Complete Issue

Headlines

MTBE case uncertain hope for utilities

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Leaking fuel storage tanks are a major source of MTBE ground and water contamination. Photo USEPA

Well, actually, they do, and that's the problem.

MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, has a peculiar chemical make-up that allows it to mix very well in water, but it also sticks to dirt. That means that if gas treated with MTBE gets into the ground where groundwater is also found, the result is that the chemical may contaminate the water for a millennium or longer.

"Because groundwater moves slowly there could be thousands of problems around the country that we don't even know about yet," said Anthony Aufdenkampe, a research scientist at the Stroud Water Research Center. "And once it's in the ground it will stick to the minerals pretty well; so it can take centuries to flush out."

MTBE has several other peculiar qualities that make it much worse for providers of safe drinking water than even the gas it supplemented. It migrates much further than gas, and unlike gas it won't just float to the surface so that it can be more easily removed.

And it makes water smell like turpentine, even at levels below 50 parts per billion (50 µg/L).

ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded company in the world, was hoping that a parallel trend of court awards against gas companies had stopped migrating.

So, ExxonMobil decided to take a stand in court, hoping to convince a jury that it was not responsible for the MTBE that had seeped into the well water in the New York borough of Queens.

But like MTBE itself, the trouble continued to spread and ExxonMobil lost the case in October after an 11-week trial. A jury decided the oil company should pay $104.7 million for the cleanup. That amount is less than the $250 million the city wanted, but more than ExxonMobil would have had to pay under a settlement agreement reached in 2003. In that agreement, 23 other oil companies combined paid $15 million. ExxonMobil decided not to join that settlement with New York City's Department of Environmental Protection.

The case was being watched closely because there are dozens of similar suits pending around the country.

"This is an important result for cities and water utilities everywhere. It makes clear that even the biggest corporation in the world must protect drinking water and pay to clean it up when their products pollute it," says Victor Sher of Sher Leff, a San Francisco law firm that specializes in suing oil and gas companies on behalf of water utilities.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said the case shows that no company, no matter how deep its pockets, can afford to ignore the consequences of its environmental actions.

"The fact that Exxon Mobile has gotten away with poisoning the ground near the Newtown Creek for so long is a true injustice to the people of New York, but I am glad that they will finally pay their share to make up for this wrong," Schumer said.

For its part, ExxonMobil says that no larger conclusions can be drawn from the case. A spokesman says that the company believes that in the New York City case it was not one of those that contributed to the contamination of those wells, so it is currently exploring appealing that verdict.

ExxonMobil told AWWA that the company believes that all companies should clean up any messes they are responsible for and that it is working to prevent any future problems and clean up any spills that are the fault of the company. "We take our environmental responsibility seriously," said Kevin Allexon, a spokesman for the company.

He would not comment on how that verdict might affect negotiations with other water providers around the world, but said in general that ExxonMobil will defend itself when it thinks it is not responsible.

And for water providers, the verdict does not mean they can hope for quicker settlements for their own MTBE cases. Oil companies and litigators both say that each case and each situation is unique, and the only agreement from all sides is that this will be an issue for many years to come.

Additional AWWA Resources

• A Review of Cost Estimates of MTBE Contamination of Public Wells, Water Industry Technical Action Fund white paper, 2005
• "Occurrence of MTBE and Other Gasoline Oxygenates in CWS Source Waters," Journal AWWA, April 2006 (Search The Water Library)
• "Persistence Pays Off in MTBE Tussle," Journal AWWA, February 2006 (Search The Water Library)

Candidates for AWWA president-elect profiled

Despite the slowdown in retirements from the workforce, all three candidates for AWWA president-elect consider attracting young professionals to water industry careers and AWWA membership a major focus for the association.

Their experience as part of AWWA's leadership team, as well as their professional careers, gives each of them well-informed perspectives on the issues that face AWWA and the water industry. Two current and one past AWWA vice-presidents are running for president-elect:

• Dean Fritzke, Pacific Northwest Section
• Jerald W. Stevens, Iowa Section
• Jeffrey M. Zdrojewski, New York Section

At its January meeting, the AWWA Board of Directors will choose one of the three to become president-elect in June. The winning candidate will become AWWA president in June 2011.

These profiles were first published in the September 15 issue of Streamlines; this issue also includes their responses to a set of questions from the AWWA Nominating Committee that address leadership qualities, section relationships, partnerships with other organizations, and young professionals' participation in the association.

To read their profiles and their answers, click on the candidate's name above.

Chemical security bill headed to full House

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has approved the Drinking Water System Security Act (HR3258), which requires The US Environmental Protection Agency to implement chemical security standards for community water systems. The bill still contains a number of areas of concern for AWWA and other stakeholders.

The bill now goes to the full House for debate, probably in tandem with legislation renewing chemical security programs for chemical plans and creating a chemical security program for wastewater utilities. Debate has not been scheduled but is expected soon. The Senate has not begun its formal discussions on parallel legislation.

AWWA's major concerns with HR3258 (see AWWA's detailed analysis of the bill and legislative action) were not changed by the House committee markup. AWWA is pushing for

• Local control for selection of chemicals, often labeled the "inherently safer technology" issue;
• Putting wastewater and drinking water utilities under one federal program for security purposes;
• Pulling back the bill’s broadening of access to a utility’s vulnerability assessments and site security plans from representatives of collective bargaining agents who are not utility employees; and
• Stronger penalties for release of such protected information.

A summary (PDF) of the bill is available for download from AWWA’s website.

The committee report that accompanies HR3258 does describe the AWWA report "Selecting Disinfectants in a Security-Conscious Environment" as an example of a "robust and transparent technical approach" to evaluating various disinfection approaches.

HR3258 had gone through markup and review by the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Oct. 14, along with the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act (HR2868). HR2868 bill requires the US Department of Homeland Security to implement chemical security standards for wastewater facilities.

Both bills contain a provision allowing regulators to require chemical facilities, including water and wastewater facilities, to use what a regulator perceives as being a safer chemical or process, known as IST.

The chemical causing most concern at water treatment facilities is chlorine. If regulators determine that a facility using chlorine is in one of the top two "high-risk tiers," the bills give them the authority to order a utility to change its disinfectant chemicals. AWWA and other water sector officials have warned that such a change is a complex decision. HR3258 puts that decision in the hands of state officials and USEPA.

The committee and the subcommittee defeated attempts to delete the IST provision from the bills and an effort to extend the existing law, which excludes water and wastewater facilities. Also defeated in the subcommittee was a proposal to bar states from enacting more stringent laws and provisions.

The Drinking Water System Security Act was amended to add a provision that would require the state (or USEPA where it has primacy for drinking water regulation) to provide a water system with an opportunity to appeal if it disagrees with an IST decision by government, one of the changes requested by AWWA and water associations.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Keep up to date with What's New in Government Affairs
• Online documents under Legislative Issues: Security
• See Streamlines stories: Oct. 13, 2009; Sept. 29, 2009, Aug. 4, 2009, July 21, 2009; July 7, 2009, May 26, 2009 

House-passed chem security bill puts drinking water, wastewater under USEPA

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

The chemical security bill now carries the title "Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009."

House members adopted an "amendment in the nature of a substitute" on a vote of 230 – 193, which would put both drinking water and wastewater utilities under the jurisdiction of the US Environmental Protection Agency for chemical security.

AWWA has long sought such a unified approach to chemical security for water and wastewater utilities, and AWWA members have been contacting their members of Congress since last spring raising that issue among others. Now the action moves to the US Senate, and AWWA staff has begun discussions with Senate staff on the legislation.

The amendment (see summary) combined three bills involving chemical security into one under the new HR2868, titled the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009. Chairs of the three involved committees—Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Homeland Security—worked on the consolidation of the three different bills.

Earlier versions of chemical security legislation had placed drinking water under the jurisdiction of USEPA and wastewater under the US Department of Homeland Security.

HR 2868 also addresses security for chemical industry facilities. House debate focused mostly on issues raised by the chemical industry. The Senate has been watching to see what happens in the House before taking action of its own. The Senate parliamentarian has referred the House bill to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Key areas of concern in the current legislation for AWWA include

• Provisions taking the choice of chemicals or processes away from local officials at utilities deemed to be in the highest-risk categories and giving those decisions to state primacy agencies, a concept usually called "inherently safer technology;"
• The need for stronger penalties for the release of sensitive utility security information; and
• Access to utility vulnerability assessments and site security plans being given to representatives of each bargaining agent representing facility employees, but who may not be employees of the utility and who may not be required to pass a background check.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking Republican on the Homeland Security committee, plans to draft her own chemical security legislation from scratch. She does not plan to include IST provisions and would maintain strict controls on access to sensitive information, similar to those in the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, which is the law that mandates that drinking water utilities perform vulnerability assessments and update their site security plans.

What is unknown at this point is whether Collins’ bill will include a program for water utilities. Drinking water and wastewater are traditionally under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. That committee has been very busy with climate change legislation and silent with regard to chemical security issues so far.

Additional AWWA Resources

• See Streamlines stories: Oct. 27, 2009, Oct. 13, 2009; Sept. 29, 2009, Aug. 4, 2009, July 21, 2009; July 7, 2009, May 26, 2009
• What's New in Government Affairs
• Online documents under Legislative Issues: Security

Stevens to become AWWA president in 2011

Jerry Stevens Iowa Section

Stevens, who is general manager of the West Des Moines (Iowa) Water Works, is a registered professional engineer and holds a degree in civil engineering from Iowa State University, as well as grade IV certifications in Iowa for water treatment plant operator and distribution system operator.

A member of AWWA for 35 years, Stevens has served on the AWWA Board of Directors and as an AWWA vice-president, as well as in all of the offices of the Iowa Section, including seven years as treasurer and secretary. He received the Fuller Award in 2003 and life membership in 2005.

He will join the officer line in June when the current president-elect, Joe Mantua, succeeds this year's president, Craig Woolard. Stevens will become AWWA president in June 2011.

Also elected during the board meeting as vice-presidents were

• Don Broussard, water operations manager for the Lafayette (La.) utilities system and Southwest Section director, who will serve one year as a vice-president;
• Jim Chaffee, director of the North American water market segment for AECOM, a global engineering and consulting firm, and Wisconsin Section director, who will serve two years;
• John Donahue, general manager of the North Park (Ill.) Public Water District and Illinois Section director, who will serve one year; and
• Robert Walters, assistant manager of Davidson Water Inc., a nonprofit cooperative water utility in Lexington, N.C., and the North Carolina Section director, who will serve two years.

All four of the new incoming vice-presidents acknowledge the value of networking through AWWA that has boosted their careers and their commitment to the industry and the community and see it as one of the top benefits of AWWA membership.

They join Charles Anderson from the Texas Section and Debra Kaye of the California–Nevada Section who will continue to serve as vice-presidents for another year.

Gary McCoy, director of water treatment at the Macon (Ga.) Water Authority, was elected to a three-year term as a director-at-large. He sees AWWA's greatest challenge as "growing the organization with young people” and passing on institutional knowledge through “mechanisms to build relationships and coalitions with primary [schools,] secondary schools, colleges and universities.” He has been involved in developing programs introducing youth to the water industry and publicizing career opportunities.

All the newly elected officers will assume their positions at the end of the AWWA annual conference in June in Chicago.

Obama 2011 budget continues strong water support

The budget proposed for the Drinking Water State Revolving fund is $1.287 billion—down $100 million from FY 2010. The Clean Water SRF request is about $2 billion, also down about $100 million from the current appropriation.

USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters (audio) that the total agency budget of $10 billion was down slightly from last year's request, reflecting the president's commitment to fiscal responsibility. However, she pointed out that last year's presidential request was a 30 percent increase over the previous administration's USEPA budget and, in view of that, this decrease was "relatively small."

The decrease in funding for DWSRF and CWSRF is "more than offset" by the $6 billion provided through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act passed nearly a year ago, she said.

Funding for Public Water Systems Supervision grants remained the same at $105.7 million. The total State and Tribal Assistance Grants budget is $1.3 billion for FY2011, a 14 percent increase from FY2010 and the highest ever. Included is an additional $45 million for states to enhance their water enforcement and permitting programs. [See Jan. 5 Streamlines story.]

USEPA proposes spending $27 million to launch a new program, the Healthy Communities Initiative, which includes $9 million for water priorities in "underserved" communities to help them restore urban waterways and address water quality challenges.

Other new funding requests include $17 million for the Mississippi River Basin, where USEPA will work with the US Department of Agriculture to target nonpoint source reduction practices on agricultural land to reduce nutrient runoff. The agency seeks to implement recommendations from the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan and respond to nonpoint source control recommendations of the Nutrients Innovation Task Group.

Funding for the Chesapeake Bay restoration increased to $63 million—an increase of $13 million. USEPA will use the funding to conduct "robust regulatory, permitting, modeling and reporting efforts." To carry on the restoration program for the Great Lakes, the FY2011 request includes $300 million. That's in addition to $475 million appropriated last year, most of which has yet to be spent, Jackson said.

A study on the effects ofhydraulic fracturing on drinking water is included in the $847 million research budget, according to Jackson, along with an additional $6 million for endocrine disruptor research and a small increase for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

The budget request's $43 million for climate change includes continued research into carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

Work on sustainable water infrastructure systems would be funded at $10 million, more than doubling this "green" infrastructure research, Jackson said.

In response to the administration's goal of assuring the safety of chemicals, $56 million is requested for chemical assessment and risk review, including chemical management plans for what Jackson called "high concern chemicals." [See Jan. 19 story in Streamlines.]

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Government Affairs Web page
• AWWA Streamlines: "Water funding gets boost in Obama budget," Mar. 3, 2009;  "Obama FY2010 budget: water increases in, earmarks out," May 12, 2009; "SRF increase of 157 percent touted at congressional hearings," May 26, 2009; "House okays hefty increase in USEPA budget," July 7, 2009; "Senate also okays hefty increase in EPA budget," Sept. 29, 2009

House-passed jobs bill adds $2B for water/wastewater

Water infrastructure capital projects would get another funding boost  if the Senate passes HR2847, the Jobs for Main Street bill.

HR2847 (PDF) redirects funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program into infrastructure projects, as well as education services, public employee retention and the extension of unemployment benefits.

These SRF funds would not be subject to state matching cost-share requirements as in the typical annual appropriations legislation; the US Environmental Protection Agency would be able to reallocate funds from one state to another if projects are not under contract for construction within eight months of enactment.

House leaders had originally hoped to attach the jobs provisions to an appropriations bill that would be voted on before the Congress recesses this month, but Senate objections derailed that plan.

It is unlikely that the Senate will deal with the issue until early in 2010, after it finishes action on health care reform. Some Congressional leaders have expressed a hope that the jobs measure could be signed into law by the time of the President’s State of the Union address in late January.

Water infrastructure is only a small part of the jobs bill. The original proposal also included $37 billion for transportation infrastructure, $27 billion to prevent public sector employees from being laid off, $4 billion for school renovations, $2 billion for energy projects, $41 billion for extension of unemployment and health insurance benefits, and $23.5 billion for an extension of federal support for state Medicaid programs.

“It may be a small amount of funding compared to national water infrastructure needs, but it is good to see that Congress still has the issue of water infrastructure in its sights,” said Tom Curtis, AWWA deputy executive director for government affairs.

Other features of the SRF provisions in the jobs bill are similar to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

• Priority would be given to projects on state priority lists that are ready to proceed to construction within 12 months;
• At least 20 percent of the funds would have to be used for “green infrastructure” to the extent that there are sufficient eligible project applications of this nature;
• Each state would have to use at least 50 percent of these capitalization funds to provide additional subsidization, such as principal forgiveness, negative-interest loans, grants, or a combination of these;
• Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements and Buy American requirements would apply;
• $30 million would go to water-related environmental infrastructure projects conducted by the Corps of Engineers on the Mississippi River or its tributaries; and
• $100 million would go to the Bureau of Reclamation for water-related projects, with $26 million designated for the Central Valley Project in California, $30 million for the Calfed Bay-Delta Project in California.

Nearly 30 associations have joined to sign a letter to House and Senate leaders urging the elimination of any "Buy American" provision in the jobs bill.

"New, more restrictive Buy American provisions, such as those in included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will significantly delay" projects and put fewer Americans back to work, the letter said.

Among the associations are the American Council of Engineering Companies, the Associated General Contractors of America, the Clean Water Construction Coalition, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Pipe Fabricators, and the Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association. AWWA has not taken a position on the Buy American provision.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Check out AWWA Government Affairs' blog

2009 legislation: Infrastructure and security

Tommy Holmes AWWA Director of Legislative Affairs

February 2009 saw the new president signing into law a broad-ranging economic stimulus bill that included $2 billion in spending for drinking water infrastructure, to be distributed from the US Environmental Protection Agency to state revolving loan fund (SRF) programs. The program was slow getting out of the gate as the agency had to develop guidances for new features created for those SRF funds: a 20-percent set-aside for “green infrastructure” (provided there were sufficient “green” applications) and Buy American requirements for materials used in stimulus-funded projects. 

Capitol Hill staff indicate that these green and Buy American features will likely appear in future water infrastructure legislation. In fact, S1005, an AWWA-supported bill, would increase authorized funding for the SRF, make administrative improvements to the program and designate green set-asides. That bill passed the Senate in mid-summer.

The message about the need to invest more in water infrastructure now is sinking in. (Read about AWWA's action on infrastructure.) The appropriations bill that Congress passed for fiscal year 2010 boosted spending for the drinking water SRF to $1.38 billion, compared with the usual annual appropriation of $790 million to $830 million. Furthermore, in late 2009, the House passed HR2487, the Jobs for Main Street Act, which contains $1 billion in additional SRF funding for drinking water infrastructure. The Senate is expected to act on the bill in January. 

The equally dominant subject for the drinking water community in 2009 was legislation regarding the security of chemicals used at water treatment plants. Legislation governing security at chemical manufacturing plants expired on Sept. 30, and Congress used this as a target to renew that legislation and to include drinking water and wastewater utilities.

The House of Representatives passed HR2868 in the fall to renew the existing program for the chemical industry and create a chemical security program for the water sector. Two hot-button issues were whether water utilities should be forced to adopt "inherently safer technology" (IST) and protection of sensitive utility information.

The legislation initially gave USEPA the final say in whether a utility would have to adopt IST. However, ultimately the bill gave the decision on IST to state primacy officials.

The key concern about information protection is a provision that would include representatives of collective bargaining agents, whether or not they worked at the utility, in the development of vulnerability assessments and site security plans.

The Senate has yet to act on chemical security legislation, but staff expects a Senate version. The House bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. IST appears to be just as divisive an issue in the Senate committee as during the House debates. (Read about AWWA's efforts on security legislation.)

Climate legislation is also emerging. Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass., have written climate change legislation with two drinking water features: formal authorization of USEPA’s WaterSense conservation program and creation of a “Blue Bank” grant program to help water systems address or mitigate climate-related impacts on water quality or quantity in a region. Boxer is chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Kerry is chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. (Read about AWWA's outlook on climate legislation.)

Further, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced a bill, HR1712, to formally authorize WaterSense, in case the bill mentioned above does not pass. He also introduced S1035, the Drinking Water Adaptation, Technology, Education and Research Act. Its aim is “to enhance the ability of drinking water utilities in the United States to develop and implement climate change adaptation programs and policies and for other purposes.”

Although 2009 was a busy year for water infrastructure, climate change and chemical security legislation, 2010 is likely to be even more intense.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Streamlines stories: "House-passed jobs bill adds $2B for water/wastewater," Dec. 22, 2009; "House-passed chem security bill puts drinking water, wastewater under USEPA," Nov. 10, 2009.
• Study funded by the Water Industry Technical Action Fund, "Financing Water Infrastructure: A Water Infrastructure Bank and Other Innovations." Available through the AWWA Bookstore.
  

Judge says no more Lake Lanier water for Atlanta

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Buford Dam impounds Lake Lanier on the Chattahoochee River in northern Georgia. Photo courtesy US Army Corps of Engineers

US District Judge Paul Magnuson ruled July 17 that a political solution is necessary to settle the decades-long water war over the lake, and is giving Congress three years to come up with one.

In the meantime, Atlanta's current withdrawals from Lake Lanier will be allowed to stay the same but may not increase. Failing a congressional resolution, in 2012 metro Atlanta will no longer be allowed to use Lake Lanier as its primary water supply.

In a 97-page order, Magnuson wrote that "The court recognizes that this is a draconian result... It is, however, the only result that recognizes how far the operation of the Buford project has strayed from the original authorization."

He said that the Corps should have obtained congressional approval before allowing Lake Lanier to be Atlanta's primary source of water, and that doing so was a violation of the Water Supply Act. He also called it "beyond comprehension" that the Corps' operating guidelines for the Buford Dam is more than 50 years old.

But as he harshly criticized the Corps, Magnuson also said that there is plenty of blame to go around. "Too often, state, local and even national government actors do not consider the long-term consequences of their decisions," he wrote. "Local governments allow unchecked growth because it increases tax revenue, but ... do not sufficiently plan for the resources such unchecked growth will require."

He also said individual citizens rarely think about their own water use, unless forced to by crises such as the recent drought in the Southeast.

Elected officials from Georgia, Alabama and Florida quickly weighed in on the ruling, saying it is very unlikely that Atlanta ultimately will end up with no Lake Lanier water, but admitting that the ruling severely undermines Georgia's bargaining power as negotiations continue.

"We will work tirelessly to reach an agreement that is in the best interest of Georgia, while at the same time respecting the interests and concerns of Florida and Alabama," Georgia senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss said in a joint statement. "This is a huge challenge, but it is a challenge we must meet."

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said his state will "fight to the death" to keep drawing water from Lake Lanier but also vowed to pursue all legal and political avenues to resolve the conflict.

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley praised the ruling, saying Georgia's "water grab" would now come to an end. "Atlanta has based its growth on the idea that it could take whatever water it wanted whenever it wanted it, and that the downstream states would simply have to do with less," Riley said.

Some environmental groups also welcomed the ruling, saying it would force Atlanta to adopt more sustainable water practices and work on developing its own supply. Magnuson also said as much in his ruling, encouraging the Corps to update its water plans so those in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system can determine how to meet their own water needs.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Streamlines: In the News (Current Issue) 
• WaterWeek: Georgia's drought, suits drag on (10/27/2008)
• E-MainStream: Shared waters means shared problems (1/2/08)

Water projects among the first as ARRA money hits ground

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Water utilities are getting the smaller ARRA projects underway soonest.  Stock photo

Backers of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in February, said that it would take months before federal dollars made their way into utilities' pockets and work could begin. By late July and early August, work was under way on projects nationwide.

Most of the projects under construction so far are on the smaller side — the Aug. 4 groundbreaking on an $80,000 project to replace six main valves in Smyrna, Del. is typical — and many utilities report project bids coming in lower than anticipated as contractors scramble for the work.

Through the Delaware Office of Drinking Water, Smyrna was awarded a stimulus loan for six projects totaling about $3.8 million. Under the loan's terms, about 52 percent of the loan's principal will be waived upon completion, saving the town more than $1.9 million.

The town's engineer, Ryan Flickinger of KCI Technologies, said that two other projects are also under way, a water main replacement in one part of town and the replacement of services for 160 customers in another. Both projects would have been tough sells without the stimulus funding.

"I don't know that we could have done them at all, really," Flickinger said. "Especially the way the economy was looking six or seven months ago. The stimulus gave us the opportunity to do some things we probably couldn't have otherwise."

Another project that may not have happened without stimulus funding is a new treatment plant in Auburn, Maine. The $7.7 million disinfectant facility, which uses ultraviolet light instead of chemicals, received a grant covering 30 percent of the costs and interest-free loans for the rest.

When the plant starts operating in 2011, it will meet federal standards requiring all municipal water supplies to use two disinfectant methods. Lewiston - Auburn's water is currently treated with chlorine and ammonia. The cities' consultants had evaluated 64 options for a secondary disinfection process to meet the requirements of the Long term Surface Water Treatment Rule Phase 2.

Another town, Fort Madison, Iowa, broke ground on a new treatment plant last week. The $22 million reverse-osmosis water plant should be operational in the fall of next year, with a 5-mgd (18,900 m³/d) capacity expandable to 8 mgd (30,300 m³/d). The current plant has a capacity of only 3.8 mgd (14,400 m³/d) and suffers from other deficiencies, including inadequate flood protection, facility security problems and chlorine contact time.

Fort Madison received more than $4.2 million in federal and state funding, including a $2 million forgivable ARRA loan, another $340,000 in stimulus funds, a $914,100 federal state and tribal assistance grant and a $972,000 state community development block grant. The rest of the project will be paid for with a 3 percent interest loan from the Iowa drinking water state revolving loan fund and a city contribution of $350,000.

Fort Madison's Water Services Director, Larry Dinwiddie, called the stimulus money essential in getting the plant built without further rate hikes, and helping to ensure the city's economic future.

"It's critical to attracting businesses, creating jobs and maintaining a great quality of life," Dinwiddie said. "[The new plant] means a lot to this whole part of the state."

Groundbreaking events for stimulus projects have also given elected officials a chance to take credit for voting for the ARRA, derided by some as a massive government porkfest. Iowa senators Tom Harkin (D) and Charles Grassley (R) both sent letters to Fort Madison's groundbreaking; appearing in person at the Auburn ceremony, Sen. Susan Collins (R), made sure her constituents knew she voted for it.

"It's exactly the kind of infrastructure project I envisioned," she told the crowd. "It puts people back to work right now; it creates jobs and it delivers lasting benefits to the community."

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Streamlines: Stimulus money starts flowing, but questions remain (4/14/09)
• AWWA Streamlines: Obama signs stimulus bill with $2B for drinking water (2/17/09)
• AWWA Breaking News: Congress agrees on stimulus spending (2/12/09)

Chemical security bills moving in different directions

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Water and wastewater systems are expected to be brought into Homeland Security's chemical security program, either this year or next.

The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 (HR2868), which would include wastewater treatment plants under the jurisdiction of the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards for the first time, was approved June 23 by the House Committee on Homeland Security. That committee has jurisdiction over the bill, including provisions covering wastewater, but does not have jurisdiction covering drinking water.

The bill now heads to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which will add provisions concerning drinking water. It is widely accepted on Capitol Hill that water and wastewater systems will be brought into the CFATS program as part of these comprehensive program revisions, according to Tom Curtis, deputy executive director for government affairs.

Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives passed (399–37) the US Department of Homeland Security's FY2010 appropriations bill (HR 2892), which includes a provision that extends the existing CFATS program for one year. The existing program does not apply to water or wastewater utilities. Drinking water systems were covered under a separate bill passed in 2002, commonly called the Bioterrorism Bill. Wastewater utilities are not currently covered by any federal chemical security provisions.

However, DHS authority to implement the existing chemical facility regulations expires on Sept. 30. The Obama administration has asked Congress to ensure a one-year continuation of the existing program, in case Congress does not complete work on its comprehensive chemical facility security reform bill by the end of September.

The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 (HR2868) puts security regulation for chemical plants and wastewater facilities under DHS. The provisions being drafted in the Energy and Commerce Committee put chemical security at drinking water facilities under the purview of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

AWWA has expressed significant concerns over having security at drinking water and wastewater operations overseen by two different federal agencies with potentially different programs and criteria, Curtis says.

For both drinking water and wastewater facilities, the comprehensive revisions include authority for the state or federal government to order “high-risk facilities” to switch to "inherently safer technologies" (IST) — a phrase that, when applied to water and wastewater plants, usually addresses gaseous chlorine.

AWWA has gone on record urging that Congress leave the choice of chemicals or process to an informed local decision. AWWA has just released a comprehensive guide for utility use — Selecting Disinfectants in a Security-Conscious Environment — that is available through the AWWA Bookstore.

Curtis says AWWA has also expressed strong concerns that the comprehensive legislation weakens existing law for the protection of sensitive security information that utilities would be required to provide to federal, state and local officials and union representatives and has questioned the efficacy of building — and funding — a whole new CFATS-type regulatory operation at USEPA when one already exists at DHS that, by all reports, is running pretty well, Curtis says.

One ongoing debate over HR2868 concerns giving DHS authority to order a facility to cease operations. Such language is currently in the bill, although it specifically exempts wastewater facilities from such orders. Drinking water treatment plants are not mentioned — yet.

The bill was introduced June 15 by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Co-sponsors of the bill include some heavy hitters in the House:

• Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee;
• Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the E&C's Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, both of which have jurisdiction over drinking water;
• Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, chairwoman of Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection;
• Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, D-N.Y., chairwoman of Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology; and
• Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J.

Markup and hearings on the Thompson bill began the day after introduction, and the committee approved the bill on a party-line vote (18–11) on Tuesday, June 23.

While there's a desire in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to hold a hearing on HR2868 by mid-July, that committee is now embroiled in draft legislation on a health care plan and has not yet scheduled anything.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• AWWA Government Affairs Web site on security issues
• AWWA Streamlines story: "Washington Report: Chemical security," May 26, 2009
• Bookstore products on security and safety, including two videos: "Safety First: Safe Handling of Water Treatment Chemicals" and "Chlorine Safety DVD"

Water trust fund bill not a slam-dunk winner

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Chips Barry testifies on behalf of AWWA at a hearing July 15 on HR3202.

AWWA would prefer that funds raised locally be retained and spent locally, rather than being sent to Washington, D.C., first, and that communities that have adopted adequate rates not be asked to subsidize those that have not. One way of doing this is through a federal water infrastructure bank, which AWWA supports over a trust fund.

The trust bill — Water Protection and Reinvestment Act (HR 3202) — would create a trust fund with a dedicated source of funding, new federal taxes that would raise $10 billion annually. The taxes proposed by the sponsor are

• A 4 cent per-container fee on water-based beverages — includes anything that is more than 50 percent water, such as soda, but not juice or milk;
• A 3 percent fee on items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, shampoo, cosmetics, toilet paper, and cooking oil;
• A one-half of 1 percent excise fee on pharmaceutical products, which would support remediation research and programs to prevent drugs from entering water systems;
• A one-fifteenth of 1 percent fee on corporate profits over $4 million — similar to the tax that funded the Superfund program until the tax expired in 1995.

Citing the shortfall of funding for water infrastructure, sponsor Rep. Earl Blumenauer (PDF), D-Ore., who drew bipartisan sponsorship (1 Democrat, 3 Republicans), said, "While it's probably the case that some water agencies could and should charge more for the water services they provide, we can't expect individuals to shoulder the entire burden of upgrading our nation's seriously neglected infrastructure with their water bills. This could mean a doubling or tripling of rates…. To me it is unconscionable that in this country, something as essential to life as water could become unaffordable."

Joining in support of the bill at a hearing June 15 before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee were representatives from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and the Associated General Contractors of America.

Representing American Society of Civil Engineers, which gave a grade of D- for both the nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, Dale Jacobson (PDF) testified "Although Americans still enjoy some of the best tap water in the world, the costs of treating and delivering that water where it is needed continue to outpace the funds available to sustain the system," Jacobson said.

New sources of funding must be found, he said, adding ASCE "strongly supports the creation of a trust fund to finance the national shortfall in funding." ASCE estimates the shortfall to replace aging drinking water facilities alone at least $11 billion annually. 

Representing AWWA, Chips Barry (PDF), manager of Denver Water, noted that over $80 billion annually is spent by local officials on water and wastewater infrastructure. The infrastructure gap represents a shortfall of about 20 percent relative to current spending, Barry said.

Thomas K. Walsh, engineer, director and treasurer for a water pollution district in Millbury, Mass., spoke for NACWA, citing a recent US Conference of Mayors report that says municipalities currently pay 95–99 percent of the costs for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

NACWA's own study showed that "the average cost of wastewater services for a single-family residence increased by about 5.3 percent in 2008, compared to the rate of inflation, which was 3.9 percent," Walsh said. He felt small, rural and low-income communities would be hardest hit.

Referring to the decline in state revolving fund appropriations in recent years, "it is critical to take the issue of water infrastructure investment out of the realm of uncertain annual appropriations and into the more certain arena of a dedicated funding stream," Walsh said.

"If highways merit a trust fund with $30 billion per year and airports $10 billion per year, why should we not have one for water, a resource each of us uses every single day?"

Kristine L. Young, representing Associated General Contractors of America, testified that "many communities do not currently have the financial resources to make the investments that are direly needed and necessary to meet federal water quality standards and face significant practical and political challenges enacting rate structures that would raise adequate capital to make the improvements that are needed."

She noted the declining appropriations that SRFs suffered until recently and said "AGC supports creation of a long-term, sustainable, off-budget source of funding for water infrastructure."

Barry expressed a number of reservations about trust funds, in general, to the subcommittee, and said AWWA was "not prepared…at this time" to support HR 3202.

"In practice, federal trust funds routinely collect more in revenue than they are allowed to spend by congressional appropriation," Barry said. Trust funds usually must be renewed annually during the appropriation process. If a trust fund collects more funds than it is it allowed to spend through the appropriations process, those funds can be and often are spent elsewhere, Barry said.

"At the present time the Treasury owes many billions of dollars to federal trust funds, not counting the vastly larger sums that are owed to the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds," Barry said.

"We believe a water trust fund bill, regardless of the revenue sources it employs, should include a guaranteed or automatic appropriation of all monies collected to the EPA for the program's intended purposes," Barry said.

ASCE's representative had the same thought, "The fund should contain budgetary firewalls to ensure that a reliable amount of financial aid goes to state and local governments annually." Blumenauer's testimony didn't discuss this.

Barry also cited AWWA's long-standing policy: "The primary responsibility for funding water infrastructure has always been local, and should remain so. Americans are best served by water and wastewater systems that are self-supporting through rates and other local charges."

He was concerned that local officials would be loath to raise rates locally if they believed a pot of money were coming from Washington.

What AWWA favors, Barry said, is "a federal water infrastructure bank [that] would provide direct low-interest financing or loan guarantees for projects of regional or national significance, or which were simply too large for a state [SRF] to accommodate. With loans at the Treasury bond rate, communities would typically save 10 to 20 percent compared to their current borrowing rates and would save significantly more if the bank were authorized to provide additional subsidies."

The cost to the federal government of a federal water infrastructure bank would be relatively small, Barry said. If the federal banking system were to forgive 20 percent of the principal of a 20-year $10 billion loan to the water bank, the cost to the federal government would be only $150 million a year. The bank could, in turn, provide significant cost savings and even subsidies to needy communities.

The National Association of Water Companies issued a statement regarding testimony it submitted to the committee, stating, "The trust fund mechanism created by this bill would serve to further mask the value of water through taxes on unrelated activities and discourage responsible water use and conservation through heavy, broad utility subsidizations."

The NAWC "supports federal policies that provide utilities with incentives to set prices that both sustain infrastructure investments and encourage conservation," the statement said. NAWC also supports using the SRFs and passing a bill to remove volume caps on private activity bonds, which increase the amount of tax-exempt funding available to utilities. Both allow affordable investments in infrastructure while "still sending accurate price signals to the public about the value of water," the release said.

Barry said AWWA is glad to see that the bill would channel funds through existing state revolving fund (SRF) loan programs and also urged passage of S1005, a bill that reauthorizes the SRFs and gives greater weight to loan applicants who "can demonstrate that they are implementing asset management plans and responsible financial planning." (See Water Legislation column.)

AWWA also supports efforts to remove the annual volume caps from private activity bonds used for water infrastructure projects, as HR537 would do, he said.

A report recently released by the Aspen Institute — Sustainable Water Systems: Step One - Redefining the Nation’s Infrastructure Challenge (PDF) — cited by both NAWC and AWWA, makes 10 recommendations, including that the price of water should cover "the total cost of meeting service and sustainable water infrastructure requirements, subject to concerns about affordability."

The Government Accountability Office also issued a report recently — Clean Water Infrastructure: A Variety Of Issues Need To Be Considered When Designing A Clean Water Trust Fund (PDF).

Anu Mittal (PDF), author and a GAO natural resources and environment issues director, testified before the subcommittee about a variety of sources for funding a trust fund.

Levying a federal water use tax was one source she mentioned. AWWA does not support a water tax because it would siphon away local funds and would result in communities with adequate rates subsidizing those without.

However, Blumenauer did not accept the water tax recommendation from the GAO, nor did he propose putting a tax on fertilizers and pesticides, as the GAO suggested.

Blumenauer also spoke for the record on the House floor the day before the hearing, emphasizing the need for improved water infrastructure financing.

In addition to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, HR3202 has been sent for consideration to the following committees: House Energy and Commerce, House Science and Technology and House Ways and Means. Some of those committees are believed to favor the water use tax, according to Tom Curtis, AWWA deputy director for government affairs.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Report Financing Water Infrastructure: A Water Infrastructure Bank and Other Innovations (PDF 2M)
• A study of private activity bonds (PDF), commissioned by the AWWA Water Utility Council, completed in June 2009.
• From the AWWA Bookstore: "Avoiding Rate Shock: Making The Case For Water Rates";    "Thinking Outside the Bill: A Utility Manager's Guide to Assisting Low-Income Water Customers"; and "Water Infrastructure at a Turning Point: The Road to Sustainable Asset Management."
• AWWA Streamlines story, March 17 "Economy stresses out water customers, employees"

Senate also okays hefty increase in EPA budget

The Senate spent several days considering amendments before passing appropriations for USEPA.

The Senate passed the appropriations bill for Interior–Environment departments (HR2996) by a vote of 77–21, providing $32.1 billion for the Interior Department (vs. $32.3 billion in the House version of the bill, passed June 26) for fiscal year 2010, which begins Oct. 1.

Included in that amount is $10.196 billion for USEPA (vs. $10.57 billion in the House) — a considerable hike from FY2009 funding of $7.6 billion. Most of the increase was allocated to the two state revolving funds (SRFs) that USEPA administers:

• The Drinking Water SRF got $1.387 billion from the Senate for FY2010 (vs. $1.44 billion from the House). The Obama administration had asked for $1.5 billion. The FY2009 DWSRF appropriation was $829 million, the same as 2008.
• The Clean Water SRF got $2.1 billion from the Senate for FY2010 (vs. $2.307 billion from the House). The administration request was for $2.4 billion. The FY2009 CWSRF appropriation was $289 million, the same as 2008.

These funds are in addition to $6 billion in SRF funding provided by the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Senate noted that over the past two fiscal years, they have appropriated more than $11 billion for water and sewer improvements.

The "green infrastructure" requirement begun in the ARRA legislation was retained by the Senate in FY2010; 20 percent of the SRF funds must go to water- and sewer- improvement projects that qualify as green infrastructure, water and energy efficiency or other environmentally innovative projects.

The Senate also increased the percentage of funds set aside for Native American tribes to 2 percent and the percentage set aside for US territories to 1.5 percent.

Baltimore County workers walk across mud and buckled asphalt from Broening Highway at the site of Dundalk's main break.   AP Photo/The Baltimore Sun, Kim Hairston

"Maryland is not unique in facing a crisis when it comes to water infrastructure," Cardin told the senators. "Our water infrastructure is reaching a tipping point in many places, having long outlived its 50-year lifespan."

Since the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, time is short for the Senate-House conference committee to resolve the differences between their appropriations legislation. The House passed a continuing resolution on Sept. 25 to fund the balance of the federal budget that hasn't been finished until the end of October. The Senate takes up the resolution Sept. 29.

Other appropriations in the Senate version of the Interior-Environment appropriations bill that affect water:

• The total Senate appropriation for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, including the two SRF funds, totaled $4.95 billion (vs. $5.215 billion from the House). The administration's request was $5.19 billion. FY2009 appropriation total for STAG was $2.968 billion.
• Included in STAG is $15 million appropriated by the Senate for Alaska native villages infrastructure assistance program — $5 million more than the administration had requested — and $10 million for water and wastewater facilities on the United States - Mexico border.
• Also included in the Senate's STAG appropriation is $150 million to fund targeted infrastructure assistance grants not included in the budget request. More than 160 specific water, wastewater and stormwater projects as well as water quality protection projects are listed in the committee report. These grants require a local match of 45 percent of the total project cost unless USEPA grants a hardship waiver.
• USEPA science and technology programs were funded at $842.8 million by the Senate (vs. $849.6 million by the House). The administration requested $842.4 million. The FY2009 budget was $790.1 million.
• USEPA environmental programs and management received $2.88 billion in the Senate bill (vs. $3 billion from the House). The administration requested $2.94 billion. The FY2009 budget was $2.39 billion.
• Water Security Initiative — The Senate appropriated $18.7 million, the same as the House appropriation, but a decrease of $5 million below the President's request. The Senate noted that this level represents a 25 percent increase in funding for the program over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The recommendation fully funds the remaining two water security utility pilot projects, bringing the total to five pilot projects, and provides a $2 million increase above the 2009 level for related monitoring, evaluation and research activities.
• Public Water System Supervision — The Senate approved $105.7 million, which is the same as the House and the same as the President requested. This is $6.6 million more than in FY2009.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program — $114.2 million (vs. $113.1 million in the House bill and as requested by the administration.) FY2009 appropriation $112.6 million.
• Great Lakes Restoration Initiative — $400 million, a decrease of $75 million from the administration's request and the House's appropriation. The Senate has agreed to consolidate and expand funding for USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office and Great Lakes Legacy Act programs within this new program-project.
• Competitive grants to restore the San Francisco Bay watershed, Lake Champlain, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain and Lake Pontchartrain. The Senate left funding mostly the same as in 2009 for these geographic programs, but considerably below the House appropriations.

The US Geological Survey is also included in the Interior–Environment appropriation. The Senate allotted $1.104 billion for USGS (vs. $1.105 billion from the House. That's more than the administration had asked for ($1.098 billion) and more than was enacted in FY2009 ($1.044 billion.)

Of that amount, $65.6 million is tagged for use in cooperative water resource investigations with states and municipalities.

The Energy–Water appropriation bill, which includes the water-related programs administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, was passed by both houses in July, but is not yet out of conference committee.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Streamlines stories: "House okays hefty increase in USEPA budget" (July 7); "With 2009 budget passed, eyes turn to new water bill" (March 17); "Water funding gets boost in Obama budget" (March 3);  "Obama signs stimulus bill with $2B for drinking water"(Feb. 17).
• AWWA Government Affairs Web site offers regular updates.

Hearing airs out chemical security bills

The Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009 (HR3258 PDF) would create the new program for drinking water security under the jurisdiction of the US Environmental Protection Agency and require all community water systems serving more than 3,300 people to update their vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans every five years.

At the same time, the subcommittee heard testimony on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 (HR2868 PDF), which would renew the existing chemical security program for the chemical industry as well as create a new program for wastewater utilities, both under the US Department of Homeland Security.

The only utility official to testify, Brian Ramaley (PDF), director of Newport News (Va.) Waterworks and president of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, called it a "recipe for confusion" in his testimony. He opined that "part of the reason for the current structure of the program is a result of the jurisdictional framework among committees in the House of Representatives."

He referred to the fact that the House Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over drinking water, while the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has jurisdiction over wastewater.

That jurisdictional dichotomy was not mentioned by either of the administration officials who testified or by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House E&C Committee (Energy and Environment is a subcommittee of E&C).

"I believe Congress will resolve the jurisdictional issue, if not in the House, in the Senate, where both drinking water and wastewater are under the same committee—the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works," said Tommy Holmes, AWWA legislative director. "More significant are the provisions water utilities would need to comply with, particularly those regarding the selection of disinfectants and protection of sensitive information."

The hearing didn't consider a third bill — Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2009 (HR2883) — introduced in June but sent to the T&I Committee, which has not yet acted on it. That bill would place wastewater security under USEPA supervision.

AWWA’s concerns with HR3258 were outlined in an August letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That letter was made a part of the hearing record on Oct. 1.

At the hearing, most members of Congress focused on HR2868. However, a number of Democrats as well as Republicans expressed concern over that bill's provisions regarding the concept of inherently safer technology (IST), referred to in the bill as "methods to reduce the consequences of an intentional chemical release."

IST was introduced in the 2002 legislation that established the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. It exempted both drinking water and wastewater facilities, skirting the issue of whether the government could force utilities to stop using gaseous chlorine for the safety of the nearby residents. That law expired Oct. 4, but a continuing resolution extended the regulations to Oct. 31.

Under HR3258, utilities possessing or using "substances of concern" above certain threshold levels would be required to assess methods they could use to reduce the consequences of an intentional release of those chemicals.  If not satisfied with a utility’s decisions, state officials could order a change in chemicals or processes. 

Committee staff has acknowledged that the chemical of concern at drinking water utilities is chlorine, Holmes said.

Officials testifying on behalf of USEPA and DHS said that states should have a "prominent role" in such decisions and that DHS, in consultation with USEPA, should develop implementation plans for utilities that were designated "high risk" facilities.

Ramaley said AMWA gave qualified support for HR3258 as introduced because the bill does not give the federal government the power to broadly dictate disinfection methods or shut down local water systems for noncompliance with security regulations.

Ramaley pointed out it is "a major concession by AMWA to agree to have individual utilities' disinfection choices subject to review by an outside government agency." Although he continues to believe local experts are best equipped to make such complicated decisions, he expressed trust that utilities' relationships with state enforcement agencies have given those officials "a significant degree of understanding of our operations."

HR3258 maintains current criminal penalties for persons who unlawfully release protected utility information such as vulnerability assessments and site security plans, as the water sector desires, Ramaley said. Both HR3258 and HR2868 allow sharing such information with local first responders, certain water utility employees and their union representatives.

However, Ramaley testified he remains "skeptical" of the need to share this information with "outside entities that would not be directly involved with the response to a security incident at a water facility."

Raising another concern, Ramaley said that he believes the committee intended to write a bill that applied only to a treatment plant or chemical storage facility, but that HR3258 could be interpreted as applying to "the far reaches of a utility's water distribution system."

Although the House Homeland Security Committee approved HR2868 (18-11) on June 23, the House Energy and Commerce and the House Judiciary committees both have postponed their consideration of the legislation. The current extension expires Oct. 23.

The fiscal 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR2892) includes increased funding to extend the CFAT regulations for one year. That appropriations bill was passed by the House and Senate this summer, and the conference report was agreed to Oct.  7. A vote by both houses is again required to ratify the conference report.

Additional AWWA Resources

• "New bill added to chemical security stewpot," AWWA Streamlines (Aug. 4)
• "Chemical security bills moving in different directions," AWWA Streamlines (July 7)
• AWWA Bookstore: "Selecting Disinfectants In A Security-Conscious Environment"

Water sector readies for swine flu pandemic

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Working with health officials to ensure that water and wastewater workers are considered first-responders gives them priority on available vaccines.  AP Photo/John Amis/File

Critical infrastructure industries have always needed extensive contingency plans for natural or manmade disasters that could threaten service. But while those plans most often focus on damage to physical plants or other hard assets, planning to respond to a pandemic is different: In a disease outbreak, it is the people who are out of action, not the equipment.

Also, while natural disasters typically happen within a definable geographic area and timeframe, outbreaks are widespread and can last months, peaking in waves. For these reasons, resources can't always be moved from one locality to another to help areas in need.

Although the flu pandemic is most often talked about as something to prepare for, it is actually here already: According to the World Health Organization, the H1N1 virus (also known as the swine flu) had infected 182,000 people worldwide, resulting in 1,799 deaths, as of Aug. 21. Of those, 105,000 infected people and 1,579 deaths were in North and South America.

Though the WHO keeps no statistics on infections in particular industries, it does offer the document "Pandemic influenza preparedness and response," which includes general advice for businesses and governments about many planning areas, such as the stockpiling of antiviral drugs. Other good advice can be found on the Web pages of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Flu.gov, the US government's pandemic site.

Kevin Morley, AWWA security and preparedness program manager, says conventional disaster response plans may be of limited use in the event of a pandemic.

"This is primarily a workforce issue," Morley says, "that may cause cascading infrastructure failure issues. So there are some things that would be different about the response."

Morley says that while a neighboring utility might think nothing of sending an employee to help out another utility with a major pipe break or equipment problem, the considerations might be different with a pandemic.

"You're sending someone into a 'hot zone,' from a social psychology perspective, regardless of personnel protective measures," Morley says. "There is a risk that they could become infected and potentially expose loved ones when they return, which is quite different from responding to damages caused by a tornado or hurricane."

Morley also says some problems may come from outside a utility, such as supply-chain interruptions. Plus the US government has issued guidance (PDF) that seems to conflict with other rules. "They recommend that [utilities] need to have 12 weeks' worth of treatment chemicals on hand [in case of supply-chain problems]," Morley says. "But they also don't want us to have that much chlorine on hand for security reasons. So there's some conflict there."

AWWA recently worked with its sections on a letter to state public health officials to remind them that drinking water and wastewater utilities are classified as first responders under federal law. On these grounds, public health officials charged with determining who has priority access to vaccines (assuming they are available) should understand the consequence of water systems losing a significant proportion of their staff.

Morley says the federal government is treating the possibility of a severe outbreak very seriously, even issuing guidance (PDF) on what emergency powers various government departments have to contain it.

"We're seeing them talk about quarantine powers and things that they really haven't talked about since the very early part of the 20th century—measures they used for typhoid and things like that," Morley says. "We need to know where water personnel fit into that picture, like whether they can be driving to get to work if the government orders everyone to stay home."

Rather than concentrating on worst-case scenarios, however, most utilities contacted by AWWA Streamlines seem to be focusing on the basics — wash your hands, don't sneeze on your co-workers and above all, don't report to work if you're sick.

Many already had fairly comprehensive pandemic plans in place from 2004's bird-flu scare.

"We had done a lot of work on our plans back then," says Patty Bigner, customer and employee relations manager at Fort Collins (Colo.) Utilities. "So our meetings were mostly about updating that plan and making sure we knew where we stood with what the government was saying."

Bigner says that much of the guidance for the utility came from the county health department. Topics handled in-house by utility staff included human resources policy and mutual aid agreements.

"We needed to talk about what would happen if someone became sick, but they had already used all their sick leave," Bigner says. "Obviously we wouldn't want them to come in anyway, so we now have a policy in place that allows for some flexibility there."

Bigner says having the plan in place from 2004 was helpful, but pulling together everything necessary this time around was still a lot of work.

"I'd say it was a pretty significant effort," she says. "We put a lot of time into it, and we're still waiting and watching what the [federal] government is doing. But we feel like we're ready."

Additional AWWA Resources:

• AWWA Streamlines: Pandemic fears raise public health awareness (April 28, 2009)
• Journal AWWA: “Water System Preparedness and Best Practices for Pandemic Influenza,” (January 2009)
• Opflow: “Taken Down by Disease: Can Bird Flu Halt Operations?” (July 2006)
• AWWA Business Continuity Plan for Pandemic Influenza

Candidates for AWWA president-elect profiled

Despite the slowdown in retirements from the workforce, all three candidates for AWWA president-elect consider attracting young professionals to water industry careers and AWWA membership a major focus for the association.

Their experience as part of AWWA's leadership team, as well as their professional careers, gives each of them well-informed perspectives on the issues that face AWWA and the water industry. Two current and one past AWWA vice-presidents are running for president-elect:

• Dean Fritzke, Pacific Northwest Section
• Jerald W. Stevens, Iowa Section
• Jeffrey M. Zdrojewski, New York Section

At its January meeting, the AWWA Board of Directors will choose one of the three to become president-elect in June. The winning candidate will become AWWA president in June 2011.

In December, Streamlines will publish the candidates' responses to a set of questions from the AWWA Nominating Committee.

Lead line replacement, blood lead levels linked

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Drinking water as a route of lead contamination continues to be a topic of research.

A memo published on the agency's Web site and directed to public health managers for preventing lead poisoning in children advises that customers be provided information when lead service line replacement occurs, so they can take steps such as flushing taps and cleaning aerators for an appropriate period of time after lead service line disruption.

Written by Dr. Howard Frumkin, CDC’s director of the National Center for Environmental Health, the memo explains that the CDC study’s “preliminary results suggest that when the public portion of a lead service line is replaced — the section from the main to the meter — children are more likely to have blood lead levels greater than or equal to 10 μg/dL, compared to children living in housing with either undisturbed lead service lines or service lines that are not made of lead.”

The study is undergoing peer review, and publication in a scientific journal is anticipated. This study, coupled with other recent reports, is likely to ramp up public and regulatory attention.

Recent utility research also suggests that disrupting lead service lines — as occurs during lead service line replacement — can substantially increase lead levels for a period of time. When lead pipe remains after the disruption, lead levels can continue to be elevated longer.

Although permanently reducing lead in drinking water fundamentally rests on removing lead materials from contact with drinking water, including lead service lines, customers are frequently reluctant to replace the portion of the lead service lines under their control, and utilities typically replace only their portion of the line.

The US Environmental Protection Agency finalized some minor LCR revisions in 2007, but more changes are coming. In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in late 2009, US Environmental Protection Assistant Administrator for Water Peter Silva committed to additional revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule by 2012.

"The scope of these revisions is anybody’s guess, but issues in play include revising monitoring, effectiveness of lead service line replacement — particularly partial lead service line replacement — and lead content in plumbing fixture and materials," notes AWWA Director of Security and Regulatory Affairs Alan Roberson.

In addition to the CDC memo, Environmental Health Perspectives recently published two articles on lead in drinking water: “Exposure on Tap: Drinking Water as an Overlooked Source of Lead," Feb. 1, and "Out of Plumb: When Water Treatment Causes Lead Contamination," Dec. 1.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA report: Strategies to Obtain Acceptance of Complete Lead Service Line Replacement (free download)
• Regulatory Issues on AWWA Government Affairs pages
• AWWA consumer Web site: Drinktap.org
• Water Research Foundation report:  Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues (free download)

Mantua takes helm of AWWA

Joe Mantua (left) took over as AWWA's president Wednesday evening, succeeding Craig Woolard. Photo by David Hathcox

Woolard handed over the gavel “with full confidence” to Mantua in a ceremony during a celebration at the AWWA annual conference. Mantua, an engineer, spent many years in a utility environment with the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.

Mantua, who will serve as AWWA president for the next year, spoke of the importance of providing a memorable experience for AWWA members, in the same way the head singer David Grohl of the Foo Fighters did for Mantua’s son Jack, when he spent a few minutes talking with the teen and taking pictures.

“He [Grohl] understands how important it is to connect with and be engaged with his fans. He stopped because he knows that if you want your fans to keep coming back again and again and again, you need to provide them with a truly memorable experience,” said the new AWWA president. (Read the full speech.)

Mantua also talked about ensuring a successful transition for AWWA’s new executive director, David LaFrance; building relationships and strategic partnerships with other organizations; maintaining the momentum for the programs begun over the past several years and carefully and strategically looking at new ideas.

Both men recognized the many people, from family to AWWA Section members to work colleagues, who have made their participation in this volunteer role possible. (See additional background in AWWA's news release.) 

USEPA proposes revised TCR

The US Environmental Protection Agency has proposed revisions to the 1989 Total Coliform Rule to enhance public health protection against waterborne pathogens in the distribution systems of public water systems.

The proposed rule, which was officially signed June 17, reflects improvements recommended by a federal advisory committee that included representatives from a broad range of stakeholder groups, including AWWA.

In proposing the Revised TCR, USEPA noted that it "offers a meaningful opportunity for greater public health protection beyond the current Total Coliform Rule."

While the proposed revisions rely on much the same monitoring structure as the existing TCR, the revisions to the current rule are significant, said Tom Curtis, AWWA deputy executive director for government affairs.

Most importantly, the Revised TCR provisions are intended to encourage, rather than discourage, proactive monitoring and utility actions to reduce the potential for microbial contamination in the distribution system.

Elements of the revisions include eliminating the current maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total coliforms and the associated public notification requirements for total coliform MCL violations.

Similarly, the assessments required under the proposed treatment technique are intended to promote diagnosis of problems and the establishment of practices at the water system to reduce the likelihood of coliform positives rather than simply react to their occurrence, said Curtis.

As a signatory to the Agreement in Principle produced by the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee, AWWA agrees that a final rule based on the principles described by the TCRDSAC will be an important improvement over the current rule, according to Curtis.

Once the rule is published in the Federal Register, comments will be taken for 60 days. USEPA is currently organizing a national stakeholder outreach program, which will include a webcast and public meetings in several cities.

USEPA is expected to release a draft companion guidance document on the assessment and correction elements of the rule revisions. This guidance will also be available for comment.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Learn more at the AWWA Government Affairs Web site.

Environmentalist cites alignment with water suppliers

Denis Hayes, original Earth Day coordinator, finds much in common with water suppliers.  Photo by David Hathcox

Bottled water producers, including Pepsi and Quaker Oats, he said, have publicly declared their competition with tap water — hoping to relegate it to only irrigation and perhaps cooking, he said. But the United States has some of the best water in the world, and Hayes asked how bottled water companies can so cavalierly impugn tap water quality.

The original coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970 looked at areas of alignment between water suppliers and environmental activists:

• Source water protection,
• Support for rates that reflect the value of water and
• Construction of infrastructure intended to last and not evaluated on discounted rates.

He urged an approach with the lasting effect of the aqueducts of ancient Rome or the buildings of Oxford University.

The per-capita water use in ancient Rome was about the same as New York City today, Hayes said. When water becomes scarce, it becomes valuable; when it becomes very scarce, civilization collapses, he alleged. He cited figures on the earth’s ability to support a population of 3 billion in a developed-nation lifestyle but noted the world's population is already more than twice that.

The challenge in his mind is to reduce the world’s population to sustainable levels that will close the income gap between rich and poor. Most problems could be solved with enough money and political will, he said. “We seldom have a surplus of either.”

However, he thinks water professionals can make a difference; he advised members of the audience to visit a nearby park and think of sustainability whenever they were faced with a decision with “real consequences.” He says the right thing to do will emerge in those circumstances.

AWWA President Craig Woolard drew parallels between Teddy Roosevelt's era and today.  Photo by David Hathcox

During the early 1900s, AWWA began publishing standards and holding meetings — participating in the development of the water supply and distribution system that is considered one of the greatest US achievements of the 20^th century, Woolard recounted.

AWWA continues to prepare its members to lead on the major issues facing the water industry: accounting for the true value of water, expanding the concept of infrastructure, revising the regulatory framework, conducting good asset management and promoting the water profession.

He concluded with a quotation from Teddy Roosevelt that he believes embodies the passion of AWWA members: “Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” [To read the text of Woolard's remarks, click here.]

EPA holds first ‘listening session’ on water strategy

Cynthia Dougherty listened to attendees' thoughts at ACE10. Photo by David Plank

Cynthia Dougherty, head of USEPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, hosted a session during AWWA’s annual conference, seeking input from attendees on how the agency should implement its new drinking water strategy.

Introduced by USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in March, the strategy encompasses four objectives:

• Address contaminants by group instead of individually.
• Foster new technologies, especially for small systems.
• Use statutory authorities in addition to the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure safe drinking water.
• Partner with the states to share more complete water quality data through open access channels.

Ways to group contaminants for regulation — such as by human health or environmental effect, source, toxicity, use — seemed to be the greatest challenge for the strategy, judging by the suggestions and comments from most people at the session.

Some of the questions arising from the discussion were:

• Should criteria apply to the group of contaminants as a whole or each one in the group?
• Could the technology to address the contaminant change as part of a group instead of as the individual contaminant?
• If treatment addresses a group, what contaminant might not be treated?

When it came to considering new technologies, several people were confident technology could be developed to address nearly any contaminant. “Technology is easy,” said one person. However, people were concerned that any new technology be sustainable and not need frequent replacing or updating, and that it be low cost and easy to use out of particular concern for small systems.

Although one member of the audience reported that Oregon posts water quality data online for public access and has not had any problems, many others were concerned about the potential for public outcry over data that is misunderstood or taken out of context.

Another concern was for data quality control.

In addition to strongly supporting source water protection, the audience had little objection to using additional statutes to help protect drinking water. Clean Water Act provisions have a direct connection to protecting drinking water sources.

Dougherty said that USEPA will hold three more listening sessions and solicit input through its Web site.

Earlier in the day, Dougherty outlined a full schedule of drinking water activity at the agency during a regulatory update session.

She said the more than 100 chemicals and 12 microbes on the newest Contaminant Candidate List will be evaluated in groups, as well as individually. Meanwhile, the agency is still looking at perchlorate and will make a regulatory determination by the end of the year, she promised.

The Revised Total Coliform Rule has been signed by the administrator and is awaiting publication in the Federal Register.

Now USEPA officials are starting to work on the Long-Term Lead and Copper Rule, with a stakeholder meeting to be held this fall to start looking at several issues: partial lead service line replacement, sample collection sites, tap sampling and consecutive systems. The schedule is to propose a revised rule in 2012.

Another area USEPA is targeting is small system compliance with the Microbial–Disinfection By-products Rule. Ninety percent of MDBP violations occur in small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, Dougherty said. So, USEPA will target funding and technical assistance for these systems, as well as support capacity development and promote restructuring where applicable.

She also listed other areas that USEPA is working on or studying — sustainability, climate-ready utilities, water and energy nexus, geologic sequestration and hydraulic fracturing.

Chemical security changes spark, falter

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

The differences between the two bills, both dependent on Senate action, and the lack of time remaining on Congress’ legislative calendar, reduce the likelihood of action this year.

A July 28 hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — "Protecting America's Water Treatment Facilities" — aired support for a new bill on the subject, while not officially serving as a hearing on the bill. The Secure Water Facilities Act (S3598) was introduced July 15 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D–N.J., chairman of an EPW subcommittee and also of the Senate Appropriations' Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

Lautenberg's bill was much the same as HR2868 (Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009), passed by the House in November 2009. Under S3598, the US Environmental Protection Agency continues to administer security for water and wastewater facilities, as it has under existing water security programs, but with the additional requirements of the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism (CFAT) Act and coordination with DHS. At the hearing S3598 received the administration's support in testimony from Cynthia Dougherty. 

However, S3598's provision giving government primacy agencies the ability to require water and wastewater facilities to switch to inherently safer technologies (IST) drew criticism from former USEPA water chief Benjamin Grumbles, as well as AWWA and other water industry organizations.

A union spokesman also testified, endorsing the New Jersey senator's bill for including employee representatives in vulnerability assessments and site security plans, but opposing the bill's inclusion of criminal penalties for disclosure of protected information. "Our members should be able to communicate about pressing safety and security concerns," he said. AWWA has endorsed the criminal penalties.

Ironically, another Senate committee gutted the House version of Lautenberg's bill (HR2868) during a markup session, also on July 28. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee replaced everything but the title of HR2868 and substituted amended language from a bill sponsored by the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who reportedly opposes IST mandates.

The amended bill reauthorizes the CFAT program, which expires Oct. 4, continuing the exemption for water and wastewater facilities by extending the current DHS chemical facilities program for three years. It was passed out of committee (13-0) with an "approved" rating.

After the markup on HR2868, Homeland Security Committee Chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., issued a statement, "Personally, I think we should do more than just extend the chemical security program as is. Ongoing security gaps — for example the lack of security at drinking and waste water plants — need to be closed.

"And the best security for all chemical facilities is to use what we call 'inherently safer' chemicals and processes where appropriate," Lieberman said, vowing to work to change HR2868 during debate on the Senate floor.

Now, the Senate has recessed until Sept. 9, and Senate leadership has not yet scheduled HR2868 for a vote by the full Senate. Meanwhile, S3598 has not even been scheduled for markup in the Senate EPW Committee.

If neither HR2868 nor S3598 are passed before the final adjournment of the 111th Congress, AWWA Government Affairs Legislative Director Tommy Holmes believes the most likely scenario is an extension of the current CFATS program for the chemical industry via the annual appropriations process, and the current program does not include the water sector.

Holmes did note that, with the death of Sen. Robert Byrd, the chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee for Homeland Security has passed to Lautenberg. Whether he would insert something in the appropriations bill is a possibility to which Holmes will be alert, but inserting major legislation like this into an appropriations bill would likely attract a “hold” on the bill.

Once the August breaks end in both houses, the legislative days remaining in the 111th Congress are expected to be few and devoted to the appropriations process, which has barely begun. 

Meanwhile, the US Public Interest Research Group issued a report Aug. 5 condemning lobbying efforts that opposed giving government the ability to require IST technologies at high risk chemical facilities. The report identifies 14 "dangerous" companies that had spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress to block IST.

Additional AWWA Resources

• "Washington Report: Chem security," Streamlines, July 27, 2010
• "House-passed chem security bill puts drinking water, wastewater under USEPA," Streamlines, Nov. 19, 2009
• Other Streamlines stories: Oct. 27, 2009, Oct. 13, 2009; Sept. 29, 2009, Aug. 4, 2009, July 7, 2009, May 26, 2009

Revised TCR guidance manual released by USEPA

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

Comments on the draft of the Proposed RTCR Assessments and Corrective Actions Guidance Manual (PDF) are due to USEPA by Nov. 30. The draft guidance manual provides information on the common causes of total coliform and E. coli occurrence in the distribution system, how to conduct assessments to identify possible causes of contamination (“sanitary defects”) and corresponding corrective actions that a system can take to correct the problem.

Not only is the guidance manual critical for conducting the required assessments and correcting any deficiencies, but it provides additional detail to allow evaluation of the proposed rule before the public comment period expires.

USEPA also is opening up a technical dialogue on a method reevaluation study. Three public Web conferences — Sept. 8, Oct. 5 and Nov. 4 — have been scheduled for technical discussions with stakeholders on a reevaluation of approved analytical methods under the current Total Coliform Rule.

At the Web conferences, stakeholders will be given an opportunity to discuss potential elements of a method re-evaluation study, such as developing a reference coliform/non-coliform library for use in evaluation of method performance, setting method performance acceptance criteria and revising the Alternate Test Protocol.

The proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule was published July 14 in Federal Register, based on recommendations (PDF) from a federal advisory panel to which AWWA was a signatory organization.

The 20-year-old TCR protects public health by ensuring the integrity of drinking water distribution systems. Among the proposed revisions are the following:

• Criteria for systems to qualify for and stay on reduced monitoring
• Requirements for public water systems (PWS) that are vulnerable to microbial contamination to identify and fix problems (as indicated by their monitoring results for total coliforms and E. coli)
• Separate approaches to address the unique characteristics of different types and sizes of systems
• Public notification requirements that focus on situations in which a PWS is not managing its system appropriately, instead of based solely on total coliform positive samples.

Substantial state primacy agency discretion is provided in implementing the RTCR, and there are state-specific nuances to TCR implementation. Hence, AWWA has advised member utilities to begin work immediately with their state primacy agencies, as well as to review and comment on both the RTCR and the Assessments and Corrective Actions Guidance Manual.

The process for submitting comments on the RTCR (deadline Sept. 13) is explained online. Comments and suggestions on the guidance manual can be e-mailed to USEPA by Nov. 30.

To register and receive the call-in information for the technical Web conferences, attendees should contact Cesar Cordero by e-mail or telephone, 202-564-3716, at least a week prior to the event.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Government Affairs "DC on Tap" blog: Alan: USEPA signs proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule
• Streamlines: "USEPA proposes revised TCR" June 29, 2010
  WaterWeek: "Accord reached on revising TCR" Sept. 22, 2008
• AWWA Government Affairs regulatory issues (scroll to Total Coliform Rule) and issue agenda Microbial/DBP Regulations
• AWWA DVD: Reliable Coliform Sampling For Water Systems (No. 64218)

USEPA opens dialogue on contaminant grouping

Updated 3 p.m. MDT, July 13, 2010

The US Environmental Protection Agency has launched a rapid roll-out of public information and discussion with an online dialogue on grouping contaminants, one of the approaches in its new Drinking Water Strategy.

On July 28–29, USEPA will hold a Web dialogue focused on approaches the agency should consider when developing a framework to address contaminants in groups. [See Federal Register notice published July 13.]

This is one of four principles to provide greater protection of drinking water introduced in March by USEPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson and reiterated June 22 at AWWA's annual conference by Cynthia Dougherty, director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. There are four principles under the new strategy:

• Address contaminants in groups, rather than one at a time, to cost-effectively enhance drinking water protection.
• Foster development of new drinking water technologies to address health risks posed by a broad array of contaminants.
• Use the authority of multiple environmental statutes to help protect drinking water.
• Partner with states to share more complete data from monitoring at public water systems.

In announcing the Web dialogue, USEPA noted that using this virtual meeting space will enable a large audience to learn and exchange information with subject experts who serve as panelists. It will follow an agenda with specific focus-point discussions that are guided by a facilitator.

The contaminant discussion on July 28–29 can be viewed by anyone, but registration — which can accommodate thousands — is required to comment. Online registration opened July 8 and collects information about participants which brings context to their views. Registrants can select information to be publicly viewed.

"We invite everyone interested in safe drinking water to participate," USEPA said. "EPA will consider the feedback from this Web dialogue and information from this exchange as we develop the agenda for the upcoming Drinking Water Strategy stakeholder meeting and the framework for addressing contaminants as group(s)."

Additional AWWA Resources

• Streamlines stories: "EPA holds first ‘listening session’ on water strategy," June 23, 2010; "USEPA's second Six-Year Review announced," March 30, 2010
• Webcast: Implications of EPA’s Review of Existing Regulations
• E-learning course: Endocrine Disruptors, Pharmaceuticals, and Personal Care Products Actions & Communication

Virus exploits USB vulnerability to reach SCADA systems

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

A sophisticated virus spread by thumbdrives can attack SCADA systems.

The sophisticated malware targets SIMATIC^® software for monitoring automated systems and configuring programmable controllers. Microsoft issued its first alert July 16 and updated its workarounds July 20. Siemens began posting information on its support site July 19 and continues to update information every few days as it investigates additional solutions.

Discovered in June, Stuxnet may have been around since January, according to a Symantec official interviewed for IDG News Service. Other cybersecurity experts interviewed in the media over the past 10 days speculate that the development of Stuxnet involved enough effort to indicate a financial goal, such as the theft of proprietary information about manufacturing.

Symantec, the world's largest computer security firm, reports that most of the affected computers are in India, Indonesia and Iran. In addition, two companies in Germany have been hit with the malware, which is variously characterized as a virus, a worm and a Trojan.

The US Department of Homeland Security issued its first advisory to the industrial sector, which includes water and wastewater utilities, about the malware on July 20 and an updated advisory July 21.

Stuxnet is spread by an infected USB drive. In April, the DHS alerted the industrial control systems sector to the use of these thumb drives to attack critical infrastructure and steal sensitive information:

"ICS-CERT [Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team] believes that USB thumb drives represent a significant malware attack vector for control systems owners' networks.… [USB drives'] small size and increasingly high storage capacity has been instrumental in the loss or theft of sensitive information from enterprise networks."

Additional AWWA Resources

• Web resources: AWWA Government Affairs pages on security issues

LaFrance is AWWA's new executive director

David LaFrance

LaFrance, 46, has served as director of finance for Denver Water for the past 12 years and is a respected industry leader in the areas of utility economics and water rates. He has taught a three-day AWWA seminar on cost of service and ratemaking for 15 years.

“It’s a privilege to lead AWWA at such an important moment in the history of our association,” LaFrance said. “I look forward to working with AWWA volunteer leaders and staff in fulfilling our mission to protect public health and to provide safe and sufficient water for all.“

LaFrance was selected by the AWWA Board of Directors after unanimous recommendations from a Transition Committee and the Executive Committee, both comprised of AWWA volunteer leaders. He succeeds Gary Zimmerman, who resigned in March 2009.

“David is a proven leader in the water community, and he has the ideal skill set to lead AWWA in the new decade,” said AWWA President Craig R. Woolard. “His superb understanding of the water industry and experience with the many issues facing our members will serve the association well.”

Hear more from David LaFrance.

He is looking forward to helping the association serve its utilities, consultants and vendors and attract young, talented minds who will help further the water industry.

LaFrance has been a member of AWWA for 15 years and served as chair of AWWA’s Audit Committee from 2005 to 2008 and the Rates and Charges Subcommittee from 1993 to 2002.

Prior to being named director of finance at Denver Water in 1998, LaFrance served as the utility's manager of rate administration for five years. From 1988–93, he worked as a utility rate economist with the global engineering and consulting firm CH2M Hill in Denver and Portland, Ore., and from 1986 to 1988 he was a natural resources economist with the US Army Corps of Engineers in Portland.

LaFrance earned an MBA in finance from the University of Colorado–Denver in 1992 and a BS in economics from Lewis and Clark College in Portland in 1986. He lives in Denver with his wife, Justine, and two children, Sierra and Devon, both in high school.

UCMR3 draft unveiled by USEPA

UCMR3 will be formally proposed in 2011 and finalized in 2012, with monitoring set to begin in 2013.

Released by USEPA at a stakeholder meeting April 7, the most important part of the plan would require some 4,800 utilities to start the third round of Assessment Monitoring in 2013 for 22 unregulated contaminants — including seven hormones; 1,4, dioxane; nine volatile organic compounds (VOCs); four metals; and chlorate. Affected utilities are the approximately 4,000 systems serving more than 10,000 customers and a national sample of 800 systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.

In addition, USEPA is considering a Screening Survey for six perfluorinated alkyl acids, to be performed by the approximately 400 systems serving more than 100,000 people and a different sample of 800 systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.

In the final component of UCMR3, USEPA itself is considering use of more specialized research methods to test for two microbials — enterovirus, norovirus — and five indicators at 800 undisinfected groundwater sources.

Changes to the type of public water systems to do the required monitoring also are included in USEPA's draft for UCMR3. Previously, public water systems that rely on 100 percent purchased water were exempted from UCMR monitoring requirements. In UCMR3, USEPA anticipates these consecutive systems will be required to monitor.

In a related change, system size will be based on retail service population rather than on combined retail and wholesale service population.

The goal of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program is to generate national occurrence data for CCL contaminants (and other selected contaminants) that can be used to make future regulatory determinations under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The six chemicals included in UCMR3 that are not part of CCL3 are testosterone, 4-androstene-3,17-dione and four perfluorinated chemicals — perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) and perfluoronanoic acid (PFNA).

A detailed list of the 22 chemicals and analytical methods being considered by USEPA for UCMR3 monitoring by some 4,800 utilities follows:

• Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) for seven hormones at the entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS)
  — 17-alpha-Ethynylestradiol, 17-beta-estradiol, equilin, estriol, estrone, testosterone, and 4-andtrostene-3,17-dione;
• Method 522 (GC/MS) for 1,4-dioxane at EPTDS;
• Method 524.3 (GC/MS) for nine VOCs at EPTDS
  — 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, 1,3-butadiene, bromochloromethane, chlorodifluoromethane, chloromethane, methyl bromide, n-propylbenzene and sec-butylbenzene;
• Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) for four metals at EPTDS and Maximum Residence (MR) time in the distribution system
  — cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium; and
• Method 300.1 (IC) for chlorate at EPTDS.

With the exception of including consecutive PWS in the monitoring, UCMR3 is planned to follow the same general regulatory framework as UCMR1 (conducted between 1988 and 1997) and UCMR2 (2001–2005).

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Government Affairs blog: DC on Tap
• AWWA Bookstore: Standard Methods, (No.10084)
• AWWA Bookstore: M12 Simplified Procedures for Water Examination, Fifth Edition (No. 30012)
• AWWA Bookstore: On the Job: Sampling – DVD (No. 64173)

1300 drinking water projects meet Recovery Act deadline

The shovels are already in the ground for 80 percent of the drinking water projects.

"Not one dime had to be reallocated," Lisa Jackson, US Environmental Protection Agency chief, told Congress in late February. Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., responded, "If we had more money, the need is there."

The Drinking Water SRF, which received an extra $2 billion appropriation from ARRA, has 1,348 project agreements signed with contracts executed.

Construction has begun on more than 80 percent of those projects — 1,097 projects, valued at $1.5 billion.

The drinking water projects exceeded the requirement that 20 percent of the projects be "green." [See Feb. 16 Streamlines story.] The final tally showed 513 drinking water projects (valued at $539.1 million) met the green requirements — 28.8 percent.

And those projects were about 97 percent all-American, as the act required. Only 44 projects needed "Buy American" waivers, usually granted because the product was not available domestically or available in sufficient quantity or quality or the cost was "unreasonable."

USEPA hasn't finished analyzing all the DWSRF data from states and regional USEPA offices, a spokeswoman says, and isn't yet able to break down the drinking water projects by purpose (treatment, distribution, or other) or in terms of population served.

Comparable figures for the Clean Water SRF were presented by USEPA at a hearing (PDF) called Feb. 23 before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee:

• Nearly 1,900 projects have signed contracts for 100 percent of the $4 billion allotted. (Tribes got 1.5 percent.)
• More than 1,500 projects already under construction (79 percent).
• The projects serve 68 million people.
• 30 percent of the CWSRF projects (representing 48 percent of the funds) are for improving or maintaining treatment levels at publicly owned treatment works.
• 44 percent (33 percent of funds) are for improving, rehabilitating or expanding wastewater collection systems.
• 6 percent (9 percent of funds) are for combined sewer overflow correction projects.
• 11 percent (4 percent of funds) are for nonpoint source projects.
• 7 percent (4 percent of funds) go to storm sewer projects.
• 2 percent (2 percent of funds) go to water reuse projects.

ARRA funding for Superfund projects ($600 million) also was 100 percent obligated by the deadline. The Recovery Act funded 26 cleanup projects that would not have been started and contributed to ongoing cleanup at 25 other sites. On-site work has started at 35 of the sites by Feb. 18. Eight of the projects include efforts to begin or accelerate work to treat drinking water to meet federal and state standards.

Brownfields dollars ($100 million) were 99.7 percent under contract by the deadline — for 186 projects. USEPA's Recovery Act funding totaled more than $7 billion, also including money for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank ($200 million) and Clean Diesel ($300 million) programs.

The agency reported that nearly 6,800 direct jobs were created or retained by USEPA's Recovery spending. The number should grow substantially as more construction and cleanup activities get underway.

USEPA's achievement in committing its ARRA funds came despite a February 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office that the agency was among those reporting problems caused by the act's Davis-Bacon and Buy American requirements. A lack of clarity on the meaning of "shovel-ready" also slowed things down, the report said.

The Davis-Bacon provision, requiring that workers be paid locally prevailing wages, caused delays in starting some of their projects, several agencies told investigators.

The Buy American Act requires that raw materials and manufactured goods used in the ARRA-funded projects be made or produced in the United States. USEPA was among the agencies that said that provision has affected their ability to select or start some Recovery Act projects. The agency also had to develop guidance for such requests and that was after establishing a waiver process in the first place.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Streamlines: "States doling out stimulus money to water projects," Feb. 15, 2009; "Water projects among the first as ARRA money hits ground," Aug. 18, 2009; "'Buy American' rule causing headaches for utilities?" May 12, 2009; "Obama signs stimulus bill with $2B for drinking water," Feb. 17, 2009.
• AWWA Government Affairs Web page

Chem security bill stirs up comment again

Chlorine tankers are considered potential targets for terrorists. AP Photo/Mel Evans

Chemical security was the focus of a Senate hearing March 3, one day after the release of an advocacy group's report supporting water utilities' switch from gaseous chlorine.

The report, which AWWA Deputy Executive Director for Government Affairs Tom Curtis called "incomplete and misleading," was released by the Center for American Progress. It listed 235 drinking water facilities and 315 wastewater facilities in 47 states that switched from gaseous chlorine to liquid bleach and ultraviolet light for disinfection. Not included in the survey was any information about why the facilities switched.

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security met to consider issues for legislation that could require utilities to stop using gas chlorine and instead to use an “inherently safer technology” (IST), such as bleach. Committee chair Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) favors such a provision.

AWWA believes that the choice of disinfectants must remain a local decision, not one that can be made in Washington, D.C., or even in a state capitol.

AWWA's written testimony for the March 3 hearing on the chemical security issues before the Senate Homeland Security Committee emphasized the reasons that treatment decisions should remain with the local utility: "The choice of disinfectant by a water utility is based on a variety of critically important local factors, such as local water chemistry, particular pathogens, environmental factors and local infrastructure. This choice is critical to safety of the water supply and is not a matter of simple substitution of one disinfectant for another."

The chemical security bill, HR2868, which is before the Senate committee, would allow state regulators to make an IST decision for utilities classified as "higher risk" facilities. The US Environmental Protection Agency could intervene if a state makes no decision on higher-risk facilities.

With respect to the CAP study, Curtis pointed out that many utilities have switched disinfectants since 1999, the period covered by the study, and that many factors likely lie behind the changes. The release of the study on the eve of the hearing was intended to buttress the views of Lieberman and others that utilities can easily switch disinfectants.

One of the drinking water treatment plants listed by CAP is run by West Des Moines Water Works, where Jerry Stevens, who will become AWWA president-elect in June, is general manager. The change from gaseous chlorine to liquid bleach was made five or six years ago, Stevens says. “There are many factors that went into our decision,” Stevens said. “Our choice worked for West Des Moines. I wouldn’t want our choice to imply that it’s the right choice for other utilities.”

The downside of a disinfection switch was presented by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. She introduced legislation Feb. 4 (S2996) to extend the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) in its current form for five years.

Collins cited the case of water utility "located in an isolated area of the Northwest [that], if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results.

"In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into the watershed. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed," Collins said in her opening statement.

"In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area."

Collins noted, "Currently, DHS cannot dictate specific security measures, like IST. Nor should it. The federal government should set performance standards, but leave it up to the private sector to decide precisely how to achieve those standards."

HR 2868 already contains some compromises made before it won passage by the House of Representatives in November 2009.

For instance, it removes the exemption of water and wastewater utilities from the current CFATS program and gives the US Environmental Protection Agency — not the Department of Homeland Security — the lead on security for water and wastewater facilities. However, the bill places USEPA's efforts under the supervision of DHS and mandates using the tools and procedures that DHS developed for CFATS.

HR2868 allows government officials to mandate a switch to IST in certain high risk situations. But a concession — an acknowledgement that changing water treatment processes involves a more complex decision than simply improving security — also allows consideration of "public health and environmental requirements" when making IST determinations at water facilities.

Meanwhile, the DHS is drafting its own version of chemical security reauthorization legislation. Rand Beers, DHS under secretary, reportedly pointed out to the panel that the Obama administration has not yet endorsed HR2868.

"While we remain committed to providing the Congress with a draft of a comprehensive [CFATS] authorization bill this fiscal year, we recognize the time constraints and challenges of passing such comprehensive authorization laws," Beer testified.

"Thus the President's FY2011 budget includes a request for a one-year extension of the statutory authority for CFATS to ensure the time, if needed, to complete enactment of a permanent program while avoiding the sunset of the department's regulatory authority on Oct. 4, 2010."

Both Beers and Peter Silva, USEPA water chief, reiterated the administration's guiding principles on the subject, including agreement that the current exemption of water and wastewater facilities from CFATS constitutes a "security gap."

Beers did note that DHS would accommodate modifications to its tools and procedures "to reflect the uniqueness of the water sector and statutory requirements."

He also declared, "The administration supports consistency of IST approaches for facilities regardless of sector…. We do, however, recognize the unique public health and environmental requirements and responsibilities of such [water and wastewater treatment] facilities," Beers testified.

The water sector has been diligent in addressing safety issues, Silva acknowledged. "I am pleased to report that the sector has taken its charge seriously," he told the committee.

His evaluation is backed up by a report for the Water Sector Coordinating Committee and the Water ISAC, which notes, "Water Sector respondents to the 2009 reporting effort indicate substantial attentiveness to preparedness, awareness, and resiliency from potential security threats and natural disasters."

One of the report's measures of security preparedness addressed hazardous chemicals, with more than 80 percent of the water respondents having physical or procedural controls in place to safeguard hazardous chemicals.

 Additional AWWA Resources

• "Washington Report: EDCs, chem security," Streamlines, March 2, 2010
• "House-passed chem security bill puts drinking water, wastewater under USEPA," Streamlines story, Nov. 10, 2009
• Standard: ANSI/AWWA G430-09: Security Practices for Operations and Management
• AWWA Issue Paper: Chemical Facility Security
• Online documents under Legislative Issues: Security

Congress launches DWSRF funding boost, improvements

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

The newly introduced AQUA Act pleases many, but sparks a little controversy, too.

The Assistance, Quality and Affordability (AQUA) Act (HR 5320) was introduced and passed its first hurdle May 18, when the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment marked up the bill. The bill authorizes $14.7 billion for the USEPA’s DWSRF over five years — starting with $1.5 billion in 2011 and authorizing $6 billion in 2015. The next step — markup by the full House Committee on Energy and Commerce — could come very quickly.

The bill would further set aside 4 percent of each state's SRF allotment to disadvantaged communities, require consideration of lifecycle costs in considering loan applications and specifically allow use of SRF funds for rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure. The bill also extends eligibility to include projects focused on energy efficiency, water conservation, source water protection and related activities.

The bill also mandates endocrine screening of drinking water contaminants, and would mandate an ambitious schedule for the US Environmental Protection Agency to gather information on and make recommendations for dealing with pharmaceuticals in water.

Testimony at a hearing May 13 on a draft of the bill included supportive comments from several stakeholders:

• The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority supported provisions for increased funding flexibility and focus on aging water assets.
• The National Rural Water Association thanked the bill sponsors for "new policy directions" affecting affordability of the rules, reliance on and reorganization of technical assistance to small communities, plus ensuring SRF funding is targeted toward the neediest communities. NRWA also expressed concern that some provisions could complicate applications.
• The Association of State Drinking Water Agencies said, "Our reaction [to the bill] is…quite positive," but expressed concerns about some provisions that could prove "challenging and resource-intensive" for states to implement. A proposed requirement for competitive bidding among technical assistance contractors was particularly alarming.

AWWA filed written comments (PDF), noting that the bill "includes a number of long-standing recommendations that AWWA has made in the interest of improving the SRF program" — particularly the inclusion of a utility's water loss audit program in consideration for SRF funding. Among other AWWA suggestions included were provisions giving greater weight to SRF applicants that demonstrate good utility management through an inventory of assets, an asset replacement schedule, comprehensive financing plan, and a study of system sustainability improvements.

Like the others, AWWA had further suggestions, too. For example, AWWA would like the House to add two provisions from the Senate SRF reform bill (S1005) that call for finding ways to expedite and improve the SRF application and review process. That bill reauthorizes both the DWSRF and the Clean Water SRF. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Work approved S1005 last July, but some senators have put a “hold” on the bill because of its Davis-Bacon provisions, which require that local prevailing wages be paid for projects funded with SRF funds.

To reduce lead in drinking water, the AQUA Act proposes a new definition of "lead-free" for plumbing — "not more than a weighted average of 0.25 percent [lead content] when used with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipe, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures." The current definition is 8 percent lead content.

During the AQUA Act's May 18 markup session in the House, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., submitted an amendment, which was accepted, regarding pharmaceuticals and personal care products. It would require that USEPA carry out a study on the presence of these substances in sources of drinking water, identifying the sources, human and environmental health effects of theses products, and methods to control or prevent their presence. A report would have to be submitted to Congress on this study two years after enactment of the bill.

AQUA's requirement to screen 100 drinking water contaminants for their potential effects on the human endocrine system within four years drew the most controversy. The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program was mandated by Congress in 1996, requiring USEPA to test all pesticides that may come into contact with food, but leaving testing for contaminants in drinking water as discretionary — authority USEPA has never exercised.

USEPA's Office of Chemical and Pollution Prevention issued its first test orders last October to assess the human endocrine effects of 67 pesticides, 11 years after the creation of the screening program.

Cynthia Dougherty, director of USEPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, expressed confidence that the additional drinking water contaminant testing could be done by working across programs within USEPA, calling the EDSP one of the current administration's top priorities.

In her subcommittee testimony (PDF), she noted the first 67 screening orders and added, "EPA is preparing a second list of no less than 100 chemicals. The List 2 chemicals will be drawn from three sources: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, the Contaminants Candidate List 3, and pesticides that are on the reregistration schedule for 2007 through 2008," she said.

The second list will be released shortly, she said, and testing orders for the first 25 chemicals would follow later this year.

The provision drew some fire at both the May 13 hearing and the markup session, with several amendments being offered on the EDSP provision. One of those adopted was offered by the bill's co-author, subcommittee chairman Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) who said he wanted it made "crystal clear" that the bill doesn't provide USEPA with new authority to regulate endocrine disruptors.

AWWA's comments noted its long-time support for additional research on the health effects of low-level endocrine disruptors, but expressed concern that "the fast-tracking of possible endocrine disruptors for regulatory consideration would come at the expense of EPA resources" for contaminants that may be more hazardous and may already be in the Contaminant Candidate List pipeline.

The Markey amendment gave USEPA six months after getting data to decide whether to take regulatory action.

One rejected amendment would have limited the scope of testing to chemicals that cause "an adverse effect," which Markey objected to as precluding testing of chemicals that raise health issues (such as early onset of puberty) not specifically defined as adverse.

The bill's authorized spending level also sparked some amendment attempts. One top Republican said that, while the GOP supports the "basic thrust" of the DWSRF — providing capitalization grants to states for helping public water systems finance projects for complying with federal drinking water requirements — the funding levels were too high. However, a GOP-offered amendment to halve the authorization was defeated, as was a proposed cut to USEPA's annual survey of national drinking water supply needs.

The AQUA Act's authorizations set maximum limits on what Congress can appropriate in its annual budgeting legislation. The fiscal year 2010 budget for DWSRF is $1.4 billion, a significant increase from its budget of $829 million in FY2009 and FY2008 under the Bush administration.

Since the DWSRF's inception in 1997, the federal/state infrastructure funding partnership has provided more than $16.2 billion of grants and loans to assist more than 6,600 projects, according to Dougherty, almost 40 percent to systems serving fewer than 10,000 people and almost 19 percent to disadvantaged communities.

Bill sponsor Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the full Energy and Environment Committee, stated in his opening remarks (PDF), "Our nation's drinking water systems require at least $334 billion in investment over the next 20 years. Currently, we are not investing enough to even maintain the infrastructure we have, let alone improve and upgrade it."

Meanwhile, separate bills were introduced containing only the expansion of mandated endocrine-disruptor screening for drinking water contaminants (Endocrine Disruptor Screening Enhancement Act of 2010, HR5210) and the redefinition of "lead-free" for plumbing components (Get the Lead Out Act, HR5289).

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Government Affairs Web site is updated frequently. Its "What's new…" section has earlier comments from the association on atrazine and endocrine disruptors.
• The conference program at ACE10 has a number of presentations on related topics

Georgia scrambles against loss of Lake Lanier water

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

Some 22 percent of Lake Lanier's capacity is used for storage by public water systems. Photo courtesy US Army Corps of Engineers.

In addition to restricting landscape watering and requiring water-efficient fixtures, the Georgia conservation law (PDF) requires PWSs serving more than 3,300 to conduct standardized water-loss audits conforming to the International Water Association method.

Larger PWSs must complete the first annual audit by Jan. 1, 2012, with completion of all audits due a year later. The law also includes incentives for PWSs to complete water loss abatement projects and implement full-cost accounting and conservation pricing.

Georgia's newWater System Interconnection, Redundancy and Reliability Act (PDF) calls for completion by Sept. 1, 2011, of an emergency plan for supplying metro Atlanta with 35 percent of its water needs. The plan's purpose includes enabling the 15-county Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District to share water among its PWSs.

The law also provides for state loans or grants to accomplish the interconnectivity as well as expand or increase capacity of reservoirs.

Those two bills, signed by Georgia's governor May 25 and 31, and an initiative quietly launched in Congress, give evidence that Georgia is rapidly and seriously planning against the possibility of a federal ban on use of Lake Lanier by northern Georgia PWSs.

US District Judge Paul Magnuson ruled in July 2009 (PDF) that water supply was not an authorized use of Lake Lanier; it was built by the federal government for hydropower, flood control and navigation, yet 22 percent of the reservoir's storage capacity is now used for water supply, he noted.

Unless Congress passes legislation adding that to the list of approved uses, PWS use of Lake Lanier must cease in July 2012, and MNGWPD will experience an estimated net water supply shortfall of 250 mgd (950 ML/d), according to a state task force report.

When that ruling takes effect, the streamflow in the Chattahoochee River, location of Atlanta's intake, will be less reliable as the US Army Corps of Engineers stops managing releases, and all but two PWSs (whose Chattahoochee intakes predate the reservoir) will need to shut down their intakes on the reservoir.

In Washington, D.C., May 18, US Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., with support from the state's other senator, announced his recommendations to Congress (PDF) for Georgia's needs to be included in the next Water Resources Development Act, authorization legislation for the Corps:

• Allow the Corps to operate Buford Dam/Lake Lanier for municipal and industrial water supply, including storage, provided that those who cause these additional costs pay them.
      The proposed language would also include Allatoona Dam and Reservoir, another federal reservoir used for water supply. It is in a different watershed and the subject of other litigation between Alabama and Georgia, but is not part of the Magnuson ruling.
• Update the Corps' water control manual for the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) rivers to include use as water supply — a change called "reallocation" because it affects the ACF system's capacity for power generation.
• Order the Corps to subtract return flows of reclaimed wastewater to Lake Lanier from total withdrawals.
     For example, Gwinnett County, which currently withdraws 70 mgd (260 ML/d) from Lake Lanier, announced May 5 that it had received state permission to return 40 mgd (150 ML/d) of highly treated wastewater to the reservoir.

A hearing on legislative issues to be included in the 2010 WRDA, such as Georgia's needs, had been scheduled for May 27 by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but it was postponed.

Meanwhile, Georgia news media speculated that Congressional action would go nowhere until the Florida, Alabama and Georgia governors come to agreement on reallocation for the ACF system and expressed doubts that would happen because the incumbents will soon leave office. Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue told reporters he would continue negotiations until he leaves office in December, however.

The final report issued in December 2009 (PDF) by the Georgia governor's Water Contingency Planning Task Force concluded it wasn't possible to make up the shortfall in the three years Judge Magnuson has allowed, even with mandatory conservation. The shortfall would increase to 280 mgd (1,100 ML/d) if counties with excess water from other sources don't or can't share across the region.

By 2015, however, the shortfall could be met by a combination of conservation, indirect portable reuse, isolated groundwater options — and the infusion of $3 billion. The cost would be cut in half if the region had an extension until 2020 and could substitute expansion of other smaller reservoirs and water transfers for the expensive reuse project, the task force concluded.

According to the MNGWPD's latest water plan (PDF), metro Atlanta relies on the Chattahoochee basin for 73 percent of its water supply — an average annual daily supply of 888 mgd (3,360 ML/d).

As explained on the Atlanta Regional Commission's Web site called Tri-State Water Wars, the litigation involved in Magnuson's order is only half of the dispute between the Georgia, Florida and Alabama over the ACF basin. Briefs are due in December on the other half of the ACF lawsuits. The ARC says the matter affects not only the metro area's 3 million residents, but the economy of the entire Southeastern United States.

Meanwhile, a group called ACF Stakeholders is conducting conflict-resolution facilitated discussions to resolve the 20-year-old water dispute "since political and legal systems have failed."

The ACFS has another session planned for mid-June. Users of the rivers in all three states are represented, and nearly 80 charter members are listed, including water suppliers, power generators, city and county governments, industry, business groups and non-profits.

Litigation with Alabama over the rest of metro Atlanta's water supply — the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa basin (containing the Allatoona Reservoir) — is on stay while the states negotiate.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Bookstore: M36, Water Audits and Loss Control Programs (No. 30036)
• Sustainability is the program theme of ACE10, June 20–24 in Chicago
• "Judge says no more Lake Lanier water for Atlanta," AWWA Streamlines, Aug. 4, 2009

Report concludes that regulation of perchlorate ineffective

The OIG starts by recommending that USEPA use a more state-of-the-art technique for evaluating health hazards to reduce uncertainty over the public health risk posed by perchlorate. "Over the last two decades, EPA has received numerous recommendations to improve environmental risk assessments," but continues to use an outdated approach, the OIG noted.

OIG conducted its own analysis using the recommended state-of-the-art process — a cumulative risk assessment.

Following are the OIG's conclusions:

• "The risk from each of the four NIS stressors is not equal." [Perchlorate is only one of four sodium iodide symporter (NIS) stressors that inhibit the thyroid's ability to uptake iodide.]
• "EPA’s perchlorate RfD [reference dose] is conservative and protective of human health, and further reducing the perchlorate exposure below the RfD does not effectively lower risk."
• "Increasing maternal total iodide intake to healthy levels will reduce the frequency and severity of permanent mental deficits in children."
• "Correcting moderate and mild iodide deficiency occurring in about 29 percent of the US pregnant and nursing population is the most effective approach for reducing risk."

Explaining what it meant by "conservative," the report says, "The perchlorate RfD protects against all human biological effects from exposure, which is a stricter public health criterion than limiting environmental exposure to protect against adverse effects in humans. This shift in risk management constitutes a significant change in environmental policy."

In fact, the OIG says, the perchlorate RfD "is conservative by a factor of 6.6 times. In other words, a conventionally derived perchlorate RfD is 6.6 times higher than the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Committee's [recommendation.]"

AWWA filed comments with USEPA that expressed concerns similar to OIG's on Sept. 18 arguing that the primary health issue in this situation is iodide deficiency, which was also noted by the NAS in 2005. If iodide deficiency is the root problem, AWWA argued, then using the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate a contaminant found at low levels in a small number of drinking water supplies "would not have a meaningful impact on changing the nation's level of iodine deficiency."

AWWA noted that sources other than drinking water, such as food, are significant contributors to exposure. Studies have shown that exposure to perchlorate "is very close to universal" in the United States, yet only a small percentage of drinking water systems have perchlorate, according to data produced by the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 1.

In 2005, the perchlorate RfD (reference dose) recommended by the NAS was accepted by USEPA at a level corresponding to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 micrograms/L. However, as the OIG noted, bills have been introduced in Congress that would require USEPA to regulate perchlorate in drinking water.

The controversy increased in October 2008 after USEPA issued a preliminary regulatory determination to not regulate the perchlorate in drinking water, based on USEPA’s own risk assessment study. USEPA subsequently issued an Interim Health Advisory level of 15 micrograms/L while they continued to review the data.

USEPA requested additional public comment Aug. 19 when it released a new assessment of risks associated with perchlorate levels found in drinking water, particularly among infants and young children.

A final regulatory determination for perchlorate is still under internal agency review.

OIG said that, in view of the uproar, its role was to be "an entity without a political or scientific bias to independently evaluate the scientific process and procedures used by the agency." As USEPA's watchdog, OIG said in the report that it generally is unable to provide cutting-edge scientific assessment, but in this case the office had on staff a toxicologist with the requisite experience and training to do the work.

OIG took USEPA to task for continuing to rely on an "outdated single-chemical risk assessment approach" that "fails to address known sources of scientific uncertainty, which lowers the confidence in the perchlorate RfD." OIG's scientific analysis concluded all four NIS stressors "meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose-addition method."

Perchlorate has been found to inhibit iodine uptake by the thyroid and to cause mental deficits among children born to women who had an iodine deficiency when pregnant. It is found in nature as well as fireworks and some fertilizers, but is commonly referred to in the media as "a rocket fuel additive."

Additional AWWA Resources

• "A review of perchlorate occurrence in public drinking water systems," Journal AWWA, November 2009
• Streamlines: "Perchlorate comments vary as USEPA extends period," Sept. 29, 2009; "USEPA re-evaluating perchlorate science," Aug. 18, 2009; "USEPA: perchlorate MCL not justified," E-MainStream, Oct. 7, 2008
• AWWA Government Affairs' Web site links on the perchlorate issue

"Clean up later" Nashville begs after losing WTP to flood

Updated May 12, 2010

Nashville's K.R. Harrington Water Treatment Plant was under water May 4. A week later, the plant still isn't close to returning to service. Photo by David Himes, Metro Nashville Public Works

Nashville, Tenn., officials are urging its half million residents to cut usage in half because the city has lost the service of the newer of its two water treatment plants to a thousand-year flood.

Nashville Metro Water Services has finally gained access to the flooded K.R. Harrington plant but has no projection date for its complete restoration, disinfection and return to service.

"The flood waters destroyed the electrical systems within the plant as well as the computerized monitoring system, flooded pumps and motors, and contaminated basins and storage wells at the facility," according to Sonia Harvat, spokesperson for the utility.

By Monday, May 10, the pumps and motors from the Harrington plant had been retrieved by divers and sent for drying and assessment. After working to ensure it was safe, NMWS restored power to the 90-mgd (340-ML/d) plant. An Internet connection had been restored as well, and new instruments had already arrived. Replacement valve actuators were being flown in from Germany.

Divers found a lot of sediment at the bottom of the 9-mil gal (34-ML) clear well, and beginning May 9, it was being pumped out for further inspection. State officials are working with Nashville on disinfection criteria for the plant.

Meanwhile, Nashville's historic Omohundro Water Treatment Plant is meeting Nashville's needs alone. With a pump station built in 1889 and a filter plant dating from 1928, the Omohundro facilities are producing about 82 mgd (310 ML/d).

Even with sandbagging help from the Tennessee National Guard and inmates from a local jail, the old plant, which was built on higher ground, came very close to flooding. The river crested at 51.86 ft (15.81 m), and the limit to save the facility from floodwaters was 52 ft (15.85 m). The Cumberland's flood level is 40 ft (8 m).

Rivers around the state flooded quickly after heavy rains pounded Tennessee May 1–2. Nashville set a two-day record with more than 13 inches (33 cm).

When Nashville lost the Harrington plant, built in 1976, the state issued a mandatory water conservation order for Davidson (encompassing Nashville) and Williamson counties. Tennessee's Department of Environment and Conservation said the facilities for the Harpeth Valley Water District, whose service area is in both counties, also was operating at half capacity at one point after losing power.

The call to cut water usage in half produced only a 3 percent drop immediately after the flood. Then rumors swirled that NMWS was going to shut down. Residents panicked and began filling bathtubs, Harvat said. "Our lowest reserve level was 37 percent on May 4."

The agency warned residents May 5 to delay clean up such as power washes, washing cars, hosing off houses and other major uses until after the water shortage had passed or risk running out of clean water. Radio stations and a billboard company with a large electronic sign helped get the word out — if everyone conserves, no one will lose water service.

The local newspaper began urging residents to tattle on abusers like "the well-known rocker on Franklin Road whose automatic sprinklers are still running."

People responded. It helped that the city also could buy water from nearby Madison Suburban and West Wilson Utility Districts. By May 10, the reservoir levels are remaining steady at about 84 percent. All systems also maintained drinking water safety.

Other Tennessee public water supplies (PWSs) were not as lucky. As of May 10, the number of boil-water orders tracked by the TDEC dropped to five in four other counties, down from 11 systems with full or partial boil orders in 10 additional counties on May 6. Earlier TDEC reported lifting boil notices for eight other PWSs.

As of May 8, President Obama had declared disaster in 42 Tennessee counties, and the state's death toll stood as 23, mostly water deaths.

The following boil advisories were listed by TDEC as of May 10 for PWS in central Tennessee:

• Bon Aqua-Lyles Utility District (Hickman County)
• Centerville Water System (Hickman County)
• Erin Water Treatment Plant (Houston County)
• North Decatur/Benton County Utility District
• Ridgewood Park (Giles County)

News reports said the Houston County water plant went offline at 1:45 a.m. May 4 because of rising floodwaters, and the water system for the town of Erin, served by the plant, had been drained by panicky residents. Reports also said the water problems in Hickman County could take three to five weeks to resolve.

On May 11, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency announced creation of a Facebook page — www.facebook.com/TNDisasterInfo — an online community hub where those affected by the disaster and those active in the response can share information.

Additional AWWA Resources

• "Drinking Water Advisories: Invest Time and Resources to Plan Ahead," Opflow, May 2010
• AWWA Bookstore: Security And Emergency Planning For Water And Wastewater Utilities, (No. 20605)
• AWWA Bookstore: Surviving Disasters In Water Utilities: Learning From Experience, (No. 90893)
• AWWA Bookstore: Recovering From Disaster: Hurricanes and Power Failures DVD (No. 64328)

Stimulus bill passes House with $2B for drinking water

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Rep. Pelosi answers questions at a press conference after the House of Representatives passed an economic stimulus bill.(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Another $1.5 billion would be made available through US Department of Agriculture’s rural water and wastewater program. All but eleven Democrats voted to approve the measure — one of the largest appropriations bills ever passed — and all 177 House Republicans voted against it.

HR1 would require the US Environmental Protection Agency to transfer the money to SRFs within 30 days. Then state agencies would be required to contract out 50 percent of the money within one year of the bill’s enactment and 50 percent in the second year. The House bill also requires that 50 percent of the SRF funds be distributed as grants to municipalities, seeming to exclude private or investor-owned utilities.  House staff has said this was an oversight, but some environmental organizations are expected to lobby to keep the language because they do not believe private or investor-owned utilities should be eligible for grants.

The Congressional Budget Office foresees delays in actually spending infrastructure monies. “Frequently in the past, in all types of federal programs, a noticeable lag has occurred between sharp increases in budget authority and the resulting increases in outlays,” said CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in a letter to Senate Budget Committee chairman, Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

The CBO letter suggests several actions to speed spending:

• Waive environmental reviews.
• Allow contracts to be awarded outside any competitive bidding process.
• Allow recipients to self-certify compliance with federal standards.
• Offer financial incentives for work completed within the next one or two years.
• Require states to change their processes, if necessary, to ensure timely disbursement of infrastructure funds.

There are several other concerns being raised about stipulations in the stimulus package, including the split between grant and loan funding, restrictions on the eligibility of private utilities and allotments to the SRF programs not fully spent in previous years.

Meanwhile, according to Inside EPA, the agency has set up a group to accelerate its normal timeframe for dispersing funds through the SRFs, not an easy task.

Action now turns to the Senate, where the Committee on Appropriations has approved one component of the Senate’s version of the stimulus package – S336 – which contains $2 billion for drinking water, $4 billion for wastewater, and $1.4 billion for rural water and wastewater projects.

Drinking water funding levels in both bills are below the levels sought by the drinking water and wastewater communities and reflect a general reduction in the bill’s infrastructure component to accommodate spending on education, mass transit, cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites, tax cuts, and numerous other congressional priorities.

AWWA and other drinking water groups have written the Senate urging a higher level of funding for water infrastructure. AWWA has asked its members to contact their senators to urge at least $10 billion for drinking water infrastructure. The association asserts that drinking water projects totaling that amount would be ready to go as soon as funds were committed.

After the Senate finishes its work on the bill, the Senate and House must reconcile their different versions, and both chambers must vote up or down (no amendments) on the final bill. House and Senate leaders hope to send the bill to President Obama by the middle of February.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Water Infrastructure at a Turning Point: The Road to Sustainable Asset Management
• Thinking Outside the Bill: A Utility Manager's Guide to Assisting Low-Income Water Customers
• Avoiding Rate Shock: Making the Case for Water Rates
• Dawn of the Replacement Era: Reinvesting in Drinking Water Infrastructure (PDF)

'Huge victory' — Court upholds Water Transfer Rule

Pump station #2 on Lake Okeechobee is one of three structures named in the lawsuit decided on June 4. Photo courtesy US Army Corps of Engineers

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Friends of the Everglades, et.al. v. South Florida Water Management District, et.al. (No. 07-13829) (PDF) had been long anticipated as the first test of USEPA's regulation.

The "unitary waters" point of view that USEPA takes on CWA issues is the basis of the Water Transfers Rule, and another circuit court had ruled against that theory in 2006 in a case involving New York City's transfer of raw water from a reservoir on one stream to another creek — a common practice among public water suppliers (2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. City of New York).

Judge Edward Earl Carnes, writing for the 11th Circuit Court panel, noted, "The unitary waters theory has a low batting average. In fact, it has struck out in every court of appeals where it has come up to the plate." In other words, all the existing precedent cases, including an earlier ruling in his own court, had ruled against the unitary waters theory.

"But there has been a change. An important one," he wrote, and that was that USEPA had used its regulatory authority to adopt a final rule specifically addressing this very question. "Because that regulation was not available at the time of the earlier decisions, they are not precedent against it," Carnes wrote. 

The points remaining for the court to decide were whether USEPA's regulation is entitled to deference because it is "a reasonable construction of an ambiguous statute."

Carnes' conclusions were as follows:

• Yes, the CWA statute was ambiguous when it stated a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit was required for "any addition of pollutants to navigable waters from any point source."
• Yes, USEPA's regulation was reasonable; it is one of the two sides taken by those interpreting the CWA.
• So yes, the court should defer to the USEPA regulation, and it should be in effect until or unless USEPA rescinds it or Congress overrides it.

South Florida WMD issued a statement saying they were "pleased with the court's decision to support the local management of local water resources. This is a landmark case of national significance that has implications not only for Lake Okeechobee but also for water management throughout Florida and beyond."

New York City attorney Hilary Meltzer said, "New York City is pleased that the 11th Circuit has upheld the Water Transfers Rule. In the rule, EPA recognizes that the Clean Water Act NPDES program is not well-suited to regulating the transfers and diversions of untreated water that are essential to the design and operation of public water supply and flood control systems."

After losing the argument in Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. City of New York, the city is currently operating in accordance with a NPDES permit, but Meltzer says, "The terms of that permit are the subject of continuing litigation, and the requirements other parties to that litigation seek to impose could threaten our ability to meet demand."

In the Florida case, the US Army Corps of Engineers built Hoover Dike around Lake Okeechobee and a series of canals that drain agricultural land. Runoff from those fields is pumped into Lake Okeechobee by SFWMD. The complaint is that the water contains, as Judge Carnes put it, "a loathsome concoction of chemical contaminants including nitrogen, phosphorous, and un-ionized ammonia …. full of suspended and dissolved solids …[with] a low oxygen content."

In New York, the city has for 80 years been transferring water from its Schoharie Reservoir via the Shandaken Tunnel to the Esopus Creek and eventually to a water treatment plant. The complaint is that water from the reservoir has more turbidity than the creek water. The city has been assessed over $5.2 million in penalties for operating the tunnel without a NPDES permit in the past.

"Drinking water utilities across the United States routinely transfer water, sometimes over great distances, to ensure an adequate water supply," says Tom Curtis, deputy executive director of AWWA. "We see this as integral to water resource management, including the allocation of water rights. The criticality of water resources was recognized in the structure of the Clean Water Act, in which water resource management was specifically excluded from the Clean Water Act and left to the states."

AWWA has filed amicus briefs in support of South Florida WMD in this case, Curtis said, and has done the same in the New York Catskill case, as well as supported and encouraged USEPA in its rulemaking on water transfers.

"This is a huge victory in a case of enormous importance for the water community," Curtis said. "The implications are far-reaching. The issues raised in this case potentially affect thousands of water utilities with respect to some of their most fundamental operations, like water conveyance."

He noted that the citizen groups could still appeal to the US Supreme Court. News reports indicated some groups were considering just that. Curtis said AWWA would continue to stand behind the water management district, adding the association thinks "the chances are excellent that we will prevail in the end."

As if to mollify the plaintiffs, Judge Carnes noted in his opinion, "Congress even created a special exception to the definition of 'point source' to exclude agricultural storm water discharges and return flows from irrigation, despite their known, substantially harmful impact on water quality.

"The point is that it may seem inconsistent with the lofty goals of the Clean Water Act to leave out of the permitting process the transfer of pollutants from one navigable body of water to another, but it is no more so than to leave out all non-point sources, allowing agricultural run-offs to create a huge 'dead zone' in the gulf of Mexico. Yet we know the Act does that," he continued.

"What this illustrates is that even when the preamble to legislation speaks single-mindedly and espouses lofty goals, the legislative process serves as a melting pot of competing interests and a face-off of battling factions. What emerges from the conflict to become the enactment is often less pure than the preamble promises," the judge concluded.

Additional AWWA Resources

• E-MainStream story with video comments: "USEPA affirms water transfers don't require NPDES" June 9, 2008
• "Water transfers not subject to NPDES, says USEPA" June 16, 2008, WaterWeek story.
• Government Affairs advocacy document: "AWWA comments on proposed water transfers rule," July 31, 2006

AWWA STREAMLINES COVERS ACE09

The stories in this edition of AWWA Streamlines were posted throughout AWWA's Annual Conference and Exposition in San Diego, June 15-18, as Editor Mary Parmelee covered major events, awards, competitions and a selection of the 600 presentations.

Stimulus money starts flowing, but questions remain

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

In particular, some officials told AWWA Streamlines that the ARRA's "buy American" requirements have thrown at least a temporary monkey wrench into their plans, even after the USEPA issued a waiver last week for projects financed between Oct. 1 of last year and Feb. 17.

Rick Bay, financial assistance section supervisor for the state of Nebraska, said several drinking water projects in his state may run afoul of that provision as currently planned. "Six of 16 projects we have planned use [ultraviolet disinfection systems] from Canada. I'm not sure that would qualify."

Bay said he is hoping further clarification is coming from USEPA that will settle that question. He also wonders whether some products may qualify through the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Another wrinkle Bay has encountered goes to timing: Late last year, knowing that a stimulus package was in the works, some projects in his state were put on hold in case they wouldn't qualify for funding if they were started too soon. Looking back, Bay said he wished he hadn't waited.

"It's all a matter of timing," he said. This hasn't fallen into our normal planning cycle, so we have the choice of scrambling our cycle or having our actions delayed until the [normal] planning cycle comes up."

"Even with the money starting to come in, people aren't sure about how they can spend it," Brugman said. "It just goes to show you that it's a lot easier to write a check than it is to write the rules about how to spend that check."

Kristin Bettridge, Policy and Finance Section manager for the Washington State Department of Health, says some local entities pursuing projects in her state actually pulled out of the running once they found out about the approval process, but she gives USEPA high marks overall for its handling of stimulus money.

"Of all the agencies I've heard about so far, [USEPA seems] to be most on top of it," Bettridge said. "They've been great about giving conference calls and getting information out there that people need to have to move things forward."

Bettridge said she has been told that the agency would be delivering more guidance on the Buy American provision by mid-week, at which time she expects to be moving forward with several projects.

Brugman said the water industry is not alone in confronting such questions.

"People in transportation departments are going through the same things right now, wondering whether the re-bar they ordered last year will qualify under the buy American clause," he said. "And in a lot of cases, they may not be sure where that steel came from. It's even possible that to mind the letter of the law, they have to order all new materials, waiting for them to come in before they can get to work on a project."

Additional AWWA Resources:

• WaterWiser: Stimulus pushes efficiency
• AWWA Streamlines: Like everyone else, manufacturers waiting on stimulus
• AWWA Streamlines:  Obama signs stimulus bill with $2B for drinking water

Water funding gets boost in Obama budget

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Michelle Obama greets USEPA employees after a speech Feb. 26 in which she said they are “at the center of President Obama’s highest priorities.” She also praised USEPA employees’ commitment to public service.  AP photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

An outline of the Obama budget for FY2010 arrived on Capitol Hill Thursday, Feb. 26, proposing $10.5 billion in funding for USEPA, considerably higher than the FY2008 USEPA budget of $7.5 billion. The House Appropriations Committee has scheduled a full-committee hearing on March 3 for the FY2010 budget, but details may not be available until April.

The FY2009 budget — FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (HR1105) — was finally reported out of the House Appropriations Committee by Chairman Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., on Monday, Feb. 23, blocked from amendments to speed its passage. The House passed HR1105 on Feb. 25 (245–176) on a vote that was not entirely partisan — 20 Democrats voting against it and 16 Republicans voting aye. The Senate began debate on Monday.

The normal appropriations bills to fund the federal government’s operations for fiscal year 2009 were never passed by the 110^th Congress. After muscling through passage of a Farm Bill and a Water Resources Development Act despite vetoes from President Bush, the Democratic-led 110^th Congress avoided further veto-override battles by pocketing remaining appropriations legislation and, instead, passed a resolution to continue federal government funding at the same level as enacted for FY2008.

The 111^th Congress must pass HR1105 by March 6, which is when the continuing resolution expires. The bill consolidates all nine appropriations bills that were left hanging when the 110^th Congress adjourned.

Following are House Appropriations Committee subcommittees’ sections of the FY2009 bill that pertain to the water industry and the proposed appropriation for FY2009, with the president’s FY2010 appropriation requests where comparable figures are available:

Interior and Environment: (draft PDF 12.8MB)

2008 funding level:      $26.3 billion
2009 bill                     $27.6 billion

• US Environmental Protection Agency: $7.6 billion in FY2009 ($174 million above 2008); FY2010 request is $10.5 billion.
• Drinking Water SRF: $829 million (same as FY 2008); the FY2010 request is $1.5 billion or enough to fund 700 drinking water projects.
• Clean Water SRF: $689 million (same as FY 2008); the FY2010 budget proposes $2.4 billion or enough for 1,000 clean water projects.
• State and Tribal Assistance Grants: (STAG): $2.97 billion in FY2009 compared with $2.93 billion enacted in 2008. FY2009 includes $145 million for about 300 projects in all 50 states for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and for water quality protection. The list includes a smattering of other projects for recycled water, aquifer recharge, and reuse. 
       The FY2010 budget outline doesn’t mention STAG specifically or provide detail, but it mentions requesting “over $1.1 billion in grants for states and tribes to administer environmental programs.”
• Water Security Initiative: FY2009 proposes $15.1 million to fund pilots 4 and 5, an increase over the $11.8 million enacted in 2008. FY2010 request outline (PDF) says it “provides $24 million to fully fund all five Water Security Initiatives pilot cooperative agreements and Water Alliance for Threat Reduction activities….”
• FY2009 proposes appropriating funds for cleanup of hazardous waste and toxic sites: $22 million above 2008 funding levels. That includes $605 million for Superfund sites, $112 million for underground toxic spills, and $97 million for brownfields.
        FY2010 budget outline says the Obama Administration proposes to “reinstate excise taxes that expired in 1995 and will collect over $1 billion to clean up the nation’s most toxic, contaminated sites within the Superfund program. The reinstated taxes will not begin until 2011 after the economy recovers.”
• Drinking water research: FY2009 sets aside $47.3 million “of which $2 million is directed to continue research on the effects of carbon sequestration on groundwater sources and $2 million is to study the human health risks associated with urban stormwater runoff.” FY2009 also proposes a $1.7 million allocation to the Water Research Foundation (formerly AwwaRF) and $2 million for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
       FY2010 lumps research in with regulatory and enforcement activities as part of USEPA’s operating budget, which the outline requests be funded at “$3.9 billion, the highest level ever.”
• Great Bodies of Water: $154 million in FY2009 to protect the Great Lakes, Puget Sound and the Chesapeake Bay. Testimony at a hearing in May 2008 was that only $50 million of the $270 million previously authorized has been spent on Great Lakes cleanup.
       The FY 2010 outline requests $145 million for the Great Lakes alone; the status of funding for other sites is unclear.

• Bureau of Reclamation: $1.1 billion for FY2009 (the same as 2008). No figures listed for FY2010, but the fact sheet says, “The budget provides for a Western water conservation initiative, which includes the Bureau of Reclamation’s water reuse and recycling (Title XVI) program.”
• US Geological Survey: $1 billion in FY2009 ($37 million above 2008). No information in FY2010. (See USGS discussion in “Water Legislation” story about S22.)
• Army Corps of Engineers: $5.4 billion ($185 million below 2008). FY2010 mentions a figure of $5.1 billion.

Agriculture, Rural Development, et al.

2008 funding level:      $18.0 billion
2009 bill                     $20.5 billion

• Rural development (including water projects): $2.7 billion in FY2009 (down $398 million from the $3.1 billion enacted in 2008). The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is funded at 1.1 billion ($17 million more than 2008.)
  FY2010 says “…the administration funds several vital conservation programs including …the [EQIP] and conservation tax incentives that were provided in the 2008 Farm Bill.”
• FY2009 mentions $11.5 million for National Rural Water Assn. and $2 million for Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center/Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

Several nonfinancial policy directives are inserted in the body of HR 1105 by the House and Senate Appropriations committees:

Integrated risk Assessment System (IRIS): “Given concerns that the newly revised IRIS process will exacerbate delays and reduce transparency, the [USEPA] is directed to aggressively pursue completion of pending IRIS assessments and to report to the [Appropriations] committees on the steps it will take to revise the IRIS process in accordance with recommendations in the March 2008 GAO report.”

Endocrine Disruptors: The committees “remain deeply concerned about the delays associated with assessing the impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals on the environment and public health. The [USEPA] is directed to address this issue as a first priority and to submit to the committees within six months of enactment a plan to address the backlog and delays in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.”

Perchlorate: The committees “are concerned about EPA’s preliminary decision not to issue national primary drinking water regulations for perchlorate under the Safe Drinking Water Act and urge EPA to reconsider its position and to issue regulations establishing a maximum contaminant level for perchlorate as soon as possible.”

NPDES fees: After noting that the FY2009 proposal includes $218.5 million for pollution control grants authorized by Section 106 of the Clean Water Act, the committees wrote that they “do not support the [USEPA’s] recent National Permit Discharge and Elimination System rulemaking to create an incentive pool of funds for states that charge NPDES fees and have not provided funds to implement this change. The agency is directed to award Section 106 grants using the historic allocation formula.”

Additional AWWA Resources:

• AWWA Government Affairs Web site offers regular updates.

Rice over water

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

High rice prices have farmers keeping their water instead of selling it to California's Water Bank. AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

California's water picture — never a pretty one — is even more complicated than usual this year, and for a reason many didn't foresee: the price of rice.

High rice prices have many farmers in the Sacramento Valley spreading water 6 inches (15 cm) deep, over hundreds of thousands of acres. That's water that many downstream were hoping would be available to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, not to mention urban areas downstate.

But now, rice prices are at their highest in almost 30 years, thanks largely to a drought in Australia, the California rice industry's biggest competitor. Those high prices, along with the tangle of state and federal regulations farmers feared they might have to negotiate to sell their water, have many keeping it to themselves.

"Some farms, with low operational costs, are finding it more profitable to grow rice than to sell the water right now," says Teresa Geimer, who runs the state Water Bank at the Department of Water Resources. "And that's good; we don't want the most productive land to go unused."

California's 2009 Drought Water Bank was established by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last fall to buy water primarily from local water agencies and farmers upstream of the Sacramento River Delta and make it available for sale to public and private water systems expecting to run short of water this year. But a host of problems, including pumping restrictions, environmental lawsuits and concerns over increased groundwater pumping, has kept the Water Bank from transferring as much as was planned.

In April, US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Obama administration had cleared the way for large amounts of  federally controlled water to be put into the water bank. But even as more supply has become available, there has been less demand than expected, as buyers from the water bank must pay the state's administrative expenses and the cost of moving the water they purchase — on top of the $275 per acre-foot ($223/ML) base price.

Geimer says the Water Bank will probably move about 80,000 acre-feet (98,000 ML) this year. The original target was around 600,000 acre-feet (740,000 ML).

That leaves water suppliers farther South in the unhappy — if by now all-too-familiar — position of scrounging around for water and waiting for a resolution to Delta water issues.

Steve Arakawa, manager of the water resources management group at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, says that his district is still in the Water Bank for a "modest amount," about 30,000 acre-feet (37,000 ML) of supply. But MWD's plans would allow them, if necessary, to manage without buying from the bank.

"We do have different sources that we can draw on, and we're encouraging our customers to push the message of conservation to their customers," Arakawa says. "The allocation picture has changed somewhat [from earlier this year], so we are doing better than we might have."

Arakawa says his district hopes that state and federal issues surrounding water from the Delta can be resolved soon — if not to increase the supply downstate, at least to make it more predictable.

"We'd like to see some decisions on the Delta from the state over the next year," he says. "What we'd like is some reliability so we can go forward with our planning. We're hoping that a resolution will restore us back to [pre-2005] levels."

Additional AWWA Resources:

• WaterWiser: California: Existing measures not enough
• Journal AWWA: Water conservation made legal: Water budgets and California law
• WaterWeek: California drought declaration promises utility help

SRF reauthorization bill would solve many problems

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

The bipartisan leadership of a key Senate committee and subcommittee introduced legislation last week that includes many provisions AWWA has sought for years and would significantly boost federal funding for both the Drinking Water and Clean Water state revolving funds.

Water Infrastructure Financing Act (S1005) contains a five-year authorization for the DWSRF of $15 billion and $20 billion for the CWSRF. 

Some significant changes are included in the bill:

• Rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure, as well as security upgrades, are specifically mentioned as being eligible for loans. Previously, eligibility emphasized only risk to human health and bringing at-risk systems into compliance with regulations.
• Loan repayment can be extended for 30 years, instead of 20 years.
• Greater weight will be given to utilities that demonstrate a commitment to financial planning and asset management.

The formula for allocating CWSRF funds to states would be changed by the bill for the first time since 1987. The current formula is based on the 1970 census, while the proposed formula would reflect the 2004 Clean Water Needs Survey. The DWSRF already is based on the Drinking Water Needs Survey.

Markup is scheduled for May 14 on the bill by the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. That subcommittee’s chairman and ranking member — Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md., and Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho — are sponsors of the bill. E&PW’s chairman and ranking member — Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., are also sponsors.

A statement by the sponsors noted that the CWSRF has not been reauthorized in 22 years, and the DWSRF has not been reauthorized since 1996. S1005 also expands eligibility for funding projects including storm water management, water conservation or efficiency projects, reuse and recycling projects. The bill directs that a study be conducted on how to streamline the application process.

The bill also authorizes

• $1.85 billion over five years for nationwide grant program to address combined sewer overflows,
• a $60 million/year nationwide grant program to provide funding to states and municipalities to reduce lead in drinking water,
• a one-time $50 million nationwide grant program to address agriculture-related water quality issues,
• new incentives for green infrastructure projects (but not a mandate),
• additional flexibility in the CWSRF to help low-income communities and
• new research and a voluntary incentive program to address water conservation, efficiency and recycling.

The House of Representatives has already passed a bill (HR1262) that authorizes $13.8 billion for wastewater funding, but no bill has been introduced in the House for drinking water funding. The House committee with jurisdiction for drinking water affairs is currently embroiled in climate bill talks.

However, the Senate E&PW Committee has jurisdiction for both clean water and drinking water. Tom Curtis, AWWA deputy executive director for government affairs, said he hopes that if and when the Senate passes S1005, the House - Senate conference committee reconciling the two bills will address both drinking water and clean water funding.

The Davis - Bacon Act provision, a requirement for paying prevailing wages that usually provokes Republican ire, was not included in the bill, but likely will be added as an amendment at some point, Curtis said. Likewise, the "Buy American" requirement is not currently in the legislation (see separate story).

Additional AWWA Resources

• Check AWWA Government Affairs’ Web site for updates
• Read AWWA’s policy statement on Asset Management
• AWWA book: Asset Management Planning and Reporting Options for Water Utilities
• Attend the third IWA Leading-Edge (LE) Conference on Strategic Asset Management (SAM)

Pandemic fears raise public health awareness

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

People are adding masks to their dress code to protect themselves and others from the swine flu virus, which is easily spread through coughing.AP Photo/Paul Beaty

AWWA notes that the disease must be transmitted through person-to-person contact or contact with a contaminated surface. Water that has been treated through conventional disinfection processes does not pose a risk, even if the source water has previously come into contact with infected people or animals. This means that utilities practicing disinfection can assure their customers that treated water coming from the taps in homes and businesses is safe to drink.

Supporting the efforts of the media and the public health community on how to prevent the spread of the disease, AWWA has developed information aimed at water consumers at Drinktap.org, with links to the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) information on this topic. The CDC has created multiple sites with information on symptoms, traveling and other topics regarding swine flu: CDC Key Facts About Swine Influenza, CDC Advisory on Travel Precautions and Avian Influenza: Is There a Risk to Water Supplies — from the Australian Research Center for Water Quality and Treatment.

CDC, the Government of Canada, the Mexican Department of Health, and the World Health Organization are working closely together to assess and respond to the spread of swine flu.

WHO has raised the level of influenza pandemic alert to phase 4, which indicates that the likelihood of a pandemic has increased, but not that a pandemic is inevitable. The decision was based primarily on epidemiological data demonstrating human-to-human transmission and the ability of the virus to cause community-level outbreaks, according to the WHO Web site.

Meanwhile, public health officials are working on developing a swine flu vaccine, though it would take six months for it to be readily available if conditions warrant its full production.

For utilities, now is a good time to revisit emergency plans that address staffing issues in the face of a pandemic. Many utilities developed these plans during the outbreaks of avian flu in 2003 – 2005.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Journal AWWA article: “Water System Preparedness and Best Practices for Pandemic Influenza,” January 2009
• Journal AWWA article: “Security and Preparedness — California Implements Water Security and Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Initiatives,” July 2008
• Opflow article: “Taken Down by Disease: Can Bird Flu Halt Operations?” July 2006
• Journal AWWA article: “Chat Room — Utilities Prepare for Potential Pandemic,” June 2006

Obama signs stimulus bill with $2B for drinking water

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

President Obama spoke about "putting Americans to work doing the work America needs done" before signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Feb. 17 at the Denver Museum of Science and Nature.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

President Obama signed the economic stimulus bill today during a stop in Denver.

"We have begun the essential work of keeping [the American] dream alive," he told an audience of about 250 at the Denver Museum of Science and Nature.

The bill (HR1) contains $2 billion in funding for drinking water infrastructure. A few hours after the House approved the measure (246–183) Feb. 13, the Senate voted its approval (60–38). Congressional leaders had a goal of getting the final bill to him by Presidents’ Day, Feb. 16.

Because legislators were determined not to create new federal bureaucracies with the bill, the $2 billion will be distributed via the state revolving loan fund (SRF) program. The money will be divided among the 50 states according to the existing SRF allocation formula. While details of how to apply for funding have yet to be announced, officials at the US Environmental Protection Agency urge interested utilities to immediately contact their own state SRF officials for information about applying for funds. A roster (PDF) of those officials is available on the Government Affairs Web page.

The total cost of the stimulus bill, also known as the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is about $787 billion. Congress also provided $4 billion for wastewater utilities and $1.4 billion for rural drinking water, wastewater and waste disposal projects. Following are highlights with regard to drinking water funding:

• $2 billion was authorized for drinking water infrastructure.
• States will not be required to provide matching funds.
• Priority for project funding will be given to projects on a state priority list that are ready to proceed to construction within 12 months of enactment of HR1 (Feb. 17, 2010).
• Each state shall use no less than 50 percent of its capitalization funds to provide “additional subsidization…in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans or grants or any combination of these…”
• At least 20 percent of the funds shall be used for “projects that address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities…” to the extent that there are sufficient eligible project applications.
• Funds may be used to buy, refinance or restructure debt obligations of eligible recipients only when that debt was incurred on or after Oct. 1, 2008.
• USEPA shall reallocate funds where projects are not under contract or construction within 12 months of enactment.
• No funds may be used to acquire land or a conservation easement for source water protection, to implement source water protection measures, or to establish or implement wellhead protection programs.
• USEPA (and all other federal agencies receiving stimulus funds) must post its plans for using those funds on the Recovery.gov Web site, which will be publicly accessible.

"We applaud Congress's decision to waive requirements that states provide matching funds, which would be difficult in today's economic climate and will speed distribution of funds," said AWWA Executive Director Gary Zimmerman in a statement released today. "The renewed focus on water infrastructure has helped bring the conversation about our buried water pipes above ground."

Another $1 billion was designated for water and related resources under the US Bureau of Reclamation. Several allocations were specified: at least $126 million for water reclamation and reuse projects, $50 million for the Central Utah Project, $50 million for projects under the California Bay – Delta Restoration Act, and $60 million for rural water projects, primarily for intake and treatment facilities.

The act also provides $4.6 billion for the US Army Corps of Engineers for completion of current water projects and new projects to improve flood protection, navigation, hydropower, and the existing water resource infrastructure. The priority is for projects that could be completed in one year.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• Summary of allocations (PDF) in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
• AWWA webcast, USA’s Economic Stimulus Plan, Feb. 26, 1 p.m. EDT
• AWWA Government Affairs commentary
• Previous AWWA Streamlines stories, Jan. 6, 2009; Jan. 20, 2009; Feb. 3, 2009.

Stimulus package slights drinking water

Draft legislative language released on January 15 was titled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009(.pdf).

To get the funds distributed as quickly as possible, the proposal calls for the $8 billion for drinking water and wastewater to be distributed through the state revolving loan fund (SRF) programs. If a new program had to be developed to disburse the monies, it would delay the impact of the stimulus efforts. Efforts are underway to speed up the SRF process, however.

Fifty percent of the funds would be used for traditional SRF loans; the other 50 percent would be used for grants, negative-interest loans and forgiveness of principle. Only 2 percent would be allowed for management and oversight of the SRFs.

Projects under the stimulus bill will be subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires paying locally prevailing wages on public works projects. The $1.5 billion for rural projects would be administered by the US Department of Agriculture.

Hearings will begin the day after the presidential inauguration.

AWWA is asking for parity between funding for drinking water and wastewater and seeking an increase in the drinking water funding to $10 billion.

AWWA has identified at least $10 billion worth of drinking water infrastructure projects that are “shovel ready” or ready to begin within 120 days of receiving funding. Studies by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office show that the costs of infrastructure needs are the same for water and wastewater.

Drinking water organizations are disappointed in the relative disparity between funding for drinking water and funding for wastewater.

However, in the Senate, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., is collecting signatures from his fellow senators for a letter he plans to send to Senate leadership seeking greater funding for water infrastructure in the stimulus bill. Cardin is seeking $10 billion for drinking water infrastructure, $20 billion for wastewater, and $2 billion for water efficiency projects. He is also seeking some temporary changes in the state revolving loan programs to get the money out more quickly, such as waiving the 20 percent match from states normally required for SRFs.

The $825 billion House proposal, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also would provide

• $4.5 billion for the US Army Corps of Engineers,
• $500 million for the US Bureau of Reclamation, and
• $200 million for the US Geological Survey.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• AWWA Government Affairs' Web site has extensive resources
• AWWA's jobs creation Web site
• AWWA "400,000 jobs" advertisement (.pdf)

New drinking water infrastructure reports = BIG $ needs

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

The catastrophic failure of a 1-million gallon (2.8-million/L) storage tank in Guam in 2005. Barry Pollock, USEPA Region 9

The American Society of Civil Engineers 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, which gave drinking water and wastewater infrastructure a grade of D-, cited investment needs totaling around $1 trillion for both water and wastewater over the same period. ASCE estimates the funding shortfall on drinking water projects alone will be $11 billion annually.

The difference?

• USEPA says $334.8 billion represents infrastructure projects necessary for public water systems to continue providing safe drinking water to the public — in other words, the investment needed to continue to comply with federal regulations — projects that will qualify for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
• ASCE is calculating the investment needed to replace aging facilities that are near the end of their useful life, as well as to comply with existing and future federal water regulations. The ASCE figures usually combine drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs.

The drinking water section of the ASCE Report Card lists the expected design life span of the following components (from USEPA’s 2002 Gap Analysis): reservoirs and dams; treatment plants — concrete structures; treatment plants — mechanical and electrical; trunk mains; pumping stations — concrete structures; pumping stations — mechanical and electrical; and the distribution system.

USEPA’s Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment was taken in 2007, updating figures derived in 2003, which now provide the basis for computing the current formula for allocating DWSRF funds between the states.

The new allotment formula will be announced in the Federal Register in April, the agency said. The new allotment formula will be used for FY2010 and will not affect money added to the state DWSRFs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The full USEPA report (PDF) compares 2007’s need for a $334.8 billion investment in drinking water infrastructure to 2003 needs totaling $276.8 billion (which would be $331.4 billion in 2007 dollars.) When the needs assessment began in 1995, the total investment needed for drinking water infrastructure was pegged at $200.4 billion in 2007 dollars.

The USEPA assessment represents the needs of approximately 52,000 community water systems and 21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity water systems (including schools and churches) that are eligible to receive funding from state DWSRF programs.

The USEPA assessment covers costs for repairs and replacement of transmission pipes, storage and treatment equipment and other projects required to protect public health and to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Transmission and distribution needs accounted for 60 percent of the total, followed by treatment needs (22 percent). [See Quick Take chart on Streamlines’ front page.] The need is broken out by size of public water supplies (PWS) as follows (in billions of dollars):

• Large community water systems (serving more than 50,000 people)--$116.3
• Medium-sized community water systems (serving 3,301 to 50,000 people)--$145.1
• Small community water systems (serving 3,300 and fewer people)--$59.4
• Not-for-profit noncommunity water systems--$4.1
• American Indian and Alaska Native village water systems--$2.9
• Costs associated with proposed and recently promulgated regulations (from USEPA economic analyses)--$7.0
• Total national need--$334.8

Regulatory compliance costs for USEPA regulations are included in the overall system needs (first five categories above) for existing microbial and chemical regulations, to the tune of $45 billion over the next 20 years. The agency report outlined special efforts made to ensure that the small system survey of states with arsenic problems would accurately assess those needs.

Corrosion on a wellhead indicates well rehabilitation may be necessary soon. Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality

• Proposed Radon Rule
• Final Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-products Rule
• Final Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (treatment needs only) and
• Final Ground Water Rule.

Together, the existing and new regulatory costs represent 16 percent of the national need of $334.8 billion or $52 billion.

Dams and raw water reservoirs are excluded from USEPA’s assessment because they don’t qualify for DWSRF funding. USEPA attributes $36.9 billion of the $334.8 billion national need to storage projects such as finished water storage tanks, but not dams and raw water reservoirs.

According to the ASCE report card, which gave America’s dams a grade of D, dams need $12.5 billion worth of investment over the next five years. ASCE projected $5.05 billion would actually be spent, however, leaving a $7.45 billion shortfall.

Drought as a situation with which PWSs are dealing emerged seriously as USEPA conducted the 2007 study. However, the report says, “Because drought is not always long-term or permanent, the DWSRF-eligibility of projects based on speculated continuation of the drought condition was not clear.”

The USEPA report said the agency “believes the drought-related needs reported in the 2007 Assessment capture a small portion of the drought-related need water utilities may face in the future.”

The USEPA assessment, released March 26, also drew comparisons to other important assessment efforts:

• A Congressional Budget Office report, “Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure” (PDF), estimates annual water system needs of between $14.6 billion to $25.2 billion — or, extrapolated to 20 years, a range of $292 to $504 billion. (November 2002)
• USEPA’s “Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis” estimated drinking water systems’ 20-year capital needs in the range (adjusted to 2007 dollars) of $204 billion to $590 billion, with a point estimate of $363 billion. (September 2002)
• The Water Infrastructure Network’s “Clean and Safe Water for the 21^st Century:  A Renewed National Commitment to Water and Wastewater Infrastructure” (PDF) estimated water system needs of $25 billion annually — which extrapolates to $503 billion over 20 years.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• ”Mayors: water investments boost economy”   WaterWeek story, 8/18/2008
• What’s New in AWWA Government Affairs
• “Manager to Manager -- Condition Assessment Essential for Effective Management of Buried Infrastructure”   Journal AWWA article, April 2008

Utilities getting in line for stimulus monies

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

In line with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the guidance emphasizes the “focus on projects most ready to proceed to construction,” said Peter Shanahan, USEPA’s leader on the Drinking Water SRF.

ARRA authorizes $6 billion for USEPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which is the money that is funneled through the Clean Water ($4 billion) and Drinking Water ($2 billion) SRFs to states and then to utilities.

The timeline for the regional offices is to review and award the state grants in the next 30 to 45 days, said Shanahan. Meanwhile states are reviewing and prioritizing funding proposals. If regional offices can stick to the timeline goal, states and utilities could be signing agreements and contracts for SRF awards by June 1.

Construction must be under way, or at least contracts for construction signed, by Feb. 17, 2010; otherwise the funds will be reallocated to other states.

At USEPA’s Recovery Web site, 37 states have posted information about their processes and requests for ARRA funds. Some of the state Web sites are quite robust, with detailed information regarding the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs, intended use plans (IUPs), processes, requirements, public hearings, and lists of specific projects, locations, and dollar requests.

An IUP — a list of priority projects for a state— is usually “deeper” than the allotment to allow for any delays in the start of projects and ensure that all funds are committed within the required time frame, said Shanahan.

Washington: The state DWSRF has received 347 applications for funding and is reviewing them using their Economic Recovery Guidelines. Although the state will not receive enough money to fund all the projects, the site urges utilities to consider the second round of funding: “Applicants who don’t receive economic recovery funds can ask us to consider them for funding from the 2009 DWSRF loan program this fall. We anticipate there will be about $40 million available then.” The state is delaying the awarding of its standard SRF monies until fall.

Oregon: Oregon’s draft intended use plan outlines the processes and qualifications for SRF projects. Requests have come from utilities of all sizes — from an RV park serving about 50 units to cities like Eugene and Portland. The requests cover small projects—drilling a single well or adding a chlorinator or backup generator—and large ones, like the construction of a treatment plant, replacement of major transmission and distribution lines, and bringing pressure zones up to standard.

Montana: The state has a map showing the locations of a variety of water, wastewater, and other projects under its renewable resources grants program.

Michigan: Michigan’s Web site on water and wastewater funding lists projects under consideration for ARRA funding through the state’s SRFs. Communities that submitted sewer and drinking water infrastructure projects last spring and summer are first in line for SRF dollars under the ARRA. Communities that want their drinking water projects added to the state's 2010 priority project list have until May 1 to submit applications.

Where listed, interest rates on loans run from 1 percent to 3 percent, with 20- to 30-year payback plans. However, much of the funding is likely to come in the form of “negative interest” loans, which call for repayment of less than the full amount of the loan, forgiveness of principle and grants.

Investor-owned utilities are also eligible for funds under the ARRA-funded portions of the SRFs.

“The intention of the ‘green project’ reserve is to push the envelope beyond what would typically be done under the SRF,” Shanahan said. Routine water main replacement would not be eligible, according to Shanahan. However, replacing a main with a high friction co-efficient in order to reduce the energy required to pump water through the main could represent an attractive payback on energy and water savings.

Again Shanahan urged utilities to be in touch with their state agencies regarding application and use of SRF monies. More about USEPA’s funding for drinking water and related projects is available online.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• AWWA summary of key provisions relevant to local governments
• Book: Dawn of the Replacement Era: Reinvesting in Drinking Water Infrastructure
• Previous AWWA Streamlines stories, Jan. 6, 2009; Jan. 20, 2009; Feb. 3, 2009, Feb. 17, 2009, Mar. 3, 2009

Wanted: $10B for drinking water infrastructure

The association's Government Affairs Office has calculated that there are at least $10 billion worth of drinking water infrastructure projects nationwide that would be "shovel ready" within 120 days of receiving funding, based on data gathered in November and January. That number could rise to $40 billion if the funding time frame were extended to two years, as has been discussed in Washington.

AWWA is running a full-page ad in Roll Call, the premier daily newspaper on Capitol Hill, which shows a running water faucet and the caption, "I'm 400,000 jobs waiting to happen." Congressional leadership began work on a new stimulus bill before adjourning for the Christmas and New Year's holidays. Traditionally, after an election year, Congress convenes in early January to swear members in, formally organize committees, and select leaders. Then members usually return home until late January and begin their work after the State of the Union address.

But for this new session, Congressional leaders plan to start back to work in earnest on stimulus legislation as soon as Congress reconvenes and have a bill ready for a newly sworn-in President Barack Obama to sign very soon after the inauguration. A new page on AWWA's Web site focuses on the job creation and outstanding infrastructure investment needs for drinking water.

Grassroots government affairs contacts of AWWA received alerts Dec. 12 and 17, urging them to contact their members of Congress to obtain support for at least $10 billion for drinking water projects in the stimulus bill. About the same time, US Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, chair of the House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, began soliciting co-signers for a letter he was sending to the leaders of the House Committee on Appropriations seeking $10 billion for drinking water in the stimulus bill. He obtained 35 signatures in a quick, three-day effort. AWWA members also sought co-signers for Green's letter in their communications with Congress.

"Response has been strong by the grassroots,” said AWWA Legislative Director Tommy Holmes. "Continued pressure will be vital in early January."

Progress from the grassroots efforts and meetings with staff from the House and Senate committees is starting to show. Usually when policymakers in Washington talk about infrastructure, roads and bridges come up first and water is mentioned late in the discussion. However, in a Dec. 24 article in The Washington Post on competing interests for stimulus attention, Vice President-Elect Joe Biden said, "We've let our infrastructure crumble for a long, long time, from water to roads to bridges. It makes sense to invest in them now," Biden said.

The stimulus package is expected to total $675 billion - $850 billion. However, of that total, forecasts call for $200 billion to go to middle-class tax cuts and certain tax credits for tuition and small businesses, $200 billion to go to Medicaid and education, and then $350 billion for infrastructure, renewable energy tax credits, food stamps, and a new technological health database.

Action on the economic stimulus bill should be completed before AWWA's annual Water Matters! Fly-In in late March, but participants will still be discussing long-term drinking water infrastructure issues with their members of Congress.

For more information, contact Holmes.

Judge rattles California water agreement foundation

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

The Salton Sea is at the center of a judge's nullification of a California water-sharing agreement.

Judge Roland L. Candee of Sacramento County Superior Court has been hearing a consolidated court case of lawsuits testing validity of the Quantification Settlement Agreement. It was finalized in October 2003 between San Diego County Water Authority, Coachella Valley Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Imperial Irrigation District, the state of California and the US Interior Department.

In Candee's Jan. 14 statement of decision, says Dennis Cushman, assistant general manager for the SDCWA, "The judge found one sentence in one contract of the 13 before him … in conflict with the California constitution. So he invalidated that contract and 11 of the other 12 because somehow, in his analysis, they referred back to that one provision in the one contract." All told, the QSA has some three dozen contracts.

Meanwhile, the water continues to flow under a stay granted by Candee. On Feb. 11 Candee will hear comments and is then expected to issue his final decision. At that point, all agree, the decision will be appealed and a further stay requested so the QSA can remain in effect. Cushman thought the appeal would take at least a year.

"The water agencies and the state of California … are meeting to discuss how they might address the issue with that one sentence through other ways to resolve it rather than waiting for the appellate process to run its course," Cushman said.

John Schlotterbeck, senior deputy general counsel of MWD, noted that the judge found nothing else that was improper in all the components of the agreement except for that one provision in the QSA's joint powers agreement relating to state's incurring debts and liabilities. 

"We will wait to see what happens on appeal before any major decisions are made on going back and altering any of the agreements," Schlotterbeck says. "I wouldn't anticipate that people are going to go negotiating or altering agreements until we're sure that is something we need to do."

According to Cushman, the judge's invalidation of the QSA "is a concern, but there's no need to push the panic button. We believe the matter will ultimately be resolved and the QSA and all of its component agreements will move forward as they were originally intended."

The QSA settled a century of water disputes by solidifying agreements that voluntarily transferred agricultural water for urban use. The agreement confirmed that the Imperial Irrigation District has annual water rights to 3.1 million acre-ft (3.8 billion m³) of Colorado River water. California's total entitlement is 4.4 million acre-ft (5.4 billion m³) from the Colorado River, but the state historically uses more.

In agreements with the other six Colorado River Basin states, California agreed to conserve and reduce its usage of the river's water to live within its entitlement. Key to that is Imperial Irrigation's agreement to transfer water

• to the SDCWA, ramping up from 10,000 acre-ft (12 million m³) in 2003 to 200,000 acre-ft (250 million m³) per year for up to 75 years. In 2009, SDCWA was due to receive 60,000 acre-ft (74 million m³).
• to Coachella Valley Water District — as much as 103,000 acre-ft (127 million m³) per year.
• to MWD — up to 110,000 acre-ft. (140 million m³) per year.

Via the QSA, MWD gets the opportunity to buy water from IID that is created through conservation and other measures, Schlotterbeck says, although the wholesaler hasn't yet gotten any water transfers from the deal. MWD is getting water transfers from a different irrigation district. The benefit to the Imperial Valley is the ability to diversify its economy beyond agriculture.

Under QSA-related legislation, state of California will purchase up to 1.6 million acre-ft (2 billion m³) of water from the Imperial Irrigation District for sale to the MWD, generating up to $300 million for restoration of the Salton Sea — a lake accidentally created in 1905-1907 by a huge Colorado River spill. Agricultural runoff sustains the lake.

And in the QSA language relating to that Salton Sea project lies the rub. The judge decided the sentence in the joint powers agreement describing the state of California's role in the Salton Sea project violated California's constitutional limitation on incurring debts by creating an open-ended obligation to fund the restoration.

"We believe there are a number of exceptions that apply that he didn't properly take into account," says Schlotterbeck, citing precedents that found the constitutional limitation on incurring debts is not violated when various funding sources are available and when the proposed debt is contingent in nature.

"We don't know what the ultimate fix for the Salton Sea is going to be and what that's going to cost," Schlotterbeck explains, "and there are exceptions for when you have that type of contingent debt."

Some Imperial Valley landowners and growers sued to invalidate QSA, arguing that it would drastically reduce the size of the Salton Sea and eventually dry it up, leading to severe air pollution and destruction of crops and land values. An attorney in the case issued a statement calling the QSA "a rushed deal, a cram-down" that would cause the inland sea to "become a toxic dust bowl affecting people from Palm Springs to the Mexican border."

Cushman vehemently denied that the QSA is in any way responsible for lower water levels in the Salton Sea. "There's a provision in the agreement that requires the same amount of agricultural runoff water … to continue to flow to the Sea. The Salton Sea has been receiving runoff from the Imperial Valley as if there was no [water] transfer at all."

For every acre-foot (1,200 m³) of water transferred to the SDCWA the QSA requires a third of an acre-foot (410 m³) to flow into the Salton Sea. "That's a provision that's in effect for the first 15 years of the agreement," Cushman says. The initial term of the QSA is for 45 years, although the agreement can be extended for up to 75 years.

He listed a number of factors that cause Salton Sea levels to decline — the amount of water coming down the New River from Mexico, the total amount of agricultural production, changes in rainfall as well as types of crops grown producing less or more runoff.

Cushman says, "Not one of those factors are the QSA transfers, and not for the first 15 years. We've just entered year seven."

After 15 years, the replacement water SDCWA sends to the lake will come from conservation practices such as improvements in the distribution system to prevent leaks or seepage, he said.

EPA adds 9 contaminants to contaminant info tool

Launched in November 2005, WCIT is a restricted online database profiling 102 chemical, biological and radiochemical contaminants of concern for drinking water and wastewater systems. WCIT is a key element supporting USEPA’s mission to protect public health and the nation’s drinking water and wastewater systems.

USEPA selected the nine new contaminants to add to WCIT based on dialog with its partners in the Water Sector. Four of the new contaminants, like chlorine, are chemicals regularly used in drinking water treatment processes. These chemicals could contaminate drinking water or plant facilities through accidental or intentional overfeeds into drinking water, threatening public health, or releases into facilities, threatening employee safety. The addition of this new contaminant data increases the value of WCIT to authorized users such as drinking water utilities, which commonly use these chemicals.

The five other contaminants newly added to WCIT are substances that are of particular concern to wastewater treatment systems. The substances, like Malathion, have the potential to upset secondary wastewater treatment processes or damage wastewater infrastructure and pose a public health or environmental threat if contaminated wastewater is discharged into receiving waters. They also pose a threat to public health if ingested in drinking water.

WCIT data include details on both regulated and non-regulated contaminants. Data are compiled from current, peer-reviewed reports and research and are updated regularly.

Unlike data found in other resources, WCIT data are specific to a variety of drinking water and wastewater concerns, not just environmental impacts. USEPA designed WCIT to be a resource for planning for, as well as responding to, water contamination incidents.  

WCIT data include details such as physical or pathogen properties, availability (i.e., commercial or restricted), fate and transport in water, and medical and toxicity information. To support early identification of a potential contaminant, WCIT data also describe water quality and environmental indicators of contamination and provide details on field tests and analytical methods for specific contaminants.

Greater detail on environmental methods — including links to full analytical methods — is available via the National Environmental Methods Index for Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Methods (NEMI-CBR), a USEPA online resource aligned with WCIT and accessible through the same password-protected sign-on procedure.

Given the sensitivity of the data in WCIT and NEMI-CBR, access to the tools is tightly controlled. Qualified individuals must apply to USEPA and undergo screening before being granted access.

Currently, drinking water and wastewater utilities, state drinking water primacy agencies and laboratories, drinking water and wastewater associations partnering with USEPA, state and local public health officials, and federal officials (including government laboratory personnel) are eligible for access to WCIT and NEMI-CBR. Use of the tools is free for authorized individuals.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Bookstore, Safety First DVD: Process Safety Management and Safety First DVD: Hazardous Spill Containment and Cleanup
• AWWA Security Issues Page
• AWWA conference: 2010 Distribution Systems Symposium and Exposition & Water Security Congress

USEPA takes comments on new arsenic risk study

 Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

Methodically and scientifically, a new hazard assessment for inorganic arsenic is wending its way through federal regulatory processes that could ultimately affect many public water systems by further reducing the current arsenic MCL.

In early April, a special workgroup, appointed by the Science Advisory Board to the US Environmental Protection Agency, met to investigate and take public comments on a draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic focusing on cancer.

The SAB review is occurring in response to calls for evaluation of the agency’s work by AWWA, AMWA (PDF) and a host of other interested parties. "AWWA appreciates the agency providing an opportunity for both SAB review and public comment on the IRIS arsenic assessment," says Steve Via, regulatory engineer for AWWA in Washington, D.C. The extra review wasn't planned a year ago.

If the assessment is finalized as currently drafted, it would place the 1-in-10,000 cancer risk level at 0.14 – 0.21 micrograms/L. "Said another way," explains Via, "it roughly doubles the estimated lung and bladder cancer incidence associated with compliance with the current 10 microgram/L MCL."

The current MCL, which took effect in January 2006, was a significant reduction from the previous arsenic MCL of 50 microgram/L and caused more than 4,000 PWS to make changes to come into compliance. 

USEPA’s drinking water program has not described how it will respond to the final risk assessment, Via says, but in its recent release of the second Six-Year Review, arsenic was highlighted as a contaminant for which information necessary to support additional regulatory action was being compiled.

The arsenic assessment was developed by the USEPA Office of Water’s Office of Science and Technology in collaboration with the agency’s National Center for Environmental Assessment and followed direction provided earlier by National Academy of Science and SAB panels. USEPA’s assessment continues to rely on a linear dose response model based on data collected in Taiwan. This same dataset underlies the current Safe Drinking Water Act MCL.

Most comments received by the SAB's arsenic workgroup during the April 6–7 public meeting identified deficiencies in the agency analysis, Via says. However, the current review is largely framed as an assessment of the agency’s compliance with recommendations from earlier review panels. Consequently, the panel’s preliminary conclusions did not challenge the science underlying the agency analysis.

The workgroup is expected to finalize its recommendations for approval by the full SAB in June 2010. Dr. Peter Preuss, director of NCEA, told the SAB panel that he hoped to finalize the assessment shortly after the SAB review is concluded. 

Corrected April 27, 2010 

Additional AWWA Resources

• Journal AWWA, "Particulate Arsenic Release in a Drinking Water Distribution System," March 2010
• Opflow, "Spatial Trends Shed Light on Arsenic Concentrations," January 2010
• AWWA Bookstore: Groundwater Resources: Sustainability, Management and Restoration and Groundwater and Wells, Third Edition

Final fracking hearing postponed

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

Protestors in Albany, N.Y., fear that drilling for gas will contaminate groundwater with hydraulic fracturing liquids.AP Photo/Mike Groll

Three hearings have already been held — in Fort Worth, Texas, Denver and Canonsburg, Pa. The fourth meeting, originally slated for Binghamton, N.Y., was first moved to Syracuse, N.Y., and then postponed.

The hearings in Fort Worth and Denver drew several hundred people — 600 in Fort Worth and 300 in Denver. But the one in Canonsburg, a Pittsburgh suburb, drew more than 1,000 people.

An even larger crowd was anticipated for the Binghamton meeting, and a bigger venue than originally planned could not be negotiated with Binghamton University. So the Oncenter in Syracuse became the new site for the meeting.

About 1,200 people signed up for the meeting, but various estimates expected the crowd to reach 5,000 to 8,000. At that point, Onondaga County officials raised concerns about being able to ensure public safety with such short time to plan for the event.

USEPA plans to hold the final meeting sometime in September. (Check USEPA's Hydraulic Fracturing Study site for updates.) Meanwhile, the agency will continue accepting written comments mailed to Jill Dean, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 and sent by e-mail with "hydraulic fracturing study" in the subject line. The comment period closes Sept. 15.

Emotions over the issue of fracking are running high in Marcellus Shale country. Some people object to moving the meeting to Syracuse because they don't believe it is a major issue there. Currently New York State has a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the formation.

The Marcellus formation underlies much of the Allegheny Plateau from the Finger Lakes region of New York through northern and western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, western Maryland, and West Virginia. It even extends a bit into New Jersey, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee.

There is economic and strategic pressure to develop the natural gas reserves in the formation.

An estimated that 49 trillion ft³ (1.4 trillion m³) of natural gas — about 10 percent of the total — could be recovered with present technology, according to a State University of New York geology professor. That much natural gas represents a value of about $1 trillion dollars and could supply US energy requirements for two years.

Higher estimates range from 170 trillion ft³ (4.8 trillion m³) up to 363 trillion ft³ (10.3 trillion m³). Whatever the numbers, the resource is vast and valuable.

On the other side is strong public pressure to ensure environmental protection.

Protestors in Cannonsburg exhibited their concern for water quality on handmade signs. Opposition to additional drilling and use of hydraulic fracturing methods in the Marcellus Shale formation has grown since some residents in Dimock, Pa., have had to install home filtration units use because their well water is contaminated with spent fracking chemicals.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Streamlines: "Oil spill fuels fracking fracas," May 25; "Water woes spark tougher regs for gas well drilling," June 8; "Fracking raises concerns about sapping water supplies," June 29; "Fracking's 'up' side," July 13, "Fracking advocates, opponents speak out," July 27

AWWA pressures USEPA on atrazine

Going into detail on the problems water utilities have with atrazine, last week AWWA stepped up its pressure on the US Environmental Protection Agency to protect drinking water from agricultural chemicals.

AWWA's comments were filed April 7 (PDF) in response to a USEPA advisory panel's meeting April 26–29 — "Re-Evaluation of Human Health Effects of Atrazine: Review of Experimental Animal and In Vitro Studies and Drinking Water Monitoring Frequency."

"For more than 20 years, AWWA has written multiple letters to EPA and Congress expressing our concern with the impacts of agricultural chemicals, including the triazines, on drinking water supplies," Tom Curtis, AWWA deputy executive director, states in the comments.

AWWA makes three requests of USEPA in the document:

1. to complete its re-evaluation of atrazine's human health effects, begun in 2009, "as soon as possible,"
2. to develop the appropriate risk management option for drinking water — also "as soon as possible," and
3. to ask companies registering the pesticide and the chemical's users to pay for any additional compliance monitoring that utilities might need to do.

This is the third of four USEPA sessions planned for the SAP delving into scientific issues related to federal regulation of the herbicide atrazine, all of them before the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel.

Atrazine is "ubiquitous in almost all surface waters and in many groundwaters," Curtis notes. Surface water utilities in the Midwest, in particular, experience a spring "flush" of atrazine in their source water. The magnitude and duration can vary widely, depending on numerous factors — rainfall, for example.

Currently, compliance with the MCL for atrazine is based on an annual average of quarterly samples. However, recent news stories about weed-killer in drinking water have pointed out that such measurements can miss spikes.

Noting that "AWWA has been concerned with the lack of data for making informed regulatory decisions," AWWA comments focus on the potential statistical approaches for drinking water monitoring frequency.

USEPA is asking the advisory panel to discuss methods for re-evaluating the sampling frequency that is necessary for determining, with confidence, concentrations of the pesticide in source waters for drinking water.

Curtis cited studies funded by AWWA in 2003 and 2004 — well after atrazine's MCL promulgation in 1991 — that found USEPA's approved immunoassay monitoring method was "not accurate enough for drinking water compliance monitoring."

A more recent AWWA study concluded that more samples might be needed, depending on the specific regulatory value, to capture the risk in surface waters used by utilities in "vulnerable" locations, Curtis reports. He also spells out the extra cost that utilities can expect if the number of samples required increases.

"AWWA recommends that EPA develop the appropriate drinking water risk management option as soon as possible as the atrazine issue has dragged on since … the '90s," Curtis writes, adding, "Utilities and their customers need a resolution to this issue once and for all."

Additional AWWA Resources

• The Water Library provides access to AWWA's WITAF (Water Industry Technical Action Fund) reports
• "USEPA to review atrazine risks," Streamlines, Oct. 13, 2009
• Read AWWA's water science topic on Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals
• DrinkTap.org blog post: What's up with Atrazine?

EPA guidance for stimulus funds due this week

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Utilities should contact local  SRF officials now with ready-to-go projects, the USEPA says.

Peter Shanahan, USEPA team leader on the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, told an AWWA webcast audience of 1,400 Feb. 26 that USEPA will award state grants as soon as possible. States have a deadline of Apr. 3 to certify their requests to USEPA. State allotments for the state revolving funds (SRFs) are based on the agency’s quadrennial needs survey.

Meanwhile, Shanahan again emphasized what USEPA officials have been saying all along to utilities: “I urge you to get in touch with your state agency” to let them know what is ready to go.

Because the money must be contracted by Feb. 17, 2010, utilities with the ability to launch their projects quickly have an edge in the race for funds. Mike Baker, president of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators and chief of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency division of drinking water and groundwater, warned that states may have committed all their funds well before the funding year is out.

Shanahan said, however, that the original loans from SRFs are now being repaid and replenishing those funds. “We can now tackle the ‘replacement era,’” he said, referring to the infrastructure needs the industry has identified over the past 10 years.

He thinks that larger water systems that have not looked to SRFs for capital funding will find that funding more accessible. “The new relationships will last for years to come,” he said.

Baker also warned that the influx of capital may cause “a traffic jam for consulting services.”

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, as the stimulus bill is formally titled, stipulates

• 50 percent of the money to be used for forgiveness of principal or interest (grants) and
• 20 percent to go to “green” projects that save energy or water or incorporate other innovations.

The act also requires funding recipients to “Buy American” iron, steel or manufactured goods and to pay prevailing wages (Davis – Bacon). In some states, these will be new requirements, noted Baker. Waivers are allowed under the Buy American provision for materials that come from certain trading partners or are not available in sufficient quantity or quality or increase costs by more than 25 percent.

USEPA has launched a Web site dedicated to implementing the various environmental features of the law, including a chart showing how much money is going into each state for drinking water and wastewater state revolving loan funds.

The total cost of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is about $787 billion. Congress provided $4 billion for wastewater utilities and $1.4 billion for rural drinking water, wastewater, and water and waste disposal projects, to be administered through the US Department of Agriculture.

“The effort AWWA members put into educating Congress on drinking water needs during this stimulus debate is already paying off in proposals coming from Capitol Hill and the president to increase SRF funding in the annual appropriations budget,” said Tommy Holmes, AWWA legislative director.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• AWWA summary of key provisions relevant to local governments
• Book: Dawn of the Replacement Era: Reinvesting in Drinking Water Infrastructure
• Previous AWWA Streamlines stories: Jan. 6, 2009, Jan. 20, 2009, Feb. 3, 2009, Feb. 17, 2009

With 2009 budget passed, eyes turn to new water bill

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

The Fiscal Year 2009 federal budget, signed into law by President Obama March 11, kept appropriations for the Drinking Water State Revolving fund at $829 million, the same level appropriated for the previous fiscal year. FY2009 ends Sept. 30. The president's budget proposal for FY2010, however, would provide $1.5 billion for the drinking water SRF program.

The wastewater SRF program received $689 million for FY2009, also the same level it received the previous year. The FY 2010 proposal contains $2.4 billion for the Clean Water SRF — the same amount authorized by a bill that passed the House on March 12.

Other provisions of the FY2009 budget that are significant for the water industry:

• The US Environmental Protection Agency’s budget increased slightly to $7.6 billion;
• $790 million for science and technology programs at the US Environmental Protection Agency, a boost of $30 million from the previous year;
• $145 million for "special project grants" for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater projects;
• $20 million for drinking water and wastewater projects on the United States – Mexican border;
• $18.5 million for drinking water and wastewater projects in rural and native Alaskan villages;
• $5.4 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $185 million less than in FY2008;
• $1.1 billion for water and hydroelectric programs at the Bureau of Reclamation, similar to FY2008;
• $15.1 million for the Water Security Initiative to fund pilots 4 and 5, an increase over the $11.4 million enacted in FY2008;
• $1.1 billion for the US Department of Agriculture’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, $17 million more than FY2008.

The omnibus FY2009 spending bill included nine bills left over from the previous Congress, which extended FY2008 funding levels in the face of veto threats from the Bush administration.

The Senate beat back a dozen amendment attempts and passed an FY2009 omnibus spending bill (HR1105) identical to the one approved earlier by the House, eliminating the need for a conference on the bill before sending it to the White House for enactment.

The Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 (HR1262), passed by the House with a large bipartisan margin (317 to 101) March 12, authorizes $19.4 billion for wastewater infrastructure and other efforts to improve water quality.

Its authorization for FY2010 for the CWSRF — $2.4 billion — matches President Obama’s requested appropriation, leading its sponsor, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., to express optimism the authorization bill would receive full funding with the support of the Obama administration.

CWSRF funding in the bill totals $13.8 billion for all five years — $2.7 billion in 2011, $2.8 billion in 2012, $2.9 billion in 2013 and $3 billion in 2014.

The bill also carries the Davis-Bacon Act provision, requiring workers on projects funded by the SRF to be paid each state’s prevailing wage for such work. The last CWSRF authorization to carry that provision expired in 1994.

Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, noted that federal CWSRF funding has been “dramatically cut (PDF) in recent years” — a “critical priority” he expects to change.

Combining five bills passed by the House in the last Congress that never passed the Senate, HR1262 also:

• Incorporates the Sewer Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act, requiring a uniform, enhanced national standard for public notification of combined and sanitary sewer overflows (CSOs and SSOs), as well as enhanced monitoring requirements;
• Provides for grants  totaling $2.5 billion over five years to address CSOs and SSOs;
• Provides $250 million for alternative water source projects;
• Provides $750 million over five years for remediation of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes.

Amendments added to HR 1262 during floor debate March 12:

• Require states to set aside 20 percent of CWSRF grants (i.e., principal forgiveness and negative-interest loans) for communities that implement green infrastructure or other water and energy-efficient improvements, as well as for disadvantaged communities;
• Require states to conduct energy efficiency audits and ensure waste treatment systems incorporate sustainable infrastructure;
• Require USEPA to conduct a study on the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the waters of the United States and to convene a task force to develop recommendations on the proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals and a strategy for public education;
• Require states to use at least 15 percent of each capitalization grant for water pollution control to assist municipalities of fewer than 10,000 people;
• Ensure that there is a preference for American steel, iron and manufactured goods.

The House T&I Committee published the proposed state-by-state funding allocations (PDF) online.

The Water Quality Investment Act now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to be assigned to the Committee for Environment and Public Works, which has jurisdiction for both drinking water and wastewater affairs. In the House, drinking water is under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• AWWA Government Affairs Web site offers regular updates.

LT2 Crypto guidance issued for small systems

Distributed to states on Feb. 4, the new guidance for small systems (serving fewer than 10,000 people) — also known as Schedule 4 systems — gives states the option to adopt an alternative LT2 trigger for requiring monitoring for Cryptosporidium.

The new guidance would allow states to require small systems to perform Crypto monitoring only if the source water average (mean) E.coli level is at or above 100 E. coli/100 ml for both lake/reservoir and flowing stream sources.

Small systems whose source water has E. coli levels beneath the trigger level would not be required to monitor for Crypto. USEPA estimates the monitoring-cost savings at $17 million.

For all other water systems, LT2's trigger for requiring Crypto monitoring is an average of 10 E. coli /100 ml for lake/reservoir sources and 50 E. coli /100 ml for flowing stream sources.

USEPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water estimates that the alternative trigger levels will cause "roughly a quarter of small systems (1,400 of 5,600) to monitor for Crypto" whereas the nearly half of small systems (2,700 of 5,600) would need to do the monitoring at current levels.

The timing for states to adopt the new guidance is critical, if small systems are to avoid the monitoring costs. Schedule 4 systems that exceed the current trigger levels were required to submit sampling plans by Jan. 1 and must begin sampling no later than April unless states make the change recommended by USEPA.

The OGWDW noted it had promised earlier to investigate alternative triggers for small systems. Hence, it reviewed source water data from 850 large water systems that already are implementing LT2, which was published in 2006.

That analysis determined the alternative trigger levels in the new guidance "would more accurately identify systems required to meet the treatment technique requirements of LT2 and prevent a Iarge number of small systems from incurring Crypto monitoring costs."

Additional AWWA resources

• AWWA Web site's professional and technical resources: Selecting Disinfectants: Supporting Resources
• "Minimize Microfiltration Membrane Maintenance," Opflow, November 2009
• AWWA Bookstore DVD: "Filter Surveillance Techniques For Water Utilities"

USEPA's second Six-Year Review announced

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

The four regulated contaminants identified by the second Six-Year Review process include tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene (TCE), industrial and textile processing chemicals that contaminate both groundwater and surface water; and acrylamide and epichlorohydrin, which are impurities that can be introduced into drinking water during the treatment process.

They were among 71 regulated contaminants assessed by the agency, which determined that 67 contaminant regulations remain appropriate. Jackson said USEPA will initiate rulemaking efforts to revise TCE and tetrachloroethylene "within the next year." Revision of the other two standards "will follow later," she said.

USEPA also determined that 14 others (e.g., lead, copper, disinfection byproducts and microbials) "did not need a detailed review because of recent or ongoing regulatory actions." [See second review fact sheet (PDF).]

Of the 67 National Public Drinking Water Regulations deemed "not appropriate for revision at this time," 32 of them have health-risk assessments or information-gathering efforts underway — for example, arsenic, atrazine, chromium and fluoride. They could be added to the revision list if "significant or compelling new information becomes available." Not included in the list is the renewed consideration of whether to regulate perchlorate.

Publication of the Federal Register notice starts the second Six-Year Review's regulatory process; that involves a public comment period, more detailed analyses of health effects, analytical and treatment feasibility, occurrence, benefits, costs and other regulatory matters relevant to deciding whether a NPDWR should be revised.

The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments passed in 1996 require USEPA to periodically review existing NPDWRs and, if appropriate, revise them. The first Six-Year Review was completed in 2003. USEPA decided only to revise the Total Coliform Rule.

In her March 22 speech (see video on USEPA's Web site), Jackson discussed the agency's launch of "a national conversation" to identify better ways to address contaminants in groups, improve drinking water technology and "more effectively address potential risks to give Americans greater confidence in the quality of their drinking water."

Citing four key principles underlying the new drinking water regulation strategy, Jackson said the agency's intention is to achieve greater protection more quickly and cost-effectively. The principles and abbreviated explanations follow:

• Address contaminants as a group, rather than one at a time.
  USEPA will involve stakeholders and the public in developing technical and procedural approaches to groups of contaminants, to identify treatment technologies and consider adverse health effects.
• Foster development of new drinking water treatment technologies.
  This would address water and energy efficiency, seek reasonable and predictable costs and showcase field demonstrations of large and small water treatment systems.
• Use the authority of multiple statutes to help protect drinking water.
  Specifically cited were the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). FIFRA could be used to develop risk assessment, generate missing data and develop analytical methods. Tighter FIFRA pesticide registration requirements are another tool for chemicals of concern. Jackson is asking Congress for an update to the TSCA, but reports indicate it is unlikely to be completed this year.
• Partner with states to share more complete data from monitoring at public water systems.
  Using and sharing advanced information technology between USEPA and the states would enhance compilation and analyses of public water supply (PWS) data. Compliance and enforcement would be improved. The states, drinking water industry and consumers could get more information about drinking water in a more timely fashion.

AWWA issued a statement, signed by Deputy Executive Director Tom Curtis, applauding Jackson's announcement. "AWWA supports USEPA's desire to make effective and timely decisions under the Safe Drinking Water Act," Curtis said, praising the agency’s intention to draw on multiple statutes and leverage FIFRA and TSCA to limit pollution in groundwater and surface water.

USEPA's intention to foster the development of new treatment technologies won AWWA's endorsement, especially "the exploration of technologies that reduce utility energy costs and the water sector’s carbon footprint."

AWWA also "stands behind the principle of transparency and supports USEPA’s plan to streamline the sharing of data among state and federal agencies," Curtis said. "A reliable repository of high quality data would reduce confusion and provide a better overall picture of US drinking water quality."

Additional AWWA Resources

• March edition of Journal AWWA features regulatory update articles
• AWWA Director of Regulatory and Security Affairs Alan Roberson's March Regulatory Update
• AWWA Government Affairs' Web site is frequently updated

USGS releases study of pharmaceuticals in wastewater

Contributions from pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities may be responsible for 10- to 1,000-fold increases in wastewater effluent pharmaceutical concentrations, according to a new study by the US Geological Survey.

"This is the first study in the US to identify pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities as a significant source of pharmaceuticals to the environment," said Matthew Larsen, USGS associate director for water.

Over the last decade, awareness and concern about pharmaceuticals in the water have grown. They are difficult to remove from the wastewater stream because medicines come in variety of chemical structures, each requiring different treatment methods.

Furthermore, wastewater treatment plants receive pharmaceutical loads from many sources — hospitals, veterinary clinics, households and even pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities.

These facilities are required by the US Environmental Protection Agency manufacturing effluent discharge and emission regulations to pre-treat their effluent before sending it to public utilities. In addition, the high cost of active pharmaceutical ingredients should discourage waste.

Yet, the USGS study reveals that these facilities make previously underestimated contributions to the pharmaceutical load of wastewater treatment plants.

The five-year study compared two New York treatment plants that receive more than 20 percent of their wastewater from pharmaceutical formulation facilities with one that receives none. USGS researchers tested wastewater outflow for commonly detected pharmaceuticals including muscle relaxers, opiod pain relievers and anti-anxiety medication.

They also compared these results to a national survey of 23 treatment plants that do not receive effluent from pharmaceutical formulation facilities, although half of these plants do receive hospital wastewater.

Even so, the maximum drug concentration of all 24 treatment plants lacking pharmaceutical manufacturing effluent was generally less than one ppb (1 microgram/L), which is the equivalent of one drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

However, samples from the two treatment plants receiving pharmaceutical effluent revealed a complex mix of medications. Some samples exposed pharmaceutical concentrations that were 10 times to 1,000 times higher than average. For example, researchers found concentrations of metaxalone, a muscle relaxer, at 3,800 ppb (3,800 micrograms/L) and oxycodone, an opiod pain reliever, at 1,700 ppb (1,700 micrograms/L).

Research about both the human and animal health effects of low level pharmaceutical exposure is ongoing. However, higher levels of pharmaceuticals introduced by manufacturing facilities may present risks previously unaccounted for by current toxicological assessments.

This study and additional information about water quality can be found online.

USEPA nominee commits to rule of science, law

Lisa Jackson

"President-elect Obama has affirmed two core values that he expects EPA to uphold during his administration: scientific integrity and the rule of law. He has also made it clear that we will operate with unparalleled transparency and openness. I pledge to uphold those values," Lisa Jackson said in her written statement.

She added, "The President-elect’s environmental initiatives are highlighted by five key objectives: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions; reducing other air pollutants; addressing toxic chemicals; cleaning up hazardous-waste sites; and protecting water."

Under questioning from committee chair Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Jackson promised to immediately review the agency’s recent decision to set an interim health advisory for perchlorate and seek more study to determine whether to regulate the drinking water contaminant.

Chromium 6, a metal-finishing chemical also called hexavalent chromium and the contaminant made famous by the movie “Erin Brockovich,” also came up during questioning. Whipping through a "lightning round" of questions, Sen. Boxer asked Jackson, "Will you commit to address chromium 6 using the authority we already have?" Jackson quickly and simply answered, "Yes."

Total chromium, including chromium 6, is already regulated by USEPA, but a California state law that requires adoption of a chromium-6-specific MCL. That process is still under way.

Boxer said she would request additional information by Jan. 16 from Jackson to meet her goal of confirming her appointment by inauguration day. "We look forward to your speedy confirmation," Boxer said.

A native of New Orleans, Jackson is a chemical engineer who graduated from Princeton University. She joined USEPA in 1987 and worked her way up through the ranks, specializing in hazardous waste.

In 2002, she joined the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, serving as commissioner of the 3,400-employee agency from 2006 until 2008, before accepting a position as chief of staff for New Jersey's governor shortly before her nomination to lead the USEPA.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• See past perchlorate coverage in WaterWeek
• Search The Water Library 

Forum describes road map to sustainability

Mark LeChevallier, American Water, joined a business–utility panel discussing sustainability. Photo by David Plank

Two utilities and two businesses showcased major efforts they are undertaking to transform their organizations into sustainable operations.

Mark LeChevallier, director of innovation and environmental stewardship for American Water, listed ten actions utilities can take to incorporate sustainable practices into their operations. First, develop an environmental commitment. American Water publicly pledges to comply with all relevant environmental laws and use natural resources efficiently.

LeChevallier said American Water partnered with the US Environmental Protection Agency in the climate leaders program and used its resources to develop the utility’s carbon footprint. “It’s not complicated for water utilities,” he said.

The bulk of his utility’s carbon footprint is attributable to its electricity use, primarily for pumping. American Water has set a goal of reducing its carbon footprint by 16 percent by 2017. “We will do that primarily by focusing on pump efficiency,” he said.

Utilities also can assess their water footprint, he said, looking at conservation efforts, reuse opportunities and participation in USEPA’s WaterSense program to reduce their water footprint.

Other actions include

• Evaluating alternative energy sources — solar, wind, bioenergy.
• Promoting biodiversity and protecting endangered species through collaborative efforts with wildlife organization and operations to protect minimum stream flows.
• Seeking beneficial use of waste residuals.
• Partnering with local community groups. American water has a grant program for local efforts that enhance watersheds.
• Promoting environmental stewardship. Although access to utility property is restricted for security reasons, American Water built an observation deck where the Junior World Series of Bird Watching is held.

• Taking a leadership role in energy and environmental design, such as the use of pervious pavement, geothermal energy and green building.
• Developing a culture of stewardship within the organization. American Water has “green” teams, publishes its annual report electronically, sets copiers for double-sided production and buys green IT equipment.

LeChevallier said that most opportunities for sustainable practices will be site-specific. “Green makes good business sense,” he concluded.

Also on the program was Cheryl Welch, strategic planning coordinator for Oregon's Tualatin Valley Water District, who authored AWWA’s new book The Green Utility: Making Water Utilities Sustainable (No. 20706)

Welch told the audience that TVWD integrated its sustainability goals into what it was already doing. “It is embedded in about half of the organization’s goals,” she said. One example is in the capital improvement project planning. Each project is evaluated on a long list of criteria, including how it will improve effectiveness and efficiency.

“No project has been abandoned because of the CIP scoring,” she said, but they have been modified. “It’s the conversation that’s important.”

Welch listed several projects the utility, which is also a USEPA Climate Leader, has undertaken that support its sustainable goals: tweaks to a small generating station to improve its gallons/kilowatt hour output and design and engineering modifications to use gravity feed for storage in its aquifer storage and recovery project.

On a smaller scale, TVWD is also looking at the employee-commute contributions to the carbon footprint and what might mitigate that. In addition, an unusual employee benefit not only supports sustainability but also communicates the message for all staff — recycling. Employees can bring in CDs, DVDs, electronic equipment, cell phones, batteries, Styrofoam, light bulbs, even lawn mowers.

The uniforms that employees bring in are recycled into rags for the utility; the recycling of uniforms also aids security because the logos are removed, preventing the use of a stray uniform for impersonation.

“Sustainability is a journey; there’s always a next step,” Welch said.

Two other speakers talked about the business side.

Paul Bowen from the Coca Cola Company highlighted the company’s slogan “Live positively” and described worldwide initiatives to reduce water use at bottling plants. The goal is to “return to communities and nature the amount of water equivalent to what we use in all of our beverages and their production,” he said.

Most of the company’s water footprint occurs in the supply chain — agriculture and shipping — with only a small contribution from bottling plants. In addition to improved efficiency in manufacturing, switching to hybrid vehicles and transitioning to HFC-free refrigeration, Coca Cola is recycling glass bottles and changing plastic bottles to 30 percent plant-based material.

A vice president for municipal solutions at GE Energy, Paul Schuler, asserted that environmental performance and operating performance are not mutually exclusive, and he listed the goals GE has set: doubling research and development investment for sustainability, growing revenues and reducing emissions. The results for 2009 have set a new bar for the 2010 goals.

In 2009, GE Energy had reduced energy use by 7 percent, energy intensity by 37 percent, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 13 percent, GHG intensity by 41 percent and process source water by 11 percent.

GE has been a part of projects in Singapore, Kuwait City and Tempe, Ariz., to assure sustainable water quantities, improve water quality and reduce energy consumption for drinking water.

“Technology is going to be the key to sustainability,” he said. He sees a “huge” future in water reuse.

Schuler emphasized the importance of policy-driven approaches. “If water is cheap, where is the motivation to conserve?" he asked. Scarcity is driving reuse and policy, and policy will create the incentives for sustainability.

New molecular method IDs pathogenic Crypto

Cryptosporidium organismscan be counted using the USEPA-approved immunofluorescence assay method but cannot be differentiated by species.

Now, a new genotype detection method can identify Cryptosporidium species, helping utilities determine which are human pathogens and offering a better assessment of human health risks.

Because Cryptosporidium is one of the most frequent causes of waterborne diarrheal illness in the United States, it is the focus of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Long-term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2).

Currently, LT2 requires that utilities use EPA Method 1622/1623 to detect Cryptosporidium. Using this microscope-based method, “you are able to quantify the organisms very well,” said George Di Giovanni, the genotyping project’s lead investigator and Texas AgriLife Research microbiologist. “However, you cannot tell if the Cryptosporidium are dead or alive, and you do not know which species they are.”

So the Water Research Foundation sponsored the development of a supplementary technique called slide genotyping. The technique builds on Method 1622/1623, using left-over LT2 regulatory slides to determine whether detected Cryptosporidium are actually harmful species.

Not only does this method offer a more accurate assessment of human health risks, it can help utilities formulate the best watershed management strategies for reducing Cryptosporidium in their source waters, said Di Giovanni.

Di Giovanni’s team, including Rebecca Hoffman of the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, Greg Sturbaum of CH Diagnostic and ALS Laboratory Group and Texas AgriLife researcher Karina Barrella, developed the slide genotyping method with technology transfer in mind. Therefore, utilities can adopt the method with few additional costs or extra training.

The method relies on polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which can identify Cryptosporidium species based on unique sequences in their genetic code. Many large water utilities and commercial water quality laboratories are already outfitted with this technology and trained personnel.

For smaller utilities that are not, capital investments may be as low as $5,000 for conventional PCR, extending upwards to $50,000 for more sophisticated real-time PCR machines that offer higher resolution. In addition, personnel training can be completed in one to three days, said Di Giovanni.

To aid in training personnel, the WaterRF will offer a training workshop at the 2010 Water Quality Technology Conference and Exposition in Savannah, Ga., in November. 

Despite the benefits of the slide genotyping method, it has not been approved by the USEPA. Therefore, it cannot be used to avoid any treatment upgrades LT2 requires if high levels of Cryptosporidium are detected in source waters.

Although the genotyping method does not currently have regulatory significance, “the findings may play an important role in the development of future Cryptosporidium regulations,” Di Giovanni said.

USEPA will determine whether to adopt this method in the future.  For now, it is up to the drinking water community to show that it can be used to provide useful information, said John Albert, WaterRF senior account manager and former project manager.

WaterRF is currently sponsoring additional research in this area, including an international, multi-laboratory trial evaluating the performance of the slide genotyping method. Furthermore, researchers are also looking into advanced PCR-based genotyping techniques that can further define the species of Cryptosporidium. 

“Together, these technologies will allow utilities to gain additional value from LT2 Cryptosporidium monitoring,” said Di Giovanni.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Manual: Waterborne Pathogens (M48)
• The Water Library

House passage of DWSRF bill arouses hope

The US House of Representatives passed the first-ever reauthorization of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund July 30, raising hopes that similar measures stuck in the Senate for more than a year also might pop loose. All the bills boost authorized federal spending for water construction programs.

The House bill also carries two features not seen in previous SRF bills — an electronic reporting requirement and the same "Buy American" restriction introduced with the stimulus bill early in the Obama administration.

The Assistance, Quality and Affordability (AQUA) Act (HR5320 (PDF)) received wide support, passing on a voice vote, but, reflecting the times, emerged trimmer and shorter than when introduced in May.

The bill authorizes $1.4 billion for DWSRF in fiscal year 2011, $1.6 billion in FY2012 and $1.8 billion in FY2013, while the AQUA Act's original version ramped up to three times that by FY2015. Nonetheless, the act provides $4.8 billion in three years, which is a hefty increase over an average annual appropriation of less than $0.85 billion between 2000 and 2009. In FY2010, Congress appropriated $1.387 billion for the DWSRF.

A House Appropriations Committee subcommittee is looking at $1.206 billion for DWSRF in FY2011, but the appropriations bill has yet to be officially introduced for the US Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the DWSRF as well as the Clean Water SRF.

The House already passed a bill — the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 (HR1262) (317-101) on March 12, 2009 — that reauthorizes the CWSRF for the first time in 22 years and allows Congress to appropriate $2.4 billion in FY2010 (which it did), followed by CWSRF authorizations of $2.7 billion in 2011, $2.8 billion in 2012, $2.9 billion in 2013 and $3 billion in 2014 — $13.8 billion total.

Both SRF bills passed by the House carry the Davis-Bacon Act provision, requiring workers on projects funded by the SRF to be paid locally prevailing wages for such work. That provision reportedly is what has stymied progress of the Senate version of a SRF reauthorization bill — the Water Infrastructure Financing Act (S1005) — which has been awaiting a vote since July 2009 after gaining committee approval.

S1005 authorizes capitalization appropriations over five years of $14.7 billion for the DWSRF and $20 billion for the CWSRF — more than the combined total of HR1262 and HR5320.

According to AWWA Legislative Affairs Director Tommy Holmes, House passage of the DWSRF bill "might help stimulate the Senate to move because the ball is in their court now. There are rumors a deal has been reached."

While Congress has continued to fund the drinking water and wastewater SRF programs every year, despite the lack of formal reauthorization, and USEPA has continued to administer them, a reauthorization declares Congress' intended target for funding. It must be followed with an annual appropriation by Congress before the funds will flow. Reauthorization also gives Congress the opportunity to change other provisions.

Changes in the AQUA Act made before it passed the House included amendments to add the "Buy American" stipulation for projects funded by DWSRF as well as a deadline for launching electronic reporting requirements.

The Buy American clause, first seen in the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) Act, requires that water systems purchase iron, steel and manufactured goods that have been produced in the United States, unless what is needed is not produced in the United States or would increase the project cost by more than 25 percent. USEPA has authority to grant waivers.

"It's going to be around for awhile," Holmes says of the Buy American clause. While the paperwork remains, he notes, water systems are at least more familiar with the provision and the deadlines aren't as tight as they were in the stimulus bill. ARRA gave priority to projects that could be ready to begin construction within one year of Obama's signature. The Buy American clause is not known to be included in HR1262 or S1005.

Electronic reporting, a priority of USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, was the subject of another amendment made to the AQUA Act on the House floor. The section requires the USEPA administrator to issue a regulation, no later than 12 months after the AQUA Act becomes law, requiring electronic submission of compliance monitoring data by water systems to USEPA or states with primary enforcement authority and from states to USEPA.

"We're going to be watching this," says Holmes. "To issue a regulation, you have to have some idea of how a uniform reporting system would work, and that's a tight timeline to get something in place for EPA and the states."

Both House SRF bills require USEPA to carry out a study on the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in sources of drinking water. The AQUA Act contains several other provisions that are different from the other SRF bills.

• Changes the Safe Drinking Water Act definition of "lead free" from 8 percent to 0.25 percent lead in wetted surfaces.
• Amends the SDWA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program to increase information about the possible presence and potential ramifications of the chemicals in drinking water and any impact they may have on public health.

The report on the AQUA Act from the House Energy and Commerce Committee (PDF) said "that the EDSP should be an effort to understand all effects of substances on the endocrine system. The committee expects that regulatory decision-making regarding endocrine disrupting substances will continue to be based on the presence of adverse effects."

This section of the bill, the committee report said, neither alters legislatively mandated risk-based criteria that such decisions are based on, nor should it cause USEPA to restart, repeat or delay recently issued test orders for 67 substances under the EDSP or identification of 100 additional substances for testing.

The AQUA Act includes administrative changes AWWA has long sought.

For example, the AQUA Act proposes changes in the priority ranking of project applications. Those utilities that have demonstrated an effort to exercise asset management and long-term financial planning will move up in rankings, though such practices will not be a requirement, out of consideration for smaller systems. 

The Senate bill also mandates that USEPA reach out to stakeholders and conduct a study of ways to streamline the SRF application process, another reform AWWA has sought.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Streamlines stories:
  "Congress launches DWSRF funding boost, improvements," May 25, 2010
  "Water Legislation…SRF changes, reauthorization," July 21, 2009
  "With 2009 budget passed, eyes turn to new water bill," March 17, 2009
• AWWA Government Affairs: AWWA Washington Report for May 26, 2010 (PDF) on the AQUA Act following committee approval and amendments
• AWWA Government Affairs posted the association's suggestions (PDF) to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment for items to be included in the AQUA Act.

After a wild year, utilities hunkering down

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

In interviews with more than a dozen large, medium-size, and small utilities in 11 states, Streamlines found officials who were relatively sanguine about the recent economic upheaval, but aware of the importance of making conservative financial decisions, at least for the time being.

A question on everyone’s mind is what kind of federal stimulus package to expect and how to make sure their utility gets its slice of the pie; unfortunately, no answers are expected until late January, said AWWA Government Affairs chief Tom Curtis, but it’s important that drinking water utilities keep making their case in the meantime.

“The economic recovery legislation may be the most important bill Congress will pass in the new president’s first term,” Curtis said. “If, as we expect, it includes funds for infrastructure, it’s important that it cover drinking water as well as other kinds of infrastructure projects.”

Some utilities were pinching pennies even before the larger economy went into a tailspin. Chemical prices, which had already been climbing for more than a year, shot up steeply last spring and into the summer. And energy costs, including record-high prices for gasoline and diesel, had managers scouring their spreadsheets looking for places to nip and tuck.

Another national problem that has hit some utilities’ bottom lines is the housing slump; utilities in rapidly developing areas that had projected significant income from tap fees have faced huge budget shortfalls as the construction and sales of new homes have plummeted.

Colorado Springs has faced the problem with its city-operated water service. Beginning last spring, officials knew  trouble was brewing as the region’s decades-long streak of breakneck development began to sputter. But even they were surprised at the magnitude of the shortfall they would soon face.

“We found ourselves with a shortfall, and we’ve addressed that in a number of different ways, said Dave Grossman, spokesman for Colorado Springs Utilities. Grossman says that about $20 million in anticipated system development fees failed to materialize, so cuts had to be made, including spending for water valve maintenance, employee training and education, and customer communications. Also, field crews have gone to a 4x10-hour workweek, and the utility’s customer service center is no longer open on Saturdays.

Several major projects have also been deferred or deleted from the utility’s plans, including acquisition of easements for future projects, expansion of a treatment plant, and guardrail and other safety improvements at one of its reservoirs.

Grossman said his utility is actually in a better position to absorb service cuts than some others would be, because it provides not just water to its customers but also natural gas, electricity, and wastewater services. The utility is also planning on a rate case early next year, though it is uncertain how amenable customers may be to a rate hike if the economy is still faltering.

“All we can do is try and make the case for what we feel we need,” Grossman said. “If we point out what our costs are and try to show where we’ve had some shortfalls, we’ve done what we can do.”

At least one utility, the Port Orange (Fla.) Public Utilities Department, recently managed to win a sliding “energy fee” and other increased charges based on operating costs. The charge, which officials said would add an extra $0.82 per month to the typical customer’s bill, will be recalculated every six months based on the cost of such items as gasoline, landfill charges, electricity and chemicals. Port Orange has 30,000 water connections.

Although citizens and city council members had some concerns about raising water’s consumer cost in a tight economy, Port Orange City Manager Ken Parker said the move was viewed favorably because the charge will drop if expenses do.

“It was something [customers and city council members] understood,” Parker said. “The rates can go down if our costs do, so it’s a win - win and gives us something to have in place to take care of our variables.”

Parker said another benefit of the plan is that it drives home to consumers and policymakers the true cost of the water many may take for granted.

“Everyone began to get a better understanding of the component parts of a rate,” he said. “How what we pay for energy, chemicals and our other costs determines what the water costs and what we can do about that. We’re now beginning to see from our [city] council questions about how we can become more energy independent, for example.”

The one thing most utility managers don’t seem to be doing, at least for now, is panicking.

Fracking advocates, opponents speak out

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

Fracking fluid, pictured here at a natural gas well site in Pennsylvania, combines water and toxic chemicals.   AP Photo/Ralph Wilson

About 600 people attended the July 8 meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, where tempers flared, drawing boos and applause to speakers’ comments. The following week, Denver’s crowd of 300 was more subdued.

The July 22 session near Pittsburgh elicited a hot debate, ignited primarily by several cases of water contamination in Western Pennsylvania and the highly publicized contamination of water wells in Dimock, located in northeastern Pennsylvania.

About 1,200 attended the meeting in Cannonsburg, Pa. According to the Pittsburgh Daily Record, residents from several small communities said fracking fouled their water, killed goats and sickened their families. In the past two years, about 1,500 natural gas wells have been drilled in the Marcellus Shale beneath Pennsylvania.

In a related matter, the Delaware River Basin Commission held a public meeting July 14, attended by 600 residents to determine imposing a moratorium on natural gas drilling. Last month, American Rivers listed the Delaware River as number one on its 2010 list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers because of fracking in the Marcellus shale.

After USEPA’s final public meeting in Binghamton, N.Y., on August 12, the agency expects to complete the design of its congressionally mandated analysis of the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies by October and complete the fracking analysis in two years.

USEPA will accept public input via mail and e-mail. Send comments by e-mail to hydraulic.fracturing@epa.gov or mail them to Jill Dean, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Mail code 4606M, Washington, DC 20460.

The agency is also scheduling sector webinars with the oil and gas industry, environmentalists and other groups and technical workshops featuring various experts.

Objecting to including the water life cycle in the USEPA study, several energy sector speakers in Denver urged the agency to confine its analysis to the congressional mandate.

Water life cycle research includes the impact on groundwater related to fracking plus other operations at well sites, such as disposal of frack flowback wastewater treatment and disposal, well construction issues and the effect on groundwater quantity.

Robert Puls, head of USEPA’s technical team in the Office of Research and Development, said the comprehensive study is necessary to thwart any adverse effects on water supplies related to gas and oil drilling operations.

Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance, said, “including a life cycle study is unnecessary” because the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and state regulators “hold the industry accountable.”

“Some environmentalists have been scaring the public and spreading misinformation. Only state regulators understand the needs of the local community and have the technical resources” to regulate gas and oil well drilling,” Sgamma said.

Property owners and environmentalists disagreed. Holding a jar of cloudy water, Las Animas (Colorado) County resident Tracy Dahl said, “We had clean water on our ranch for seven years. After a well was fracked on the adjacent property on June 30, our water looked like this. The sudden change in our water could hardly be coincidental.”

Two central Wyoming residents recounted similar tales. John Fenton said natural gas wells fracked near his ranch contaminated his groundwater. A woman said hydrofracking polluted the aquifer beneath the small Wyoming town where she lives.

Wyoming resident Deb Thomas noted comments by several speakers about the economic benefits of gas and oil operations and urged USEPA to “make public health the highest priority.

“We see sick people in our area. It’s the EPA’s responsibility to determine the risks of fracking. We need a full study on multiple fracks of one well. New rules were passed in Wyoming, but I can tell you they aren’t taking care of business. We need someone to come and investigate what’s happening in the gas patch.”

Jeannette Hillery of the League of Women Voters of La Plata County (Colorado) expressed concern about chemical spills. “There have been over 1,000 spills in Colorado in the last two and a half years. Also, a 2008 Garfield County study showed groundwater impacts of fracking.” She also urged the USEPA to look at nondisclosure clauses in lease agreements between energy companies and property owners.

Other speakers encouraged monitoring at gas and oil wells. “There is no quality control, no monitoring, no inspections at these wells,” said Mike Meschke. He said he had seen “several instances of diesel in creeks, spills at wells and broken pipelines” at well sites in southwestern Colorado.

Dave Hendricks, a retired civil engineering professor at Colorado State University, said surveillance and monitoring would provide accountability for property owners and the public. 

Jeff Crane of the Colorado Watershed Assembly said his members “are very concerned about fracking and watershed protection. Some people say fracking is safe, but there are no disclosure laws and people are getting sick. They could use assistance to monitor what’s going on in their backyards.”

Claiming fracking is safe, energy industry speakers asked USEPA to allow states to regulate fracking, saying the technology has been used 60 years in various parts of the country without harming water supplies.

Molly Ross, president of Delflex Royalty Co., questioned that statement. “The level and sophistication of chemicals [used to frack wells] is quite different now. I want you [the USEPA] to challenge the industry to adopt green fracking chemicals so we won’t have to have this dialog.”

Michael Hooker of the American Petroleum Institute, said, “Hydraulic fracturing is crucial to meet our energy needs for generations to come. We support the USEPA study and hope it will dispel the public’s concern about fracking.”

Some representatives of the energy sector told USEPA they support the study as long as it is objective and includes a section on best practices used by gas and oil companies.

Weld County (Colorado) commissioner Barbara Kirkmyer said she prefers that local authorities regulate fracking, and added, “To my knowledge, we have not had one incident of groundwater contaminating caused by hydraulic fracturing” of 20,000 producing wells in the county.

Several regulators supported the safety arguments. David Neslin, director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and Richard Marble of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said there have been no verified incidents of water contamination related to fracking. Both agencies have tightened regulations in the last two years.

According to the Fort Worth (Texas) Star–Telegram, Victor Carrillo, chair of the Texas Railroad Commission, said the commission had found “no documented cases of fracturing causing groundwater contamination in Texas.”

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Streamlines: "Oil spill fuels fracking fracas," May 25; "Water woes spark tougher regs for gas well drilling," June 8; "Fracking raises concerns about sapping water supplies," June 29; "Fracking's 'up' side," July 13

Trussell on emergence of science-driven technology

R. Rhodes Trussell Winner of the 2010 A.P. Black Research Award  Photo by David Hathcox

“Science is not the same as technology,” said Trussell, founder of Trussell Technologies of Pasadena, Calif. Science defines the laws of nature; technology is about how to do things.

For Aristotle, logic was the key to science; proof was established by logical argument, not by observation. “Ancient science did not support technology,” Trussell said. The gap was the difference between philosophical logic and artisanal work, and innovation took centuries.

Instead, Galileo marks the beginning of scientific method, Trussell told the audience. And modern science does support technology. On the timeline, technology takes off rapidly after 1750, from the discovery of electricity to the invention of the battery, the generator, the telephone, the transistor, the World Wide Web, the iPhone.

The use of technology in waterworks practice proceeds at a modest pace for about 150 years and then takes off sharply after 1970 and the development of the light-scattering turbidimeter and other measurement technology, said Trussell.

He picked 1970 as the launch date for more science-based technology, pointing out the parallel development of increasing sophistication of measurement devices — and the beginning of his own career, although he assured the audience that was only coincidence.

Trussell gave a resounding “yes” to his own question: “Has science changed the way we understand and manage the quality of our water?”

There is a dilemma, however: the water industry can measure things that we don’t know the meaning of, he said.

What he sees now is a public that expects increasingly more from water professionals, the increasing importance of graduate education in the sciences and water facilities becoming obsolete more rapidly.

In the future, he predicts that as a society and a world we will have to make fundamental changes in lifestyle to support the world’s populations — animal and human.

USGS survey of source groundwater quality released

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

More than 20 percent of untreated water samples from 932 public wells across the nation contained at least one contaminant at levels of potential health concern, according to a new study by the US Geological Survey.

About 105 million people — or more than one-third of the nation’s population — receive their drinking water from one of the 140,000 public water systems across the United States that rely on groundwater pumped from public wells.

Findings showed that naturally occurring contaminants, such as radon and arsenic, accounted for about three-quarters of contaminant concentrations greater than human-health benchmarks in untreated source water.

Manmade contaminants were also found in untreated water sampled from the public wells, including herbicides, insecticides, solvents, disinfection by-products, nitrate and gasoline chemicals. Manmade contaminants accounted for about one-quarter of contaminant concentrations greater than human-health benchmarks, but were detected in 64 percent of the samples, predominantly in samples from unconfined aquifers.

The USGS study focused primarily on source water collected from public wells before treatment or blending.

“Detections of contaminants do not necessarily indicate a concern for human health because USGS analytical methods can detect many contaminants at concentrations that are 100-fold to 1,000-fold lower than human-health benchmarks,” said lead scientist Patricia Toccalino. “Assessing contaminants in these small amounts helps to track emerging issues in our water resources and to identify contaminants that may warrant inclusion in future monitoring.”

Scientists tested water samples for 337 properties and chemical contaminants, including nutrients, radionuclides, trace elements, pesticides, solvents, gasoline hydrocarbons, disinfection by-products and manufacturing additives. This study did not assess pharmaceuticals or hormones.

Most (279) of the contaminants analyzed in this study are not federally regulated in finished drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, most of the top ten contaminants listed in the study are either regulated or under consideration for regulation.

The USGS also sampled paired source and finished water from a smaller subset of 94 public wells. Findings showed that many manmade organic contaminants detected in source water generally were detected in finished water at similar concentrations.

Organic contaminants detected in both treated and source water typically were detected at concentrations well below human-health benchmarks, however.

Additionally, the study shows that contaminants found in public wells usually occurred as mixtures that included other contaminants. Mixtures can be a concern because the total combined toxicity of contaminants in water may be greater than that of any single contaminant.

Mixtures of contaminants with concentrations approaching benchmarks were found in 84 percent of wells, but mixtures of contaminants above health benchmarks were found less frequently, in 4 percent of wells.

This USGS study identifies which contaminant mixtures may be of most concern in groundwater used for public-water supply and can help human-health researchers to target and prioritize toxicity assessments of contaminant mixtures.

The USGS report identifies the need for continued research because relatively little is known about the potential health effects of most mixtures of contaminants.

Wells included in this study are located in 41 states and withdraw water from parts of 30 regionally extensive aquifers, which constitute about one-half of the principal aquifers used for water supply in the United States.

“By focusing primarily on source-water quality, and by testing for many contaminants that are not regulated in drinking water, this USGS study complements the extensive monitoring of public water systems that is routinely conducted for regulatory and compliance purposes by federal, state and local drinking-water programs,” said Matthew C. Larsen, USGS associate director for water. “Findings assist water utility managers and regulators in making decisions about future monitoring needs and drinking water issues.”

Human-health benchmarks used in this study include US Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for regulated contaminants and USGS health-based screening levels (HBSLs) for unregulated contaminants, which are non-enforceable guidelines developed by the USGS in collaboration with the USEPA and other water partners.

The USEPA uses USGS information on the occurrence of unregulated contaminants to identify contaminants that may require drinking water regulation in the future.

This study and additional information about public wells can be found on the Quality of Water from Public-Supply Wells in the United States Web site.

Companion USGS studies on the transport of contaminants to public supply wells are online, as well as a comparable study on the quality of water in domestic wells.

Read commentary by AWWA Security and Legislative Affairs Director Alan Roberson at DC on Tap.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Bookstore: Groundwater & Wells (No. 20702)
• AWWA Bookstore: Handbook of Water Analysis, 2^nd Edition (No. 20679)
• AWWA Bookstore: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21^st Edition (No. 10084)

NM condemnation suit settled

Albuquerque’s water utility will pay $60 million to acquire a private company serving 17,000 customers.

ABCWUA recently completed a project to use Rio Grande River water to supplement and recharge the area’s overdrawn aquifer. Photo courtesy ABCWUA

Two years after filing a condemnation suit against the water company that it accused of depleting a rapidly diminishing aquifer, Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority settled out of court with the parent company of New Mexico Utilities, Inc.

Court-ordered arbitration in 2008 had failed, and events were proceeding toward a trial when a second round of court-ordered arbitration resulted in a settlement in January 2009. The settlement ends several other lawsuits between the two utilities as well.

Southwest Water Co., New Mexico Utilities’ parent company, said NMUI will pay $7 million to ABCWUA at the closing, expected in May, to resolve a dispute over the sewer fees it owed ABCWUA for processing NMUI’s wastewater. That makes ABCWUA‘s net purchase price $53 million.

ABCWUA filed the condemnation suit in January 2007, four years after the authority was formed by splitting off the water utilities from the city of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County and merging them. In 1997, the city of Albuquerque had also filed a condemnation suit against NMUI, which was eventually dropped.

Prior to a US Geological Survey report in 1993, area water utilities thought they were “sitting atop an aquifer the size of Lake Superior.” Not so, said the USGS report, adding that the aquifer was being seriously overpumped.

Consequently, ABCWUA began conservation programs, cut its aquifer pumping by 30 percent and began developing the $400 million San Juan - Chama Drinking Water Project, which uses surface water from a river in southern Colorado to reduce dependence on the aquifer and replenish it for use as a drought reserve.

ABCWUA complained that NMUI was not encouraging its customers to conserve water, as the rest of Albuquerque citizens were, was increasing its pumping of aquifer water and was attempting to acquire more rights to drill more wells into the aquifer — attempts that ABCWUA blocked through the state engineer’s office.

Once the deal closes in May, ABCWUA will extend its conservation and rebate program to former NMUI customers. An ABCWUA spokesman said the rate structure of the two utilities will not be merged until July 2010, at which time those 17,000 accounts (representing a population of 55,000) will see a 3 percent rate hike.

Meanwhile, ABCWUA will build a pipeline to deliver surface water from the San Juan -Chama project to those homes so their aquifer-pumping can be limited. That project is expected to be in operation by 2011, according to ABCWUA spokesman David Morris.

Discerning customers may notice some change in taste, he said. At this point, Albuquerque’s water supply is only 25 percent surface water, and there’s been “virtually no feedback noticing the difference.” Informal taste studies conducted by ABCWUA found most customers were neutral on the taste differences, while many liked the treated surface water better, especially if they lived in parts of the city where the groundwater doesn’t taste great, Morris said.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• Streamlines story “45 years in the making, NM project starts flowing” (Jan. 20, 2009)
• Total Water Management: Practices for a Sustainable Future
• Water Resources Planning (M50)

MWRA clears boil-order for 2 million in 59 hours

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

A steel strap is welded onto a breach in the aqueduct serving the Boston area. Then a concrete cradle was poured. After the top half was welded, the rest of the pipe was encased in concrete. Photo courtesy MWRA

As authorities scoured a river bottom and piles of sediment for pieces of a coupler that broke on the 120-inch (3,000-mm) transmission line, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority credited the speedy recovery to terrific interagency teamwork, disaster planning — a drill on this exact scenario had been run four years ago — and some luck.

MWRA lost its main aqueduct — the MetroWest Water Supply Tunnel — at the point where it connects to the distribution systems for Boston and 29 other public water systems.

A steel coupler at the end of this "new" main aqueduct sprang a leak at 10 a.m. Saturday, May 1. The rate of loss soon reached 8 million gal (30 ML) an hour. The good news: instead of flooding city streets, all the water dumped into the Charles River — final loss estimates ran up to 250 mil gal (950 ML).

Unfortunately, MWRA was three or four years away from finishing a 10-year plan to build complete redundancy for its main aqueduct. It had finished the new MetroWest Tunnel in 2003 and decommissioned the leaky, 70-year-old Hultman Aqueduct; before 2003, failure of the Hultman could have caused nearly complete interruption of Boston's water supply.

But repairs on the Hultman weren't finished and interconnections were not available between the two aqueducts. To repair the MetroWest Tunnel, it had to be shut down.

Fortunately, this predicament had been rehearsed. By late afternoon, engineers had managed to re-route 90 percent of the MetroWest Tunnel's flow, a feat that included reversing the flow on other pipes to feed the treated water back into the lower portion of the Hultman pipe.

However, to keep up pressure, the remaining 10 percent would have to come from an emergency water supply — an open-air reservoir in the city that hadn't been tested in years, delivered via a brick-lined aqueduct that hadn't been used in decades.

Because no one knew how safe for drinking that emergency water was or where in the system it might flow, at 4 p.m. Saturday Massachusetts' governor issued a state-of-emergency boil order covering 2 million people.

MWRA Director of Planning Stephen Estes-Smargiassi was impressed by interagency response that followed. Not only did news media pick up the notice, but electronic highway signs were soon flashing the warning. Reverse-911 systems fired up. Boston police cruisers used loudspeakers to issue the warning.

Meanwhile, assessment at the site of the break revealed the steel pipes had not been damaged. However, replacing the 1-ton (900-kg) steel coupling could have meant a lengthy delay.

Fortunately, the same construction company that built MetroWest Tunnel was still at work on the Hultman Aqueduct. The heavy equipment was nearby. The company even had a spare steel strap that could be used to span the gap in the aqueduct.  

The repair was complete less than 48 hours after the breach. According to a May 6 report to the MWRA board of directors, the first step was welding the bottom half of the pipe. Two hours after that finished, crews began pouring concrete into the hole while welding continued on the top half of the pipe. Then the top half of the aqueduct section was covered with concrete, too.

The pressure test of the repaired aqueduct began at 4:30 a.m. Monday, May 3, and by 6:15 a.m. MetroWest Tunnel was back in service again, meeting the public's needs just in time to start the work week.

Then the issue was proving that the water was safe to drink. MWRA had been able to stop using the emergency reservoir water by Sunday. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection agreed to lift the boil order on the basis of two rounds of coliform sampling, with 400 samples per round, with at least eight hours between samples. Testing looked for total coliform, E. coli, and chlorine residual.

So on a Sunday morning, all 30 communities rolled out technicians to begin sampling, and MWRA's water quality lab staffed up, working around the clock. DEP set up emergency operations at the lab.  The second round of tests began running early Monday morning.

In all, 800 samples — two week's worth — were handled in just two days. The test results came back through the night Monday and into the wee hours of Tuesday.

At 6:45 a.m. Tuesday May 4, the governor called a press conference to announce lifting the boil order. As residents and businesses — especially the city's sorely missed coffee shops with pipe-supplied brewers — began to flush their lines, water usage nearly doubled.

Meanwhile, the search began in the Charles River — divers, boats with metal detectors, dredges — as everyone sought to piece together information on what happened.

Additional AWWA Resources

• "Drinking Water Advisories: Invest Time and Resources to Plan Ahead," Opflow, May 2010
• "Effective Management of Large-Diameter Pressure Pipes," Journal AWWA, April 2010
• AWWA Bookstore: M19 Emergency Planning For Water Utilities, Fourth Edition (No. 30019)
• AWWA Bookstore: Emergency Planning: The Big Picture For Water Utilities DVD (No. 64068)

Canadian city makes homeowners replace lead service lines

Editor's note: See link below to comment on this article.

Homeowners do not always replace their portion of lead service lines when their water utility does, leaving them vulnerable to new levels of lead contamination in their tap water from disturbances in the service line.

“The city has done water main rehab for many years, and we always replaced the city portion of [lead service] lines,” says Trent Schmidt, Saskatoon’s water and sewer manager. “Typically, 85 percent of homeowners” chose to replace their section of the lines as well, he says, so the new study gave us “a final reason” to require the remaining 15 percent of residents to replace their entire lines.

Like most cities, Saskatoon is responsible for service lines from the water main to the homeowner's property line. The homeowner is then responsible for the service line from the property edge to the building footing and into the house to the water meter. (Because of the colder climate, most water meters in Saskatoon are inside basements.)

“The primary driving force”for this new customer requirement is concern for the safety and health of homeowners highlighted by a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study, says Schmidt. Saskatoon has been meeting Health Canada’s lead regulation for drinking water for the city’s population of about 220,000, but a recent AWWA public affairs advisory alerted the city to a memo published on the CDC Web site, which announced the findings of an unpublished epidemiological study suggesting a relationship between elevated blood lead levels in children and partial lead service line replacements.

The AWWA advisory noted that recent utility research suggests that disrupting lead service lines—as occurs during lead service line replacement—substantially increases lead levels for a period of time. When lead pipe remains after the disruption, lead levels can continue to be elevated longer.

Under a Saskatchewan provincial statute known as The Cities Act (PDF), Saskatoon’s city council has the authority to determine that homeowners will no longer be given the option of replacing their portion of a lead connection, but instead must either pay the city to replace the customer portion of the line or hire a licensed water and sewer contractor to do the work.

The average cost to replace an entire service line runs between Can$5,200 (US$4,937) and Can$6,000 (US$5,696). Now, homeowners will be required to pay 40 percent of the total cost—up to Can$2,000 (US$1,898)—plus Canadian federal sales tax and plumbing costs inside the home, which are usually Can$100 (US$95) to Can$250 (US$237). Residents can have these expenses added to their property tax bill if the city replaces the pipe.

With the new mandate, Schmidt has seen “grudging acceptance” from customers who have resisted replacing their portion of the lines in the past, primarily for financial reasons. To assist these homeowners, the city is investigating alternative financing for low-income residents, including older persons living on pensions, he says.

If a customer refuses to replace their section of a service line, the city will consider different options and initially will give the resident more time to comply, says Schmidt, although the city has not needed to pursue these actions. Saskatoon would consider turning off a customer’s water and also authorizing a contractor to perform the work on the homeowner’s property.

The city does not have “an official timeline to replace all the [remaining] service lines,” says Schmidt. The city plans to replace about 300 connections this year, he notes, and will continue to change lead service lines when the city is rehabilitating water mains and when there are emergency water leaks.

Prior to 1950, most of the 1-in. and two-in. (25-mm and 50-mm)service lines installed by the city were made of lead. Although the city continues to replace lead lines, about 6,000 homes and small businesses in Saskatoon still have lead connections. In addition, a few homes have lead plumbing fixtures within the residences, says Schmidt, and these interior pipes will remain the homeowner’s responsibility.

“To reduce lead leaching, Saskatoon increases lime softening to raise the pH [of their surface water] close to 9,” says Bruce Dahl, Saskatoon’s laboratory coordinator.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Lead line replacement, blood lead levels linked, Streamlines, Feb. 16
• AWWA report: Strategies to Obtain Acceptance of Complete Lead Service Line Replacement (free download)

Nanotech leader predicts a revolution in water treatment

June 21, CHICAGO — Against the background of the Beatles’ song “Revolution,” Mark Shannon told an ACE10 audience that a revolution in water and wastewater technology has already begun and will disrupt current practices.

The director of WaterCAMPWS at the University of Illinois said that there are many opportunities for innovation in water treatment. “We are far from the natural limits of separating contaminants from water.”

He observed that the industry is moving away from homogenous chemical systems to heterogeneous chemical systems and away from chemical oxidants to recovering chemicals from wastewater.

A leader in nanotechnological research, Shannon identified several drivers for the speed and breadth of technological changes: population increases, declining snowpack and icepack storage, saltwater intrusion, groundwater depletion, rising costs of chemicals and energy, infrastructure decay, disruptive technologies — particularly endocrine disruptors — and residuals disposal costs.

The growth in water demand in the United States accompanies population increases. Even a conservative outlook predicts at least a 29 percent increase by mid-century, Shannon said.

He believes these challenges can be met by innovation. Developments on the technological front are moving very fast, especially in information technology, he said, citing the use of smart grids for water information exchange.

There are also “huge advances in materials science,” he said, listing examples of ultrathin carbon nanotubes for reverse osmosis, fiber-bead absorbents, new ultraviolet catalysts, nanotube developments and handheld rapid sensors for water quality monitoring.

Shannon said that 80 percent to 90 percent of industrial and domestic water can be reclaimed and reused to effectively increase the available water supply. “One way to make reuse more affordable is to develop a nonfouling nanofiltration membrane,” he said.

Although no one technology will solve all water challenges, Shannon predicted that innovation will change the business model for everyone, including water suppliers.

Foundation increases research budget for 2009

The Board of Trustees of the foundation, formerly known as the Awwa Research Foundation, selected 34 projects for funding in 2009 at its meeting in late January; 29 of these projects will be presented for competitive proposals.

The $9.7 million research budget will be leveraged with congressional funding, partnerships and in-kind support for a total research value of $20 million. Some 30 percent of this total, or $6 million, will fund research in three strategic areas: climate change; distribution system water quality; and endocrine-disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals and personal care products.

Requests for proposals (RFPs) for most of the solicited research projects will be available by March 13. Proposals submitted in response to these RFPs will be due in either May or July. Guidelines for 2009 solicited proposals (PDF) will be available online by March 1 online.

Some $1.2 million was set aside for the foundation’s unsolicited research program (PDF), which promotes fundamental research based on original concepts or novel techniques.

Also, the board approved spending $1.27 million on projects within the tailored collaboration program. Under this program, a utility subscriber or group of subscribers can obtain matching funds for a research project. These proposals are accepted throughout the year and are evaluated as received. Guidelines are available online (PDF).

RFPs will be released for the following projects under the foundation’s three strategic research initiatives:

Distribution System Water Quality

• Relationship Between Biological Organic Matter and Pathogen Concentration in Extended Distribution Systems (No. 4251)
• Research Needs Roadmap for Quantifying the Impacts of Backflow Events on Water Quality and Public Health (No. 4266)
• Role of Biofilm on Fate and Transport of Waterborne Pathogens in Distribution Systems and Premise Plumbing (No. 4259)
• Targeted Unsolicited Program: Two new Phase I projects and one Phase II add-on will be awarded

Endocrine-Disrupting Compounds, Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (EDCs/PPCPs)

• Application of Endocrine Activity Standards to Regulated Chemicals (No. 4268)
• Benchmarking and Monitoring Strategies for EDCs/PPCPs by Drinking Water Utilities (No. 4260). The RFP for this project will be delayed pending further progress on existing Foundation project (No. 4167).
• Building a National Utility Network to Address EDC/PPCP Issues (No. 4261)

• Screening Endocrine Activity of DBPs (No. 4267)

Climate Change

• Analysis of Changes in Water Use Under Regional Climate Change Scenarios (No. 4263)
• Carbon Sequestration (No. 4265). This RFP will be developed through an ongoing foundation project, No. 4203, and released at a later date.
• Changing Mindsets to Promote Design of “Sustainable Infrastructure” (No. 4264)
• Climate Change Impacts on the Regulatory Landscape: Evaluating Opportunities for Regulatory Change (No. 4239)
• Vulnerability Assessment And Risk Management Tools For Climate Change: Assessing Potential Impacts And Identifying Adaptation Options (No. 4262)

RFPs are also being developed for the following research topics:

• Advanced Oxidation and Transformation of Organic Contaminants (Project No. 4241)
• Assessing and Enhancing Biological Filtration (No. 4231)
• Best Maintenance Practices for Water Distribution System Assets (No. 4237)
• Enhancing the Value of Molecular Methods to the Water Industry: An E. coli Case Study (No. 4238)
• Fate of Non-Regulated Disinfection By-products (DBPs) in Distribution Systems (No. 4242)
• Forecasting the Future: Progress, Changes, and Predictions for the Water Sector (No. 4232)
• Evaluation of Available Scale-Up Approaches for the Design of Granular Activated Carbon Contactors (No. 4235)
• Growing Our Own: Developing the Workforce to Meet Future Water Sector Needs (No. 4244)
• Is NSF 61 Relevant for Chloraminating Utilities? (No. 4243)
• Pioneering Nondestructive Condition Assessment Technologies for Small-Diameter Pipe (No. 4230)
• Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe Condition Assessment: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Next? (No. 4233)
• Water Well Research Priorities Workshop (No. 4240)
• Worker Health and Safety: Metrics, Benefits and Costs (No. 4236)

The foundation expects to issue an RFP for one additional project later in 2009:

• Contribution of Terrestrial and Aquatic Sources of Precursors on DBP Formation (No. 4245).

The board approved five additional 2009 projects. Three projects emerged from discussion with partner organizations:

• Advancing Process Optimization in the Water Industry to Include Energy Efficiency and Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (project number TBA)
• Develop and Demonstrate Ultraviolet Reactor Validation Protocol Using Dyed-Microspheres Acinometry (add-on to foundation project No. 4112)
• Failure Data and Analysis Methodology for Water Mains (project number TBA)

Two others will be contracted to a research partner:

• Practical Tool for Deciding Rehabilitation Versus Replacement of Cast-Iron Pipe (No. 4234)
• Protocol for Evaluating Chemical Pretreatment for High-Pressure Membranes (No. 4249)

Unless otherwise noted, the RFPs will be issued by March 13. Interested parties will be able to download RFPs from the foundation Web site after that date and request them by e-mail or by regular mail from the Water Research Foundation RFP Desk, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235 (303-347-6118). Be sure to indicate the RFP number.

Chicago hosts public demonstration of skills

Chicago Water's local boys were first up in the tapping exhibition. The relatively new team finished with a respectable time of just over two minutes. Photos by David Plank

June 20, CHICAGO — As thousands of water professionals descended on Chicago for the 2010 AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE10), the local hosts arranged for a public demonstration of two contests on the plaza in front of the historic Chicago Water Tower.

A Mini Meter Madness, held between tapping exhibition events, demonstrated skills in assembling a water meter from a bucket of parts.

Tacoma Water's tappers, the reigning AWWA champions, show their tapping prowess in the public exhibition at the Chicago Water Tower. The team finished with a lightning-fast time of just over one minute.

USEPA finalizes next contaminant list for regulation

The agency released a pre-publication version of the rule after Peter Silva, USEPA's assistant administrator for water, signed it Sept. 23. This final CCL3 contains 116 contaminants versus the 104 contained in a draft published in February 2008 — 104 chemical contaminants or groups and 12 microbes.

Among them are pesticides, disinfection by-products, pharmaceuticals, chemicals used in commerce, waterborne pathogens and algal toxins.

The CCL is used as the starting point for the regulatory development process, and USEPA will select at least five contaminants from the final CCL3 to make its third round of regulatory determinations by 2013.

The changes were made between the draft and the final list:

• Two cancelled pesticides were removed — nitrofen and ethion.
• One perflourinated compound was added — perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
• Ten pharmaceuticals were added:
  • One antibiotic — erythromycin.
  • Nine hormones — 17 alpha-estradiol, 17 beta-estradiol, equilenin, equilin, estriol, estrone, ethinyl estradiol, mestranol and norethindrone.
• Two potential disinfection by-products were added — chlorate and bromochloromethane (also known as Halon 1011).
• Two pathogens were removed — Vibrio cholera and Entamoeba hystolytica.
• Three pathogens were added — Adenovirus, Enterovirus and Mycobacterium avium.

The final list also added a table on data needs for CCL3 contaminants in order to make future regulatory determinations. This table provides a general characterization of the health effects, occurrence and analytical method data needs.

Also, "Risk indexes for draft Contaminant Candidate List 3 chemicals," an article in the September 2009 issue of Journal AWWA, describes a risk index approach to organizing and visualizing all of the occurrence and toxicity data for CCL3 contaminants. This approach has the potential to inform future decisions for the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3) and the third round of regulatory determinations. This project was a partnership between the Water Industry Technical Action Fund (WITAF) and the Water Research Foundation.

USEPA evaluated approximately 7,500 chemicals and microbes. The 116 candidates for the final list were selected based on their potential to pose health risks through drinking water exposure, the agency said in a Sept. 23 news release.

The draft CCL3 was published for review and comment Feb. 21, 2008. The agency says it considered the best available health effects and occurrence data and information to evaluate unregulated contaminants along with information provided in comments on the draft before developing the final CCL3. AWWA has been regularly contributing comments on CCL.

The Safe Drinking Water Act directs USEPA to publish a CCL every five years. Previous lists were published in 1998 and 2005. The law requires that USEPA make regulatory determinations for at least five contaminants from the most recent CCL every five years.

Additional AWWA Resources

• "USEPA proposes 104 contaminants for CCL3," WaterWeek, March 3, 2008
• AWWA's DrinkTap.Org site section on Water Quality
• Information on endocrine disruptors and PPCPs (pharmaceuticals and personal care products) is available on AWWA's technical resources Web site.
• AWWA Government Affairs' comments on regulatory affairs

States doling out stimulus money to water projects

Speaking at an AWWA-sponsored webcast in late August, Peter Shanaghan from the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at the USEPA also discussed the "Buy American" requirement that has raised great concern.

Three national waivers have been granted so far — one for projects that went to bid after October 2008 and before February 2009; another for projects that received financing during that period; and a third for de minimis projects, in which less than 5 percent of the materials were manufactured outside the US.

Shanaghan said utilities whose projects were not selected for the ARRA money now should not be discouraged. "There's a lot of life after ARRA," he said.

The base state revolving fund (SRF) programs will be able to do more in coming years because of the boost provided by the ARRA funds. "Get your projects in now," he encouraged listeners.

Shanaghan said the ARRA funding stipulation that priority be given to "green" projects has piqued Congress's interest and is likely here to stay; however, that consideration is easily met. The project just has to achieve something more than usual — a replacement pump that's more efficient, leak detection projects, metering, for example. A two-to-three-page business case explaining how the project qualifies as green is all it takes. USEPA has added Recommendations to Incorporate Green Practices into Federally Funded Construction Projects to its ARRA Web site.

Following is a list of state government Web sites, compiled by the AWWA Streamlines staff, containing information on dispersal of ARRA funds to communities through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Many of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund sites are included as well. States with boldface names have made available online their lists of intended recipients of ARRA DWSRF funds. 

ALABAMA: 

• Recovery Act site for Alabama Department of Environmental Management 
• DWSRF intended use plan (PDF)
• CWSRF intended use plan (PDF)

ALASKA: 

• Alaska, total ARRA funds available for both DWSRF and CWSRF (PDF)
• DWSRF intended use plan and priorities (PDF)
• CWSRF intended use plan and priorities (PDF)

ARIZONA:

• Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona

CALIFORNIA:

• SDWSRF fundable projects (PDF)
• More ARRA information on drinking water
• CWSRF fundable projects (PDF)

COLORADO:

• Governor's certification of drinking water and wastewater projects (PDF)
• Three Rural Projects To Receive Recovery Act Dollars For Critical Infrastructure Improvements 

CONNECTICUT:

• Recovery site for Drinking Water SRF
• Recovery site for Clean Water SRF

DELAWARE:

• Delaware Recovery site
• Governor's certification for ARRA drinking water projects  
• News release on Delaware clean water project funding from ARRA
• ARRA-funded projects

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:

• District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority ARRA-funded projects

FLORIDA:

• Florida Office of Economic Recovery has links to both ARRA-funded SRF project lists.

GEORGIA:

• Gov. Perdue announced: GEFA Approves 22 Water, Sewer Infrastructure Projects Totaling $41 Million for Georgia Communities, listing each community
• Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority water financing site

HAWAII:

• Drinking Water SRF (PDF) (including ARRA funded projects)
• ARRA funding for CWSRF projects

IDAHO:

• Idaho's Web site on ARRA funding for drinking and wastewater infrastructure, lists extensive resources, especially on Buy American waivers, and lists towns that have been awarded ARRA money at the bottom (three to date).

ILLINOIS:

• The Illinois Web site on state use of ARRA funding contains links to the draft intended use plans for both DWSRF and DWSRF. Following public hearings, the plans will be finalized Sept. 26.

INDIANA:

• SRF Water Infrastructure Program for ARRA funding has published two lists of water and clean water projects being funded, at least in part, with ARRA funds.

IOWA:

• ARRA Water Quality Web site posts the Stimulus intended use plan (IUP) for the DWSRF and CWSRF.

KANSAS:

• Kansas' Recovery Act site
• Kansas 2009 intended use plan, amended to include stimulus (PDF) is available on the state's revolving fund Web site, along with a draft 2010 IUP.
• Announcements about ARRA-funded water and wastewater projects

KENTUCKY:

• Recovery site for Kentucky
• The draft IUP for both DWSRF and CWSRF are available on the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority's Web site.

LOUISIANA:

• Louisiana's Recovery Web site
• Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund IUP – ARRA revised draft
• Draft intended use plan for DWSRF FY 2010 (PDF)
• Final CWSRF intended use plan for ARRA funding

MAINE:

• The Maine CDC Drinking Water Program reports the following status of stimulus spending as of Sept. 11.

MARYLAND:

• Proposed water quality and drinking water stimulus funding lists

MASSACHUSETTS:

• Recovery Act SRF site
• 2009 DWSRF intended use plan (PDF)
• CWSRF intended use plan (PDF)

MICHIGAN:

• Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality has a Web site on the ARRA and both state revolving funds. Communities receiving funding via both the Drinking Water and Clean Water funds are listed in the following certifications:
• 2nd Qtr FY 2009 Certification
• 3rd Qtr FY 2009 Certification

MINNESOTA: 

• Overall status of DWSRF and CWSRF ARRA funding 
• Stimulus Web site for both revolving funds
• List of communities on the DWSRF 2010 priority list (PDF)

MISSISSIPPI: 

• Drinking Water ARRA site
• Mississippi DWSRF final intended use plan (PDF)

MISSOURI:

• Missouri Recovery Act site
• Drinking water intended use plan and priority list

MONTANA:

• Montana ARRA site, including DWSRF and CWSRF intended use plans

NEBRASKA:

• RecoveryNebraska.Gov, including water programs
• Communities receiving funds through DWSRF
• and through CWSRF

NEVADA:

• Recovery Act – Nevada, and priority lists and intended use plans for both DWSRF and CWSRF

NEW HAMPSHIRE:

• Recovery Act – New Hampshire, including updates on drinking water and clean water projects

NEW JERSEY:

• Status of ARRA projects for DWSRF and CWSRF (updated Sept. 2)
• Aug. 25 announcement "USEPA Awards New Jersey More Than $200 Million in Recovery Act Funds for Water Infrastructure Projects"

NEW MEXICO:

• New Mexico Recovery Act site  
• Drinking water stimulus-funded projects

NEW YORK:

• Recovery Act site for drinking water 
• News releases announcing projects funded

NORTH CAROLINA:

• Recovery Act site
• List of ARRA Drinking Water Revolving Fund recipient communities (PDF)

NORTH DAKOTA:

• North Dakota Recovery site 
• State revolving fund site

OHIO:

• Ohio.gov Recovery site with detail on drinking water projects

OKLAHOMA:

• Announcement of ARRA water projects in July and in April 
• Regular DWSRF and CWSRF site

OREGON:

• Oregon Recovery Web site  
• 2007-2009 drinking water priority list and letter soliciting interest for 2010, due Oct. 9
• CWSRF certified recipients

PENNSYLVANIA:

• Pennsylvania Recovery Web site 
• Loans approved: $355 million in July, $530 million in April

RHODE ISLAND:

• Rhode Island's Recovery Web site 
• Intended use plans and priority lists under ARRA for both DWSRF and CWSRF

SOUTH CAROLINA:

• South Carolina Recovery Web site includes priority lists for DWSRF and CWSRF as of Aug. 12.

SOUTH DAKOTA:

• South Dakota site for SRF stimulus news 
• Stimulus funding awarded so far

TENNESSEE:

• Announcement of first round of stimulus funding for water and wastewater and
• second round of stimulus funding

TEXAS:

• The Texas Water Development Board's site for Recovery news includes its intended use plan approved in July.

UTAH:

• Utah's Recovery site for drinking water updated project priority list on Aug. 25
• Utah CWSRF

VERMONT:

• Vermont's Water Supply Division Recovery site for drinking water.
• CWSRF intended use plan

VIRGINIA:

• Virginia's drinking water ARRA site 
• Clean Water SRF stimulus projects

WASHINGTON:

• The state's Recovery Web site shows about one-quarter of its total funding already spent.
• Washington's DWSRF funding list was revised Aug. 4.

WEST VIRGINIA:

• West Virginia's Recovery Web site
• CWSRF intended use plan (PDF)

WISCONSIN:

• Wisconsin's draft and updated intended use plans for both drinking water and clean water

WYOMING:

• Recovery Web site for SRF programs
• 2010 intended use plans for DWSRF or CWSRF

There was no information online about which drinking water and clean water projects in Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam will receive their ARRA monies.

Additional AWWA Resources

• "Water projects among the first as ARRA money hits ground," AWWA Streamlines (Aug. 18)
• "'Buy American' rule causing headaches for utilities?" AWWA Streamlines (May 12)
• "Stimulus money starts flowing, but questions remain," AWWA Streamlines (April 14)
• "Obama signs stimulus bill with $2B for drinking water," AWWA Streamlines (Feb. 17)
• "Like everyone else, manufacturers waiting on stimulus," AWWA Streamlines (Jan. 6)

Utah, Nevada agree to split the aquifer

Water withdrawals from the Snake Valley, at the northern end of this proposed project to tap groundwater for Southern Nevada's needs (click to enlarge map), are on hold for 10 years under the agreement.  Courtesy Southern Nevada Water Authority

Nevada and Utah officials have been in negotiations for nearly four years, following an act of Congress in 2004 that authorized pipeline rights-of-way for SNWA, provided that the two states establish a cooperative relationship regarding the allocation and management of the groundwater underlying the state line in northeastern Nevada and southwestern Utah.

SNWA seeks the water to diversify and develop a sustainable water supply to meet the demands in the Las Vegas area. Right now, 90 percent of SNWA's water comes from the Colorado River. Vigorous conservation efforts and extensive water reuse — already well under way — aren't able to meet future demands of the wholesaler's seven client utilities, according to the SNWA's Water Resources Plan.

So SNWA has an extensive groundwater plan in progress and has already had hearings and received permits for water in four other basins associated with this project. The full project, covering all the facilities in all the valleys, is estimated to cost $3.5 billion. The main trunk of the pipeline will be approximately 250 miles (402 km) long.

To mollify ranchers and environmentalists who fear the drawdown of the water table will dry up the region and turn it into a dust bowl, the agreement puts a 10-year moratorium on any pumping from the Snake Valley aquifer, allowing both states and the US Geological Survey to gather more data on the aquifer, the quantity of water available, the impact of withdrawals on current water rights and the environment.

A SNWA spokesman said, "The Snake Valley is at the northern end of the line, so while we would have liked to move forward with the water rights for the final basin, it [the delay] is not an unreasonable concession." Staffers will continue working on the necessary permits in the meantime.

The agreement — posted online by both Utah and Nevada (PDFs) — declares that, based on current USGS information, the aquifer contains 132,000 acre-ft. (162.8 million m³). The agreement divided that water into three categories:

• Allocated: (set aside for existing rights with priority dates): Utah has 55,000 acre-ft (67.8 million m³) while Nevada has 12,000 acre-ft (14.8 million m³).
• Unallocated:Utah has 5,000 acre-ft. (6.2 million m³) while Nevada has 36,000 acre-ft — considerably less than SNWA's request of 50,679 acre-ft (62.5 million m³).
• Reserved: The state engineers may grant use of this water if and when reliable data shows it can be withdrawn safely and sustainably without affecting other water holders. Utah has 6,000 acre-ft (7.4 million m³) in reserve, while Nevada has 18,000 acre-ft (22.2 million m³).

Monitoring and mitigation are a strong part of the agreement. If the continuous monitoring identifies any adverse impacts, SNWA has agreed to address them, according to the agreement, regardless of whether they're in Utah or Nevada. The agency will set up and maintain a $3 million fund to provide compensation.

Both states are required to make all data generated by the agreement available on state Web sites (Utah's site, Nevada's site).

Both also held a number of public hearings in late August. SNWA posted online a slide presentation on its Groundwater Development Plan dated Aug. 20. It details SNWA's plans for whittling down that 90-percent reliance on Colorado River water to 60 percent.

Northern Nevada groundwater is not the only water source SNWA is developing, however. According to the presentation, SNWA has three proposals in the works for seawater desalination pipelines — one from California and two from Mexico.

Meanwhile the authority is in a race against climate change; the water levels of Lake Mead, where the Las Vegas area draws its water, have been dropping and are expected to continue to drop. SNWA has two water intakes from Lake Mead — one built by the federal government in the 1960s at an elevation of 1,050 ft (320m) above sea level, and a second built 10 years ago by SNWA at approximately 1,000 ft. (305m).

If the Colorado River continues to flow at 65 percent of average, the lake level will dip below the second intake somewhere around 2015.  So, a third intake on Lake Mead is now under construction, to emerge at approximately 900 ft (274m), at a cost of approximately $800 million.

"If and when Lake Mead recedes to a level at which this (groundwater) project needs to be constructed, a separate action will be taken by the board of directors to authorize it," says SNWA spokesman J.C. Davis. "In other words, all we are doing now is getting all of the necessary permissions so we're ready to go if/when needed."

Additional AWWA Resources:

• GeoScience in Water Aquifers Webcast, Sept. 2, presented by AWWA
• The AWWA Bookstore has a wide selection of conservation and resource management titles.
• Opflow: "Climate Change Is Real: How Can Utilities Cope with Potential Risks?" (February 2008)

Heavy ag support for atrazine in USEPA review

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

Atrazine is a popular herbicide used by farmers to protect cash crops like corn.

USEPA is conducting a new evaluation to determine whether the agency should revise its current atrazine risk assessments and whether new restrictions on the herbicide are necessary to better protect health and the environment.

During the first year of the new evaluation, USEPA will consider the potential for cancer and non-cancer effects of atrazine. The agency is asking the independent Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel to reevaluate the human health effects of atrazine over the coming year.

AWWA emphasized its long-time concern about the chemical showing up in raw water sources for water utilities. Utilities have had to install additional treatment processes to meet drinking water standards for atrazine and other herbicides, and their customers have had to bear the financial cost of that treatment. AWWA believes the cost and control of human exposure from pesticides and herbicides should lie with the manufacturers and users of the chemicals. Read the full letter to USEPA (PDF).

"The regulatory policies in both the Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water must assure that the use patterns of the pesticides are managed and water supply contamination prevented so that drinking water suppliers are not left with the major responsibility to prevent or limit human risks," AWWA wrote.

AWWA also raised questions about monitoring regimens and reconciliation of the different approaches to risk assessment within the agency, and provided USEPA with the citations of research into occurrence and treatment for atrazine.

NRDC, meanwhile, detailedits concerns with atrazine showing up in water. "Despite the fact that atrazine used in fields eventually ends up in surface water and treated drinking water, the regulation of atrazine under [the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act] is poorly coordinated."

NRDC also believes there is growing evidence that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor and recommends phasing out its use. In the meantime, the council supports more monitoring of atrazine in water and the encouragement of farming techniques that minimize the use of atrazine.

NRDC released a report on atrazine in drinking water, which showed up in the New York Times and other news outlets last month.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Search The Water Library for articles published in Journal AWWA on atrazine
• Research report: Chloroacetamide Herbacides and Their Transformation Products In Drinking Water

Obama FY2010 budget: water increases in, earmarks out

Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.

President Obama's FY2010 budget request for the DWSRF would be an 82 percent increase if Congress agrees.  AP Photo/J. Schoot Applewhite/File

Obama’s FY2010 budget, which now must be passed by the 111^th Congress, proposes funding the USEPA at $10.5 billion, significantly higher than the $7.6 billion appropriated for the agency in FY2009. The Drinking Water State Revolving Funds gets an 82 percent funding boost in Obama’s proposal — to a total $1.5 billion.

Proposing a 248 percent increase, Obama allocates $2.4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds. A new stipulation was added on both SRFs, however — "not less than 20 percent of funds …shall be for projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative activities."

Funding for water and wastewater facilities on the US–Mexico border was set at $10 million (down from $20 million in 2009) and grants to Alaska to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs of rural and native villages also were set at $10 million (down from $18.5 million in 2009).

"Preventing pollution at its source is the agency’s preferred strategy for reducing risk and minimizing environmental impacts," the budget document stated.  Enforcement programs will receive funding for 30 new staff openings, matched by an enforcement budget that is the highest to date.

But those water project earmarks are out of order and should be terminated (PDF), the administration notified Congress. "These grants are duplicative of funding available for such projects through the [CWSRF and DWSRF] but are not subject to the state priority-setting process for these programs, which typically funds cost-effective and higher priority activities first," the administration explained.

Offering additional explanations, the administration said it opposed earmarked water projects because they "require more oversight and technical assistance than standard grants because many recipients are unprepared to spend or manage funds" and tie up USEPA resources longer. The earmarks had been part of the FY2009 budget’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants, legislation that was crafted by the 110^th Congress but not passed until early 2009.

STAG funding, which includes the SRFs, Mexico and Alaska funding, mushroomed to $5.2 billion in FY2010 (up from $2.96 billion in FY2009). Public Water Systems Supervision Grants are proposed to be funded at $105.7 million (an increase from $99.1 million in FY2009).

The STAG funding proposal also includes $18.5 million for state participation in national statistical surveys of water resources and enhancements to state monitoring programs.

The new budget proposal changes the maximum possible state "set aside" percentages to 2 percent of SRF funds (up from 1.5 percent.)

Funding of $475 million to restore the Great Lakes is requested, along with $35.1 million to continue the Chesapeake Bay cleanup.

The Water Security Initiative — to demonstrate, test and evaluate contamination warning systems at drinking water utilities — is set to get $24 million (up from $15.1 million in FY2009 and $11.8 million in FY2008).

"Greening of Water Infrastructure Research" was a major change highlighted in the budget proposal. It suggested $3.6 million (up from $0.6 million in FY2009) to expand "green infrastructure research to assess, develop and compile scientifically rigorous tools and models that will be used by the agency’s water program, states and municipalities to help advance the deployment of green infrastructure."

Eliminated from the USEPA budget proposal are the Homeland Security grants for drinking water and wastewater systems ($5 million in FY2009) "due to low use of funding over a number of years and decreased state demand for these funds resulting from completion of high priority activities associated with the Bioterrorism Act of 2002."

USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s press conference announcing and discussing the FY2010 budget request is available as an online audio file.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• AWWA Government Affairs Web site offers regular updates.

WaterSmart conference makes strong sophomore showing

Dan Bena, director of sustainability, health, safety and environment for PepsiCo. Photo by Tom Bradley/SNWA

In the opening address at the Oct. 6-9 conference in Las Vegas, Bena, the food and beverage giant's director of sustainability, health, safety and environment, told the audience of conservation professionals that the magnitude of the global water crisis is intimidating — but his company's experiences have convinced him that there's reason for hope.

"We have found that it is possible to dramatically impact our water footprint through careful analysis and planning," Bena said, "and that's only on the operations side. Real impacts will come with more efficient agricultural use of water."

Bena said his company has tested new methods of growing rice in India, for example, that reduce water use dramatically; often, he said, companies can take environmental actions that governments or NGOs cannot.

"We offer growers incentives for using different techniques, and because of the position we occupy in the market, they listen to us," he said.

In 2007, PepsiCo began using enterprise-wide global metrics to track its environmental footprint and was one of the first companies of its size to publicly commit to quantitative resource conservation goals. Using 2006 as a baseline, Bena said, the company is pursuing 20 percent reductions of water and electricity and a 25 percent reduction in fuel use.

In the initiative's first year, PepsiCo's beverage businesses reduced water consumption by 9 percent, electricity by 8 percent and fuels by 7 percent per unit of production. The corporation's foods businesses reduced water consumption by 6 percent, electricity by 3 percent and fuels by 3 percent. All are on track to achieve their 2015 targets, Bena said.

Bena's optimistic speech set the tone for the conference's second year. More than 1,000 people from 42 states and 12 countries attended 130 sessions on topics ranging from nuts-and-bolts irrigation system design to rainwater harvesting and the use of social media to push conservation messages. There were 100 exhibitors, and two technical tours were offered, one to Hoover Dam and Lake Mead and the other to Springs Preserve, the largest Platinum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rated commercial building in the Southwest. The conference was organized by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and major partners included AWWA, the Alliance for Water Efficiency, the California Urban Water Conservation Council and the US Environmental Protection Agency's WaterSense Program.

USEPA also presented its 2009 WaterSense Partners of the Year Awards at an Oct. 7 banquet. Kohler Co. won the manufacturers' award; Lowe's Companies Inc. won the retailer/distributor award; Georgia's Cobb County Water System won for large utility promotional partner; James City, Va. won for small utility promotional partner; and Brian Vinchesi of Irrigation Consulting Inc. in Pepperell, Mass. won irrigation partner of the year.

The conference's keynote address was delivered by Jim Gill, chairman of Water Australia and past CEO of the Water Corporation of Western Australia. Gill talked about the challenges his country faces as a result of climate change, stressing them as a harbinger for the rest of the world. The huge reduction in surface water sources has demanded an innovative and flexible response including desalination, irrigation efficiency and wastewater recovery, he said, and as the effects of global climate change spread throughout the world, such a "holistic" approach may be humanity's only hope for meeting its water needs.

Next year's WaterSmart is scheduled for Oct. 6-8, 2010; details will be posted on the WaterWiser home page as they become available.

Additional AWWA Resources

• WaterSmart set for Vegas, Oct. 7-9, AWWA S