[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 60 (Thursday, April 29, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4443-S4444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Warner, Mr. Voinovich, Ms. Collins, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
        Hagel, and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 914. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
require that discharges from combined storm and sanitary sewers conform 
to the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


      combined sewer overflow control and partnership act of 1999

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to take a few 
minutes to introduce important environmental legislation that will have 
a significant and positive impact on our nation's waterways. Today, 
along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and seven other 
cosponsors, I am introducing the Combined Sewer Overflow Control and 
Partnership Act of 1999.
  While the title of this bill, indeed, the subject matter itself, may 
not be the most exciting, front-burner policy issue of the day, the 
control of overflows from sewer systems is a serious environmental and 
financial concern for hundreds of communities across this country. For 
my own state of New Hampshire, there are six communities with combined 
sewer overflow, or CSO, problems. The cities of Manchester, Nashua, 
Portsmouth, Exeter, Berlin, and Lebanon are all facing this challenge.
  I have worked closely with the mayors of these cities over the past 
several years and have seen first-hand the environmental problems. This 
legislation is aimed at helping CSO communities comply with Clean Water 
Act mandates to reduce or eliminate overflows into nearby rivers and 
streams. CSOs are the last permitted point source discharges of 
untreated or partially treated sewage into the nation's waters. For 
those colleagues who don't have CSO communities in their states, I'll 
briefly explain what they are.
  Combined sewer systems collect sanitary sewage from homes and office 
buildings during periods of dry weather for conveyance to wastewater 
treatment plants for treatment. However, these systems also receive 
storm water during wet weather, which typically causes a hydraulic 
overload of the system, triggering the discharge of untreated 
wastewater to receiving waters through combined sewer overflow 
outfalls. Not a pleasant sight.

  Most combined systems were installed at the turn of the century when 
they were state-of-the-art sewer technology, mainly in the Northeast 
and Midwest regions of the country. Controlling or eliminating CSO 
discharges is an enormously expensive proposition

[[Page S4444]]

that often requires communities to completely rebuild their sewer 
systems. The national cost estimates to complete this job range from 
$50 billion to $100 billion. Compounding the sheer financial magnitude 
of the CSO problem is the fact that the vast majority of the 
approximately 1,000 CSO communities nationwide have less than 10,000 
residents, or ratepayers. These ratepayers could pay hundreds of 
dollars more per year on their water bills without this legislation. 
With these statistics, it is not surprising that a CSO control program 
often poses the single largest public works project in a CSO 
community's history.
  Although the Federal Clean Water Act does not specifically speak to 
the issue of combined sewers, it has been interpreted to require the 
control and treatment of CSO discharges. Recognizing the financial 
burden this would pose on small towns, in 1994, the Environmental 
Protection Agency issued the ``Combined Sewer Overflow Policy,'' which 
allowed CSO control programs to be developed in the most cost-
effective, flexible and site-specific manner possible. This policy was 
developed with the input from many stakeholders, including local 
governments, environmental groups, and engineering firms, and was 
viewed as a major step forward in tackling this problem through 
commonsense means.
  Unfortunately, this policy is just an administrative policy and lacks 
statutory authority. So, one of the most important provisions of this 
bill would essentially codify or affirm EPA's CSO Policy. This 
provision will give CSO communities the legal protection and regulatory 
relief they so desperately need. A key component of the CSO Policy is 
to ensure that water quality standards are consistent with whatever CSO 
control plans are mandated.
  The second part of the bill sets up a partnership between the Federal 
Government and our local governments by authorizing five years of 
funding assistance for these communities. While there is a State 
revolving loan fund under the Clean Water Act that provides loan 
assistance to municipalities for water treatment, the SRF cannot 
possibly meet the needs of these CSO communities. The financial burden 
of CSO control programs generally far exceed the capacity of local 
ratepayers to assume the full cost.
  I emphasize that ratepayers cannot assume the full cost of these 
programs.
  While this bill does authorize new funding assistance, I do not 
intend for this funding to increase EPA's overall budget. As many of my 
colleagues are aware, numerous earmarks for CSOs or other public works 
projects are frequently included in appropriations bills. I am hoping 
that the existence of a CSO assistance program at EPA will discourage 
the practice of earmarking specific projects and seek competitive 
funding through this program.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to add that this 
legislation has been endorsed by the CSO Partnership, a recognized 
coalition of CSO communities and mayors. I would also like to thank 
Senator Snowe for her support and assistance on this legislation, as 
well as the other original cosponsors: Senators Warner, Voinovich, 
Collins, Abraham, Robb, Hagel, and Lugar. I am hopeful that we will 
have an opportunity to consider this legislation in the Environment and 
Public Works Committee and the full Senate sometime this year. It is 
both proenvironment and procommunity and I ask for my colleagues 
support and welcome their cosponsorship.
                                 ______