 

substantial-sized businesses, that are looking to leave Omaha. And 

that is across the country. And if we layer so much red tape and 

additional cost, we won’t achieve what my goal and your goal is. 

And so we have really got to be careful how we handle that, because the resources won’t be there. And I think that is something 

we should always keep in the back of our minds, that we can’t 

achieve enhanced environment if we add costs there to chase people away. And I think we always need to remember that. 

Ms. STONER. That is why we are looking for cost-effective solutions. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is great to hear. And I look forward to working 

with you in the future. 

So that will conclude this hearing. And have a good day. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

136 


Insert offset folio 91 here 71739.091
137 


Insert offset folio 92 here 71739.092
138 


Insert offset folio 93 here 71739.093
139 


Insert offset folio 94 here 71739.094
140 


Insert offset folio 95 here 71739.095
141 


Insert offset folio 96 here 71739.096
142 


Insert offset folio 97 here 71739.097
143 


Insert offset folio 98 here 71739.098
144 


Insert offset folio 99 here 71739.099
145 


Insert offset folio 100 here 71739.100
146 


Insert offset folio 101 here 71739.101
147 


Insert offset folio 102 here 71739.102
148 


Insert offset folio 103 here 71739.103
149 


Insert offset folio 104 here 71739.104
150 


Insert offset folio 105 here 71739.105
151 


Insert offset folio 106 here 71739.106
152 


Insert offset folio 107 here 71739.107
153 


Insert offset folio 108 here 71739.108
154 


Insert offset folio 109 here 71739.109
155 


Insert offset folio 110 here 71739.110
156 


Insert offset folio 111 here 71739.111
157 


Insert offset folio 112 here 71739.112
158 


Insert offset folio 113 here 71739.113
159 


Insert offset folio 114 here 71739.114
160 


Insert offset folio 115 here 71739.115
161 


Insert offset folio 116 here 71739.116
162 


Insert offset folio 117 here 71739.117
163 


Insert offset folio 118 here 71739.118
164 


Insert offset folio 119 here 71739.119
165 


Insert offset folio 120 here 71739.120
166 


Insert offset folio 121 here 71739.121
167 


Insert offset folio 122 here 71739.122
168 


Insert offset folio 123 here 71739.123
169 


Insert offset folio 124 here 71739.124
170 


Insert offset folio 125 here 71739.125
171 


Insert offset folio 126 here 71739.126
172 


Insert offset folio 127 here 71739.127
173 


Insert offset folio 128 here 71739.128
174 


Insert offset folio 129 here 71739.129
175 


Insert offset folio 130 here 71739.130
176 


Insert offset folio 131 here 71739.131
177 


Insert offset folio 132 here 71739.132
178 


Insert offset folio 133 here 71739.133
179 


Insert offset folio 134 here 71739.134
180 


Insert offset folio 135 here 71739.135
181 


Insert offset folio 136 here 71739.136
182 


Insert offset folio 137 here 71739.137
183 


Insert offset folio 138 here 71739.138
184 


Insert offset folio 139 here 71739.139
185 


Insert offset folio 140 here 71739.140
186 


Insert offset folio 141 here 71739.141
187 


Insert offset folio 142 here 71739.142
188 


Insert offset folio 143 here 71739.143
189 


Insert offset folio 144 here 71739.144
190 


Insert offset folio 145 here 71739.145
191 


Insert offset folio 146 here 71739.146
192 


Insert offset folio 147 here 71739.147
193 


Insert offset folio 148 here 71739.148
194 


Insert offset folio 149 here 71739.149
195 


Insert offset folio 150 here 71739.150
196 


Insert offset folio 151 here 71739.151
197 


Insert offset folio 152 here 71739.152
198 


Insert offset folio 153 here 71739.153
199 


Insert offset folio 154 here 71739.154
200 


Insert offset folio 155 here 71739.155
201 


Insert offset folio 156 here 71739.156
202 


Insert offset folio 157 here 71739.157
203 


Insert offset folio 158 here 71739.158
204 


Insert offset folio 159 here 71739.159
205 


Insert offset folio 160 here 71739.160
206 


Insert offset folio 161 here 71739.161
207 


Insert offset folio 162 here 71739.162
208 


Insert offset folio 163 here 71739.163
209 


Insert offset folio 164 here 71739.164
210 


Insert offset folio 165 here 71739.165
211 


Insert offset folio 166 here 71739.166
212 


Insert offset folio 167 here 71739.167
213 


Insert offset folio 168 here 71739.168
214 


Insert offset folio 169 here 71739.169
215 


Insert offset folio 170 here 71739.170
216 


Insert offset folio 171 here 71739.171
217 


Insert offset folio 172 here 71739.172
218 


Insert offset folio 173 here 71739.173
219 


Insert offset folio 174 here 71739.174
220 


Insert offset folio 175 here 71739.175
221 


Insert offset folio 176 here 71739.176
222 


Insert offset folio 177 here 71739.177
223 


Insert offset folio 178 here 71739.178
224 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 179 here 71739.179