[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                FLEXIBLE FUNDING, COLONIAS, SOUTH VALLEY

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I would like to discuss three 
amendments which I have filed at the desk and plan to offer as 
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 which is 
being considered this week in the Senate. I look forward to working 
with the chairman and his staff on these important issues.
  The first amendment I plan to offer will provide States with the 
needed flexibility to more efficiently manage their environmental 
programs. This amendment will promote more effective and efficient use 
of existing environmental funds and will facilitate the targeting of 
funds where the problems are the greatest in the individual State. I 
introduced this amendment as a stand alone bill last November as S. 
1687, the Environmental Flexible Funding Act of 1993.
  Senator Smith is the prime cosponsor on this legislation with me, and 
both of us have worked hard to persuade our colleagues that this is, in 
fact, meritorious legislation.
  I plan to offer this amendment because I have personally heard from 
State environmental directors who are concerned about the constricting 
nature of the existing grant programs. They believe that these grant 
programs fail to recognize that each State is different. What might be 
of most concern to one community may be less important to another. 
Federal assistance that is available is restricted to nationally-
perceived priorities, preventing more effective use of funds on greater 
regional or local needs.
  The National Governors Association and the National Conference of 
State Legislators have called for a limited number of flexible 
environmental grants. In addition, the development of flexibility was 
one of the key findings of a State capacity task force report developed 
by States and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] called 
Strengthening Environmental Management in the United States.
  There is widespread support among State environmental commissioners, 
colleagues in the Senate, and from the EPA for this concept. However, 
they have not been able to institute such an initiative due to the lack 
of statutory authority. This amendment, Mr. President, would solve that 
problem. It gives them the statutory authority.
  Mr. President, let me summarize briefly the main provisions of this 
first amendment.
  First, my amendment would enable States to consolidate funds awarded 
by the Environmental Protection Agency under separate grant authorities 
into one of six environmental grants.
  Second, this amendment would authorize a multimedia grant for any 
activities that would be eligible under the separate grant authorities.
  Third, Governors would be able to transfer 20 percent of grant funds 
from one environmental program to another of greater State-identified 
need.
  Finally, my amendment would establish a common set of administrative 
and reporting requirements for States.
  Mr. President, let me make clear that my amendment would not seek 
additional funding authority. Instead, it will enable States to better 
use existing Federal funds being made available for environmental 
purposes. More importantly, this amendment would significantly enhance 
a State's ability to direct scarce resources to the most serious 
environmental problems that it faces.
  It is critical that we encourage more effective use of existing grant 
funds given the limited financial resources and increasing Federal 
environmental requirements. This amendment which I plan to offer will 
provide the necessary authority.
  The second amendment I plan to introduce to the Safe Drinking Water 
Act Amendments of 1994 will provide the needed authority to supply poor 
communities along the Southwestern border of the United States with 
desperately needed wastewater treatment grants. I introduced this 
amendment as a stand alone bill, S. 1286, the Colonias Wastewater 
Treatment Act of 1993 last July.
  First, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate the plight of 
these poor communities called colonias. Colonias are situated along the 
southwestern border of the United States. They are rural residential 
areas, generally unincorporated, many without paved roads. They are 
small in size with populations ranging from anywhere from 250 to 5,000 
people. Residents are generally poor and live in substandard housing 
with inadequate plumbing and drinking water. Housing lots are extremely 
small in size and packed together, frequently creating a high density 
of cesspools and inadequate septic tanks. The population is growing in 
size daily, compounding these problems and health problems.
  If by chance you happen to visit these colonias, you can only be 
struck by the primitive conditions in which the residents live. You 
would walk away in disbelief that over 350,000 American citizens and 
legal permanent residents are subject to what most of us would call 
developing countries' living conditions.
  These conditions create health and environmental problems. Many 
colonias are situated in areas with a very shallow water table 
resulting in sewage trickling through the ground and contaminating the 
groundwater. Since many families rely on wells on their property for 
their drinking water, it is not surprising that incidences of 
infectious diseases in the colonias are higher than the national 
average. It is also not surprising that the groundwater is 
contaminating our rivers. The national environmental group American 
Rivers recently identified the Rio Grande as one of the most endangered 
rivers in the country, citing inadequate treatment of sewage waste as 
one of the prime causes of pollution in the border area.

  The needs of the colonias have not gone unnoticed. In fiscal year 
1993, Congress appropriated through EPA $50 million to help these 
communities. These funds were used for grants to build needed 
wastewater treatment facilities. In fiscal year 1994, the 
administration requested funds for the Environmental Protection Agency 
[EPA] to continue helping the colonias construct wastewater treatment 
facilities. However, when EPA's budget came up for discussion on the 
House floor, funding was struck due to a parliamentary debate as to 
whether sufficient legal authority existed for EPA to make these 
grants.
  Congress has provided a $500 million reserve in fiscal year 1994 to 
support projects in hardship communities pending enactment of 
authorizing legislation.
  The question today in Congress is not if we should help these 
colonias, but whether we have the legal authority to do so.
  I want to end this doubt over legal issues, and place attention where 
it rightly belongs--that is, how to help the residents of these 
communities. I, therefore, plan to offer this amendment to the Safe 
Drinking Water Act authorizing EPA to make grants for wastewater 
treatment in the colonias.
  Mr. President, specifically, my amendment would authorize the 
Administrator of EPA to make grants to colonias or communities acting 
on behalf of colonias for wastewater treatment.
  Grants may include planning, design, and construction of a wastewater 
treatment works, including acquisition of any land needed for the 
construction of operation of the works. Grants may also be for up to 
100 percent of project costs.
  The special needs of these communities must be met--especially as we 
begin implementation of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. I 
believe this amendment can play a critical role in helping provide the 
needed protection these communities deserve.
  The third amendment I plan to offer as an amendment to the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 will address the wastewater 
treatment needs of small disadvantaged communities. These are small 
unincorporated communities with inadequate wastewater systems. These 
communities are too large to qualify for rural water grants, but are 
too small to shoulder the high per household hook-up fees or monthly 
water and sewer service fees that would be necessary if they were to 
finance wastewater treatment construction through revenue bonds or 
other financing mechanisms.
  Congressman Steve Schiff has introduced similar legislation in the 
House. I believe that the Safe Drinking Water Act must be amended to 
include a special grant program for small, unincorporated communities 
facing extreme hardship in treating their sewage.
  I am particularly concerned about unincorporated communities near 
urban centers which face a unique combination of environmental, 
financial, and governmental problems. Households in these areas 
traditionally have relied on septic systems to meet sewage needs. With 
urban growth these communities have expanded. Septic systems which once 
were adequate can no longer accommodate that increased density. Yet 
these communities lack the tax base and governmental structure needed 
to fund needed infrastructure improvements. They face high system costs 
per household due to their relatively low density, a high percentage of 
residents with lower incomes, and lack of access to grant programs 
intended for very small, rural communities.

  The South Valley in New Mexico, a small unincorporated community 
outside of Albuquerque, alongside the Rio Grande, is one such 
community. Most of its 12,000 residents rely on septic tanks. Their 
drinking water comes from wells on their property. Heavily concentrated 
septic tanks, a shallow water table, and tight soils resulting in 
poorly drained septic tanks are contaminating the ground water. State 
and local governments have already contributed significant funds to 
address the problem, but additional funding is needed. If this funding 
were to come through revenue bonds, residents in the area would have to 
pay 4 to 6 times as much as other New Mexico residents for monthly 
water and sewer service. These citizens cannot afford such rates.
  State and local governments are already contributing to finding 
solutions to problems such as in the South Valley. But these funds 
alone cannot meet all needs.
  Mr. President, specifically the amendment I plan to introduce will 
authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
make grants for wastewater treatment projects to communities: that are 
unincorporated; have a population of 20,000 or fewer residents; that 
have a median household income that is less than or equal to 110 
percent of the median household income for non-metropolitan areas in 
the State--although the community may be part of a metropolitan 
statistical area; and that will match 25 percent of Federal funding 
with any combination of public or private funds or in-kind services.
  These grants are critical in assuring that these communities have 
access to clean and safe water.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and his staff on these 
important amendments.
  The full text of my amendments were printed in the Record of May 9, 
1994.

                          ____________________