[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE RAW SEWAGE OVERFLOW COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
=======================================================================
(110-78)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 16, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-516 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland GARY G. MILLER, California
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Carolina
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Carolina
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin CONNIE MACK, Florida
JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
Chair York
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
Columbia Louisiana
BOB FILNER, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Baer, Katherine, Director, River Advocacy, American Rivers,
Washington, D.C................................................ 11
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Office of
Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency........... 3
Lipp, Ph.D., Erin K., Associate Professor, Department of
Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia............ 11
Shafer, Kevin L., Executive Director, Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District, Milwaukee, Wisconsin........................ 11
Summers, Dr. Robert, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of the
Environment.................................................... 3
Whitford, R.S., Stuart S., Water Quality Program Manager, Kitsap
County Health District, Bremerton, Washington.................. 3
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana............................. 22
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 25
Kagen, Hon. Steve, of Wisconsin.................................. 27
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 29
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 32
Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado............................... 36
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Baer, Katherine.................................................. 39
Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H........................................ 57
Lipp, Erin K..................................................... 71
Shafer, Kevin.................................................... 78
Summers, Dr. Robert M............................................ 84
Whitford, R.S., Stuart S......................................... 99
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
American Public Health Association, National Association of
Boards of Local Health, National Association of County and City
Health Officials, Physicians for Social Reponsibility, written
statement...................................................... 102
American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense
Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Republicans for
Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, U.S. PIRG, written
statement...................................................... 103
American Rivers, ``What's in Your Water? The State of Public
Notification in 11 U.S. States,'' report....................... 105
American Water Works Association, written statement.............. 146
California Association of Sanitiation Agencies, Catherine Smith,
Executive Director, written statement.......................... 153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.007
HEARING ON THE RAW SEWAGE OVERFLOW COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
----------
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Timothy H.
Bishop [Member of the Subcommittee] Presiding.
Mr. Bishop. The Committee will come to order. Today the
Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the importance of public
notification of sewer overflows such as those provided in the
Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act.
Open notification of sewer overflows is an important topic
that has not received the attention it rightly deserves. I
would agree with the suggestions of our witness from the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District that the best way to
avoid human health and environmental concerns for the sewer
overflows is to ensure that they never occur in the first
place.
I am proud that the first Subcommittee markup of the new
majority was to approve legislation to restore the Federal
commitment to our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. With
documented needs of between $300 to $500 billion for wastewater
infrastructure improvements nationwide, the cost of repairing
and replacing our Nation's infrastructure is daunting and will
not be successful without increased Federal support.
It should come as no surprise that reauthorization of the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund is one of this Committee's
highest priorities. However, that is only half the story
because even with significant increases in investment sewer
overflows will likely continue to occur. Therefore, it is
equally imperative that we provide our citizens with
comprehensive and timely notification of sewer overflows.
The Environmental Protection Agency's own numbers on annual
sewer overflows are staggering. For combined sewer systems, EPA
estimates 850 billion gallons of raw or partially treated
sewage is discharged annually into local waters. For separate
sanitary sewer systems, EPA estimates that between 23,000 and
75,000 SSOs occur per year in the United States, discharging a
total volume of 3 to 10 billion gallons per year.
These discharges, laden with potentially harmful chemicals,
pathogens, viruses and bacteria, often wind up in local rivers
and streams, city streets, parks or, in unfortunate cases,
directly into people's homes. We need to make sure that the
public is aware of sewer overflows to give individuals the
opportunity to stay out of harm's way. It makes no sense for
certain owners and operators of local sewage agencies to know
where and when overflows are occurring but to avoid making this
information readily available to the public. This defies common
sense.
I was pleased to read the testimony of three of our
witnesses here this afternoon which discuss their individual
State and local governmental experiences providing enhanced
public notification of sewer overflows. As these witnesses will
later describe, enhanced public notification of sewer overflows
is a common sense measure to protect public health and the
environment, that one can be achieved without a significant
burden to State and local governments.
Notification of sewer overflows provides the public the
greatest opportunity to avoid direct contact with potentially
harmful chemicals, pathogens, viruses and bacteria as well as
facilitates rapid response to overflows in order to minimize
the potential harm to the environment.
We need to replicate these success stories across the
Nation. This is the premise behind the common sense legislation
that I, Mr. LoBiondo and many of my Committee colleagues have
introduced and hopefully something that we can unanimously
approve through this Subcommittee in the near future.
I am pleased now to yield to my colleague, Mr. LoBiondo,
the co-sponsor of our bill for his opening statement
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Congressman Bishop. And I would
like to repeat my thanks once again for you allowing me to join
in with you in sponsoring this very important legislation.
Earlier this year there were about 250,000 gallons of
partially treated sewage that leaked from the Asbury Park, New
Jersey sewage treatment plant into the Atlantic Ocean,
threatening beach goers for miles downstream, or down the shore
as we would say. It was a result of a broken pipe that went
undetected for over 6 hours. Fortunately no one got sick and
the environment did not suffer any long-term consequences, but
that is not always the case.
Congressman Bishop, as you just mentioned in your opening
statement, the EPA estimates approximately 850 to 900 billion
gallons of untreated sewage enter our waterways each year,
sickening nearly 3.5 million people annually. The bacteria,
parasites and other microorganisms in sewage can cause very
serious and lasting disease and have in some cases even caused
death for those who unknowingly came in contact with it. Over
700 combined sewer overflow systems and other aging sewer
infrastructures are the primary culprit.
Fortunately, we passed legislation through the House that
provides billions in grants and loans and guarantees to help
rebuild these systems over the next decade. But something needs
to be done in the short term. That is why I was especially
pleased to join with you, Congressman Bishop, to introduce the
H.R. 2452, the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act.
It is a common-sense piece of legislation that will keep the
public safe from waterborne illnesses, requiring sewer
operators to put into place monitoring systems that detect
overflows and to promptly notify the public.
While some State and localities have strong notification
programs in place, the majority do not. Establishing a minimum
Federal standard is the right thing to do. I look forward to
working with all of my colleagues to have this be a reality,
and once again thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. LoBiondo. Since we are
late in getting started and some of our witnesses have travel
commitments, I am going to ask my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to refrain from making opening statements and submit
their comments for the record. I also ask unanimous consent to
include in the hearing record a statement from the American
Waterworks Association and a statement from the California
Association of Sanitation Agencies.
Without objection, so ordered.
We will now proceed to our first of two panels. Panel I is
comprised of the Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles, a frequent
visitor to our Committee. He is the Assistant Administrator for
Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Robert
Summers, who is the Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department
of the Environment. And Mr. Stuart Whitford, who is the Water
Quality Program Manager for Kitsap County Health District in
Bremerton, Washington.
Mr. Grumbles, we will begin with you and, as always, we
will accept your full comments for the record. We would ask you
to limit your testimony to 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR OFFICE OF WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; DR. ROBERT SUMMERS, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT; AND STUART S. WHITFORD,
R.S., WATER QUALITY PROGRAM MANAGER, KITSAP COUNTY HEALTH
DISTRICT, BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you on behalf of
EPA to testify on an extremely important and challenging
subject. And that is the goal we all share, and that is to
eliminate or reduce the number of sewer overflows, to increase
reporting and recordkeeping and public notification.
So, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your colleagues for
getting this discussion going, to drawing attention to the
subject, having the proposed legislation, and giving us all a
chance to look for ways to advance the ball forward on
increased reporting, recordkeeping and public notification.
I would like to emphasize a couple things. One is the
critical importance of prevention, taking steps, investing in
infrastructure, managing those assets wisely to reduce the
possibility of overflows, leaks and spills in the first place,
but when they do happen, to follow up with strong regulatory
consequences through permitting programs and enforcement. And
then, thirdly, to emphasize the growing importance of green
infrastructure, relying on not just the gray infrastructure,
the concrete, the bricks and the mortar, but the wetlands, the
stream buffers, the vegetation in the watershed to help reduce
storm water pollution problems and sewer overflows.
Your legislation emphasizes the importance of
recordkeeping, public notification and reporting. We, too, at
EPA share these goals. When it comes to CSOs, we issued a CSO
policy. Congress codified it, so it is now in the Act, at
section 402(q), and it requires for CSOs public notification
and reporting.
We also have, when it comes to SSOs, we have a regulatory
framework under the existing Clean Water Act programs that
emphasize the importance of reporting and recordkeeping to the
permitting authorities. A very important step the agency took
in August of this year was to issue a draft guidance document,
a fact sheet for sanitary sewer overflows which embraces the
concepts that you, too, are embracing and provides specific
guidance to permit writers to ensure that there is immediate
reporting and public notification when it comes to sanitary
sewer overflows.
As you and your colleagues have pointed out, this is a
significant issue locally and nationally, given the number of
combined sewer overflows and the number of sanitary sewer
overflows and the potential public health risk and
environmental impact. So the draft policy fact sheet that we
issued in August is an important supplement to provide permit
writers with more tools to work at the local level to increase
public notification, recordkeeping and reporting.
Mr. Chairman, I think a very laudable aspect of your
legislation is that it understands and recognizes that in order
to increase investment in infrastructure and pollution
prevention there needs to be an emphasis put on public
notification and reporting and recordkeeping. We have an
existing regulatory framework and policies that we are looking
at. And Mr. Chairman, we will commit to work with you and your
colleagues as you continue to consider legislation amendments
to the Clean Water Act. We will gladly work with you to find
ways that are cost effective, that put a premium on increased
reporting, recordkeeping and public notification.
I also want to emphasize another important component of the
EPA strategy when it comes to sewer overflows, and that is
enforcement. We all recognize that working together,
establishing common management frameworks, as we did earlier
this year with national utilities on maintenance and operation
of their facilities, but we all recognize that there are times
when overflows, spills, leaks occur and there should be
regulatory consequences. Our enforcement program at the agency
has put this as one of its top priorities over the last decade.
Wet weather overflow events is an enforcement priority. The
agency has entered into over 50 judicial settlement agreements
and orders. It represents, I counted up, over $13 billion in
long-term investments by communities across the country in
infrastructure systems. And I can assure you that as you work
on public notification and other aspects of the sewer overflow
challenge we will continue to put a priority on enforcement
when the law is violated. And that is an important statement to
make as the Clean Water Act is celebrating its 35th anniversary
supplementing public notification and pollution prevention with
strong enforcement. And that is entirely appropriate when we
are talking about raw sewer overflows or combined sewer
overflows.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
look forward to answering questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles. Dr. Summers.
Mr. Summers. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here
today. Thank you for asking me to testify about Maryland's
experience with this overflow reporting. I commend the opening
remarks. I think in Maryland we agree with everything that has
been said so far regarding this very critical issue.
I am the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Environment,
but I have worked for the Department of Environment for 25
years on the Chesapeake Bay restoration, most recently, for the
last 7 years as the Director of the Water Management
Administration. So I have direct--I had direct responsibility
for this particular issue within Maryland.
Of course, overflows are a very significant public health
and environmental concern. We have heard about the various
pathogens that cause public health issues. But in Maryland we
are particularly concerned with the Chesapeake Bay. And there
are a number of different constituents that also impact our
water quality. These significant impacts, obviously
contamination of drinking water supply is a very critical
issue. There are large areas in Maryland where there are
impairments due to bacterial contamination, and this is
affecting some drinking water supplies. We have closures of
fishing and swimming, beach closures and so forth, fish kills,
overall water quality degradation. A very important issue in an
area like Baltimore City, the spills impact our parks and
playgrounds and other public use areas which are located near
streams.
The benefits of reporting and public notification we have
already heard a little bit about. They certainly protect the
public from contact with the impaired waters, ensure that local
health officials are aware and are dealing with the issues. It
decreases inquiries from the media and the public. We found
that proactive reporting actually has been a tremendous benefit
to our local governments and other owners and operators of
sewage systems.
It has already been mentioned it builds public support for
infrastructure improvements. Maryland is the host to several of
the orders that Mr. Grumbles just mentioned. Baltimore City,
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Baltimore County, we
have very significant infrastructure expenditures that need to
be made. The reporting increases the likelihood of timely
response by the owners and it improves the analysis of the
cause of the problem and leads to more rapid repairs and fixing
of whatever the particular issue might be, which definitely
gives a capital cost benefit to the local government involved.
In Maryland we began requiring reporting as of October 2000
with a directive from the Director of Water Management
Administration. That same year the Governor appointed a task
force in upgrading sewer systems to look at the cost in
financing of the necessary repairs. Of course that is a huge
future issue and we strongly support the increases in Federal
funding for the State Revolving Loan Fund and other programs to
assist State and local governments with this critical issue.
But public education is also a critical component because
none of these improvements can be made without payments by the
local governments generally requiring rate increases. And we
found that the public notification, the public education
definitely helps in that area.
This was followed with specific legislation in 2001 and we
have very detailed regulations as to the implementation of
these requirements. Since the inception of recordkeeping in
2001 over 11,000 reports of spills, 2.7 billion gallons, the
figures show how the breakdown between combined sewer overflows
and sanitary sewer overflows look. This is around 380 million
gallons a year of spilt sewage in Maryland.
This graphic just shows our historical data on this issue.
You will notice the peak discharges in 2003, 2004 and 2005. And
it is tailing off in 2006 and 2007. I would like to say this is
because we have got our systems repaired, but the fact is it is
wet weather related. We had very wet years in 2003 and 2004,
and I think what we are seeing here is a ramping up of
reporting capability and the tailing off due to dry weather.
And you can see a similar pattern for sanitary sewer overflows.
Making this information available to the public is
absolutely critical and we have all of these reports posted on
the Web and certainly appreciate the opportunity to tell you a
little bit about it. I can say with great certainty that local
officials, local public works directors are very supportive of
this effort. In fact, the Director of the Bureau of Wastewater
in Baltimore City, which is under a consent decree and is in
the process of spending over $900 million to repair their
system, says that this has been extremely beneficial to the
city's efforts to make the necessary improvements to their
system.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Summers. We have a
vote on right now. There is about 10 minutes left in that vote.
And that will be followed by two others. So Mr. Whitford, we
will go to you now. If you could complete your testimony within
the 5 minutes. And then we will go to vote, and then we will
reconvene as soon as we are done voting.
So Mr. Whitford.
Mr. Whitford. Good afternoon. My name is Stuart Whitford. I
am the Water Quality Program Manager in Kitsap County. Kitsap
County is a peninsula due west of Seattle, in case you guys
don't know where that is. A very beautiful area surrounded by
about 220 miles of marine shoreline, 28 lakes or so, probably
58 perennial streams. So we are very interested in protecting
those resources from spills, and we have been doing a pretty
good job of that since 1992.
Since 1992, the Health District and wastewater utilities in
Kitsap County have been cooperatively implementing sewage spill
reporting and response procedures. The purpose of these
procedures is to prevent public exposure to sewage spills
through public information and notification. This is extremely
critical in Kitsap County, given the miles of shoreline we have
and approximately 44,000 recreational shellfish harvesters that
we have on our beaches year-round.
Since 1992, 208 sewage spills have been reported to us, to
me, totaling about 11 million, 11.3 million gallons of raw
sewage and about a half a billion or over a half a billion of
combined sewer overflows. That is a staggering amount of sewage
that has been discharged through our local surface waters.
The procedures that we have require that wastewater
utilities immediately notify the districts when a sewage spill
or combined sewer overflow occurs. It also requires the utility
to notify property owners in the immediate vicinity of the
spill, post a warning sign at the spill site and clean-up to
the maximum extent possible.
The Health District visits the site typically within 1 to 8
hours to verify the information supplied, verify that the
clean-up was done correctly and assess the need for additional
public notification. This public notification may include
additional door-to-door work that we do, and we have done that
in the past quite a bit when we need to get to people right up
front.
We will also post warning signs throughout the affected
area and issue advisories. Advisories are issued either by a
press release or by a press release updating Internet home
page, and we also have a water quality hotline that we update
on a regular basis. If we have a commercial shellfish growing
area present, we notify the State Department of Health
immediately through a pager system if it is after hours.
A recent sewage spill in Kitsap County highlights the need
for this bill. At 1:30 p.m. on June 27, 2007, the City of Port
Orchard reported a sewage spill to the district. They reported
that a small spill occurred when a gravity main plugged,
forcing sewage out of a manhole onto the surface of the ground.
The area was fairly overgrown with vegetation so it appeared to
city personnel that the spill was relatively small. Personnel
proceeded to remove the plug and they applied lime in the
immediate vicinity of that spill to control odors, soak up the
remaining liquid and inactivate any pathogens that might be
there. As we always do, we visited the site that afternoon and
verified that the main had been restored to service and the
immediate area had been cleaned up.
However, our inspector observed a fairly steep drop-off
just below the manhole and decided to push further into the
brush, just to make sure that no sewage had made it down the
hill. What he saw was shocking--a 15-foot wide swath of gray
slime oozing down the hill with all the vegetation and trees
standing lifeless. Unable to continue from up there he decided
to get down below the area. He found a dirt access road
downslope from the main that led to a city sewer pump station,
private pond and wetlands. As he approached the stormwater pond
the smell of sewage overcame him, and he called me on the phone
and told me so. When he reached the perimeter fence he could
see that the entire pond was filled with sewage. This pond was
approximately 100 feet long by 50 feet wide and probably
between 15 and 20 feet deep. When he reached the perimeter
fence he could see that the entire pond was filled and every
tree and shrub on its bank was dead. Looking up the hill just
above the pond, you could see the swath of sewage that was the
source of the spill.
We immediately notified the City of Port Orchard and the
State Department of Ecology. They responded and the city came
out and pumped out the pond, the entire contents into the
nearby sewer pump station.
The next step was analyzing how did this occur. We received
the pump run-time data for the downgrading pump station and
reviewed it ourselves. The reason we did it ourselves is the
sewer utility didn't know how. The city had been collecting
this on a daily basis for years. They visit the pump station
and read the meters right there on the pump. Through this
effort we determined the spill had actually started 2 years
previous, on June 12, 2005. Since that date approximately 6,500
gallons of sewage per day have been discharging to the
stormwater pond and nearby wetlands. This means a total of 4.8
million gallons of sewage had been spilled.
If the city had an alert system in place, as required by
this bill, the impacts of this spill on the environment and the
city Health District response cost could have been
significantly mitigated. This is why we stand here today in
support of this bill. We believe it will be a win for public
health in the environment and in the long term save taxpayer
money.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. We will now adjourn to go
vote, and we will reconvene with questions for our first panel
as soon as the series of votes are over. There is about three
votes, so it will probably be at least 20 minutes or 25 minutes
before we are all back. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Bishop. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee will come to
order.
Mr. Grumbles, if I may start with you, you indicated in
your remarks that you talked about the critical importance of
prevention, and we know that prevention is related to lots of
things, but perhaps, most importantly, it is related to capital
expenditures for infrastructure, upgrades and expansion. Yet,
as you know, we have cut in this administration the funding for
the State Clean Water Revolving Fund by about 50 percent, which
clearly impacts on our ability to deal with needed upgrades and
to cut into the multi-hundred-billion-dollar backlog of unmet
need in terms of infrastructure. And I understand that that is
a decision that is taken by the administration and not
necessarily by the EPA.
Given that, I was, I guess, surprised to see the comment in
your testimony that you did not believe that Revolving Fund
money should be used for the monitoring and used for the public
notification, because that would reduce the amounts of funding
available for infrastructure upgrades. So I guess my logic is
that if we are not going to do the upgrades, therefore we are
going to have a hard time dealing with the prevention part of
the puzzle.
Our next best hope is to deal with public notification and
to deal with monitoring. If Federal funds cannot be used for
that, are we going to be able to make the advances that we need
to make in that area, recognizing that we have not made the
advances we need to make in infrastructure upgrade?
Mr. Grumbles. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question and
your comments on the position of eligible uses of the State
Revolving Fund.
Our position, quite simply, is the State Revolving Fund
should be flexible to take into account the many different
types of capital infrastructure needs, water quality needs of
communities and States. Really for us it is a question of O&M
versus capital investment, and what we are saying is,
essentially, that provision in the bill takes a significant
departure from current practice and law by making eligible
something that arguably is really O&M when it comes to
monitoring and notification.
The SRF is a critically important tool for infrastructure
and for funding. It is not the only tool. Permit fees, other
clean water funding mechanisms, revenues from ratepayers who
understand the importance of infrastructure, I think, are
important sources for increased monitoring and reporting and
recordkeeping as well. So that is really the position we are
taking on that piece of the bill.
Mr. Bishop. I thank you for that, and that response leads
me to a question I wanted to ask Dr. Summers.
Dr. Summers, one of the goals that Congressman LoBiondo and
I have in this legislation is that, by virtue of increased
monitoring and increased public notification, we would build
public awareness for the needs of our infrastructure, and that,
therefore, there would be a greater tolerance for funding
necessary improvements to those needs.
My question to you is how has the notification and the
reporting guidelines that are currently in existence in
Maryland--to what extent has that influenced political support
for the so-called "flush tax" in the State?
Mr. Summers. Well, first of all, the flush tax is focused
on upgrading sewage treatment plants, not the pipes bringing
the sewage to the plants, but the reporting has certainly
focused a lot of public attention and a lot of legislative
interest on this issue virtually every year since we instituted
this.
We have been asked to provide briefings to our legislature.
Maryland has capital funding which is directed towards the
repair of failing infrastructure. It is not a huge amount of
funding, but it is very hotly sought, and there is a lot of
competition amongst our various jurisdictions for that. At the
same time we instituted our reporting requirements, the
Governor established a task force on sewage infrastructure,
which also provided a report and cost estimate.
So I think the bottom line is that the educational value of
this reporting has been acknowledged pretty much across the
board. We found it to be extremely important. I mentioned that
the director of the Bureau of Water and Wastewater in Baltimore
City has been very complimentary of this effort and how it has
helped the city. Likewise, in western Maryland, we have had
similar comments from public works directors in Frostburg and
in Cumberland. So it has been well received in that respect.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I see my time has expired.
Congressman LoBiondo.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For Mr. Grumbles, do you feel the public notification for
sewer overflows is adequate?
Mr. Grumbles. A couple of responses.
One, I feel that this Nation continues to put a greater
emphasis on public notification, and I think it is through the
permits themselves. I know when it comes to existing
regulations that we have under the Clean Water Act, there is no
specific mention in the regulations on public notification.
However, positions that the EPA has been taking in the last
several years have been through policy to include public
notification in permit writers, considerations for sanitary
sewer overflows. Also, the CSO policy, as it was codified by
you and others in 2000, did specifically pick up public
notification for combined sewer overflows.
So what we are committing to are continued and important
discussions on ways to improve and to increase the amount of
public notification, and one of the best and most flexible ways
we can do that is through guidance and through working through
with permit writers throughout the country who are issuing
these permits for the various community sewer systems.
Mr. LoBiondo. Do you think anything should be done to
strengthen public reporting requirements?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, I think that, from an EPA standpoint,
continued effort on our part is to educate permit writers--to
hold workshops. We issued guidance in August specifically for
that purpose of improving public notification.
Congressman, I would say we are willing and eager to review
additional steps, whether it is through, you know, considering
the various array of approaches to increased public
notification, a possible regulatory approach through a
regulation. Right now we have been focused on the policy
guidance and also the enforcement program. As the enforcement
office, in working with the Justice Department, enters into
consent agreements or settlement agreements with communities
that are violating the Clean Water Act, we do put an emphasis
on increased public notification and reporting because that is
a great opportunity to reassure and to get the community more
invested in their sustainable infrastructure systems.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Dr. Summers, can you give us any rough idea of what you
think it costs the State and local authorities in Maryland to
implement the State's reporting system?
Mr. Summers. Well, actually we have not compiled cost
information from the local governments. I really do not have a
lot of information in that regard. I would say that basically
they have been able to incorporate this reporting and the
various steps, in conjunction with the local health
departments, with existing resources. There has not been a
major increase in cost that has been reported to us. In fact,
the reports that we have gotten are positive with the respect
of it has actually benefited them by allowing them to
proactively deal with citizen complaints and press reports. It
has helped them in terms of getting support from their
commissions or legislatures to finance the improvements to this
system that are necessary; it has actually built support, but
that is a question that we could certainly put to a number of
our jurisdictions, if that would be useful.
Mr. LoBiondo. I thought it might have been compiled. I
certainly would not want to give any suggestion or directive to
go back and to compile that, but it is just a curiosity thing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo.
I am going to exercise the discretion of the Chair and ask
Mr. Whitford a question.
Obviously, Kitsap County was somewhat ahead of the curve in
implementing your reporting and response procedures. Could you
just tell us what kind of response you got from the local
sewage agencies? Were they reluctant? If they were, have they
now come around? What kind of response have you gotten from the
public?
Mr. Whitford. The response from the wastewater utilities
has been great, and trust has been built up over 15 years now,
so it does take time.
When mistakes happen, the human thing to do sometimes is to
try to mitigate it or to hide it, but that has gone away, you
know, over the years to where now most of the reports that we
get, except for the one example that I mentioned here, are
accurate, that what they said happened actually did. So I would
say that their participation has been great.
I would say that the public sees the press releases
constantly, and we get calls of people being very upset about
that, but they know that we have a program in place to kind of
detect these things and to warn them, so I think they are very
appreciative.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. That brings our panel number 1 to a close.
Thank you all very much for your testimony, and we will now
move to our second panel.
Thank you very much. I know, Dr. Lipp, you have a time
constraint, so we will go to you first, but our second panel is
comprised of Dr. Erin Lipp, who is an associate professor in
the Department of Environmental Health Science at the
University of Georgia; Ms. Katherine Baer, who is the director
of river advocacy for American Rivers; and Mr. Kevin Shafer,
who is the executive director of the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
So, Dr. Lipp, we will start with you, and we appreciate
your patience. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF ERIN K. LIPP, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF
GEORGIA; KATHERINE BAER, DIRECTOR, RIVER ADVOCACY, AMERICAN
RIVERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND KEVIN L. SHAFER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT, MILWAUKEE,
WISCONSIN
Ms. Lipp. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee.
As has already been mentioned, I am an associate professor
at the College of Public Health at the University of Georgia. I
am an environmental and public health microbiologist, and my
research is focused in the area of water quality, microbiology
and the ecology of waterborne pathogens. For the past decade I
have been involved in issues associated with pathogens like
bacteria and viruses in sewage in natural waters in the
Southeast United States, including rivers, streams, estuaries,
coastal waters, and coral reefs. I would like to highlight five
main points this afternoon which relate to the issues of
waterborne disease, pathogens in sewage and the contamination
of our Nation's waterways.
First, the scientific literature shows abundant evidence of
the role of contaminated waters as a source of infectious
disease. According to the CDC's most recent reports, there were
62 outbreaks of disease associated with recreational water and
30 outbreaks associated with drinking water in 2003 and 2004.
This affected a reported 5,400 people. However, this does not
include the many sporadic cases which are not included in those
reported outbreaks, and it is likely a very considerable
underestimation of the actual numbers of people who became ill.
Most cases of diarrhea and vomiting, which are the most common
symptoms associated with waterborne diseases, are never
recorded in State and Federal databases because people simply
do not seek treatment or are not diagnosed.
For example, one estimate suggests that only about 2.6
percent of all cases of Salmonella or illnesses with similar
mild to moderate gastrointestinal distress are ever reported.
Therefore, the problem of waterborne disease is likely much
greater than the current data indicate.
My second point is that sewage contains bacteria, viruses
and parasites that come directly from infected people in the
community. Because those infected people may excrete high
numbers of these microbes while they are ill, sewage can be
expected to carry high concentrations of numerous pathogenic
agents. Wastewater treatment can be expected to reduce much of
it. If raw sewage is released into a waterway, we are depending
solely on dilution to reduce concentrations.
For many pathogens, especially protozoa like
Cryptosporidium or viruses like the cruise ship virus--the
norovirus--the solution to pollution is simply not dilution. As
few as one cell or virus can cause disease. To give you an
example, noroviruses can be detected at concentrations as high
as 10 million viruses per liter, so that is about twice the
size of this small bottle of water here. If a milk-carton-sized
container of sewage were dumped into a body of water about the
size of a typical backyard swimming pool, there would still be
around 100 viruses per liter. If a person swimming swallowed as
little as 2 tablespoons of this water, he would likely ingest
three viruses, and only one is needed to cause disease.
My third point is that, because of lack of coordinated
notification of sewer overflows and data collection during such
events, we actually have relatively few studies that show a
direct link between an overflow event, pathogens in the water
and illness from exposure to those specific pathogens. However,
there is a variety of research, studies that strongly suggest
this linkage. I can give you an example from my own research.
In the summer of 1999, the city of Key West experienced
significant problems with their deteriorating sewer lines. This
resulted in multiple and ongoing beach closures. During that
period about 300 swimmers participated in an annual race around
Key West. Following this 12-mile swim, 30 percent of swimmers
reported infections of the eyes, ears, nose or diarrhea. These
are all symptoms consistent with exposure to sewage-associated
bacteria and viruses.
In terms of drinking water, in 2002, the CDC estimated that
the number one known cause of disease outbreaks from untreated
groundwater or private wells was the seepage or overflow of
sewage. Because our Nation's waterways and coastlines do not
end at State boundaries, someone is always downstream.
Therefore, Federal efforts to protect our natural water
resources continue to be a laudable and achievable goal.
Including public health and agency notification of sewer spills
is clearly in the spirit of the Clean Water Act goals to
maintain fishable and swimmable waters.
Finally, I would like to make one last note, which is that
research and regulations that support improved water quality
guidelines that encompass the array of pathogens that can
threaten human and ecosystem health would also allow for better
management in the case of overflows or seepage of sewage. Along
with public notification of sewer overflows, increased data
collection on specific pathogens in our water and the
surveillance of associated diseases, especially among our most
vulnerable populations, are needed. To better implement
strategies that effectively protect public health and our
aquatic resources, we need to know what we are dealing with.
In 1996, the EPA implemented the Information Collection
Rule to determine the level of specific pathogens in source
water prior to treatment for drinking. This collection period
provided critical baseline information on the abundance of
specific pathogens and allowed treatment plants to optimize
practices to best reduce these agents. A similar information
collection tool for sewage would, likewise, aid both treatment
plant operators to optimize for pathogens, rather than the
indicator system that they currently use, and those responsible
for protecting our public health by giving them the knowledge
of what pathogens were probably in the sewage when an overflow
occurred, applying appropriate risk-assessment models to
determine risk to the overall population and to our vulnerable
populations, and finally, to determine which actions could best
mitigate the problems.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Dr. Lipp, so that you may catch your plane, and with the
indulgence of my colleagues, we will submit our questions for
you in writing, and then we would appreciate a written
response. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lipp. All right.
Mr. Bishop. Again, thank you for your patience.
Ms. Lipp. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. We will now move to Katherine Baer of American
Rivers.
Ms. Baer. Good afternoon, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
LoBiondo and Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Katherine Baer. I am director of American Rivers
Healthy Water Campaign. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today in support of H.R. 2452, the Raw Sewage
Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. I would also certainly
like to thank you both for your leadership in introducing this
important legislation.
As sewers continue to overflow or to spill on a regular
basis, citizens have a basic right to know when it is unsafe to
swim or to play in local waters--streams, rivers and lakes.
Just as we are alerted to code red unhealthy air days or to
contaminated food--as you can remember in the case of when the
bagged spinach was pulled so quickly off the store shelves in
2006--we similarly have a right to know about the sewage spills
that can affect our health.
I will make four brief points today in support of H.R.
2452. First, the contact with sewage is a serious public health
threat that must be addressed. I think Dr. Lipp described it
well. Every year many Americans and their loved ones risk
serious illness, such as diarrhea and ear infections, when
untreated sewage seeps into the water they use for recreation
and drinking. In rare cases contact with untreated sewage can
lead to more chronic conditions, including liver failure and
cancer. Individuals, especially children and the elderly,
become ill from contaminated recreational waters through
ingestion or contact with ears, eyes, nose, and skin.
According to EPA estimates, up to 3.5 million people become
ill from contact with raw sewage from sanitary sewer overflows
alone each year. However, the number of illnesses caused by
untreated sewage could be much higher due to underreporting.
For example, a recent study found that up to 1.5 million people
get gastroenteritis at two beaches in California alone each
year.
My second point is that current Federal policy does not
require public notification, leaving people at risk. Currently
Federal public notification or right-to-know requirements for
sewage are almost nonexistent. There are no requirements for
public notification for sanitary sewer overflows, and
compliance with the combined sewer overflow policy is highly
variable, leaving people at risk.
State requirements, where they exist, are also highly
variable. While some States like we have heard from today, like
Maryland, and others such as Michigan, and individual cities
have excellent public notification programs, many do not. For
example, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Virginia, and many others do not have any statewide public
notification requirements at all. The bill will create a
consistent Federal minimum requirement that will level the
playing field to better protect all Americans.
Third, H.R. 2452 provides a straightforward, commonsense
solution by requiring monitoring and notification to protect
the public from sewer spills. The bill would provide an
enforceable, consistent baseline, providing a safety net for
everyone. H.R. 2452 requires publicly owned treatment works to
use a monitoring system, technology or a management program to
alert the owner or operator of an overflow.
Just as cars have "check engine" lights, wastewater
treatment systems should also have monitoring systems to inform
them of potential problems. The bill allows a system to choose
from a great range of monitoring techniques currently
available.
The bill also requires POTWs to notify the public when
there is a sewage overflow with the potential to threaten human
health so that people can avoid the risk of becoming ill.
Notification must take place as soon as practicable, but not
later than 24 hours after the owner or operator becomes aware
of the spill. This timeliness component is, of course,
important in order to really protect public health.
Fourth and finally, some cities and utilities are already
doing an excellent job of notifying the public, using a variety
of mechanisms, showing both that notification can be achieved,
and that it is also an important part of sound management and
community safety. Communities like Anne Arundel County,
Maryland, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, illustrate that strong
monitoring and public notification is viable. There are a
variety of public notification methods that can be used
separately or in combination to reach the broadest possible
audience in a timely manner.
Public health agencies must also be notified when there is
an imminent threat to the public. In some States and in some
places like you have heard today, they are already involved in
public outreach.
H.R. 2452 allows each State or community to tailor a
program to best reach the local population. Notification is not
intended to be one-size-fits-all, and it should be designed
with the end goal of protecting public health in the most
effective way possible.
In closing, knowledge is a powerful first line of defense
that public notification can provide to keep us healthy while
we continue to work for the solutions to reduce sewage
pollution. We will continue to work hard with Members of
Congress and with those in the wastewater treatment community
to advocate for more funding for clean water infrastructure. In
the meantime, however, public notification of sewage spills is
essential so that people can protect themselves and their
families from getting sick, while also galvanizing support for
the solutions needed to reduce sewage pollution as mentioned by
Dr. Summers in his testimony.
Finally, I would like to submit, as part of my testimony,
two letters, one from the CEOs of nine environmental
organizations and the other from four national public health
organizations, in support of this bill, as well as American
Rivers' report on the status of public notification in 11 U.S.
States.
We urge the Committee to move this bill, and we are
strongly in support of it. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify on H.R. 2452, and I look forward to any questions you
may have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, and your additions will be
made part of the record. Thank you.
Mr. Shafer.
Mr. Shafer. Good afternoon, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
LoBiondo and Members of the Water Resources Subcommittee.
I am Kevin Shafer, executive director of the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District, MMSD, and treasurer of the
National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA.
Thank you for your leadership on clean water issues. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on the Raw
Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act of 2007. This
legislation is designed to achieve an important goal: ensuring
the public's right to know about events that could impact their
health and their environment. It is a goal that we in the clean
water community endeavor to meet every single day.
At home in Milwaukee, I, like others, have kids who thrive
around our great Lake Michigan and the other area waterways. I
want to know and my neighbors want to know that our children
are playing in water that will not make them sick. It is of the
utmost importance for us to know this, and we take this
reporting challenge very seriously at the MMSD.
Before I discuss H.R. 2452 from a national perspective, I
would like to tell you about how Milwaukee achieves these
challenges. Fortunately, in Milwaukee, we have an extensive
monitoring program that has been in place for over 10 years
that we feel exceeds the H.R. 2452 requirements. In the 1980s
and 1990s, Milwaukee spent nearly $3 billion to reinforce our
sewer system to protect Lake Michigan. As part of that program,
we built a 19.4-mile-long, 405-million-gallon tunnel system
that captures flows from both the combined sewer and separate
sanitary sewer systems. Additionally, in 2006, we completed an
89-million-gallon deep tunnel that is devoted solely to
separate sewage, and we are currently constructing another
tunnel that will add 27 million gallons more to our regional
system. These tunnels store the water until our treatment
plants can treat it.
Our stewardship of the water environment is impressive.
Since the first tunnel became operational in 1994, we have
reduced the number of combined sewer overflows from an average
of approximately 60 in 1994 to an average of 2 in 2007. We have
also reduced separate sewer overflows from an average of
approximately 25 in 1994 to an average of about 2 by 2007, but
we do still have overflows, and we are working diligently every
day to address this.
We are also continually improving our extensive monitoring
and notification programs. The monitoring system that was
installed in 1994 provided a regional umbrella coverage for our
sewer system. Currently MMSD is upgrading this system with a
$50 million, state-of-the-art technology that will help us
drill down into the local system. This updated system will
further help MMSD maximize the use of its wastewater storage
systems and treatment plant capacity.
In Milwaukee we are protecting our citizens and the
environment, and we take that seriously and strive to
overreport these occurrences. What I mean by this is we notify
not only our regulators, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, of an overflow event as required, but we also notify
the public health department, local media outlets, and
scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Great Lakes WATER
Institute, which uses these occurrences as opportunities to
gather realtime scientific data to help us plan for our future
water quality improvements.
Additionally, during a storm, even before a sewer overflow
might occur, we have posted on our Web site, www.mmsd.com, a
storm update page which shows in realtime the volumes of
wastewater and sewage we have kept from overflowing. During
these large events, the public can log onto our system and see
the status every 5 minutes. If we do have an overflow in our
system during very large storms, we report this immediately on
our Web site. As I said earlier, we take this challenge very
seriously.
Milwaukee and a few other utilities may be unique in our
approach to monitoring and reporting, and from a national
perspective, it is important to remember that every wastewater
utility in the United States is different. Therefore, this
issue should be treated as an ongoing partnership between the
Federal, State and local governments because it is important on
so many fronts to make sure that what is proposed actually
helps solve the problem. It is critical to underscore that
meeting the Clean Water Act's goals requires a sustainable
partnership among all levels of government and a significant
recommitment of resources from the Federal Government in
particular.
Our Nation now faces serious long-term funding shortfalls
to meet its vital water and wastewater infrastructure needs.
According to EPA and other Federal agencies, the Nation faces a
$300 billion to $500 billion water infrastructure funding gap
over the next 20 years. It is in this context that we must
consider H.R. 2452.
Sewer overflows continue to pose one of the biggest single
challenges to clean water managers everywhere. The infiltration
and inflow of stormwater into sewer systems is a primary cause
of sanitary sewer overflows, and it is very difficult from an
engineering perspective and costly to eliminate all together.
Most NACWA members are already subject to detection,
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements imposed
by EPA's part 122 regulations and the SSO facts sheet.
Communities with combined sewer systems must implement
monitoring and notification programs for overflows as part of
their nine minimum controls for the CSO policy adopted in 1994.
Any additional Federal legislation on monitoring and reporting
should acknowledge the programs that are already in place and
ensure that any new programs do not interfere with existing
efforts or impose duplicative, unnecessary and often costly
mandates.
H.R. 2452 also states that all overflows with the potential
to harm public health would trigger the notification
requirements. Some NACWA members have expressed concern that
even minor spills of a few gallons that can occur during the
system routine maintenance of a sewer line could meet that
notification.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Shafer, if you could wrap up, please.
Mr. Shafer. I will.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Shafer. Sorry.
NACWA believes that a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal
approach to SSOs is needed. The EPA should promulgate SSO
control regulations similar to the CSO control policy as they
did in 1994. In 2001, the EPA attempted to use such a
regulation that broadly addressed the management and reduction
of SSOs.
Finally, to further help cities address wet weather and
other critical clean water infrastructure challenges, Congress
should establish a sustainable, national clean water trust
fund.
As we approach the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act,
it is vital that we recall that success so far has been
achieved through a Federal, State and local partnership. We
look forward to working with you to ensure its continued
progress and in improving the health of our Nation's waters,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
My first question is for both Ms. Baer and Mr. Shafer.
Ms. Baer, you have testified that H.R. 2452 is designed to
allow each State or community to tailor its own program to meet
the specific needs of their individual communities so as to
avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, which is precisely what Mr.
LoBiondo and I had in mind when we worked on the bill.
Mr. Shafer, you have described the very same legislation as
a one-size-fits-all approach.
So we obviously have a conflict here, and I would wonder if
you could each expand on your positions on what apparently is,
you know, a disagreement.
Ms. Baer. Well, the bill requires notification of the
public, but it does not actually define how this could be done.
As you have heard from Mr. Shafer and from some of the other
panelists, and as we have found in our research across the
country, there are a number of excellent mechanisms, such as
Web site alerts, postings, phone hotlines. There are a lot of
different ways to notify people to most effectively reach them,
given who is in your community and who is out using the water.
So my reading of the bill certainly does not mandate any
sort of type. It is not intended to be heavy-handed, nor is
it--and it should be left open so that we can further define
and let communities best tailor it to really make sure people
have a right to know.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Shafer.
Mr. Shafer. I am not sure there is really any conflict. We
agree that we need to look at these issues, and, you know, we
feel that, as we move forward, we need to work together, but we
do know that every system is different. Some systems are as
large as Dallas', which is very large, versus Milwaukee's,
versus very small systems.
So one of the concerns is maybe that there is not enough
definition in this, and that that may be something that we
could ask the EPA, which is to add more definition so that it
would make some of the various members of NACWA feel more
comfortable with the requirements. But we are in support of
notifying the public, and we just need to make sure that there
is more definition added to this issue.
We are a little concerned that there may already be
reporting requirements there through the CSO policy of 1994 and
the EPA's work with the SSO facts sheet, and we just do not
want to be duplicative with something that is already there.
Mr. Bishop. It seems to me that our goal is to achieve
nationally what you have achieved in Milwaukee. I mean, you
clearly are presiding over a first-rate system, and as I read
your testimony, I was a little surprised because you seem to
be--no pun intended--lukewarm on H.R. 2452. Tell me why. I
mean, is it because of your concern about duplicative
requirements?
Mr. Shafer. Absolutely, and it is also something where, in
2001, the EPA had promulgated a rule for SSOs that was never
moved forward, and we need to be able to look at this in a
comprehensive manner. Just like with watershed approaches, we
need to look at everything in a comprehensive manner. We need
comprehensive SSO guidance from the agency so that we can
address all of these issues in a cohesive fashion, and we need
to fund that as well.
So I would not say we are lukewarm to it. We just need to
make sure that we do not overlap with existing regulations that
are there, and we need to work with all of the organizations
similar to what we did with some of the other wet weather
approaches that we have addressed--that "NACWA," when I say
"we," has addressed, and that we move forward in a cohesive
fashion to address these issues.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
My last question: Ms. Baer, in his testimony earlier,
Administrator Grumbles indicated that he thought the best
approach to public notification of sewer overflows would be
that of flexibility to utilize existing guidance and working
with permit writers to include notification requirements in the
NPDES permits.
Do you agree with that approach, or would you take a
different approach?
Ms. Baer. I think we believe that the current policy is
insufficient to protect public health, and while we certainly
appreciate Mr. Grumbles' efforts to move things forward through
policy, so far this has not actually achieved its goals, and we
know that many people are still at risk. I can give you
specific stories from across the country.
Even earlier this year in Florida, 200,000 gallons of
sewage spilled into a stream that went into the Tampa Bay.
Local residents were out in the water and did not know about it
until the media came and told them 2 days later. We see
complaints like this around the country.
So, even though I think it is important to take a flexible
approach and work with communities and permit writers, H.R.
2452 is critical to making sure there is a requirement
nationwide and is consistent to protect public health.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Mr. LoBiondo.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank our panel members for being here today. I
appreciate your testimony.
For Ms. Baer, I have had a couple of questions posed to me
which I am going to pose to you, because I think you would have
a better way of answering them than I would.
I was asked, why focus on public notification? Why not
focus on actively trying to reduce the amount of sewage
pollution going into our waterways?
Ms. Baer. I think it is a good question because, as we
pointed out, there still is a lot of sewage pollution,
unfortunately, going into our waterways.
The way we see it is that right now we have an important
public health threat that needs to be addressed that this bill
addresses, but this bill also provides a great benefit that Dr.
Summers really explained quite well, that it will galvanize
support for the many solutions that we know are needed to raise
the infrastructure investment in the clean water
infrastructure.
So we see this as an important step right now to address
public health concerns, while we also continue to seek the
solutions and to fight hard and to work with others in the
wastewater treatment community and in the public health
community to make sure there is enough money, enough funding,
and resources to actually improve our infrastructure.
Mr. LoBiondo. Another question that was posed to me: How do
I know that there are not effective notification systems in
most places? Why do we need legislation to fill the gap if we
do not know for sure?
Ms. Baer. Our own analysis of 11 States, as well as other
reports that have looked at States and the Great Lakes, Florida
and across the country, have shown that there really is a gap.
We know the States I mentioned do not have any public
notification policies at all, and so we are finding, both from
looking actually at the policy as well as hearing of stories
where we know people are, unfortunately, in streams and creeks
when there is a sewage spill and they do not know about it,
that there is this need for a Federal consistent minimum, and
it is wonderful that some communities are already doing this,
and because they would surpass those Federal requirements,
those programs would remain in place.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Shafer, as Chairman Bishop indicated, you have kind of
got the gold standard in Milwaukee of what we would like to see
in a lot of other places.
Can you tell us a little bit about what is involved with
your monitoring system? What kind of equipment? Do you have any
handle on what the costs were to get to the point where you are
now?
Mr. Shafer. We may have a gold-plated system, but there is
always something that we can improve on. We always need to look
at our system and see if we can improve.
We spent about $50 million on various improvements to the
instrumentation in our system and on the controls in our
system. We have approximately 14 pump stations where we have
indicators that, when a pump kicks on and starts overflowing to
a creek, we know it immediately. We also have level indicators
throughout the system so that, as the depth in the pipe gets
above certain critical elevations, we know it immediately, and
we have area velocity meters throughout our system so we can
compute the flow and the velocity coming to our treatment
plants. We also have a deep tunnel system that I testified to
that has gates where we can measure the flow at those points,
and at certain critical elevations we have to close those
gates.
We have a very intelligent system that allows us, through a
central control system, to monitor over 300 miles of pipe that
we can see flows, velocities and depths. Then, if we have an
overflow, we report it immediately to the various regulators,
to the public health department and to our public through our
Web site.
Mr. LoBiondo. Do you feel the age of your pipe is any kind
of a problem for you?
Mr. Shafer. The age of pipe is always a problem for a
community the age of Milwaukee, and we are continually trying
to either reline those pipes or replace those pipes. So capital
improvements, as was stated earlier, preventing the overflow up
front is the most important goal of all clean water agencies.
That is done through good management, good asset management,
and good capital improvement programs. So funding those
programs is critical, the age of pipe is critical, and you need
to always monitor the system very closely.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just am curious. I know that we are referring to, you
know, the combined and the sanitary sewer overflows.
In regard, though, to the problem of raw sewage, what part
do septic tanks play in the picture? Do you have any idea, Ms.
Baer?
Do you all have septic tanks in your community, Mr. Shafer?
Is that a thing of the past or----
Mr. Shafer. We do not have septic in----
Mr. Boozman. No. Around a lot of the rivers and lakes and
streams and things in rural areas, you know, that is a
significant component. Again, I just was curious if you knew
what percentage the raw sewage problem was in that regard.
Ms. Baer. I do not have that information. I would be glad
to respond to you in writing. I do know septic is a proportion
of it, and this bill focused more on the big volume spills,
which are more often from the----
Mr. Boozman. You mentioned the volume of the--and again, I
am just curious. I believe Dr. Lipp talked about pouring like a
cup or a cup and a half into a swimming pool, and then you
mentioned the 200,000 gallons into Tampa Bay.
Can you make a comparison in the swimming pool there? Is
that like a thimble, or is that like a 5-gallon bucket?
Ms. Baer. I am afraid I would have to get out my calculator
to figure that one out for you. I can get back to you. I do not
know.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. Good.
Well, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
If there are no more questions, I will dismiss the second
panel with our thanks. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.142
