    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      INTEGRATED PLANNING AND PERMITTING,
                   PART 2: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EPA TO PROVIDE
                      COMMUNITIES WITH FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE
                       SMART INVESTMENTS IN WATER QUALITY

    =======================================================================

                                    (112-95)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON

                        WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON

                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 25, 2012

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    75-291                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        Columbia
    GARY G. MILLER, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 BOB FILNER, California
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                   LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            RICK LARSEN, Washington
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire       RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota             MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         LAURA RICHARDSON, California
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
    JEFF DENHAM, California
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
    Tennessee

                                      (ii)

                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                           BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    GARY G. MILLER, California           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         Columbia
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            BOB FILNER, California
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington,   GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    Vice Chair                           JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota             STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               LAURA RICHARDSON, California
    JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana         MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JEFF DENHAM, California              NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma               (Ex Officio)
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

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

                                   TESTIMONY
                                   Panel One

    Hon. David J. Berger, Mayor, City of Lima, Ohio, testifying on
      behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors........................    19
    Hon. Ralph Becker, Mayor, City of Salt Lake City, Utah,
      testifying on behalf of the National League of Cities..........    19
    Todd Portune, Commissioner, Hamilton County, Ohio, Board of
      Commissioners, testifying on behalf of the ``Perfect Storm''
      Communities Coalition..........................................    19
    Walter L. Baker, P.E., Director, Division of Water Quality, Utah
      Department of Environmental Quality, testifying on behalf of
      the Association of Clean Water Administrators..................    19
    Carter H. Strickland, Jr., Commissioner, New York City Department
      of Environmental Protection....................................    19
    George Hawkins, General Manager, District of Columbia Water and
      Sewer Authority, testifying on behalf of the National
      Association of Clean Water Agencies............................    19
    Alan Vicory, Jr., P.E., BCEE, Principal, Stantec Consulting
      (formerly Executive Director, Ohio River Valley Water
      Sanitation Commission), testifying on behalf of the Water
      Environment Federation.........................................    19

                                   Panel Two

    Nancy K. Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,
      United States Environmental Protection Agency..................    49
    Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and
      Compliance Assurance, United States Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................    49

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Hon. David J. Berger.............................................    60
    Hon. Ralph Becker................................................    81
    Todd Portune.....................................................    88
    Walter L. Baker, P.E.............................................    94
    Carter H. Strickland, Jr.........................................   101
    George Hawkins...................................................   105
    Alan Vicory, Jr., P.E., BCEE.....................................   111
    Nancy K. Stoner..................................................   116
    Cynthia Giles \1\................................................

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
      Resources and Environment, request to submit a bipartisan
      letter dated July 12, 2012, signed by 18 Representatives, and
      sent to Hon. John L. Mica, Chairman, Committee on
      Transportation and Infrastructure, asking that H.R. 3145 be
      added to the next available full committee markup..............     5
    Hon. Bob Gibbs, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
      Environment, request to include testimony submitted on behalf
      of Hon. Jim Ardis, Mayor, City of Peoria, Illinois, and Michael
      F. Menke, President, Board of Trustees, Greater Peoria Sanitary
      and Sewage Disposal District...................................    10
    United States Environmental Protection Agency, response to
      question from Hon. Donna F. Edwards, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Maryland............................   131

                             ADDITION TO THE RECORD

    Katherine Baer, Senior Director, Clean Water and Water Supply
      Programs, American Rivers, letter to Hon. Gibbs and Hon.
      Bishop, July 27, 2012..........................................   134

    ----------
    \1\ Cynthia Giles did not submit a written statement.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.019

     INTEGRATED PLANNING AND PERMITTING, PART 2: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EPA TO
    PROVIDE COMMUNITIES WITH FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SMART INVESTMENTS IN WATER
                                    QUALITY

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
                        Subcommittee on Water Resources
                                       and Environment,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Gibbs. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Water
    Resources and Environment of the Committee on T&I will come to
    order. Welcome. Welcome guests. This is our part 2 hearing on
    what we call integrated planning and permitting. I will open
    with my opening comments.
        Again, I would like to welcome everybody. This is an
    opportunity for the EPA to provide communities with flexibility
    to make smart investments in water quality. This is a followup
    hearing to one we held back in December on EPA's proposed
    integrated framework.
        In last December's hearing, we heard from several witnesses
    from State and local governments about how communities across
    the Nation are facing increasingly regulatory enforcement and
    financial pressures, not only to address sewer overflows and
    other aging wastewater infrastructure issues, but also to deal
    with numerous other burdensome regulatory issues that recently
    have become national priorities. These include more stringent
    and widespread regulation of stormwater discharges, nutrients
    and other pollutants in public drinking water systems which
    could lead to many communities having to install and operate,
    at great expense, treatment, removal and prevention
    technologies.
        All of these initiatives are piling on additional layers of
    regulatory requirements and economic burdens that our
    communities are having to somehow deal with. A large portion of
    these regulatory mandates are going unfunded by Federal and
    State governments with the result that many municipalities have
    made substantial increases in investments in wastewater and
    public water infrastructure in recent years. Local communities
    and ratepayers are now increasingly getting economically tapped
    out.
        In response to some of these issues, last year the EPA
    proposed an integrated planning and permitting policy that was
    intended to provide some flexibility in how communities managed
    their regulatory and enforcement mandates under the Clean Water
    Act.
        At last December's hearing, we heard from witnesses about
    the proposed policy and some of the concerns they had with it.
    These include the continued central role of enforcement
    mechanisms in the integrated planning process rather than
    through the use of permits; inadequate consideration of
    stringent municipal budgets and affordability, especially in
    setting compliance timelines; and insufficient regulatory
    flexibility to adapt to new or changed circumstances.
        Some of the witnesses also urged EPA to be more proactive
    and collaboratively assist communities through pilot
    demonstration projects to develop flexible, practical and
    affordable integrated plans.
        I believe it is time for the national clean water strategy
    to evolve from a one-size-fits-all mandate and enforcement
    approach to an integrated strategy that recognizes the
    individual public health needs and water quality benefits of
    water and wastewater utilities and the resource limitations of
    communities.
        I am pleased to see that the EPA has finalized its
    integrated regulatory planning and permitting framework, and I
    hope that the EPA is strongly committed to implementing this
    new policy. There seems to be some willingness on the part of
    the Agency to make this a planning and permitting approach that
    would largely take this out of the enforcement action realm.
        However, I still have some concerns that some at the EPA
    still may not be willing to limit the Agency's enforcement
    efforts against municipalities. A continued emphasis on an
    enforcement approach, including consent decrees, will undermine
    the flexibility that the EPA is ostensibly seeking to provide
    under this policy. Of course, it remains to be seen how this
    initiative will turn out. The devil will be in the details on
    how it is implemented.
        I would like to hear from today's State and local
    government witnesses about their thoughts on the EPA's now-
    finalized policy and whether EPA has adequately addressed their
    concerns. In addition, I want to hear from the EPA witnesses
    about how specifically the Agency plans to address the
    remaining concerns voiced by our State and local witnesses.
        And I want to also hear from the EPA and the other
    witnesses what statutory or other impediments, if any, stand in
    the way of making this an effective initiative for both
    communities and the regulators.
        Hopefully this initiative will truly give our communities
    the flexibility they need to prioritize their water quality
    requirements and address the huge unfunded costs associated
    with the growing number of mandates stemming from the EPA water
    rules and enforcement actions.
        Now at this time, I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Bishop,
    for any remarks you may have.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this hearing, and I say thank you to the witnesses for being
    here today.
        As everyone in this hearing room knows all too well, one of
    the fundamental goals of the Clean Water Act was and still is
    to prevent the discharge of raw sewage and other pollutants
    into the Nation's waters. Since the passage of the law almost
    40 years ago, significant investment in infrastructure has led
    to significant progress in achieving that goal. That, in turn,
    has led to significant improvements in the quality of our
    Nation's waters.
        Much of that progress is threatened now by aging wastewater
    infrastructure in need of repair and replacement and the ever-
    growing challenges of stormwater runoff from streets, roofs and
    other impermeable surfaces. Faced with the staggering costs
    these upgrades will require and the difficult economic climate,
    many communities are looking to the EPA and to the Congress for
    assistance, both in terms of greater financial assistance to
    make necessary infrastructure upgrades and repairs, and for the
    flexibility to utilize comprehensive integrated planning to
    prioritize these investments.
        Both elements, increased Federal financial assistance and
    the option of appropriate flexibility through integrated
    planning, are essential to ensure continued progress in
    addressing water quality concerns.
        To that end, the EPA should be commended for the commitment
    it has made to work with States, municipalities and other
    stakeholders in developing its integrated municipal stormwater
    and wastewater planning approach. This voluntary approach, let
    me say that again, this volunteer approach, will allow
    interested communities to develop and implement effective
    integrated plans under the Clean Water Act to address storm and
    wastewater management and to benefit from the economic
    efficiencies that an integrated approach will provide while
    still achieving their human health and water quality
    objectives.
        Yet, as the EPA has noted, the full benefits of the
    integrated planning approach may not be realized for some time
    as more and more communities come forward to develop
    individualized approaches to address their unique needs.
        In my view, allowing sufficient time for this approach to
    be adopted on a case-by-case basis as communities come forward
    makes perfect sense, because if the opposite were true, and
    regulators were more interested in expediency than tailoring
    appropriate responses to address local needs, EPA and the
    States might be accused of forcing communities to accept a one-
    size-fits-all approach. However, I expect that many
    stakeholders will point to the finalization of the integrated
    planning guidance as a turning point on how to effectively
    address local water quality impairments in as short of a
    timeframe as possible.
        Increasing flexibility under the Clean Water Act in the
    absence of increased infrastructure investment however, only
    addresses half of the challenge facing local communities and
    actually runs counter to the objectives of the EPA's integrated
    planning framework.
        With respect to increased and new forms of infrastructure
    financing, communities are looking to Congress to step up to
    the plate. Unfortunately, while this is the second hearing the
    committee has held on the EPA's plan to promote integrated
    planning, we have taken no action on renewing the Federal
    financial commitment to wastewater infrastructure this
    Congress. While bipartisan legislation, such as H.R. 3145, the
    Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2011, has been
    introduced, there has been no legislative action on this
    comprehensive effort.
        H.R. 3145 not only reaffirms our commitment to our
    wastewater infrastructure systems, but it also establishes new
    funding alternatives to achieve our long-term infrastructure
    goals.
        So while EPA has done its job in responding to the needs of
    our States and local communities, this Congress and this
    majority has not been as responsive and is ignoring an
    opportunity to create jobs and improve water quality. I think
    this is unfortunate, and I also think it is a disservice to our
    constituents and to our districts.
        Clean water infrastructure is not, nor should it be, a
    partisan issue. Innovative infrastructure financing such as the
    Loan Guarantee Program and Clean Water Trust Fund in my bill,
    H.R. 3145, can leverage millions in more private financing to
    address our huge backlog of water infrastructure needs and
    create tens of thousands of new jobs. At the same time, we must
    preserve the locally driven priority system developed under the
    existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a model that has
    served our communities, our States and our Nation well for the
    last 25 years.
        To that end, I ask unanimous consent to include in the
    record a bipartisan letter that I and 17 of our colleagues sent
    to Chairman Mica asking that H.R. 3145 be added to the next
    available full committee markup.
        Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
        [The letter follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.021

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This legislation has
    the support of several of the witnesses here this morning
    including the National League of Cities, the National
    Association of Clean Water Agencies and the Water Environment
    Federation, and for this support, I thank the witnesses.
        I also note with some regret that we are having a full
    committee markup tomorrow of several bills, three of which are
    water-related bills, but Chairman Mica has not included H.R.
    3145 on that list, and I do hope that at the next available
    markup, he will respond to both what many of our colleagues
    support, and what many of the stakeholders support.
        So again, I applaud the EPA for doing its part to address
    the challenges facing our States, and I urge this majority to
    do the same. With that, I look forward to hearing from our
    witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Gibbs. The gentlelady from the District.
        Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
    today's hearing on EPA's recently released integrated planning
    framework to work with the States toward providing reasonable
    flexibility and relief to jurisdictions like my own district,
    the District of Columbia, that are facing multimillion-dollar
    mandates to comply with Clean Water Act requirements.
        One of our witnesses, representing the National Association
    of Clean Water Agencies, is George Hawkins, general manager of
    the DC Water and Sewer Authority. The District of Columbia is
    currently investing in a $2.6 billion clean rivers project to
    address combined sewer overflows in the Anacostia River, Rock
    Creek and the Potomac River. The project was mandated by EPA
    and the Department of Justice through a consent decree entered
    into in 2005. DC Water is currently working with EPA to modify
    the consent decree to allow for green infrastructure to be used
    for a portion of the project.
        Mr. Hawkins, who is a wonderfully innovative manager,
    understands all the issues before us. He was formerly director
    of the DC Department of Environment. He has not been content to
    spend ratepayers' funds on 20th-century technology, but seeks
    changes in the consent decree to enable DC Water to do a pilot
    using 21st-century green technology that will substantially
    reduce the cost of mandated upgrades.
        In addition, DC Water is undergoing a nearly $1 billion
    enhanced nitrogen removal capital program to further reduce the
    amount of nutrients discharged into the Potomac River and
    Chesapeake Bay watershed. This massive undertaking will allow
    DC Water to comply with EPA's National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System permit.
        Since these projects are mandated and enforced by EPA, the
    District is forced to prioritize them over critical upgrades to
    the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in the city,
    some of which was constructed during the Civil War. Recent
    incidents involving broken water mains and sewer backups
    highlight the need to maintain and improve the basic water
    infrastructure that is critical to the health and public safety
    of District of Columbia residents, Members of Congress, of the
    Federal workforce, and visitors.
        Current budgets allow DC Water to upgrade only 1 percent of
    the infrastructure this year. Although the Federal Government
    is a major user, the District of Columbia's small pool of
    approximately 130,000 ratepayers has been asked to shoulder
    most of the burden of these major capital investments. DC
    residents are projected to see their average water and sewer
    bill increase over $100 per month by the end of this decade,
    and despite the efforts of this committee, no relief in the
    form of Federal funding is in sight. As highlighted in a recent
    Brookings Institution report, the large gap between the very
    wealthy and the very poor in the District of Columbia makes
    EPA's affordability criteria based on median household income
    an inappropriate measure to gauge the impact of EPA-mandated
    projects on local ratepayers.
        I will be interested in learning from the EPA how it plans
    to use the integrated planning framework to empower its
    regional offices to consider not only the affordability of
    these mandated projects, but also the public health and water
    quality return on investment that they provide. I also hope to
    hear that the framework will allow authorities like the DC
    Water to reassess their existing consent decree and permit
    requirements to provide flexibility to ensure the most
    innovative measures such as green technology can be considered.
        I thank you and the ranking member again for this very
    important hearing, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbs. Representative Napolitano, do you have any
    comments?
        Ms. Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chair, I do. Thank you very much.
    We thank you, and Mr. Bishop, for holding this very important
    hearing. To me it is very critical we invest in improving our
    aging wastewater infrastructure systems and water treatment
    because it is directly supporting a clean water supply.
        As the ranking member of the Water and Power Subcommittee,
    we have held many meetings and hearings on the health of the
    great rivers and lakes in the United States. Our Nation depends
    on our downstream sources to be clean enough for drinking, for
    irrigation, and especially our economy. And as far as health
    issues are concerned that is also a very great concern.
        Investing in clean water infrastructure does create jobs.
    $1 million invested in water projects creates 12 to 16 jobs in
    southern California, according to the Economic Roundtable of
    Los Angeles. The water industry creates more jobs in southern
    California than the two leading industries in southern
    California, which are entertainment and housing. There is
    underemployment in the water industry, which indicates there is
    a great opportunity for job growth.
        I strongly support, very strongly support H.R. 3145, the
    Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2011 and
    congratulate both Ranking Members Bishop and Rahall for
    introducing H.R. 3145. It provides $13.8 billion in the Clean
    Water State Revolving Fund over the next 5 years, funding that
    is desperately needed to address the wastewater treatment
    issues facing our country.
        I commend EPA. In California, they have been great partners
    with the councils of government that I have relationships with,
    and being able to look at how this affects the small cities
    also. EPA's most recent clean water needs survey found that the
    State needs $300 billion worth of wastewater system repairs
    over the next 20 years.
        This bill also incentivizes the use of green technologies
    to reduce energy consumption. Water treatment plants have had
    the capacity for solar, wind and biothermal energy production,
    and we must invest in those opportunities and make that
    information available to all that need it or have availability
    to invest in their own upgrades. It will help solve our water
    quality challenges, and I urge the committee to bring up H.R.
    3145 to help our communities solve the clean water challenges
    they face.
        Providing a funding mechanism or assistance to some small
    cities that will never be able to afford it is a great
    opportunity for us to not only put people back to work, but to
    be able to solve some of the issues that small communities face
    in providing their residents with clean water, especially with
    regards to providing jobs and spurring the economy.
        With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I believe that concludes all the
    opening remarks. I do have some written testimony. I ask
    unanimous consent for written testimony submitted on behalf of
    the Mayor of Peoria, Illinois, and the president of the board
    of trustees of the Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage Disposal
    District be included in the hearing record.
        Is there any objection? There being no objection, so
    ordered.
        [The written testimony follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75291.030

        Mr. Gibbs. I also ask unanimous consent that the hearing
    record be kept open for 30 days after this hearing in order to
    accept other submissions of written testimony for the hearing
    record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Today we have two panels. I welcome our first panel. I will
    go quickly through it and introduce everybody quickly and then
    we will come back to the mayor.
        Our first panelist on panel one is Mayor David Berger, city
    of Lima, Ohio. He is testifying on behalf of the U.S.
    Conference of Mayors. We also have Mayor Ralph Becker, city of
    Salt Lake City, Utah, testifying on behalf of the National
    League of Cities; Mr. Todd Portune, commissioner of Hamilton
    County, Ohio, Board of County Commissioners; Mr. Walt Baker,
    director, Division of Water Quality, Utah Department of
    Environmental Quality, testifying on behalf of the Association
    of Clean Water Administrators; Mr. Carter Strickland, Jr.,
    commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental
    Protection; Mr. George Hawkins, the general manager of District
    of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, testifying on behalf of
    the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. And I think
    we have another panelist. Go ahead.
        Mr. Vicory. My name is Alan Vicory. I am a principal in the
    firm Stantec Consulting and I am here representing the Water
    Environment Federation, WEF.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Glad to have you here.
        Mr. Berger, the floor is yours, and I look forward to your
    testimony.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID J. BERGER, MAYOR, CITY OF LIMA, OHIO,
      TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; HON.
     RALPH BECKER, MAYOR, CITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, TESTIFYING
       ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; TODD PORTUNE,
     COMMISSIONER, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
       TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE ``PERFECT STORM'' COMMUNITIES
     COALITION; WALTER L. BAKER, P.E., DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER
     QUALITY, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, TESTIFYING
      ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER ADMINISTRATORS;
        CARTER H. STRICKLAND, JR., COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY
    DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GEORGE HAWKINS, GENERAL
       MANAGER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY,
    TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER
    AGENCIES; AND ALAN VICORY, JR., P.E., BCEE, PRINCIPAL, STANTEC
      CONSULTING (FORMERLY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO RIVER VALLEY
    WATER SANITATION COMMISSION), TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE WATER
                         ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION

        Mr. Berger. Good morning. My thanks to Chairman Gibbs and
    this committee for inviting me. I am Dave Berger, and I serve
    as the mayor of the city of Lima. Though I am a life-long
    Democrat, my office is nonpartisan, and I have worked with
    elected officials of all stripes throughout my 23 years in
    office. It is in that same spirit that I am here today
    testifying on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Lima is
    currently engaged in negotiations with EPA over a long-term
    control plan for sewer overflows, so I have personal experience
    there as well.
        As a member of the Mayors Water Council, I have
    participated in the over 2 years of discussions that led to
    EPA's integrated planning memorandum. We began those
    discussions in 2009, because cities were continuing to face
    threats of EPA enforcement and demands that cities adopt plans
    with astronomical costs far outside our financial abilities.
        After our discussions, EPA unveiled integrated planning to
    address sewer overflow and stormwater issues in a coordinated
    way. EPA acknowledges that its framework does not address all
    of the issues brought to them by the mayors and have told us
    that they are constrained by the Clean Water Act, in
    particular, from providing some of those flexibilities.
        First, I want to thank EPA for their engagement and for
    issuing the framework. The Conference recognizes that EPA put
    forward a major good faith effort to respond positively to our
    request for flexibility, and my written testimony highlights
    the positive aspects of the framework. But I would like to call
    your attention in particular to four positive aspects of the
    framework.
        First, it recognizes the need for flexibility and embraces
    both green infrastructure and adaptive management. Second, it
    recognizes that cities have limited resources and uses priority
    setting to provide partial relief. It recognizes that there
    will be disproportionate burdens on low-income households and
    allows consideration of those burdens. And finally, it
    acknowledges that in some cases integrated plans can be
    implemented in permits.
        However, the framework does not go far enough. The only
    substantive relief clearly provided by the framework is
    scheduling. It allows cities to prioritize cost-effective
    actions, but low-priority, low-benefit actions appear still to
    be mandated at a later date. The framework limits the use of
    permits for implementation with the result that, in most cases,
    EPA will continue to use enforcement tools that treat cities as
    criminals. The framework does not provide for consideration of
    safe drinking water regulations when setting priorities. And
    finally, and most importantly, the fundamental problem of
    affordability of controls is not addressed.
        On the affordability issue, let me tell you how this works
    in my community. Lima is a proud community of modest financial
    means. We have shrunk from roughly 52,000 to 38,000 as more
    affluent households have moved to the suburbs. Our annual
    household median income is $26,943--$26,943. Nearly one-third
    of Lima's citizens live under the poverty threshold.
    Additionally, our demographic profile includes aging baby
    boomers that comprise a substantial and growing class of fixed
    income seniors. Our low-, moderate-, and fixed-income
    households are particularly vulnerable to increasing costs of
    basic services.
        Implementation of the proposed CSO/SSO long-term control
    plan will raise the average annual sewer bill alone in Lima to
    $872. While this increase may have little impact on our high-
    income households, its impact on our poor households will be
    devastating. Some 47 percent of the households would experience
    rates above 4 percent of their income. Almost 26 percent of
    households would experience rate increases to their annual
    sewer bills between 2 and 3 percent of their household income.
        If you add water and sewer costs together, the lowest
    income household category would be required to spend over 10
    percent of their income for water and sewer services alone.
    Indeed, 73 percent of the households in Lima would be paying
    over 2 percent of their income for water and sewer, 73 percent.
    These citizens need substantive relief that the current
    framework does not provide. According to EPA, the Clean Water
    Act ties their hands from providing more substantive relief.
        So we need Congress to act. The financial resources of our
    citizens, my citizens, resident businesses and cities are
    limited, so the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act
    must be crafted in a way that explicitly acknowledges and
    addresses the reality of those limited local resources.
        The Conference has five points to make about this. Congress
    must impose a cost cap on Federal clean and safe drinking water
    mandates.
        Congress should provide Federal assistance at levels much
    greater than the current State Revolving Loan Fund programs,
    and that assistance should be in the form of grants, not loans.
    Loans, frankly, don't help us much.
        It must provide a shield for cities from third-party
    lawsuits for cities that are working toward long-term
    compliance under a permit.
        Congress should direct EPA to halt enforcement campaigns
    against local governments in favor of EPA programs for
    integrated planning, watershed planning and water quality
    permitting.
        Congress must also act to prohibit EPA from exacting fines
    and penalties against local governments that are engaged in
    good faith efforts and are investing capital to comply with
    water and wastewater regulations under permits.
        Cities are not criminals or enterprises that are tempted to
    pollute more to make more profit and we should not be treated
    as such. Cities are stewards of the public trust, a
    responsibility that we share with the State and Federal
    Governments, and should be accorded the respect of a shared
    stewardship of our environment.
        We need Congress to provide relief. We need Congress to
    provide oversight and to remember that EPA has its authority
    because of the way the Clean Water Act was written and enacted
    by Congress. We need Congress to act.
        Thank you for the opportunity to address you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        Mayor Becker, the floor is yours. Welcome.
        Mr. Becker. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member
    Bishop and members of the subcommittee. I am Ralph Becker. I am
    the mayor of Salt Lake City, and I am here today on behalf of
    the National League of Cities, the oldest and largest
    organization representing cities and towns across America. I
    also serve on the U.S. Conference of Mayors Board of Directors.
        Salt Lake City is unusual in that from our valley at about
    4,200 feet and where the Great Salt Lake is, we see our peaks
    over 11,000 feet immediately next to us. And so from our
    watershed that is supplying our waters to our ultimate
    discharge in the Terminal Lake, we have the full spectrum of
    water supply and dealing with wastewater and stormwater.
        I appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on
    the important role of clean water infrastructure investment in
    our communities and how the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency and Congress can partner more effectively with our local
    governments to make smart investments to protect water quality.
    On this, the 40th anniversary that we are approaching of the
    Clean Water Act and the enormous benefits that we have all
    received in our country from that Act, it is time for this
    Congress to take a fresh look at how we can achieve those goals
    better.
        We congratulate and applaud EPA's integrated stormwater-
    wastewater planning framework published on June 5th of this
    year. The framework recognizes awareness of struggles by
    municipalities in meeting requirements and the conflicts that
    arise when weighing environmental impacts. Storm and wastewater
    issues are interdependent and intrinsically tied to
    environmental considerations.
        We are in support of the current framework's benefits, but
    as was mentioned by Mayor Berger, we feel strongly that
    affordability, flexibility and use of permitting in place of
    consent decrees, better solutions will be found.
        Speaking towards affordability, water rate and tax
    increases on residents to fund regulatory mandates should be
    reasonably affordable. Affordability needs to be assessed based
    on impacts to the lowest community economic level, and the
    integrated planning framework that provides communities with
    compliance schedules with options to prioritize funding for
    projects with greater positive impacts are certainly very
    valuable. This approach allows a community to produce a viable
    plan from several options to afford the greatest environmental
    benefit.
        To flexibility, a flexible approach to integrated planning
    would allow communities to prioritize needs and consider in its
    entirety the financial commitments that we make. We recommend
    the ability to extend the permit cycles to longer timeframes to
    align with realistic and achievable goals of water quality
    improvements. We believe that an integrated framework, now
    limited to consideration of storm and wastewater, should
    include pending drinking water treatment requirements under the
    Safe Drinking Water Act. For Salt Lake City and many cities,
    all of these systems are integrated and tied to a much broader
    set of environmental considerations.
        As has been mentioned and I mentioned, the implementation
    of an integrated planning framework can most effectively and
    efficiently be achieved through the permit planning process
    rather than consent decrees.
        Moving forward, addressing the policy changes is just one
    part of the equation in addressing our Nation's water-related
    challenges. Lack of water quality infrastructure threatens
    local and regional economies, the environment, and public
    health and safety. Like other communities, 70 percent of Salt
    Lake City's water infrastructure is beyond expected design life
    and in need of substantial funding. We have made tremendous
    commitments for well over a century to that end.
        We call on your support for new funding mechanisms. Even as
    local governments fund 95 to 98 percent of all water and
    wastewater infrastructure investment, needs in our communities
    continue to grow. The most recent clean water shed needs survey
    estimated that the 20-year investment needed to upgrade
    wastewater and stormwater infrastructure to meet the goals of
    the Clean Water Act to be over $298 billion, with an additional
    survey focused on drinking water infrastructure estimating
    needs over a 20-year span in excess of $334 billion. Local
    governments need a reliable long-term source of substantial
    capital to close the gap between current expenditures and
    anticipated needs.
        The U.S. marked the 20th century with breakthrough in
    investment in water infrastructure that lifted us to prominence
    for the past 100 years. We ask that you lead and serve by
    addressing these needs so we can move forward together and lead
    the world into the next century.
        As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act,
    local governments remain committed to meeting the water
    infrastructure needs and water quality protection standards in
    our communities. We hope that the Federal Government remains
    committed to being a full partner in this important endeavor.
    Because the Nation's cities are working to improve our aging
    infrastructure, meet Federal regulatory requirements, create
    and retain jobs and foster a climate of economic growth in our
    communities, a partnership with the Federal Government is
    essential.
        We look forward to working with you on a long-term solution
    to our Nation's water infrastructure needs and with EPA to
    ensure that this integrated planning framework approach can
    help communities meet water quality protection standards in an
    affordable and flexible manner.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of
    America's cities and towns. I look forward to your questions.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        Mr. Portune, the floor is yours. Welcome.
        Mr. Portune. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member
    Bishop and members of the subcommittee. My name is Todd
    Portune, and I am testifying here today on behalf of the
    citizens of Hamilton County and the citizens of the communities
    that make up what we have called the ``Perfect Storm''
    Communities Coalition, so named because we are communities
    dealing with the perfect storm of high unemployment, high home
    foreclosure rates, stagnant economic growth and an exodus of
    business and industry, while being mandated to meet expensive
    CSO and SSO wet weather consent decrees and stormwater
    regulations.
        Our coalition very much appreciates the subcommittee
    holding this second oversight hearing. It is certainly evidence
    of and supports the fact of the need for congressional action
    and oversight over EPA and the integrated planning process that
    EPA has put forward through their final integrated planning and
    permitting policy framework.
        We are grateful for the steps forward that EPA has taken,
    but believe that it falls far short of what is necessary. We
    believe that EPA must find a regulatory approach consistent
    within the Clean Water Act and existing regulations that would
    provide communities like mine and of our coalition the
    flexibility we need to meet these challenges in a more
    affordable and cost-effective manner, and we hope that the
    Agency's final framework with your oversight and with
    congressional action will help us accomplish this goal.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee,
    we were very encouraged at the first oversight hearing when
    there was interaction between Chairman Gibbs and Ms. Nancy
    Stoner, Acting Administrator for the EPA Office of Water, about
    whether EPA was open to using a pilot community project, and in
    particular, the 15- to 20-pilot communities in implementing the
    framework that was proposed by our coalition.
        Ms. Stoner answered in response to your question, ``Yes,
    that is what I was talking about in terms of those who have
    already done a lot of thinking and planning. We are hoping
    those could be initial pilots for us, and others could learn
    from their successes.''
        She went on to say, ``Our strategies that we are working on
    now would identify how we would like to work with communities
    through pilot projects and other means as well.''
        Finally, Mr. Chairman you asked if EPA would have something
    moving forward by spring, to which she replied, yes.
        Now, clearly, there is a step forward with the framework
    that has been presented. But with respect to showcase
    communities, while EPA will say that they have a showcase
    community aspect of this, the truth of the matter is that it is
    not a true demonstration program or showcase community process.
    Contrary to that, it is continuing the long-time practice of
    negotiating judicial decrees and leaving individual communities
    to figure it out by themselves.
        Under EPA's integrated policy and the most recent green
    infrastructure fact sheets, all of the financial burden and
    legal risk involved in developing an alternative framework
    remains on local communities. Communities are given the choice
    of pursuing alternative approaches without direct financial,
    technical or related support from EPA.
        If a local community has access to money and expertise and
    they get it right, EPA will embrace them. If, however, they get
    it wrong, EPA and the DOJ will leave them subject to continued
    enforcement to figure it out a second time. And this system of
    forced local experiments without Federal funding is wasteful
    and inequitable. We know there is a better way, a way that does
    not ignore the mandates of the Clean Water Act, but does not
    continue the command and control regulatory system that is
    inconsistent with the financial realities of America's cities,
    towns and counties.
        Our coalition has repeatedly requested that EPA establish
    between 15 and 20 demonstration partnerships in each of the
    next 5 years in communities across the Nation currently facing
    expensive mandated wet-weather improvements. We want to see
    these partnerships transparently highlighted to show the
    Congress and other communities how EPA and local communities
    can work together to implement flexible, practical, affordable
    wet-weather solutions. And by working with pilot communities,
    EPA could demonstrate how the use of new innovative approaches
    can result in the same or better water quality results for
    smaller investment of local taxpayer dollars.
        Under our proposal, the coalition's proposal, EPA would be
    leading the process, working in partnership with local
    communities, lending EPA's own significant body of resources
    and expertise to the effort. The end product will be the
    development of the foundational data and results that then can
    be replicated across the Nation with confidence of outcome and
    result. Anything less continues the current, unacceptable
    process of fragmented, uncoordinated and differing approaches
    and outcomes. There is a better approach, and that is for a
    national policy to be implemented, and the coalition's process
    is the way.
        I would like to address the affordability question as well,
    Mr. Chairman. In my own community, we have cut our county
    budget by over 35 percent since 2007. Because of the recession,
    we have been forced to reduce our budget for all operations of
    the county, corrections, courts, law enforcement, public works
    projects of road, highway and bridge repairs; auditor,
    recorder, treasurer, coroner, all the other facets of county
    government have been cut by over $100 million in 5 years,
    eliminating over 1,500 jobs in the process. We can neither
    borrow money nor print money to balance our budget. We can only
    spend what we have, and consequentially, we have had to make
    due with less, with no end in sight.
        Yet in the midst of this horror story, CSO and SSO mandated
    driven sewer district spending continues to increase. Since the
    recession began, our bipartisan county commission has been
    forced to increase sewer rates by over 50 percent. Our sewer
    district, now facing hundreds of millions of dollars of consent
    decree mandated spending, projects another 18 percent in rate
    increases over the next 2 years.
        Since 2004, when our decree was approved by the Federal
    court, sewer rates have been increased 9 consecutive years
    cumulatively by more than 130 percent. Few, if any, people have
    their incomes increase by 10 percent a year or double every
    decade.
        We are spending for the entire 2012 budget for all of
    Hamilton County $207 million, but our sewer district budget is
    $380 million; $202 million in consent decree driven capital
    projects and $180 million in operations, $90 million of which
    is payment on debt service. We have spent over $400 million in
    consent decree mandated work so far. We have another $1.1
    billion in 2006 dollars in phase one spending with a phase two
    consent decree program estimated to cost another $2 billion or
    more.
        There is no balance in this, Mr. Chairman. There is no
    fairness. And my constituents rightfully ask why are they
    paying more for sewer repairs each year than I raise from all
    of the revenue sources for all other county operations. How do
    I justify raising sewer rates to unaffordable levels at the
    very same time I cannot provide for police patrols, am closing
    down jails, cannot fix my roads and bridges, have endured 50
    percent cuts in human service delivery at the same time that I
    have a 40-percent increase in demand for human services. Help.
    We are all in favor of clean water, but there must be balance
    to the process.
        The current EPA regulatory policies and enforcement-led
    approaches through consent decree simply directs local
    communities to pay for massive, expensive, and in some
    instances, outdated concrete and steel approaches. There has
    got to be a better way.
        Hamilton County, Ohio, and the Perfect Storm Coalition
    looks forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman,
    with members of the subcommittee, and with EPA in developing
    and ensuring the implementation of innovative flexible
    approaches in meeting wet weather challenges, including the
    creation of needed demonstration communities that will showcase
    EPA's commitment to cost-effective, alternative approaches to
    expensive water quality challenges faced by communities like
    mine and those of our coalition.
        I thank you for the opportunity and look forward to
    answering the committee's questions.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        Mr. Baker, welcome. The floor is yours.
        Mr. Baker. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member
    Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Walt Baker.
    I am the director of the Utah Division of Water Quality and
    currently serve as the president of the Association of Clean
    Water Administrators on whose behalf I offer testimony today.
    ACWA is the national nonpartisan professional organization
    representing State, interstate and territorial water quality
    officials charged with implementing the Clean Water Act, and in
    particular, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
    permitting program.
        I am pleased to come before the committee today to again
    present testimony on the integrated planning initiative. I
    offer abbreviated remarks drawn from my longer written
    testimony which has been submitted for the record.
        I reiterate the Association's support for sequencing Clean
    Water Act requirements to allow municipalities to address first
    those projects that have the greatest impact on water quality.
    Such sequencing is not a new concept. However, a wider embrace
    of sequencing is important in these times of economic hardship.
    Moreover, EPA's willingness to develop this initiative sends a
    powerful, clear and welcome message to municipalities, but we
    need to do more.
        Following the release of the draft framework in January of
    this year, ACWA members participated in five EPA-hosted
    stakeholder workshops, submitted written comments on the draft
    and held calls with EPA to further discuss the draft document.
    EPA has been very receptive to State comments and questions.
        At the workshop, several elements of integrated planning
    were clarified. Integrated planning does not remove the
    obligation to comply with the Clean Water Act nor the
    consequences of not complying with the Clean Water Act. Clear,
    candid and open communication with communities is critical to
    ensure there is a full exploration of the options and
    flexibilities within the Clean Water Act so that the parties
    understand what is doable and what is not doable.
        If communities are looking for amnesty from Clean Water Act
    provisions through this initiative, they are likely to be
    disappointed. But some uncertainty remains. Third-party
    lawsuits loom if States and EPA through integrated planning are
    considered to be deviating from their obligations to enforce
    the law. It is clear that States will take the primary role in
    reviewing and approving a municipality's integrated plans.
    EPA's involvement in approving or vetoing the plans is less
    clear.
        I would like to offer the following additional thoughts on
    EPA's final integrated planning framework and initiative as a
    whole. One, we urge EPA to further develop guidance on
    financial assessment and affordability as cost will play a
    central role in the prioritization effort.
        Two, we are pleased to see an adaptive management component
    in the final framework. Flexibility will be key to
    implementation.
        Three, drinking water and groundwater elements should find
    a place within the integrated planning framework.
        Four, confusion seems to exist in some EPA regions as to
    the ability of compliance schedules within NPDES permits to
    exceed 3 years, let alone the 5-year life of the permit. This
    issue needs to be resolved by EPA headquarters.
        Overall, States have largely been supportive throughout the
    development of EPA's integrated planning framework and remain
    supportive of the general concept of allowing municipalities to
    sequence Clean Water Act requirements in ways most appropriate
    for the specific entity. However, some of our concerns will not
    be put to rest until we see actual case studies progress.
        We encourage EPA to consider developing guiding principles
    based on early examples to assist others.
        Utah lost one of its native sons last week in the passing
    of noted author, educator, businessman, and motivational
    speaker Stephen R. Covey who wrote, ``The main thing is to keep
    the main thing the main thing.'' Our main thing must be to
    protect our precious and irreplaceable water resources. ACWA
    believes it is possible to do so with an eye to well thought-
    out approaches, mutually agreeable priorities, fiscal
    responsibility and reasonable timeframes.
        I would like to conclude by noting that the success of
    integrated planning hinges on the continued transparency,
    communication and collaboration among all involved parties
    throughout the plan development and implementation process. We
    look forward to continuing our work with EPA as this initiative
    proceeds.
        Thank you for this opportunity to share ACWA's thoughts on
    this, and I will take any questions later.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
        Mr. Strickland, welcome. The floor is yours.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman
    Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, members of the subcommittee. I am
    Carter Strickland, commissioner of the New York City Department
    of Environmental Protection, or as we are known in New York
    City, DEP. On behalf of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify on the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency's final integrated planning framework, which I might say
    at the outset is a very welcome development. We were involved
    in providing testimony and development of this integrated
    planning framework, and we do note that the EPA has amended it
    to some degree.
        We appreciate several clarifications. One involves the role
    of the States. It is very important to us. For example, our
    water quality data shows that our biggest challenge, like a lot
    of other cities, is combined sewer overflows. We recently, in
    mid-March of this year, entered into a consent order with our
    State, our primary regulator, by which we are committing an
    additional $1.9 billion in traditional grant infrastructure and
    $2.4 billion in green infrastructure.
        We think this is the right way to go. We think it is in
    accordance with some planning efforts that we did initially.
    And we are obligated under both orders and SPDES permits to
    undertake a variety of measures with regard to both CSOs,
    including the development of long-term control plans over the
    next 5 years, 11 separate ones, and such measures as the
    cleaning of our 136 miles of interceptors, which we just
    completed after a 2-year effort.
        Clearly, for the framework to succeed it needs to recognize
    and where appropriate, defer to State authorities which are
    often the primary regulators. I will note that we believe that
    long-term control plans are, in fact, integrated plans and can
    become them, and new requirements should be held in abeyance
    until those plans are developed.
        We also appreciate the framework's explicit reference to in
    the final version and encouragement of the use of planning for
    sustainability and other related documents and guidance put out
    by the EPA. These documents provide suggestions for
    programmatic areas and approaches that also match community
    goals while appropriately recognizing that the details of these
    programs cannot be known in advance or dictated from any
    central authority, but rather, must be developed by the
    operating entity.
        DEP supports the planning approach that would help
    municipalities prioritize infrastructure investments in order
    to maximize water quality benefits and encourage the use of
    innovative and sustainable approaches such as green
    infrastructure. That, after all, is the approach of not only
    the long-term control plans, but planning documents such as New
    York City's PlaNYC, or comprehensive sustainability plan.
        A number of our comments and recommendations on the draft
    framework have been addressed and are consistent with the final
    framework, but since the level of detail in the framework has
    not changed dramatically since the draft version, our initial
    questions regarding the specifics of how integrated planning
    would be implemented remain unanswered and we think it is
    certainly a matter that the subcommittee should continue to
    monitor.
        For example and first, I will note that the final framework
    for the integrated plan includes a discussion of financial
    capability and refers to the EPA's 1997 guidance document.
    However, New York City DEP has concluded our own affordability
    assessment and we have come to realize that the criteria
    outlined in the guidance documents do not provide the complete
    story with respect to affordability concerns of both the Agency
    and our ratepayers.
        For example, we found that the use of median household
    income as an affordability indicator has several limitations
    for a city like New York City where household incomes are not
    distributed around the median. That means that we have a lot of
    wealthy people and we have a lot of poor people. Approximately
    20 percent using Federal measures of our population is living
    below the Federal poverty level, which is very low.
        Furthermore, the New York City Center For Economic
    Opportunity has noted some of the deficiencies with current
    measures of poverty and developed an alternative poverty
    threshold measure based on methodology from the National
    Academy of Sciences. Based on this new threshold, a higher
    percentage of New York City residents are living in poverty
    than the Federal poverty rate portrays. Our study estimates 25
    percent of New York City households, that is 755,000
    households, over 1.6 million people, have wastewater and sewer
    costs that are 2 percent or more of their household income.
        These rates vary across the city. In the Bronx, for
    example, 40 percent of households have a household income for
    which 2 percent or more is dedicated to water or wastewater
    costs. With projected future rate increases, the burden on this
    vulnerable population will increase, and we believe this is a
    significant environmental justice issue for this subcommittee
    to consider.
        Therefore our study recommends that residential
    affordability should consider income distribution, poverty,
    unemployment and other economic burdens, such as the high cost
    of living in New York City and other urban areas, all of which
    inform the environmental justice issues that the Federal
    Government is rightly concerned about.
        And affordability must consider the cumulative impact of
    long-term debt, which means that utilities have rising debt
    service that will cause rates to increase for the foreseeable
    future. For example, this year, New York City DEP will spend 42
    percent of our operating budget, that is $1.6 billion, on debt
    service alone. We have $26 billion in outstanding debt. That
    debt service has increased 176 percent between fiscal year
    2002, it starts for us in July, and fiscal year 2011. Each
    community is unique, obviously, so the framework should provide
    an opportunity to bring all relevant financial indicators and
    information to the table.
        EPA has clarified that the integrated planning framework is
    limited to wastewater and stormwater. Many folks have mentioned
    that should include the Safe Drinking Water Act obligations. We
    believe that is the case. Over the last 10 years, we have spent
    $20 billion total on capital costs, pretty evenly split between
    water and wastewater costs. All of that, so $10 billion each.
    We don't want to exclude $10 billion from consideration that we
    spent on water services. That goes into our rate and that is
    paid by our ratepayers.
        In addition, the framework seeks to balance various
    mandates without recognizing the value of investment in
    nonmandated infrastructure. These are the replacement costs of
    our aging infrastructure that many folks have mentioned. New
    Yorkers want and deserve nonmandated, but still critical
    investments in programs to build storm sewers, replace storm
    and sanitary lines, replace mandated equipment according to a
    prudent, asset management review. And I think if you did a
    survey of the folks at this table and utilities across the
    country, the number one issue would be urban flooding, for
    which we spend a lot of money. Completing the full buildout of
    the storm and sanitary sewer system is an important priority
    for our city and others.
        Finally, the EPA's and Department of Justice's enforcement
    actions must be consistent with this framework, especially its
    consideration of State orders and permits, as well as the
    general principle that the details of programs will be left to
    operating agencies. Unfortunately, over the past few years the
    EPA and DOJ have been bypassing the permit process and
    regulating by consent order with provisions that have a
    stifling level of detail. The Federal Government is not in the
    business of operating utilities, not yet anyway, and
    municipalities need the ability to make operational decisions
    based on engineering judgments.
        In closing, we see integrated planning as a way for EPA,
    State regulators and municipalities to sit down and prioritize
    various water quality efforts so that there will be less top-
    down decisionmaking, more collaboration and consensus among
    government agencies, for which we consider ourselves a member.
    This would vest discretion in local governments to invest
    scarce dollars in those projects that meet critical needs and
    achieve the greatest public health benefits. The EPA's
    framework is a good start, but it is far from sufficient to
    realize this vision.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Hawkins. Welcome. The floor is yours.
        Mr. Hawkins. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member
    Bishop. My name is George Hawkins. I am the general manager of
    the DC Water and Sewer Authority, or DC Water as we know it,
    and the chair of the Money Matters Task Force for the National
    Association of Clean Water Agencies.
        I am delighted to be here today to discuss EPA's integrated
    and municipal stormwater and wastewater planning approach
    framework. It is a very good step forward. I also want to
    mention, I am grateful for the comments of Congresswoman
    Norton, my Congresswoman. I thought it was both eloquent and
    substantive, and many of my points will track many of the
    points that you made.
        I also want to offer my greetings to Congresswoman Edwards.
    Part of the flow from your district actually comes through to
    our facility at Blue Plains. You have been a strong supporter
    over time, and I am grateful for that as well.
        My points are going to be in five, a handful of points,
    number one to provide context, very consistent with what you
    just heard from my friend, Carter Strickland.
        In the last 2 weeks we have had three floods in the
    Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. This is a
    neighborhood just south of the McMillan Reservoir just west of
    here, three significant floods in 2 weeks.
        I have been out to the citizens, I have walked the streets.
    We have mobilized all of our resources. The fundamental problem
    is the trunk sewer that serves that entire neighborhood goes
    entirely the length of Florida Avenue all the way down to the
    Anacostia, was implemented and constructed by the Federal
    Government at the turn of the century, as well as all the lines
    that feed into it. They simply are not big enough to contain
    the flow that is going into the system which is handling both
    stormwater and wastewater.
        The hydraulic pressure of all of the flow and the kinds of
    storms we have had is so great, it is popping off the manholes
    shooting them into the air so that we have to bolt them down,
    or else they will shoot and can hurt someone and shooting water
    3 to 4 feet in the air coming out of the system, flooding into
    basements. If we bolt the manholes on top of those pipes, the
    hydraulic pressure in the pipe, that flow has to go somewhere,
    and it causes sewage backups to go back up the pipes to
    businesses and residences.
        Now I have stood in front of the citizens, they are angry
    about this for understandable reasons. We have a solution to
    this problem, and it costs $600 million. You cannot replace one
    little piece of the sewer line anywhere, because it would
    connect to the next line, which would be too narrow. It is like
    trying to expand traffic on the beltway by doing a 200-yard
    addition to the road, then it would hit the next choke point
    and be backed up.
        We have to replace the whole system. It is that kind of
    replacement that is fundamental to the public health, welfare
    and every job in the District, but is not mandated, and it is
    what every system in this country, most of which were built
    when we urbanized America, at least in the Midwest and the east
    coast at the same time this bill is coming due nationwide. But
    that is the context. What our customers want is the system to
    work. That is what delivers every job in every house.
        Second, in comparison to that is the mandates we face.
    Congresswoman Norton had summarized them, I will just be brief,
    one is a $2.6 billion project to build mammoth underground
    tunnels larger than Metro tunnels, which all of you have been
    on, in a gigantic system underground that would take much of
    this flow and transport it down to Blue Plains. We are deep
    into building that project now. It is the largest public
    project in Washington, DC, since Metro underneath our feet.
        A second billion-dollar project to Blue Plains would
    enhance nutrient removal. The District is the only jurisdiction
    in the entire Chesapeake Bay that met the 2000-2010 goals for
    Chesapeake Bay reductions, but that has been because of
    expenditures made at Blue Plains, which is a regional
    expenditure, which is why the support from both Maryland and
    Virginia is important. That is a billion-dollar project.
        Those two projects alone is $3.6 billion of expenditures
    that are mandated. That does not talk about the MS-4, the
    separate storm sewer obligations that are coming, TMDL
    requirements and perhaps, although this is a challenge of what
    is going to be the requirement for every one of those sewer
    lines that go directly to the river, not to our plant, which
    needs to be done.
        Third is the reality of decreasing returns at the scale.
    The way the Clean Water Act is set up, to me one of the most
    successful progressive statutes in the history of government,
    nonetheless, has run into the reality of decreasing returns.
    The law is about eliminating pollutants, the National Pollutant
    Discharge Elimination System is how the permit system is
    identified.
        However, eliminating means that as you eliminate and you
    get to the margin, your costs become logarithmic and start
    firing up the scale for that next incremental improvement. It
    costs $15 to remove a pound of nutrient when we began at Blue
    Plains. Today it costs us $476 per pound of nutrient to
    eliminate nutrients at Blue Plains, and reducing much less for
    the costs.
        So we spent $1 billion to get one-tenth of the protection
    of what we had spent $100 million to do in the past, and that
    is only going to get more expensive at the margin.
        Fourth point is affordability. We are doubling the
    percentage of the low-income residents of the District who are
    unable to pay their bills or stressed by paying their bills due
    to the costs. Now the median household income disguises that
    reality, because as we all know, Washington, DC, is a city of
    two income levels: one that is quite high and one that is quite
    low.
        If you take the median income to evaluate the cost of
    something, you are going to understate what that cost is to
    someone of significant means, and overstate the ability of our
    low-income residents to pay the same costs. When EPA evaluated
    the per capita costs of capital improvements in the country,
    the District of Columbia came up with the highest per capita
    costs.
        We have a very large region. It is important to remember we
    have 130,000 connections in the District. It is not a big city
    itself, and it is those connections that are paying these
    gigantic costs.
        Affordability, I do personally every public outreach
    meeting in the city that we do on our retail rates. I went to
    every ward in the city this spring describing the rates that we
    propose for 2013, which will equal a 50-percent rate increase
    in the 4 years I have been connected to DC Water as general
    manager.
        In two of those meetings, we had to have law enforcement
    called because our citizens were angry. They are angry for two
    reasons: One is they are angry about the cost, the simple
    escalation, even if it seems that it is a good value relative
    to other costs, well, it costs less than a cell phone bill, it
    costs less than a power bill.
        When you have a budget that has been set over time and you
    have designated a portion of that budget to a cost, and that
    one is increasing far faster than inflation, it doesn't matter
    what it costs compared to other things, you have your budget
    when you are on a fixed income, and that budget is being
    exceeded by too many of our residents.
        The other challenge our residents tell us is what about
    those water mains. What about the challenges of the day-to-day
    delivery, and part of our challenge is our funding first goes
    to mandates, and second, to the operational needs.
        I want to point out as a point of fact, in Washington, DC,
    if you take every capital dollar spent in the District for
    District work, school, fire, police, every building, road and
    bridges, $1 in $3, one of every three capital dollars, is spent
    on DC Water projects. That is the scale of what the system is
    delivering.
        In that context, my last thoughts is about the integrated
    plan. It is a very important step forward. We are negotiating
    in the District, as the Congresswoman mentioned, the potential
    opening of our consent decree to allow for green
    infrastructure. There is no question with the leadership of
    Cynthia Giles and Nancy Stoner, and the Regional Administrator
    Shawn Garvin for region 3, we have seen a sea change in the
    negotiations we are undertaking with the Agency in order to
    open that consent decree.
        This is a good change, integrated planning is good,
    although I echo many of the comments you have already heard and
    don't need to repeat them, our ratepayers, many of you, get a
    bill that has water and sewer costs on it, not divided out. So
    the full range of costs is what our ratepayers face.
        But three very specific points: Number one, in order to
    negotiate the opening of our consent decree, I have already
    spent $2 million in the preparation and the analysis and the
    background work necessary to get to the negotiating table. That
    is a very difficult dollar figure to cover, and I will be in
    trouble with my board if we don't actually succeed.
        But there are many jurisdictions that do not have the
    capability even to get to the negotiating table because of the
    level of research and analysis that is necessary to evaluate
    and compare, and to assess all these various programs and
    requirements and put them in a risk-based system. That is a
    detail-intensive and research-intensive effort.
        So one issue I think is very significant and I know funding
    is extremely very difficult, is pilot funding for those
    jurisdictions, particularly with financial limitations, to
    avail themselves of the ability to even get to the negotiating
    table.
        Second is the benefit of permits. Permits last for 5 years,
    consent decrees go for 20 to 25 years. There is no question
    that the consent decree enables a longer period of time, but
    these are in a context that it is a far more rigid negotiation
    because it is within a violation and an enforcement context.
        Expanding the use of permitting compliance schedules beyond
    a 3- or 5-year span to match what you could do in an
    enforcement context would enable far more flexibility in this
    concept, and third is to go back to affordability. The
    affordability challenge to the people who are footing the bill
    is very significant, and we think that the 2 percent is--I am
    not even sure where it comes from, but I am not sure it is
    relevant in assessing the affordability of these kinds of
    changes.
        I do want to emphasize that the integrated planning
    framework is a very strong step in the right direction, and we
    have seen a much better negotiating climate with EPA today, but
    it is expensive and time consuming in order to get to the
    table, and I think many communities need assistance on that
    score. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gibbs. I can tell you are on the frontlines, your
    passion.
        Mr. Vicory, welcome and the floor is yours.
        Mr. Vicory. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
    Gibbs, and subcommittee members.
        George Hawkins is always a hard act to follow, obviously,
    and I am pleased actually in my comments to fundamentally
    reiterate a lot of the testimony that you have heard here this
    morning. Actually, my function within WEF is I am currently
    vice chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, and I need
    to note that this past January, I wrapped up a 24-year career
    as executive director and chief engineer of the Ohio River
    Valley Water Sanitation Commission, ORSANCO, an interstate
    compact agency to abate interstate water pollution in the Ohio
    Valley.
        But on behalf of WEF's 36,000 individual professionals
    working in water quality, we are certainly pleased to be here
    this morning. The local governments, and I think in your
    opening comments, and I think you have acknowledged this, have
    made tremendous investments to improve water quality and
    achieve Clean Water Act compliance over the last 40 years, and
    there has been remarkable success.
        This is about an essential public service that is
    fundamental, as we all know, to public health and maintaining
    our quality of life, but we are all struggling in this economy,
    and as such, it is imperative that local governments invest
    their limited resources wisely to achieve the most significant
    environmental and public health benefits.
        And that is what this framework, we believe, seems to speak
    to, and we are very supportive of it. We have been engaged with
    EPA throughout the development of the framework, and we
    considered it a much-needed first step to provide greater
    flexibility to local governments to balance the need for
    investments in asset management and aging infrastructure with
    other water-related requirements at a pace that is sustainable
    and affordable. Again, themes you have heard already this
    morning.
        Common sense works. This seems to be common sense. Planning
    this locally driven, flexible and voluntary is, we believe, the
    way to go, and an approach that encourages innovation, such as
    green infrastructure, obviously is really where the future
    needs to be.
        But as we have heard in several testimonies this morning,
    we have a policy, we really don't have implementation, and
    there are a lot of questions about that.
        WEF offers six main thought points, if you will, on
    implementation. Regarding adaptive management flexible longer-
    term schedules, we did recommend, WEF recommended that adaptive
    management principles be incorporated in the framework. We have
    that. We need to assure that it is actually implemented, and
    that is implemented through allowing permits, and to the extent
    we have enforcement of those on the books to be reopened. If
    circumstances or technologies change to provide the opportunity
    to identify, evaluate and select new projects, incorporate
    innovative solutions and make changes to ongoing projects and
    implementation schedules.
        Technology is moving like I have never seen it in my
    lifetime, so we need to find ways to get these emerging
    technologies out on the street to the benefit of all of us.
    Supporting States and making the integrated planning process
    available to all is an important thing. There are obstacles
    within EPA's policy. The Agency needs to zero in on those and
    address them to free up this new approach that we are all
    supporting here this morning.
        We need to assure that utilities are not turned away that
    want to pursue this. George spoke quite well to the resources
    he has to deal with things. A lot of communities do not have
    the resources they have. And, really, this speaks to the idea
    of some level of reasonable funding to prompt and stimulate, if
    you will, the implementation of these approaches and to
    demonstrate that the principles here indeed work, and then I
    think you will see a lot more communities jumping forward, if
    you will, and wanting to go with the integrated planning
    approach.
        We have heard a lot also about enforcement versus
    permitting. We are very clear, I believe, as an association, a
    federation, that regulators need to use their discretion to
    utilize a nonjudicial implementation approach. Permits provide
    the flexibility. We can write over the permit renewal process,
    long-term plans in those permits and, again, enforcement really
    needs to be the last resort.
        Imposition of fines and penalties, if we cannot eliminate
    them, we need to minimize them. The reality is that enforcement
    creates a counterproductive stigma at a time when local
    governments need public support to raise the rates in order to
    do what they need to do.
        And the importance, I think, spoken by the Mayor of Lima,
    that local governments need to be treated as partners, almost
    as clients, if you will, versus polluters, if you will, or
    even, as I have heard early this morning, criminals.
        We would agree the permit does not--excuse me, the
    integrated planning process does not go far enough to address
    the affordability issue facing local governments. We certainly
    want to confirm that thought. And the need to consider, for EPA
    to consider other economic indicators other than the 2 percent
    median household income. I think you have heard here this
    morning that that analysis approach really is not truly the
    right economic analysis approach for lower income communities.
        You know, at the end of the day, this is about moving an
    environmental needle. Water quality improvements must be the
    gauge of success, not necessarily a reduction of flow volume,
    this is about are we achieving environmental improvements, are
    we moving that needle, and that is really the cost-benefit
    approach that we need to pursue, and I think that the
    integrated planning process really begins finally to speak to
    that, to allow communities to have that flexibility.
        Innovation, and there is a lot of talk about innovation,
    innovation also is risk. And when you take innovation and risk,
    some efforts will be successful, some will be spectacularly
    successful, and some will probably not be successful. But not
    supporting innovation, I think, is probably a least desirable
    outcome than supporting innovation and creating the progress
    that innovation provides and we need to be open, if you will,
    to try and experiment and understand that if something didn't
    quite work, then let's not necessarily move to an enforcement
    mode, because enforcement mode basically shuts down all the
    opportunities that we have before us.
        WEF stands ready to work with our members, to help support
    the implementation of this framework. We will pursue
    educational and opportunities, including considering the needs
    of small and medium-sized communities who may benefit from the
    integrated planning process. So my conclusion, as we embark, as
    we all embark on the next 40 years of the Clean Water Act, let
    us strive to use this framework as a springboard for
    collaboration and partnership to find the best, most innovative
    and cost-effective solutions to achieve water quality
    improvement without saddling our communities with unnecessary
    debt and imposing a financial burden that is unsustainable.
        I look at this as an amazing opportunity to literally shift
    our paradigm in how we do things. This is an opportunity that I
    hope we cannot--we all cannot, we just cannot afford, in my
    view, for their to really fail and not be successful. We
    commend EPA for listening to local governments, and we look
    forward to working with all stakeholders on the implementation
    to realize our shared goals of protecting human health and
    improving water quality.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and
    some of us are wearing this little button here that has a very
    simple saying, a campaign sponsored by WEF, and it says
    ``Water's Worth It,'' water is worth it.
        Thank you for your time.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, thank you for all the testimony. It
    has been great and very formative.
        I will start off the questions with just a couple of
    thoughts. It seems like there is a common theme. One is you
    need flexibility, affordability issue, issue versus enforcement
    versus permitting, the consent decrees. You could go on, but
    integrated plans, and the exclusion, it seems like I am hearing
    that it should be all-inclusive, not, you know, groundwater,
    drinking water.
        And I guess my first question, I will just throw it out to
    the panel, we talk about the affordability since that seems to
    be the major concern, the 2 percent. Do you see the EPA
    addressing each project, or, you know, if it is wastewater,
    combined sewer, whatever, it is separate silos instead of--it
    seems like if you have an integrated plan you have to got to
    have it all together, so that would affect the affordability, I
    think, formula.
        Does anybody want to expound on that, where you see the
    EPA, the folks, how they address that versus trying to do it
    integrated? Does anybody want to take a stab at it?
        Mr. Berger. Mr. Chairman, certainly the process, up till
    now, has been very much a siloed approach, and I think the
    hope, the promise of integrated planning has been that that
    would be cured by an overall look at the total costs of
    compliance and the priority setting within that.
        I would argue at the same time that unless there is a
    budget cap, you are not really setting priorities. What you are
    doing is merely scheduling. Priorities get set when you can
    decide what it is you can fund and what you cannot.
        My community, we have gone from 530 employees to 350. I no
    longer have a secretary, and I no longer have a chief of staff.
    That is setting priorities, because we have decided to fund
    police officers and firemen. The same thing needs to happen, it
    seems to me, within integrated planning. It can't just be a
    matter of all the obligations simply being lined up on a
    schedule and lower priorities still have to be addressed. There
    truly has to be a containment of costs.
        Once you have established a cost cap, once you have been
    able to define what it is that can be afforded with local,
    limited resources, then priority setting has a meaning.
        I also want to, I guess, contrast what is, I think, the
    progressive taxation methodology that all of us in local
    governments in Ohio, where we have an income tax or States or
    Federal Governments, essentially is based upon an ability to
    pay.
        When we set rates, however, that has nothing to do with the
    ability to pay. A rich person pays the same amount for a drink
    of water as a poor person does. A rich person flushes the
    toilet, and the service and service user fee that is charged
    for that service is the same as a poor household.
        So when these costs associated with the mandates are levied
    across the board, the fact is, is that our rate base and rules
    that govern our ability to set those rates, in fact, impose
    enormous devastating charges on the poor.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK.
        Mr. Berger. It also becomes an enormous problem for
    economic development as well.
        Mr. Portune. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Go ahead.
        Mr. Portune. I would like to echo the Mayor's comments and
    interject an additional thought with respect to the
    affordability question. But clearly, what is missing is balance
    in the discussion, that the 2 percent, the affordability issue,
    all of us in urban issues struggle with that greatly because we
    all are losing the middle class, the middle class is going by
    the wayside and we have the very rich and the very poor.
        And the 2 percent median income approach does not take into
    consideration the undue burden that is placed on a growing
    majority of our residents in urban communities, number one.
        Number two, there has got to be a way to interject
    prioritization into this. I referenced it as an issue of
    balance, where is the balance? When my budget has gone down for
    all county services by over 30 percent in the last 5 years
    because of declining revenues, when I am laying off 1,500
    individuals, when we have cut human services by 50 percent with
    a 40-percent increase in demand, but yet, we have to raise
    rates to do everything in terms of Clean Water Act compliance
    from the number one priority to the least priority, when I am
    spending $200 million total on all county operations, and $380
    million on my sewer-related obligations, there is no balance.
    And there has got to be some balance interjected into the
    equation.
        The third issue, quickly, and that is that the median
    income issue, the 2 percent, is also driving third-party
    lawsuits because there is a focus on that as driving what
    communities can or can't do without regard to the legitimate
    reality of affordability. And so as long as that is in the
    equation it, the unintended consequence is that it is serving
    as fuel on the fire of third-party lawsuits.
        Mr. Gibbs. My time is up. I just want a quick follow up on
    this. When you go over the 2 percent threshold, does the EPA
    back off on the, you know, on the enforcement or going after
    you, or are you saying that also opens up a third-party lawsuit
    issue? Can you expound a little bit?
        Mr. Portune. In our case, in Hamilton County, we had an
    approved consent decree in 2004. And then we were sued by the
    Sierra Club.
        And part what we were sued over was the question that we
    weren't doing enough quickly enough, and the affordability
    issue was front and center, part of their argument of why they
    intervened in our federally approved consent decree. That then
    resulted in a revised consent decree.
        But it was stressing and focusing on the 2 percent and
    whether we were meeting that across the board without regard to
    how many individuals in the city of Cincinnati, for example,
    lived in poverty, how many people were going over that in terms
    of annual income as opposed to a median income, it was a major
    determiner in the challenges that were lodged against our
    consent decree by that third party.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Chairman, I will frame the issue in a particular way, I am
    going to frame it in a way that I think is very similar.
        It seems to me that we have a huge problem and we have two
    principal solutions, not the only solution, but two principal
    solutions. And one is to adopt a process or a framework that
    emphasizes integrated planning, that emphasizes flexibility,
    that emphasizes prioritization. And I think there is near
    unanimity among the panel, not perhaps total unanimity, that
    the EPA guidelines set forth in the memorandum of June 5
    represents a very good step in the right direction.
        I don't think any reasonable person would argue that this
    is all we need to do or that the framework is perfect, but that
    it does represent a good first step and that we now have, in
    the framework or the process is now 5 weeks old or 6 weeks old,
    we now have, I think, the opportunity to see it put in place,
    see how it evolves and, you know, it is incumbent on this
    committee and incumbent on the EPA and incumbent on all of the
    stakeholders to assess whether or not it is having its intended
    outcomes, and then we all need to be prepared, I think, to
    respond in appropriate ways, if it is working, and certainly if
    it isn't working.
        A second piece is the financing, and I think that there is,
    again, unanimity among the panel that the financing piece of it
    is crucial, and that the framework piece can only take us so
    far.
        Now, the framework piece represents a new approach. We also
    need a new approach to financing, and I--you know, I talked in
    my opening statement about our bill, H.R. 3145. And I will
    note, I know that there is a lot of Ohio guys out here, and I
    will note that my principal Republican cosponsor is Congressman
    LaTourette of Ohio. This is a bipartisan bill that I really
    think has some promise.
        Again, is it the only answer? No, it does not. But it does
    have some real promise. And so I am hopeful in hopeful that in
    the same way that the EPA has undertaken a new approach, that
    the Congress will now undertake a new approach and exercise a
    suite of options that such is what my bill provides. But, Mr.
    Berger, you raised the issue of funding and particularly the
    issue of more grant funding.
        I think it is instructive that we just look at the last
    couple of years of where this Congress has gone. Fiscal year
    2009 we enacted $4.7 billion in funding for the SRF, $4.7
    billion; fiscal year 2010 it dropped to $2.1 billion; fiscal
    year 2011 it dropped to $1.5 billion; fiscal year 2012 it
    dropped to $1.4 billion; and the House Appropriations Committee
    passed the appropriations bill for the Interior and the
    Environment, and it drops that number to $690 million.
        So we are going in the wrong direction here, and we are
    exacerbating a problem that all of you on the ground are trying
    to resolve. And so as we go forward with the, I mean, the
    mantra here is cut spending, the mantra here is we can't afford
    it, the mantra here is that we can't possibly increase revenue.
        That drop, from $4.7 billion to $690 million, that is the
    manifestation of those mantras. And so at some point, we are
    going to need voices of reason to say we have got some real
    problems in this country, and we are going to have to start to
    address them.
        Now with that, I will get off my soap box and I want to ask
    Mr. Hawkins, NACWA put out a press release back in '09 in which
    it sort of, it spoke positively about a GAO report that
    suggested that a Clean Water Trust Fund was something that we
    should be doing, and it put out some potential means of
    funding, a Clean Water Trust Fund. And in the NACWA press
    release it said that fees potentially, underline the word
    ``potentially,'' could be placed on such things as bottled
    beverages, flushable products, pesticides, agricultural
    chemicals and pharmaceuticals.
        Would you, representing NACWA, not so much the city of
    Washington, DC, would you comment on the relative desirability
    or the lack thereof of those potential funding sources?
        Mr. Hawkins. Sure, and I will get to you, on the comment
    you made on funding, I think there is a bridge between the two
    points you made, when you asked the question of how integrated
    planning can help with EPA working in silos, I have been an EPA
    enforcement lawyer and have ran a State agency.
        Remember that this policy only comes into to play when the
    municipality or the authority comes forward. So it doesn't mean
    EPA is issuing anything differently unless a municipality is
    prepared to do the background work to come forward with the
    integrated plan.
        And what I can tell you is all that we are seeking to do
    with DC Water is to open up one of them, which is the long-term
    control plan for combined sewers, and that is what has cost us
    $2 million in prep work to be able to prepare the information
    and the analysis needed.
        The cost, just to get to the table to see whether the
    integrated--you start comparing a combined sewer overflow
    challenge to a sanitary sewer overflow issue, to an MS-4,
    comparing the health risk to them and the engineering costs, it
    is an enormously complex matrix that I am glad EPA has opened
    the door to. But separate from the big one, we like H.R. 3145,
    I applaud the proposal, but there is somewhere in between that
    most places aren't even going to be able to get to the table on
    integrated planning because of the costs--just to get there,
    and do the analysis.
        On your second question on costs, on particular products,
    it is like a toll that if you use the road, you pay the cost to
    help update the road. As you know, in the city, we have a 5-
    cent cost on every plastic bag that has been used, a very
    similar concept. We raise that money and use it to reduce
    nonpoint source pollution along the Anacostia.
        What we found is that plastic bag use has dropped
    precipitously, because people are making different choices. It
    is a classic economic principle. Put the cost on that item
    which you are handling in the process, you have internalized
    that cost, classic economics, then the cost is borne in the
    product to the consumer. Likely the consumer will use less of
    it because they will start making different decisions, and you
    had a revenue stream in order to help pay for the cleaning of
    that product when it is used.
        So I personally favor it. I would have to go back and
    connect with NACWA to make sure that our thinking hasn't
    changed, but that the concept of intaking the cost of handling
    a waste stream and putting it inside the cost to the consumer,
    both will drive better consumer choices and raise revenue to be
    able to clean up those issues when they come to our facility.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. My time has expired, Mr.
    Speaker.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Berger. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, a comment. The U.S.
    Conference of Mayors adopted in 2011 unanimously, Resolution
    43, which pertains to CSO and SSO policy, and it was a very
    simple kind of assertion. Either provide 50 percent of the
    funding in the form of grants for our obligations at the local
    level or give us relief. Loans don't help us. Loans are debt
    that have to be paid back.
        I can borrow all kinds of money at incredible rates right
    now, but I can't pay for it.
        So SRF and all of those authorizations, they aren't yet
    appropriations, don't help us if it is just a debt to be paid
    by the rest of my community forever.
        Either it is relief or cash. That is what we need, and
    thus, it is a pretty simple choice. If these are unfunded
    mandates, and what you are hearing from local communities and
    from districts all across the country is we can't do it, we
    don't have printing presses like the Federal Government, the
    local pocketbook is very finite.
        So if the Congress has passed these as mandates and orders
    for us to execute, then you must join us to pay for it. If the
    cash isn't there, or the political will isn't there, then
    relief must come, and it has to come soon.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes. I think we all understand that, and I think
    right now we are trying to maybe figure out some relief by
    having the integrated permit process and maybe helping the cost
    side to streamline some things, so but you are right, we have
    huge infrastructure issues that we are facing here and we are
    trying to address that, so I appreciate your comments. Mr.
    Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very
    important hearing, and I was present for the earlier hearing
    when we heard from the mayor of Omaha, and we heard from
    Indianapolis, as Mayor Berger said, we have heard from cities
    and counties all over the country saying they can't afford
    this, and that was a very eloquent, articulate plea you just
    made, Mayor Berger.
        And it seems to me this process is being controlled or
    governed by people who I am sure don't think of themselves as
    extremists or fanatics, but they are sure not being reasonable,
    and they are going to end up hurting a lot of poor and lower
    income and working people in the process.
        Commissioner Portune said that his area is losing the
    middle class. Three of my dad's sisters moved to Cincinnati
    when they were young from Tennessee. I probably had as many
    relatives in Ohio at one point as I had in Tennessee.
        But I read a lot of this testimony, and the Mayor of Peoria
    submitted this in writing, he said, EPA is still asking the
    citizens of Peoria to spend to the limits of affordability,
    even if spending more money will not result in meaningful water
    quality improvements. As noted above, the EPA wants Peoria to
    eliminate as many CSOs as it can afford to eliminate, even
    though the additional CSOs eliminated by going from the city's
    $90 million plan to EPA's suggested plan that we estimate will
    cost almost $500 million, will not result in any meaningful
    water quality improvements because water quality standards
    would be met fully under the city's plan.
        If Peoria has to spend more than five times as much as they
    can afford and they were planning to spend, then the citizens'
    rates are going to have to go up by five times. And a lot of
    people can't afford that, and a lot of cities can't afford it.
    I heard Mayor Berger talk about the people he has already laid
    off going from, what, 530 to 350--what was it?
        Mr. Berger. 350.
        Mr. Duncan. I am sure that was a painful thing for you to
    will center to lay off all those people. And just last week in
    Tennessee, the Chattanooga, the big Chattanooga newspaper, the
    Times Free Press had this story, it starts off, ``The U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of
    Justice are expected to file a consent decree Tuesday ordering
    Chattanooga to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on repairs
    to the city's sewer system,'' and this is in spite of, they had
    already spent $100 million a few years earlier.
        The city of Knoxville, where I am from, had spent mega
    millions through the 1990s and the early 2000s on our system
    there. Then in 2005, we had to enter into a $530 million
    consent decree, and I am told that the Conference of Mayors, I
    am told that the EPA is foot dragging about the total cost
    estimate, but that the Conference of Mayors says this is going
    to cost hundreds of billions to cities all across this country
    that there is something like 100 or over 100 cities under
    consent decrees at this time.
        And I heard Mr. Hawkins talk about, he says in his
    testimony, the regulations continue to expand, so too have
    enforcement actions, and he says, costing individual
    communities billions of dollars often to meet a single CWA
    requirement. Recently, municipal clean water agencies were also
    hit with a stringent reinterpretation of the Clean Air Act,
    which, if not overturned, will force enormous costs on
    communities, and this is all coming at a time when the cities
    are in trouble anyway economically, because of the economy and
    because of various other factors.
        And, yet, everybody on this panel, and everybody on the
    earlier panel, when we had this hearing a few months ago,
    everybody wants clean water. They want it to be as clean as
    possible. But we have to have a little--we need to have a
    little balance and common sense in here. And we can't, we can't
    please, we can never please the fanatics and the radicals and
    the extremists. But we have got to try to have a little
    moderation and a little reasonableness in regard to these
    requirements, or we are going to really hurt cities and
    counties all over this country.
        And, as I have said at the start, we are especially going
    to hurt a lot of poor and lower income and working people.
    Maybe some of these officials who are cramming all this stuff
    down, as maybe with their higher incomes, they can afford this
    and it won't hurt them, but it is sure going to hurt a lot of
    people across this country if we don't get a little moderation
    and balance in what we are attempting to do.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hawkins, I
    have to thank you again for making sewers exciting enough to
    draw the general interest of the public.
        And I must say, I found your summary and your vivid
    explanation important, and you come, of course, from the
    District of Columbia. But in many ways, what you describe is
    emblematic of what is facing, as my good friend on the other
    side says, small towns and big cities like DC alike.
        Now, you know, when they call the cops on you, when you
    announce a 50-percent increase, I know you feel you are caught
    between a rock and a hard place. You mentioned the diminishing
    returns on investment for nutrient removal, and you made us
    understand why.
        On the other hand, look where you are located. You are
    located not only in the Nation's Capital, but in the region of
    the iconic Chesapeake Bay. And part of that mandate has to do
    with improving the Bay's water quality. You said, I think you
    said that the District was the only part of the Bay region that
    met its goals, the Chesapeake Bay goals. Is that true?
        Mr. Hawkins. That is correct, essentially because the only
    major contributor to nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay from the
    District is Blue Plains, and Blue Plains met its goal. So there
    are other facilities that have met their goals, but for whole
    States that have lots of sources of pollutants, they have not
    as a total.
        Ms. Norton. I see. I see. Now, what we are dealing with
    here is essentially are competing priorities, and the public
    wants both, and the public never wants the kinds of costs you
    are getting now.
        Do you see any way to continue along the road you are going
    without placing an increasingly oppressive burden on
    ratepayers? And if you envision that the burden that you have
    encountered, you say in only 4 years, a 50-percent increase, do
    you envision that kind of increase in the future, and if you
    envision anything like it, I would like you to suggest what
    EPA, consistent with its priority as well, and, remember, I
    have set this question up in light of competing priorities,
    what EPA can do.
        I understand, for example, that for districts like ours,
    which have a consent decree, they have increased, I don't know
    if they have done this for the District of Columbia, they are
    either considering or have decreased the number of years that a
    jurisdiction have. Would that have an effect if it is increased
    from 20 to 25 years. Has that happened?
        What else could happen when you know that the Congress is
    not about to come to the rescue, your taxpayers can't afford to
    come to the rescue, and yet there are priorities having to do
    with clean water and with your rivers and streams.
        Given the way that you are locked in, and the way the EPA
    may feel it is locked in by some of these consent decrees, what
    do you suggest could be done to at least bring, lower the rate
    of increase, of these increases?
        Mr. Hawkins. It is certainly the question of the day. There
    is no doubt we have done at DC Water a 20-year projection of
    budgets and rates. Obviously we could only project that part
    into the future with the requirements that we can envision
    today, and the history of the system is that there are many new
    requirements that come in over time.
        Ms. Norton. But is that based on your consent decree, 20-
    year time limit?
        Mr. Hawkins. No, we just did this because we wanted to have
    a financial picture for the enterprise. We do 10 years every
    year, a 10-year rolling financial plan. We extended it out 20
    years just because I wanted to see a picture, and we see
    significant rate increases every single year for 20 years, not
    always double digit, but close to double digit that will yield
    far in advance of inflation so your initial part of your
    question is do we see these increases as far as we can plan
    into the future, we see increases faster than the rate of
    inflation.
        Ms. Norton. OK, if that is unsustainable, given the
    constraints on all concerned, should we increase the number of
    years to comply, we know what that will do, of course, to
    nutrients on the Chesapeake Bay and the rest of it, but
    something has got to give. And what kinds of relief do you see
    as practical?
        Mr. Hawkins. I think there are three kinds of relief. One
    is, the extension as you said, EPA and Department of Justice
    has been forthcoming. There is Atlanta, and Seattle, and
    Philadelphia, there have been new approaches taken to these
    solutions. One of the challenges is opening up existing consent
    decrees, where flexibility has been most possible is where
    there isn't yet a consent decree in place yet, so you
    negotiated adaptive management from the beginning. It seems far
    harder for communities that stepped up sooner and more quickly
    to reopen those decisions and incorporate modified compliance
    schedules, but I think that part of the equation is a longer
    period of time to conduct the work so that financial components
    can be extended on the pocketbook.
        A second question is how you get equity on the sources of
    pollutants. You are correct that we are reducing the nutrients
    at Blue Plains. The challenge is that over time, the percentage
    of nutrients going into the Chesapeake Bay from the big urban
    wastewater treatment plants has declined dramatically because
    we have been successful. We know that if we----
        Ms. Norton. And somehow that ought to be rewarded.
        Mr. Hawkins. And the way it is rewarded, and we are proud
    of it, and we have stepped forward and every community at this
    table has done a lot to protect the waters of the system. But
    what we know if we decrease nutrients from Blue Plains to zero,
    the Chesapeake Bay wouldn't be remarkably cleaned up because we
    are no longer the major source.
        The major sources are the nonpoint source, the runoff from
    other sources way out in the hinterlands of the Chesapeake Bay.
    So I think one of the challenges that we faced is that the
    Clean Water Act wasn't fundamentally written with those sources
    in mind.
        I grew up in Ohio, in Cleveland. I visited the Cuyahoga
    River in 1969 and looked at it in the year where it burned for
    a week, so I know the problem that we were trying to resolve. I
    wrote a letter to President Nixon that year saying that, as did
    everyone in my class, that we had to clean up that problem. It
    should not stand.
        The law was written to solve pollutants from point sources,
    whether industry or municipal treatment facilities. It is very
    unclear, and EPA is struggling with it, but to get parallel
    reductions from what are now the prevailing sources of
    pollutants for nutrients into the water bodies is a much more
    difficult challenge. And if you look at where the money is
    being spent, it is being spent disproportionately on urban
    populations or those that send waste to a treatment facility,
    rather than those that flow directly to the river.
        Ms. Norton. But you feel mandated to continue to invest in
    the technology that goes after smaller and smaller increments?
        Mr. Hawkins. We are absolutely mandated to do that. We will
    meet those requirements. The hard core reality of every system
    at this table is that we meet the mandates where we don't spend
    the money on that trunk line on Florida Avenue, which causes
    the flooding in our city, which is what the citizens really are
    desperate----
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, could just ask one more question.
    I would like to know if you wanted to do a pilot on green
    technology, you are now spending billions of dollars on these
    huge tunnels that is 20th-century technology. We understand why
    it is being used, tests that it is approved. Do you believe
    that green technology would significantly lower the increases
    you are encountering and have you any evidence to support that
    notion?
        Mr. Hawkins. I am not yet convinced. The reason we are
    seeking to open our consent decree to do a pilot in the
    District is we are not certain about what the costs are likely
    to be. We are not saying to any of the stakeholders that we are
    likely to save a lot of money if we use low-impact development,
    because it is quite expensive to be doing a dispersed low-
    impact system that is broad enough to contain that much
    stormwater. We do think, however, that the multiple benefits
    that come from the expenditure, when you are doing work that
    affects the surface of the city, the city streets, the air
    quality, the stormwater retention that otherwise causes the
    direct flooding, the jobs, the long-term jobs, you cannot
    outsource jobs that have to be maintained for a city street.
        The job creation in the city, the multiple benefits that
    come from a low-impact development far exceed those of the
    tunnel. We are not certain yet that it actually will save
    money. That is why we want to do the pilot to get in hand
    measurable costs that we can then model to a full-scale
    implementation.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gibbs. Mrs. Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very interesting
    conversations. I also come from a small city, past mayor, so I
    understand some of the local frustrations. And I also sat on a
    sanitation board that dealt with the water recycling and the
    landfills and the utilization of new technology to be able to
    cut the costs down of the delivery of service to the
    ratepayers.
        Mr. Becker, in the West, we do have a unique set of water
    challenges, and recent reports have shown our water supply is
    diminishing while the demand is increasing. Population
    continues to increase, at least in California.
        How will you, as Mayor of Salt Lake City, are reintegrating
    reuse and recycling into your city's water planning efforts?
        Mr. Becker. Thank you. Increasingly in our city and in our
    region we are tapping every conceivable means that we can to
    use water efficiently.
        Mrs. Napolitano. How? Specifics.
        Mr. Becker. We are doing a whole variety of things. Part of
    it is institutional. Part of it is us coordinating our water,
    part of it using our groundwater supply. But we know there are
    limits there. As we are seeing climate change, we are having to
    adapt in our watersheds to our water supply system.
        We are increasingly--we have changed our rate structure. We
    have gone to a declining block, we have gone to an inverted
    block system where the more water you use now, the more water
    you pay for. We have reduced our water use in the last 5 years
    by more than 20 percent in Salt Lake City just by changing our
    rate structure, by educating our community, and by offering
    incentives for people to change their landscaping and their
    water use and irrigation habits as well.
        So we find that we can do a lot to improve, certainly, our
    water systems. But as has been mentioned here, this is a
    problem that we face really for all of us.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Especially Western States.
        Mr. Becker. Certainly in the Western States, where as you
    know we are the second most arid State, we rely so heavily on
    using our water well, and we are intent on continuing to do
    that and improve our efficiencies. But we really need
    congressional action as well. This just can't happen by us
    working locally and trying to work with our EPA.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And your water smart investments.
        Mr. Becker. I am sorry.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And your water smart investments?
        Mr. Becker. Continually. Whether it is in simple things
    like metering, whether it is in our irrigation systems within
    our city, for our parks, we are continually investing and
    making major investments on water issues.
        Mrs. Napolitano. One of the things you mentioned to us is
    climate change, and that was a big bugaboo word around here. It
    is happening, and I think many States are beginning to wonder
    how they are going to be able to deal with the next cycle of
    drought. And then, of course, rains and floods and all that
    will other good stuff.
        What about groundwater, your aquifers? What is the status
    and have you worked with USGS? And how are things being the
    able to store it, because as the drought continues, the heat
    that is going through the United States is evaporating a lot of
    the surface water. Have you looked at, are you looking at being
    able to identify your aquifers and what the status is and be
    able to recharge?
        Mr. Becker. We have. Thank you. Groundwater is essential
    for us, we have a very good sense of our groundwater system in
    our valley, coming out of our mountains and our recharge areas,
    and protecting those recharge areas is essential, making sure
    we don't tap too much of our groundwater is essential too,
    because the Great Salt Lake will start to move towards and
    interfere with the water we can use for potable water.
        So we know how much water we have. We are tapping it
    extensively, but if we overtap it, we are going to face dire
    consequences in terms of the water supply.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Overdrafting is a problem, isn't it?
        Mr. Baker, same question but the broader statewide
    perspective, and can you discuss how in the area west in the
    State of Utah you are dealing with decreased water availability
    and increasing demand, and how will integrated planning help
    your efforts in Utah?
        Mr. Baker. Well, I think one thing we need to do is
    integrate this wet weather discussion that we are having for
    the NPDES permits, with groundwater, which is not a federally
    permitted authority, and with drinking water.
        When I get back to my office tomorrow I will have sitting
    on my desk the first integrated plan to be submitted by a
    community in Utah. It is not a wastewater treatment plant
    issue, it is not a wet weather issue, but it is a water quality
    issue resulting from water that is coming out of a mine that is
    heavily laden with metals, and those metals are causing
    problems, according to the TMDL we did. This really becomes a
    water quality issue, so we need to have a broader perspective
    of this. It is not wet weather, it is not wastewater treatment
    plants, it is not just combined sewer, but it is water quality.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Which mine might that be, sir?
        Mr. Baker. Pardon me.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Which mine might that be?
        Mr. Baker. Well, it is outside of Park City, and so we are
    going to need to figure out how to deal with this. And just to
    answer another question that Congresswoman Norton had, well,
    how do we do this?
        One thing, we struggle with nutrients in Utah and we don't
    struggle with wet weather. Mayor Becker mentioned Utah is the
    second driest State in the country. Wet weather is a blessing,
    not a curse. But this nutrient issue is ubiquitous across the
    country. What we are planning on doing with our nutrient issue,
    and this will help, I think, address some of the cost issues,
    is we are not going to go full throttle from the very
    beginning.
        We are going to do an incremental approach and have an
    adaptive management approach that will allow us to gauge the
    success and benefits of nutrient removal in a cost-effective
    way. The Jordan River bisects Mayor Becker's city, runs the
    lengths of the city. Most of the wastewater generated in the
    State of Utah flows down that river and ultimately into the
    Great Salt Lake.
        For a little over a dollar a month per user, we will be
    able to eliminate two-thirds of the phosphorus loading that
    goes into that river and ultimately to the Great Salt Lake that
    is causing problems. And then we will take a step back and see
    if that is good enough, or if we need to go to the next step.
        So this adaptive management approach I think is going to be
    a key element in making integrated planning successful, and
    without breaking the bank.
        Mrs. Napolitano. One of the questions that was answered by
    Mr. Hawkins deals with the source, the prevailing source. We
    found in California that a lot of this comes from industry,
    from agriculture, that is contaminating some of our water.
    California gets three sources of water, southern California.
    Northern California provides us with the Bay Delta, which right
    now is a big issue in California. And then one is the Colorado
    River and the other is groundwater. And somehow we are trying
    to wean ourselves off of imported water by doing more
    recycling, conservation, education and desalination.
        Now, any of those areas we need to be able to get
    assistance, because as you have pointed out, many of the cities
    are too small to be able to know how to navigate all the
    paperwork that is necessary and be able to be successful
    without hiring attorneys, consultants and things that they
    cannot afford. So somehow we need to be able to understand that
    for the smaller communities. However, the larger communities
    also have a problem. So somehow we need to be able to take all
    of this into consideration.
        However, I have not heard anybody say anything about what
    about our Native Americans? What about their water, which
    sometimes they truck it in to be able to provide drinking water
    for the reservations. Those are issues that sometimes we don't
    talk about, and I think we need to be able to concern ourselves
    with all Americans, not just those that fall in the communities
    that are incorporated but all the unincorporated and tribal
    areas.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back and I hope to be able to
    get some answers later on. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs. Representative Edwards, do you have any
    questions?
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    of our witnesses.
        I have just a couple of questions. I think there is no
    question we all know all across the country that we have huge
    infrastructure needs, we have no money, and we are running the
    risk--I live in Maryland, and maybe I can drink some clean
    water there, but I could go someplace else and it not be clean.
    And I don't think that any of us want to be in that place. We
    have all traveled to countries where you can drink water in one
    city, but you better make sure to take your bottled water in
    another city. That is not the United States and we don't want
    that.
        The problem, at least one of the challenges, is how do you
    finance all of the infrastructure? When you start telling
    customers that we have infrastructure that dates back to the
    beginning of the last century, and we have got to change that
    and it is going to cost billions of dollars, and at the end of
    the day, they know at least some of that, most of it, probably
    all of it, is going to have to come out of their pockets, no
    one wants to do that.
        The same thing happens, we just had a major storm here in
    the metropolitan area, and we know that we have deep needs for
    electrical infrastructure, and nobody wants to pay for that
    because it costs a lot of money. The Federal Government, I
    think, has to be a real partner there, but that is still
    taxpayer money.
        We heard from a couple of our witnesses, and I can
    understand this, that at a local level, because of those huge
    financial constraints, that it also means that some of our
    small cities, and I have about 20-some of them, little
    municipalities that also have infrastructure needs, and they
    can't afford it.
        So I wonder if any of you can talk about the integrated
    permitting process as a way to facilitate consideration of
    innovative financial approaches to financing the
    infrastructure. I would note that in a recent analysis of green
    water infrastructure in Philadelphia, it actually showed that a
    stormwater fee that was combined with a credit for managing
    water onsite could yield about $400 million in private
    investment opportunity.
        So, if you have some ideas about it, I would appreciate
    your sharing them with the committee.
        Mr. Becker. Mr. Chairman, if I may, members of the
    committee and Congresswoman Edwards, there is a real practical
    solution that can help us get there within the integrated
    planning process.
        Our coalition has proposed a 15- to 20-community pilot
    demonstration project approach on an annual basis for the next
    5 years within the context of the integrated planning
    framework, where EPA is leading the process.
        The showcase community approach that exists today places
    all of the financial burden of developing new ideas, of seeing
    if the alternative approaches work, in determining whether
    creative approaches to this solution, financial, capital,
    infrastructure, green infrastructure, green build, otherwise
    will work. The burden is still all on the local communities to
    take the risk, financially and otherwise. And if what we choose
    doesn't work, not only are we out the money, but we are still
    facing mandates and we are still facing enforcement and the
    like.
        We need EPA to lead on this process. We want EPA to lead.
    And I will admit that there has been a sea change in the
    approach in our own interaction with the EPA and the like. But
    EPA's approach to showcase communities is still saying let's
    look at the examples where local communities have found
    something that has worked, and let's showcase that. Well, you
    still have to have enough money and enough resources and access
    to expertise and time to be able to make that work, and the
    majority of the communities, and the last count I heard was
    there were 781 communities nationwide that are facing this
    issue at one level or another, the vast majority don't have the
    ability to do that.
        We need EPA to lead in partnering with us, to bring their
    expertise to the table, to help show local communities what the
    answers are, or to allow us to explore alternatives without
    risk of loss or further risk of enforcement for having chosen
    the wrong approach if it turns out that it doesn't work. We
    need to develop these alternatives over the next 5 years to
    make them work.
        Ms. Edwards. I appreciate that. Let me just reclaim my time
    because I would like to hear a response from Mr. Hawkins and
    your view about what it is that we could do to use some
    innovation.
        Mr. Hawkins. On the financing side, we do, in fact, in the
    District, have an impervious area charge like Philadelphia. One
    of the other things we have done in the District is create a
    sustainable energy utility, which is something you could also
    perhaps do on the water side, which it does need an upfront
    investment to capitalize the utility. Then you make
    investments, particularly on the drinking water side, where
    then you can save money on reduced consumption. The saved money
    pays back the utility to help fund the next project. And if the
    private sector brings in half, so you do sharing, then the
    dollars that you put into the utility, the sustainable utility,
    whether it is water or energy, can be sustained and grow.
        The impervious area charge is the largest and fastest
    growing--not the largest, but the fastest growing part of our
    bill by far, because it is exclusively covering the $2.6
    billion project. We haven't created it yet like Philadelphia,
    but creating an incentive that if you do more to manage
    stormwater on your property, you pay less of an impervious
    charge. That is another way where there is an incentive for
    someone to reduce their bill by doing something that actually
    reduces the stormwater and can cleanse it at the same time. So
    both of those are innovative approaches that do work.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I want to thank the first panel. It
    was excellent testimony. I want to move on to the second panel,
    because I think that is where we really need to have some
    focus. Hopefully we will be done before votes at 1 o'clock.
    Thank you again for taking your time to come and give this very
    important testimony.
        At this time our second panelists can come up to the table.
    Welcome to the committee. First off I want to thank you for
    being here for the past 2 hours and listening to the first
    testimony, because hopefully it was beneficial to you in your
    role and your responsibilities as you administer the Clean
    Water Act.
        Our second panel, we have Ms. Nancy Stoner. She is the
    acting assistant administrator for the Office of Water for the
    United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Ms. Cynthia
    Giles, the assistant administrator for the Office of
    Enforcement and Compliance of the United States EPA.

     TESTIMONY OF NANCY K. STONER, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
    OFFICE OF WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
         AND CYNTHIA GILES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
          ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE, UNITED STATES
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Gibbs. Welcome, Ms. Stoner. The floor is yours.
        Ms. Stoner. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member
    Bishop and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to
    appear before you today, along with Assistant Administrator
    Giles to discuss the U.S. EPA's efforts to achieve better water
    quality improvements through integrated municipal stormwater
    and wastewater planning and innovative approaches for meeting
    our infrastructure challenges.
        We were pleased to hear from the other witnesses at today's
    hearing, and look forward to moving forward with the integrated
    water quality planning approach as a way to offer
    municipalities an opportunity to meet Clean Water Act
    requirements in a more effective manner and in a way that
    achieves the highest priority goals more quickly.
        The EPA, States, and municipalities have often focused on
    each Clean Water Act requirement individually for protecting
    water quality. This approach may have the unintended
    consequences of constraining a municipality from implementing
    the most cost-effective solutions in a sequence that addresses
    the most serious water quality issues first. Since last fall,
    we have been working to clarify the integrated planning
    approach by developing a framework document to help explain how
    the Agency will work with State and local governments.
        On June 5 of 2012, after holding a series of public
    workshops around the country to gain input on the approach, we
    signed a memorandum to EPA regions that transmitted the final
    framework. The framework outlines the principles we will follow
    in implementing the integrated approach and provides further
    guidance on developing and implementing effective integrated
    plans under the approach.
        It also outlines new flexibility to pursue innovative cost-
    saving solutions, like green infrastructure, that will help
    communities develop plans that prioritize their investments in
    stormwater and wastewater infrastructure.
        Let me briefly talk about what the integrated planning
    approach is and is not. The integrated approach is optional,
    not mandatory. Any community satisfied with its current
    approach to water and wastewater requirements can continue that
    approach.
        The integrated approach does not entail lowering existing
    Clean Water Act standards. Rather, the approach will take
    advantage of the flexibilities in existing EPA regulations,
    policies and guidance to allow municipalities to sequence
    implementation of their Clean Water Act obligations to protect
    water quality and public health at a reduced cost.
        The integrated approach relies on Clean Water Act permits
    as critical tools for protecting water quality and achieving
    Clean Water Act compliance. Permits can include the use of
    multiyear compliance schedules and can incorporate innovative
    solutions that best achieve public health and environmental
    goals while meeting the needs of the community. They also can
    be flexible and include the adaptive management approaches that
    several advocated for today.
        Integrated plans can be tailored to the needs of the
    community, and can include innovative techniques. EPA's
    existing regulations and policies provide flexibility for the
    EPA and States to design solutions that meet community needs.
    These solutions can include innovative tools such as green
    infrastructure techniques and asset management approaches, that
    is actually what George Hawkins was talking about, asset
    management approaches, that provide a better basis for
    decisionmaking on a utilitywide basis and support the long-term
    financial sustainability of the municipality.
        We at the EPA look forward to working with this
    subcommittee, our State colleagues, municipalities and many
    other partners, stakeholders and citizens to implement the
    integrated planning approach. We are committed to maintaining
    improvements in water quality and moving forward toward full
    attainment of water quality and human health goals.
        Thank you again for inviting me to testify. Assistant
    Administrator Giles or I will be happy to respond to any
    questions you may have.
        Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Giles, you are welcome.
        Ms. Giles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me
    the opportunity to make a few comments. I am happy to be here
    today along with my colleague, Nancy Stoner, to talk about the
    collaboration between EPA's headquarters and regional
    permitting and enforcement programs to improve water quality
    through integrated municipal stormwater and wastewater
    planning.
        We have made tremendous progress towards cleaner water over
    the last four decades. Our goal is to continue to make progress
    on clean water goals shared by communities across the country
    by working together to make smart choices about priorities,
    take advantage of innovations, and make sure that the most
    important work is done first. These principles are the
    foundation of the integrated municipal stormwater and
    wastewater planning approach that we have now finalized and are
    implementing.
        We listened to States, cities, wastewater utilities and
    many others in developing the final framework. We heard and
    have responded to the need for flexibility to adopt affordable
    and commonsense sequencing of work, to address the most
    important problems first, and respond to new information over
    the course of the community's implementation of its plan.
        We were also encouraged that communities are increasingly
    embracing green infrastructure as part of an affordable
    solution to protect water and revitalize communities, and the
    framework supports those choices.
        We agree that the best answer will vary by community, and
    that solutions need to be tailored to each situation. Sometimes
    a permit will be the way to accomplish these objectives,
    sometimes an enforcement agreement, and sometimes a combination
    of approaches will work best.
        We have reached agreements with many cities across the
    country, including Indianapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis, Atlanta,
    Philadelphia, Chattanooga, and many others that include these
    new green infrastructure and integrated planning approaches. We
    look forward to working with these communities and many others
    who would like to pursue an integrated approach.
        I am happy to respond to any questions.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. You heard the first panel, and I
    appreciate you listening to them so you got it firsthand. I
    think I will start off. You heard the first panel discuss about
    the pilot community demonstration projects and what, Ms.
    Stoner, what you said back in December at our first hearing.
        Where are we, where is the EPA on that? Because it seems
    like to me if you can do that, that would highlight what is
    going on, it would maybe work out the kinks and finesse it a
    little bit to make this work, because I know you are committed
    to making this integrated permitting process work. But where
    are we on setting up some demonstration projects like pilots to
    work through this?
        Ms. Stoner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are in a
    position where we have not turned anyone away yet from this
    voluntary program. So all are welcome. So it is not an
    exclusive list, but we are doing the very best we can to work
    with the resources we were given, to work with those
    communities that have stepped forward and indicated that they
    would like to work with us. That is where we are.
        Mr. Gibbs. What are you doing to reach out to them? Are you
    taking the initiative, or are you waiting for them to come to
    you?
        Ms. Stoner. We are absolutely reaching out to communities.
    Every regional office has been asked to work through the
    States. The permitting authorities in 46 States--the States do
    the permitting in 46 States, and we have asked the regions to
    reach out to the States and the States to reach out to the
    communities. We have done Webinars. We have done five
    stakeholder meetings. We are getting the word out and asking
    people to come work with us.
        Mr. Gibbs. Do you have a response coming back? Do you think
    you will have some setup here in the next 30-60 days going
    forward? What kind of response are you getting?
        Ms. Stoner. Well, we are already working with a number of
    communities on both the permitting side and on the enforcement
    side, so we have a number that have already stepped forward and
    we are working with them.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK.
        Ms. Giles. I would agree. We had quite a number of
    discussions ongoing, some of which have reached conclusion,
    such as in the city of Seattle, and some of which are ongoing.
    So we are working with Philadelphia, and I believe George
    Hawkins mentioned in DC, and many other communities,
    Cincinnati.
        Mr. Gibbs. I would appreciate it if you would keep my
    subcommittee staff up to date on the progress of that so we can
    monitor that, especially since we aren't going to be here much.
        A lot of things came up, the consent decrees. Is it
    possible, I think your intent, we have issues with the
    permitting. It is 3-5 years, extending that, versus consent
    decrees. Let's go, for example, a municipality entity is under
    a consent decree. Is the EPA willing to show flexibility if
    that entity is willing to develop an integral plan? What are
    you allowed to do and what are you willing to do?
        Ms. Giles. Absolutely. We have said repeatedly, and we will
    repeat again here, that we are happy to work with communities
    under existing agreements to adopt an integrated plan, and we
    have some record of amending existing agreements to do that,
    most recently, Indianapolis and Atlanta.
        Mr. Gibbs. You heard in the first panel about the third-
    party lawsuits. Can you maybe expound on that, what the
    challenges are there, if it is something we could address. I
    guess what I am saying, if an entity, city, whatever, has a
    plan and the EPA, you are all working hand in hand, you have
    set the goals and they are making their benchmarks, and a third
    party comes in and says hey, you are not doing it fast enough,
    even though the affordability and all that, can you expound on
    what those challenges are to help the committee understand that
    a little better?
        Ms. Stoner. Let me address the permitting side of it. So
    under the Clean Water Act there is a permit shield provision.
    So any permitted entity that is in compliance with its Clean
    Water Act permit is shielded by the law from third-party
    lawsuits. We think we have the flexibility now under the
    existing statute and regulations to include compliance
    schedules in NPDES permits that will enable entities to be
    incorporating those long-term plans right into their permits in
    the 5-year increments, and to do adaptive management as they go
    along and learn more. So we believe we have the flexibility
    now.
        There is one caveat to that, which is a State which does
    not allow that flexibility may not enable the permit to have
    that occur. But every State can allow those compliance
    schedules to be in permits if the State chooses to do so, and
    they can make that change now for any requirements that are not
    allowed now to be included in those 5-year permits.
        Mr. Gibbs. Are you at the EPA considering on the integrated
    permitting process to open it up more than just as you heard in
    the testimony, drinking water, groundwater, if they have
    challenges with that, or some of the other things they have to
    come into compliance with, just besides the sewer overflows,
    for example?
        Ms. Stoner. Well, our focus right now is integrated the
    wastewater and the stormwater, but that does include those
    asset management issues that we were talking about earlier. So
    the full range of wastewater and stormwater, whether it is an
    obligation or whether it is providing the infrastructure
    necessary to provide those sanitary services to the public, all
    of that can be considered right now. That is the focus of our
    approach.
        Mr. Gibbs. To follow up a little bit, in the testimony I am
    trying to recollect here a little bit, the affordability piece,
    is EPA looking to address that? You heard from every panelist I
    believe that you get wealthier people in the community and
    poorer people, and unfortunately the people on the lower end of
    the economic scale get hit hardest, and some of the formula
    determining it, the 2 percent. I also couple that with would
    EPA be more willing to look at the total integrating plan, the
    2 percent, and not be in silos for each project?
        Ms. Stoner. So the framework already talks about allowing
    consideration of disproportionate burdens on portions of the
    community. It also allows consideration of State and local
    tools as well as the financial capability assessment guidance.
    And that number that people were referring to repeatedly, the 2
    percent median household income, is not a floor or a ceiling.
    It is just a guide. So I believe the flexibility already exists
    in the framework that they are looking for.
        What I heard a lot of people saying is that they would like
    to have more resources available, and certainly the needs are
    great. But we think we have the flexibility now under the
    framework to address this as best as we can in partnership with
    State and local communities using the resources available.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. I will turn it over to Ranking Member
    Bishop.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you both for your testimony, but more important, thank you both
    for the work that you have done over the last several months on
    this integrated framework. I think the testimony that we heard
    from the previous panel, which, as I said before, was nearly
    unanimous in its both endorsement and appreciation of the work
    that you have done, is something we don't often hear in this
    committee. So I thank you for that.
        I just have two questions. The first is we now have a
    framework. We are going to have to test that framework. So my
    question is to what extent is the EPA prepared to be
    additionally flexible going forward as we see whether or not
    the framework does, in fact, result in the desired outcomes or
    whether we are going to need to either introduce additional
    flexibility or whatever?
        Ms. Giles?
        Ms. Giles. Yes. We designed the framework so that we would
    allow that additional flexibility, and I think one of the
    things that you heard from all of the witnesses today on the
    first panel is the importance of being able to adapt to the
    specific circumstances of a community. So that is why we
    designed it in the way that we did, so that we can work with
    each community to try things that will work for them. And as we
    go, we will learn by doing. And I think the communities will
    also learn from each other about which programs work well.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you. Ms. Stoner, anything to add?
        Ms. Stoner. No. I agree.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. The second question. We heard from
    Mr. Portune and others in the first panel about whether they
    would be called model cities or showcase communities or pilot
    projects or whatever. So my question is this. One of the
    mantras of this committee has been that we should be doing more
    with less. Now, we are certainly providing the less. The EPA's
    budget, if the chairman's mark in the House Appropriations
    Committee is enacted into law, it would result in a $1.4
    billion reduction year-to-year under fiscal year 2012, a 17-
    percent reduction in 1 year.
        So my question is, if we agree that this notion of having
    showcase communities is a really good one, that is worthy of an
    effort, does the EPA have the capacity, do you have the
    financial capacity to invest in these showcase communities, or
    would such an effort require additional appropriations, or
    would you have to hurt some other activity of the EPA in order
    to undertake this one?
        Ms. Stoner. As you are probably aware, the State Revolving
    Funds that are the principal source of funding we have under
    the Clean Water Act and the 319 funds, they all go to the
    States and they are distributed according to formulas, and we
    couldn't just shift money to particular communities even if we
    thought----
        Mr. Bishop. I am sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, actually
    maybe I do. Are you saying that this is a State-based decision
    as opposed to a Federal decision?
        Ms. Stoner. Well, it is the Federal law. The grant money
    goes from us to the States, and then the States distribute it.
    And there is no specific pot of money set aside anywhere that I
    know of for pilot communities on this.
        Mr. Bishop. So to be clear, if we were to engage in pilot
    communities, that would require an investment on the part of
    the States, from their SRF funds, in order to make that happen.
    Is that correct?
        Ms. Stoner. Yes, if they chose to do that.
        Mr. Bishop. And we are handicapping, or handcuffing the
    States by virtue of the huge reductions that are proposed for
    the SRFs. So this notion, even if it is a really, really good
    one of pilot communities or test communities, would be really
    hard to pull off. Is that a fair assessment?
        Ms. Stoner. There is no new money available for this.
        Mr. Bishop. I think that is a yes. OK, thank you very much.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Gibbs. Representative Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And after that, the
    administrative handling fees for the State upon the entities if
    there were to be such a program, or I mean if they were going
    to be able to do that. So that if you sent it to the State and
    the States get a certain amount, 5, 10, whatever percent for
    administering the programs to the cities, so you lose money in
    that area, right?
        Ms. Stoner. The amount of money is fixed, so if one city
    gets more, another city gets less.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, you heard some of the questions that
    I had posed to some of--and thank you very much. Your western
    representatives are great with my communities, especially my
    councils of government. They have done an outstanding job. I
    know years ago they came to me because they were being asked to
    comply with the runoff to the ocean, and they felt that it was
    very hard for the cities to be able to keep sacred stuff from
    going to the ocean and then be fined by EPA, so they came to
    some agreement in that area. So thank you for that.
        Last December, I had asked you a question regarding the 28
    different agencies that deal with the water issues and how does
    the integrated framework memorandum address integration across
    all these various agencies of the Federal Government that deal
    with water, and how do we know that we can help in being able
    to clarify or assist in making it a little better, less
    paperwork, less work, less funding, and as was pointed out,
    expensive forms, time consumed in that.
        Ms. Stoner. We do have a number of efforts that are efforts
    at integrating the Federal agencies and their approach to
    working with communities. That is actually the centerpiece of
    what the urban waters effort is, which was created by
    Administrator Jackson, and it is to work with communities on
    what their priorities are in terms of reviving their water
    bodies and access to those water bodies and arraying all of the
    Federal agencies that can help put that together through the
    various mechanisms they have.
        Mrs. Napolitano. You did make mention that you do reach out
    to some of the communities to be able to help them learn more,
    but I am sure, as with everybody else, your funds have been
    consistently diminished to be able to do that outreach. Well,
    that is no different for the States' current standing,
    especially in California where many cities are going bankrupt.
    So there is very little way for them, or no way at all, for
    them to be able to implement any of the requirements. So this
    then becomes a great issue for entities.
        And then again, going back to the disenfranchised
    communities such as the tribes and the colonias, which have no
    Government, the colonias, so-to-speak, and the tribes, because
    sometimes they do not have the ability to be able to navigate
    the Federal system. Can you give some examples of how the
    integrated planning might be beneficial to these entities to be
    smarter and more efficient in the development and use of water,
    and how are you going to deal with them, what outreach or
    education will you be providing?
        Ms. Stoner. So we do provide funding to tribal nations,
    with running--can you hear me now? How about now?
        Mrs. Napolitano. I think your system is gone. You can just
    speak up. I think somebody might have leaned on something.
        Ms. Stoner. We do work with tribal nations. We do have some
    funding to provide to them to continue the funding to assist
    tribes in developing water quality standards and protecting
    those tribal waters. I think this kind of approach that we have
    will help all communities----
        Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry to interrupt, but my time is
    coming up. What about the nonfederally recognized tribes.
        Ms. Stoner. The funding does go to federally recognized
    tribes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Only the federally recognized, and the
    others are out of luck?
        Ms. Stoner. Just the federally recognized. That is my
    understanding.
        Mrs. Napolitano. That can create a problem, because there
    is the issue of health, and that is maybe something we need to
    be able to get more in tune with. There is a whole bunch of
    other questions, but can you describe some of the green
    infrastructure tools that you are proposing that water agencies
    use as part of the integrated solutions to the water
    management?
        Ms. Stoner. Absolutely. So green infrastructure is very
    popular with communities we are working with. They find that
    whether it is swales along roads, whether it is rain gardens,
    green roofs, rain water harvesting, all kinds of approaches
    that they can use to reduce pollution and augment water
    supplies. But I think communities drive economic
    revitalization. We find it is very popular in a lot of
    communities and want to integrate that into their existing
    plans.
        Mrs. Napolitano. A lot of this new technology coming up,
    being able to utilize solar panels or other means of being able
    to produce energy that will cut the cost of, say, the pumping
    and other stuff--there you go, are you working with any of the
    entities that are making these groundbreaking new technologies
    available and being able to, not promote necessarily an item or
    a business, but being able to cut the usage of electricity, for
    instance, to do some of the work?
        Ms. Stoner. Yes. We are doing the best we can in terms of
    providing technical assistance. Just last week we provided
    $950,000 in technical assistance to communities who want to
    know how to get going on green infrastructure, how to evaluate
    what they can do to remove local barriers. I was just up at a
    Water Environment Federation conference on new technologies in
    stormwater management just last week also in Baltimore. I think
    there is a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of efforts being made
    both inside and outside the Government to disseminate knowledge
    about these technologies so everyone can benefit from them.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I am sure you do--just a second more, Mr.
    Chair--you know a lot of those new technologies. But how would
    an entity that has no idea of how to get that information, how
    would they be able to know where it is? Do you give it to the
    Members of Congress, do you give it to the cities themselves,
    is it published in the Conference of Mayors, the National
    League of Cities, so they can disseminate it to those that
    don't have your Web site, your email address or any other way
    of getting in touch to provide this information to help
    themselves?
        Ms. Stoner. We do all of those things that you are talking
    about. We did just redesign our Web site to make it easier for
    people to find information. We are putting together an
    opportunity for green infrastructure, not too much, and so we
    are working on getting the word out through all of those
    different partners that you mentioned. And the other thing that
    is happening is that there is lots of consultants who are also
    letting people know about these technologies and how they can
    help their communities in employing them to revitalize their
    waterways.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    indulgence. Thank you for your answers.
        Mr. Gibbs. Representative Edwards.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Stoner and Ms.
    Giles, I hope you don't take this personally. We want to hear
    you.
        Ms. Stoner, I wonder if you could tell me, I know here in
    the metropolitan region, the Anacostia watershed runs through
    Prince George's County where I live and represent, and last
    year the county received $200,000 from EPA to implement several
    green infrastructure initiatives. You had an opportunity to
    visit one that was supported by the EPA out in Edmonston. And I
    have to tell you for these small municipalities, when they get
    that, what is really essentially a little bit of money, the
    other municipalities, one, they want to compete with each
    other, they want to outdo each other, they want to do green
    infrastructure. Do you have plans to award competitive grants
    to municipalities on an annual basis?
        Ms. Stoner. I wish I could say yes to that. So we did just
    give some money, it was actually technical assistance, to
    communities wanting to do green infrastructure. We also have
    urban waters grants. We also use Brownfields grants which can
    include green infrastructure. There are some communities that
    have gone to TIGER grants from the DOT to get that money. So it
    is really about putting together the pieces, what is it that a
    community wants to do, can it be funded through DOT, through
    HUD, through EPA? USDA has an urban forestry program. So that
    is what we are trying to help people do, is identify as the
    resources are shrinking, what are the pots of money available
    to help them do what they need to do.
        Ms. Edwards. Well, I appreciate that, because these are
    incredibly popular, and even with the technical assistance it
    provides a little bit of resource to help communities
    understand what they have the capacity to do and then to do
    even the little things that can make a huge difference in a
    watershed.
        I introduced, and, of course, you know this because you
    helped me work on it before you came to the EPA, H.R. 2030,
    which is the Green Water Infrastructure Act, and among other
    things it would establish three to five centers of excellence
    for green infrastructure, these would be located throughout the
    United States, on the theory that we have to do some of this
    stuff regionally, that we can't think about one-size-fits-all
    approach when it comes to green infrastructure because regions
    are simply different.
        You have recognized the need for establishing best
    practices for water infrastructure, green water infrastructure.
    Can you tell us what practices are emerging and how you have
    been able to communicate that with stakeholders?
        Ms. Stoner. Sure. I think there are increasing practices
    that are finding out how to harvest that rainwater. For
    example, putting the stormwater back in the ground where it can
    replenish groundwater and subsurface flows. That is one of the
    things I am seeing a lot of development in. We can continue to
    see development in green roofs and blue roofs. We certainly
    continue to see development in terms of methods for addressing
    stormwater runoff from transportation, including storage under
    streets, under roads.
        So there is a lot of innovation that is occurring. There is
    a lot of new businesses developing around these innovations.
    And, as I believe George Hawkins said, these are also jobs.
    People can build this and maintain it. Those are local jobs
    that we can create through those efforts.
        Ms. Edwards. One of the things that occurs to me is that
    with the green infrastructure practices, in our earlier panel,
    we heard a couple of allusions to, or skepticism expressed
    about whether overall it would actually save money.
        Do we have any more empirical data or are there things that
    we can investigate to look at this question? Because I think,
    particularly for the larger municipalities where we really need
    a lot of work, for them to be able to adopt these practices,
    there has got to be a real benefit in the cost. So how do you
    track that?
        Ms. Stoner. We are doing a lot of work to look at the cost
    and the benefits. So the benefits are multimedia benefits. So
    it is pretty complicated to look at them. But we are looking at
    things like air pollution reduction, urban heat island
    reduction, as well as water quality, flooding reduction,
    enhanced water resources and so forth.
        But we are also looking at the cost. And I do think that
    green infrastructure can compare favorably from a cost
    standpoint with a lot of traditional approaches, particularly
    as you get to what is called the knee of the curve.
        So as you move out on, for example, on the reductions in
    combined sewer overflows or sanitary sewer overflows per
    gallon, as again George Hawkins was talking about, you can get
    more expensive costs out on the end of the curve. And green
    infrastructure can help a lot with respect to being cost
    favorable with respect to those additional reductions at the
    end of the curve.
        Ms. Edwards. I will submit another question for the record
    that goes to how you deal with issues around good faith efforts
    by local communities in the consent process, because that was
    an issue that came up earlier, and I think it is important to
    have EPA's perspective about how it looks at that in the
    permitting process.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbs. We are going to wrap up. I appreciate you all
    being here and listening to the first panel. I hope that, I am
    sure you did, from the first panel catch their passion and
    their dedication. And we are all committed to reach a goal of
    cleaner water, but the challenges and demands that these local
    communities go through and the expenses. Hopefully you heard
    the message of flexibility, the affordability issue and the
    challenges that they have, and we look forward to working with
    you in the future as we implement the integral plans.
        So thanks for being here, and this concludes this hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]