Complete Issue

Headlines

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"

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 of hydraulic 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; Mar. 17, 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

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"

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)

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)

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. S2005 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

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

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.

'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

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.
  

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.

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.

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"

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

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 

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

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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 Streamlines (Aug. 18)

• AWWA partners with WaterSmart conference, AWWA Streamlines (March 17)

USEPA re-evaluating perchlorate science

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

[Updated Aug. 19, 2009]

National occurrence of perchlorate in drinking water (1 microgram/L to 4 microgram/L) Fall 2004. From AWWA 2005 study: Perchlorate Occurrence Mapping

The US Environmental Protection Agency is seeking additional public comment on its re-evaluation of the scientific information on risks associated with perchlorate levels found in drinking water, particularly among infants and young children.

In a Federal Register notice published Aug. 19, USEPA says comments will be accepted until Sept. 18.

As detailed in an Aug. 5 press release, the agency "is now considering a broader range of alternatives for interpreting the available data on the level of health concern, the frequency of occurrence of perchlorate in drinking water, and the opportunity for health risk reduction through a national primary drinking water standard. These alternative interpretations may impact the agency's final regulatory determination for perchlorate."

A fact sheet posted online described the effort as "additional approaches to analyzing data related to EPA's perchlorate regulatory determination," particularly for health reference levels at different life stages.

In October 2008 the Bush Administration USEPA issued a preliminary decision not to regulate the chemical in drinking water. The agency subsequently established an interim health advisory level (PDF) of 15 micrograms/L in December 2008.

That preliminary determination generated more than 32,000 comments, including a letter from USEPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (PDF), which opined that the health advisory level was based on a "flawed benchmark…[which]…is clearly too high for infants as the agency's own calculations show that an HRL (health reference level) of 15 micrograms/L would allow daily exposures to infants that are 2–5 times higher than the reference dose [RfD]."

CHPAC added, "This decision does not recognize the science which supports the exquisite sensitivity of the developing brain to even small drops in thyroid hormone levels and the fact that neonates have much diminished stores of thyroid hormone relative to adults."

In announcing the reconsideration, USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "It is critically important to protect sensitive populations, particularly infants and young children, from perchlorate in drinking water." The analysis presented in the notice takes into account the fact that infants and children consume more water by body weight than do adults.

AWWA concurred with USEPA's original determination not to regulate perchlorate and to issue a health advisory at the time of the final determination. The occurrence of perchlorate, while present in at least 26 states and Puerto Rico, was "typically present at concentrations of less than 12 ppb," AWWA’s comments noted. Even if a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 2 ppb (2 micrograms/L) were established, only 4 percent of all US drinking water systems would be likely impacted, the comments said.

Likewise, AWWA commented, "The proportion of the population potentially affected would be quite small, based on extensive analysis of occurrence, food basket studies, and [Centers for Disease Control] data. This finding, that the total dietary exposure (food and drinking water) of reproductive age women in the US is approximately one third of the RfD for perchlorate at the 95th percentile, is complementary to the findings of a joint assessment prepared by EPA – CDC. Given this evidence related to limited exposure potentials and estimated intakes well below the RfD, it is clear there is limited potential for perchlorate to present a significant adverse affect on the nation's health, including sensitive subpopulations."

The comments were based on independently developed assessments of both occurrence and exposure commissioned by AWWA. AWWA is convening its Technical Action Work Group on Perchlorate to discuss providing any additional comments in the coming weeks.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee and a longstanding proponent of setting a standard for perchlorate in drinking water, made it clear in an Aug. 5 statement that she doesn't agree. "The science has made clear that perchlorate can threaten the health of pregnant women and young children across the nation, and that is why I have consistently worked for strong safeguards to protect people from this toxic chemical," Boxer said.

Three states have set MCLs for perchlorate: California (6 micrograms/L), New Jersey (5 micrograms/L) and Massachusetts (2 micrograms/L).

In a report (PDF) published on Environmental Health Perspectives’ Web site July 13, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection staff explain the analysis behind their drinking water standard and why they consider USEPA's interim health advisory of 15 micrograms/L not protective of infants.

The Massachusetts DEP perchlorate Web site states that the MCL for perchlorate "is directed at the sensitive subgroups of pregnant women, infants, children up to the age of 12, and individuals with hypothyroidism. They should not consume drinking water containing concentrations of perchlorate exceeding 0.002 mg/L. It is recommended that no one consume water containing perchlorate concentrations greater than 0.018 mg/L."

That agency says perchlorate disrupts normal function of the thyroid gland. The effects caused by perchlorate are expected to be similar to those caused by iodine deficiency in humans, including impairment in physical development, behavior, movement, speech, hearing, vision and intelligence. Other possible symptoms include hypothyroidism, enlargement of the thyroid gland and impaired brain development and lower IQ in children.

While occurring naturally, perchlorate is primarily known as the explosive component of rocket fuel, munitions and fireworks and was found in some types of fertilizer

A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives — Safe Drinking Water for Healthy Communities Act of 2009 (HR3206) — to require federal drinking water regulation for perchlorate. That bill has seen no action since its July 14 introduction and referral to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

 Correction to "health reference level" made Dec. 31, 2009.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA study: Perchlorate Occurrence Mapping 2005. Author Philip Brandhuber has updated this study and will publish an article in Journal AWWA later this year.
• AWWA Government Affairs' Web site links on the perchlorate issue
• AWWA's DrinkTap.org page information for consumers on perchlorate
• AWWA bookstore: Perchlorate: Treatment and Other Issues (CD-ROM)

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)

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)

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.

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.

EWG report elicits response from AWWA

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

Many water utilities responded to a December report about drinking water to tell customers about their local water quality.

The report, from the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group, said the federal government “should establish new safety standards, set priorities for pollution prevention projects and tell consumers about the full range of pollutants in their water.” Released Dec. 12, the report used its own methodology to rank utilities, saying that the standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act do not protect public health. Prominently displayed in EWG's press release were its rankings of what the report labeled the 10 top-ranked and 10 lowest-ranked utilities.

Several times prior to the report's publication, AWWA distributed several notices to member utilities showing utilities how to correct inaccurate data with EWG and advising them to contact local media in advance of the report’s publication.

In a statement released the day before the report, AWWA Deputy Executive Director Tom Curtis said the association shares EWG’s interest in protecting water sources and added that “Americans can celebrate that the quality of drinking water in the United States is better than ever.”

The New York Times used data from EWG's report in its Dec. 16 article "That Tap Water Is Legal but May Be Unhealthy." The article cites several sources critical that USEPA has not added any chemicals to regulations in the past nine years and recounts objections that Los Angeles has encountered attempting to go beyond what the law requires.

"For years, people said that America has the cleanest drinking water in the world," former USEPA Administrator William K. Reilly told the Times. "That was true 20 years ago, but people don't realize how many new chemicals have emerged and how much more pollution has occurred."

A Fox News editorial, written by Angela Logomasini, director of risk and environmental policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., challenges the Times' conclusions: "[E]xposure to chemicals does not translate into significant risks. Humans are exposed to hundreds of thousands of trace chemicals every day—man-made and natural—without ill effect. Risks result not from low exposures but from relatively high ones to certain chemicals over decades."

Analytic advances in the past 20 years have also allowed scientists to measure chemicals at increasingly lower levels; instead of analyzing water samples at parts per million, analysts are able to measure in parts per billion and even in parts per trillion.

Dec. 20, the New York Times published a letter from AWWA emphasizing the availability of local water quality data. “Water consumers do not have to wait for a news article to learn about their water quality. Customers of community water systems receive annual reports that detail water quality and any violations. That information is readily available year-round via utility Web sites or a simple phone call,” wrote Curtis.

“Many utilities reported errors in the published EWG data,” said Greg Kail, AWWA public affairs director. “AWWA advises utilities to address misperceptions about their water quality with local media, legislators, customers and EWG, while avoiding a testy public argument. A protracted public fight of this nature rarely concludes with enhanced consumer confidence, and it will likely extend the shelf-life of the story.”

AWWA has also asked utilities to send the association information about errors they found in the report.

After the Reno Gazette – Journal ran an article Dec. 16 about the Truckee Meadows Water Authority's ranking by EWG, Curtis wrote the news outlet, saying, “In the United States, the most scientifically rigorous and widely accepted frame of reference for drinking water quality is the standards established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. If your drinking water meets these standards, you can have a high degree of confidence in its safety.”

Additional AWWA Resources

• Book: Water Quality And Treatment, Fifth Edition
• AWWA Policy Statement on Water Quality (PDF)
• The Water Library: "Reg Talk—Pay Attention to Public Notices," Opflow, April 2006
• The Water Library: "Manager to Manager—Using the CCR to Talk to Your Public," Journal AWWA, July 2002

Haiti: AWWA members want to help

Girls collect water from a broken pipe to take back to families camped in vacant lots in Port au Prince, Haiti.  AP Photo/Julie Jacobson

Every new report from Haiti adds to the growing lists of destruction; injury and death; lack of shelter, food and water; and loss of services and capacity to respond.

In an interview on National Public Radio, Dr. Dan Fitzgerald of Weill–Cornell Medical College anticipated increasing waves of public health problems: first, the overwhelming needs for medical treatment; second, the lack of sanitation and clean water and housing; and third, exhaustion of food supplies.

The water community is particularly aware of the water-related consequences of natural disasters like an earthquake or tsunami. The lack of safe drinking water and an increase in waterborne disease are imminent threats. 

AWWA has received many calls and emails from members offering expertise to help Haitians address water-related issues. At this point, monetary donations are most helpful, according to major relief agencies and the US State Department, which lists some relief organizations at work in Haiti.

“Following a disaster of this scale, the rescue and recovery efforts will continue for several weeks. AWWA encourages its members to direct immediate offers of assistance to disaster relief agencies on the ground in Haiti," said AWWA Deputy Executive Director Paula MacIlwaine.

Monetary donations are most helpful, because the chaos that follows natural disasters makes material donations difficult to manage. Water For People, AWWA’s charity of choice, recommends Catholic Relief Services and Mercy Corps as effective agencies to receive Haiti disaster relief donations.

Mercy Corps reported Jan. 15 that the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has confirmed that Port-au-Prince’s water supply system had been cut off.

“AWWA is in close communication with federal agencies that are coordinating relief activities in Haiti," said MacIlwaine. "As the recovery situation stabilizes and international assistance efforts are organized, we will keep you informed through Streamlines and other communications.”

The White House directs people to the Center for International Disaster Information to learn more about ways to help.

Congressional forecast for 2010

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

Congressional wrangling over health care, which has dominated Washington for months, has complicated a number of other issues that concern the water community. With health care tying up key members of Congress and taking weeks of time on the floor of both chambers, a number of tough issues that congressional leaders had hoped to wrap up in Congress’s first session have been pushed into 2010. Conceivably, some issues that were expected to be resolved in 2010 could slip past the 2010 mid-term elections and into the 112th Congress that convenes in January of 2011.

Some issues originally slated for action in 2009 were pushed over into 2010: the highway funding bill (the Highway Trust Fund being essentially insolvent), global climate change and energy legislation, and reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Also, it will take some time to reconcile differences between the House and Senate health care bills and to reach a vote on President Obama’s proposed Afghanistan troop surge.

The last thing many lawmakers want in an election year is to vote on a lot of controversial issues. This makes it especially difficult to predict when something like comprehensive chemical security legislation might pass and increases the prospect that it might not pass at all. Instead, Congress might simply approve another one-year extension of the existing program for chemical plants. The existing program does not cover water and wastewater utilities.

At the same time, the deficit is heating up as a significant political issue. President Obama has recently said that as soon as the economy recovers, the federal government will have to focus on controlling spending.

A few key members in both parties are beginning to insist that strong measures be taken now to change the glide path of federal spending. The bipartisan and well-respected Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform released a report Dec. 14, 2009, indicating that under business as usual assumptions the United States will “almost certainly experience a debt driven crisis” within the next decade or so—something that was previously viewed in the context of other countries but has been seen as almost unfathomable for the United States.

If Congress gets serious about controlling federal spending, it will greatly complicate efforts to pass new water infrastructure funding measures, including significant increases in SRF funding, a trust fund (which AWWA does not support) or a water infrastructure bank (which we do support).

All in all, the coming session of Congress promises to be difficult, exciting, and eventful.

Candidates nominated for vice-president

Five candidates from the AWWA Board of Directors have been nominated for four positions of vice-president of the association:

• Donald C. Broussard, Southwest Section Director
• James A. Chaffee, Wisconsin Section Director
• John J. Donahue, Illinois Section Director
• Joel Neulight, Director-at-Large–Service Provider
• Robert J. Walters, North Carolina Section Director

The election will take place during the winter board meeting in St. Petersburg, Fla., Jan. 17. The winning candidates will take office at the AWWA annual conference in Chicago, June 20–24.

The terms for four of AWWA's six vice-presidents — Dee A. Bennett, South Carolina Section; Dean Fritzke, Pacific Northwest Section; Juan Carlos Perez Bofill, Puerto Rico Section; and Jeffrey M. Zdrojewski, New York Section — expire in June 2010. Charles F. Anderson, Texas Section, and Debra Kaye, California–Nevada Section, will continue to serve as vice-presidents for another year.

Dean Fritzke and Jeff Zdrojewski are running for AWWA president-elect.

To read the profiles of each candidate and their answers to questions from the Nominating Committee, click on each name.

WASA releases lead study

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

WASA has information and illustrations on its Web site for consumers to be able to identify galvanized pipe.

Homes with galvanized plumbing may represent only a small percentage of the more than 101,000 customers WASA serves, but the implications could be widespread for cities with older homes. The study, conducted by HDR Engineering, focused on identifying and characterizing the relationship between lead and iron released from galvanized plumbing in District homes with elevated sampling results.

The study states that in-home plumbing, specifically galvanized pipes, may contribute lead to residential drinking water and should be considered as potentially important a lead source as lead service lines themselves.

It is the combination of lead service lines and galvanized pipe in the home that presents the danger, even if the lead service line has already been replaced. In-home galvanized iron pipes can accumulate lead released from lead service lines. As galvanized pipe corrodes, lead is likely to be found deep in the interior walls of rusty pipe with the potential to be released with the water flow.

As part of its efforts to go beyond the requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule, WASA retained the services of HDR to evaluate previously unrecognized sources of lead in drinking water.

"This is not a DC issue; this is a national issue … not unique to the District of Columbia," said Charles Kiely, WASA assistant general manager for consumer services. Many older cities have had or continue to supply drinking water through lead service lines connected to galvanized plumbing.

The results of testing on 21 homes in the District's service area were first presented to the WASA board's Retail Services Committee Oct. 15. AWWA Director of Regulatory Affairs Alan Roberson participated on an expert panel to answer questions after the presentation.

In addition to sharing the study with stakeholders from the US Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control, the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, and organizations like AWWA, an article is being submitted to Journal AWWA for publication. WASA held a forum for regulators and stakeholders Oct. 27, seeking their input as the agency develops its outreach to consumers, as well as presenting the study's findings.

WASA is reaching out to its consumers through several channels. The study is posted on WASA's Web site, along with information for consumers about identifying galvanized pipe and Q&A and fact sheets. "Forty percent of our customers visit the Web site," said Kiely.

The utility is also preparing a detailed article for a bill stuffer to be sent out in December or January, said Kiely. And WASA customer service representatives have received a briefing from the utility's water quality staff about the issue and detailed answers for the questions expected from consumers calling about the issue.

Kiely noted that the utility has no way to know how many residences are affected because the utility does not have information about pipe materials beyond the service line. Galvanized pipe was used for home plumbing prior to 1960, especially during the war years when copper was in short supply, he said.

George Hawkins, WASA'S general manager, appeared on local television to raise awareness of the issue. He emphasized the utility's efforts to inform its customers about their options, which were identified in the report:

• Replace galvanized pipe in the home.
• Use a faucet filter certified by NSF on taps used for drinking and cooking water.
• Use a filter pitcher certified by NSF for drinking water.

An NSF-certified filter that removes lead at the tap or a certified pitcher filter is an affordable acceptable alternative, Hawkins said, and one that can be used until the lines that serve kitchens and baths are replaced.

Additional AWWA ResourcesSearch The Water Library for Journal AWWA and Opflow articles

• Online consumer information on lead
• Bill stuffer: Lead and Your Drinking Water

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

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 

Water stakeholders up the ante in Texas

El Paso's desalination plant, a joint project with Fort Bliss, produces 27.5 million gallons/day (104 ML/d), making it a critical component of the region's water portfolio. Photo El Paso Water Utilities

The forum was aimed at increasing public awareness of critical water issues facing Texas and at mobilizing support for full implementation of the State Water Plan. The event was also used to launch a companion website: www.h2o4texas.org.

The Texas Section of AWWA provided much of the logistical support for H204Texas, including registration. "This event is a preliminary round of interim discussions which will lead up to what will be a very active water session in 2011 in the Texas Legislature," said section executive director Mike Howe, who served as master of ceremonies for the two-day event.

Hosts for the event were Texas Sen. Kip Averitt and Texas Rep. Allan Ritter, chairs of the Senate and House committees on Natural Resources, respectively. The State Water Plan was passed by the state legislature and then adopted by the Texas Water Development Board in 2006.

Among the speakers, in addition to the hosts, were Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst; Ben Grumbles, director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and former assistant administrator for Water at USEPA; Tracy Mehan of the Cadmus Group and another former assistant administrator for Water at USEPA; Carol A. Crouch, former Director of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources; John Howard, chair of the Texas Water Foundation; and Robert Glennon, the Morris K. Udall Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of Arizona and author of the book Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It.

Topics included water infrastructure, management of groundwater resources, water efficiency, the water–energy nexus, research, new technologies, case studies from the Southern Nevada Water Authority and Atlanta, and implementation of the State Water Plan.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Total Water Management (book), AWWA, 2008
• "Water Resources Technologies for Sustainable Water Planning," Journal AWWA, May 2009

State sets water precedents for oil, gas industry

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

The state of Colorado last week may have set two national precedents for the protection of water resources and water rights in conjunction with conventional oil and gas production and coalbed methane production.

On April 22, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed into law a legislative review of new Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations for oil and gas drilling that protect public drinking water supplies and require producers to maintain an inventory of chemicals used at each site (except on federal land) in the event a public health issue arises.

On April 20, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled (PDF) that if coalbed methane producers’ groundwater pumping affects supplies to other water rights holders, they must obtain water well permits for water pumped out as part of methane production or must replace water they use. Colorado State Engineer Dick Wolfe said the ruling “could be precedential” nationally, depending on legal interpretations in other parts of the country.

Regarding the state’s new oil and gas drilling regulations, Dave Neslin, COGCC director, told AWWA’s WaterWeek last fall that he is not aware of any other state or federal regulation that would provide the kind of protection for public water supplies in relation to oil and gas drilling as is provided by the commission’s new rules, effective May 1 on federal lands and April 1 on all other lands. A spokesman in Colorado Department of Natural Resources confirmed that is still true as far as he knows.

Public Water System Protection (Rule 317B) calls for no new oil and gas drilling within 300 feet (90 m) of a “classified” surface water supply segment and within 5 miles (8 km) upstream of a public water supply. Another buffer zone applies strict controls on drilling sites within a half mile (0.8 km) of such a stream or 15 miles (24 km) upstream.

The regulations define the classified streams as including both perennial and intermittent streams, as well as surface waters that “are suitable or intended to become suitable for potable water supplies.”

Any time new surface-disturbing activities at a drilling completion and production storage site are about to occur, the rules require operators to give advance notice to potentially impacted public water systems that are within 15 miles (24 km) downstream.

The operators also would be required to conduct emergency spill training and maintain current contact information for downstream public water suppliers as well as maintain the ability to notify them.

As of June 1 (on all but federal lands), a list of chemicals used or stored at each production site “during drilling, completion, and workover operations, including fracture stimulation,” must be maintained by producers for the life of the site or five years after plugging and abandonment. State officials said that was for reference in the event any public health issue is raised about an oil and gas operation.

Robert Randall of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources said, “With regard to the chemical inventory on federal land: the COGCC voted earlier this month to delay the effective date of the rules until July 1, subject to an MOU [memorandum of understanding] between COGCC and the BLM/USFS [Bureau of Land Management/US Forest Service] or subject to a COGCC order.”

The rules cover only surface water, not groundwater or produced water and were developed by the COGCC in response to a legislative directive.

Noting that requests for drilling permits in Colorado grew from 1,000 in 1999 to 8,000 last year, Gov. Ritter said the new drilling guidelines “strike the right balance, a balance that recognizes the importance of a healthy industry and the importance of healthy communities, water supplies and wildlife.”

The groundwater produced in coalbed methane operations was the focus of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that resulted from a lawsuit filed by southwestern Colorado ranchers who depend on seeps and springs to water hay and alfalfa fields. They sued Colorado State Engineer Dick Wolfe and the division water engineer in 2005 for failing to enforce Colorado’s 1969 water law and require coalbed methane (CBM) production operations to get water well permits for pumping groundwater. Colorado’s water court agreed.

The engineers — and BP America Production Co., as an intervenor that reportedly operates 695 wells in the San Juan Basin affected by the suit — appealed, arguing that water pumped out of coalbed seams to release gas was a waste product and did not need to be regulated.

The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that “the extraction of water to facilitate coalbed methane production is a ‘beneficial use’ as defined in the [Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969] and a ‘well’ as defined in the Colorado Ground Water Management Act. Coalbed methane production is therefore subject to regulation under both acts.

“We reject the argument that water used in coalbed methane production is merely a nuisance rather than a ‘beneficial use.’ On the contrary, the use of water in coalbed methane production is an integral part of the process itself,” the court stated.

The decision means users with older water rights have priority. The companies must replace the water they use when it belongs to others.

State Engineer Wolfe said only CBM wells that affect tributary streams will need a permit and only those affecting senior water rights will need augmentation (water replacement) plans.

Colorado now has 34,000 gas wells. Of those, 5,000 are CBM wells, Wolfe said, and he expects perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 of those to need a permit. Because the Supreme Court’s ruling was expected, he said a bill is already progressing through the Colorado legislature (HB 1303) giving his office one year to conduct an assessment of which gas wells have tributary impacts on others’ water rights.

Most gas wells are in deep geologic formations, 15,000 to 30,000 ft. (4,500 to 9,100 m) underground. CBM wells are shallower and thus more likely to affect tributary waters. The legal principle involved under Colorado water law correlates to irrigation wells that harm senior surface water rights.

Although state water law is unique to its jurisdiction, Wolfe thought the court ruling would set a precedent for other Western states that operate under the “prior appropriation” legal doctrine. In a similar case last summer, a Wyoming judge ruled against ranchers complaining of damage from nearby CBM operations. He couldn’t guess how Eastern US states operating under the riparian doctrine might be affected by the ruling.

Additional AWWA Resources

• WaterWeek story Aug. 25, 2008, “NYC worried over gas drilling in watershed”
• AWWA DVD: “Case Studies in Source Water Protection”
• AWWA Standard: AWWA Standard G300 Source Water Protection

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

Fracking bill may face uphill battle

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

Environmentalists' concern over the exemption from USEPA's Underground Injection Control program given to hydraulic fracturing has led to bills being introduced in both houses of Congress.

Democratic Reps. Diana DeGette, Maurice Hinchey and Jared Polis introduced a bill in June to reverse a 2005 measure excluding hydraulic fracturing, used to enhance extraction of oil and gas, from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Sens. Bob Casey, D-Penn., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced similar legislation.

Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," is the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into rock formations to make oil and natural gas flow more freely. It has long been used to stimulate production in aging wells, but is now also used to tap oil and gas trapped in shale beds. Fracking is granted an exemption from complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The exemption was inserted into the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

The practice has come under fire in recent years as residents in gas-drilling areas have complained that well water is discolored or foul-smelling and that their children became sick from drinking it. Last year, the natural gas industry ran into opposition when it expressed interest in drilling for gas in the huge Marcellus Shale formation, underlying portions of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and other states.

The petroleum industry says fracking is essential to the shale production that has significantly upped US natural gas output in recent years and that the measure would burden drillers with cumbersome federal permitting requirements and higher costs of up to $100,000 per well.

The industry has pointed to a study by IHS Global Insight that predicted additional federal regulations would lower the number of US wells drilled by more than 20 percent over a five-year period and cut domestic natural gas production by about 10 percent from 2008 levels by 2014. Besides mandating US Environmental Protection Agency supervision of fracking, both the House and Senate bills would require companies to reveal what chemicals they use in their hydraulic fracturing fluid; oil companies have said that their exact formulas are trade secrets.

The bills' backers say it is unlikely federal oversight would lead to mounting costs. USEPA officials in Washington have testified that the section of the Safe Drinking Water Act governing the oil and gas industry allows for flexibility, deferring drilling oversight to states. According to the IHS Global Insight study, they say, most state programs already have regulations in place, meaning USEPA would simply approve ongoing state oversight and little else would change.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of the legislation would be, it appears to face an uphill battle against the powerful and well-funded oil lobby. Though the bills have garnered more support this year than previous attempts to pass similar legislation, resistance is strong at both the federal and state levels. Many politicians — including Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter who supported expanded oversight of oil and gas industry practices — have yet to express support publicly for the measures, and the petroleum industry is fostering opposition to the regulations in oil-and-gas-producing states and counties with letters and editorials (PDF).

AWWA has long said that "fracking," like other underground injection activity, is a matter of concern for water utilities but that more research is needed to fully understand any hazards it may pose.

HR2766 is currently under consideration by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; S1215 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Additional AWWA Resources

• WaterWeek: NYC worried over gas drilling in watershed
• WaterWeek: Oil/gas regulation aims to protect water sources

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.

New DWSRF allocation percentages published

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

The formula for distribution of DWSRF allotments to states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, US territories, American Indian tribes and Alaskan Native villages is based on the 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment and will be used for the four years from Fiscal Year 2010 through 2013.

The latest needs survey, published March 26, pegged nationwide drinking water infrastructure needs at $334.8 billion. Based on that distribution of needs formula, significantly increased percentages of DWSRF funds will be allocated during the next four years to California, New York and the US territories.

Smaller increases are allotted to Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington. Texas and Florida will have significant drops in percentage allotments, with smaller declines in the allocations for Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

However, even states whose percentage of the DWSRF allotment declines under the new formula will have more money to loan to water utilities if the Obama administration's proposed FY2010 budget request of $1.5 billion is passed with an 82 percent increase from the previous year (see chart below).

Twenty states, plus District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have needs set at the minimum 1 percent share of the DWSRF. They could receive $14.68 million from the FY2010 request, compared with the $8.146 million enacted in FY2009.

USEPA said the 2007 Needs Survey includes both projects that are currently needed and future projects needed over the next 20 years. Capital needs included treatment, storage, source, distribution and transmission, as well as "other" projects. Projects that are ineligible for DWSRF assistance — such as dams, reservoirs and projects solely to meet growth — were excluded from the survey.

All of the nation's 584 largest systems (serving more than 100,000 people) were surveyed. Statistically valid samples were surveyed in the other system-size categories — 2,266 systems in the 3,301–100,000 category and 600 small water systems serving fewer than 3,301 people.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Streamlines stories: New drinking water infrastructure reports = BIG $ needs, March 31; Obama FY2010 budget: water increases in, earmarks out, May 12.
• What’s New in AWWA Government Affairs
• “Manager to Manager -- Condition Assessment Essential for Effective Management of Buried Infrastructure”   Journal AWWA article, April 2008

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.

USEPA water chief, Interior nominations

Peter S. Silva, a civil engineer with 32 years’ experience in water and wastewater, will be nominated as the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for Water Programs, the Obama administration announced April 3.

Nominated to head the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Geological Survey as assistant secretary for water and science in the Department of the Interior is a prominent Denver water lawyer, Anne Castle. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar touted Castle as “one of the nation’s foremost experts in water and natural resource law.”

The Interior Department also announced the appointment of Dianna A. Archuleta of New Mexico as deputy assistant secretary for water and science, a position that does not require Senate confirmation.

Silva currently serves as a policy advisor to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and an MWD spokesman said he specializes in Colorado River issues. The announcement mentioned his “work in the public sector specializing in water resources policy with extensive experience in US–Mexico border issues.”

Prior to working for MWD, Silva served six years on the California Water Resources Control Board, leaving as vice chairman. His appointments to that board came from both a Republican and a Democratic governor of California.

Silva also served three years on the board of the Border Environment Cooperation Commission, appointed by President Clinton. He served three years as the BECC Deputy General Manager, based in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

Prior experience includes 10 years with the city of San Diego, four years in charge of the International Boundary and Water Commission San Diego office and five years with the California Regional Water Quality Board in San Diego.

As USEPA’s AA for water, Silva would supervise staff charged with implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.

Castle has more than 25 years of experience in water rights, water quality and natural resources law. She currently serves as a partner in the Denver office of Holland & Hart LLP. She has represented a wide variety of clients in water court litigation, including adjudications of water rights, changes in water rights and plans for augmentation.

She has also represented clients in numerous water rights and water quality administrative proceedings. Her practice includes water rights conveyancing, contracts for purchase, use, and supply of water and the evaluation and assessment of water rights.

Archuleta has been board chair of Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority since January 2008. That utility recently dedicated the San Juan Chama Drinking Water Project.

Salazar said, “Deanna has extensive experience and expertise in developing water policy and public - private partnerships. She understands western water issues, is a dedicated and energetic professional with strong team-building skills and will be a valuable member of our water and science leadership here at Interior.”

Archuleta also won two terms as a county commissioner in Bernalillo County and was elected chair of the commission in 2009.

Former USEPA water chief Benjamin Grumbles is heading to Arizona. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced (PDF) March 30 that Grumbles, an attorney who worked his way up in USEPA following experience on the staff of various congressional committees, will serve as her policy advisor for the environment, moving in June to serve as director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• See Streamlines stories March 3 “A look at the regulatory agenda ahead,” and March 31 ”Contaminators should pay water cleanup costs.”
• See AWWA Government Affairs Regulatory Issues

Senate confirms Silva to head USEPA water office

Peter Silva has been confirmed as head of USEPA's water division.

A civil engineer with nearly 32 years of experience in the water and wastewater fields, Silva most recently served as a policy advisor to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, specializing in Colorado River issues.

Prior to working for MWD, Silva served six years on the California Water Resources Control Board, leaving as vice-chairman. His appointments to that board came from both a Republican and a Democratic governor of California.

The announcement of his nomination in early April mentioned his “work in the public sector specializing in water resources policy with extensive experience in US–Mexico border issues.”

Silva also served three years on the board of the Border Environment Cooperation Commission, appointed by President Clinton. He served three years as the BECC deputy general manager, based in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

His prior experience includes 10 years with the city of San Diego, four years in charge of the International Boundary and Water Commission San Diego office and five years with the California Regional Water Quality Board in San Diego.

His confirmation reportedly was delayed because Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., put a procedural hold on the confirmation vote to get a meeting with Silva to discuss USEPA's ongoing reviews of mountaintop mining and valley fill permits. Byrd's state was one of six affected by a June agreement between USEPA, the Department of Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers to reduce the environmental impacts of Appalachia's mountaintop coal mines.

In addition to that water quality issue, the agency also is struggling with two Supreme Court decisions that have created confusion about the scope of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction. Legislation (S787) pending in the Senate would broaden the scope from "navigable" waters to all waters of the United States, but was modified in committee.

AWWA's regulatory affairs director, Alan Roberson, recently outlined a number of other issues on Silva's plate, including perchlorate, greenhouse gas underground sequestration and Contaminant Candidate List 3.

At his confirmation hearing in May, Silva spoke of the challenges ahead for nonpoint source pollution and emerging contaminants of concern. He called for new models of collaboration and careful attention to infrastructure.

More recently, Silva keynoted the AWWA annual conference in San Diego. He reiterated those themes and said he saw a role for the federal government in funding.

In other nomination news, Anne Castle has been sworn in as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science, which puts her in charge of the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Geological Survey.

“Anne Castle has more than 25 years of experience in water rights, water quality and natural resources law,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, adding he looked forward to working with the former Denver lawyer, noted as one of the nation's top water attorneys, “on the major water and science challenges we face, from climate impacts to drought and regional water issues.”

The nomination of Robert Perciasepe to the position of deputy administrator of USEPA was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on a voice vote July 15, but is blocked from consideration by the Senate as a whole.

Republican Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio told reporters he is blocking confirmation of Perciasepe, who served as USEPA's AA for Water in the Clinton administration, because he is dissatisfied with a USEPA report on the economic effects of a climate change bill (HR2454) that passed the House in June and wants to ask for a "refined analysis" from USEPA.

He reportedly is alarmed by the wide differences between the bill's $175 cost per year per family cited by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the $2,979/year/family cited by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. USEPA said its analysis shows an annual cost of between $80 and $111.

The Senate E&PW Committee also approved July 15 the nomination of Craig Hooks to be assistant USEPA administrator for administration and resources management. Hook is acting in that capacity now.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• See AWWA Streamlines stories April 14 "USEPA water chief, Interior nominations"; July 7 "Washington Report: comments, reg outlook"; March 3 “A look at the regulatory agenda ahead”; and March 31 ”Contaminators should pay water cleanup costs.”
• See AWWA Government Affairs Regulatory Issues

New bill added to chemical security stewpot

The Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009 (PDF) (HR3258) was introduced July 20 by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the same committee handling the health reform legislation.

This bill would require the US Environmental Protection Agency to establish risk-based performance standards for community water systems serving more than 3,300 people and certain other public water systems with security risks. USEPA would be required to assign covered water systems to risk tiers, to require them to identify vulnerabilities and develop site security plans.

Covered water systems with dangerous chemicals in amounts higher than federal thresholds would be required to assess whether they can switch to safer chemicals or processes.

The Energy-Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment had scheduled, but then postponed, a hearing into HR3258 as well as the broader Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act of 2009 (HR2868), which has already been approved and also sent to the Energy-Commerce Committee by the House Committee on Homeland Security.

HR2868 places wastewater plants under the jurisdiction of the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards, administered by the Department of Homeland Security. CFATS already ranks chemical facilities into tiers of risk, requires vulnerability assessments and site security plans — the same that HR3258 would ask the USEPA to do.

The two bills would mean that water and wastewater plants, even operated by one utility, would be regulated under different sets of chemical facility security regulations administered by two different federal agencies.

Other issues involved in the two bills are the granting of authority to mandate water and wastewater treatment plants to switch to "inherently safer technologies" and whether or not unions should be privy to vulnerability assessment information on plants in which bargained-for employees work.

Meanwhile, the one-year extension of the current CFATS program, which expires Sept. 30, remains a third viable alternative to deal with the matter. That would continue to exempt water and wastewater plants from the CFATS requirements.

Congress required certain drinking water facilities to perform vulnerability assessments and develop emergency response plans under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. Chemical security efforts at other water and wastewater plants are voluntary — a gap that both DHS and USEPA believe needs to be filled.

The one-year extension, preferred by the Obama administration, is contained in HR2892 and S1298, the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations bills for the Department of Homeland Security, which have passed both houses and are now in conference.

Other fodder for congressional digestion on the issue comes from a Congressional Research Service report issued July 13 — "Chemical Facility Security: Reauthorization, Policy Issues, and Options for Congress" (PDF).

Issues raised by that report include whether DHS has sufficient funds to adequately oversee chemical facility security; whether the federal regulations should preempt state regulations; how much information developed for chemical security purposes may be shared outside the facility; whether chemical facilities should be required to adopt or consider adopting "inherently safer technologies."

Speaking during an AWWA webinar July 29, DHS official Dennis Deziel, deputy director for the department's Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, said CFATS division has gotten extra funding and has hired 120 additional staffers in anticipation of handling an increased workload, should wastewater (and possibly drinking water) plants come under its purview.

Additional AWWA Resources

• AWWA Streamlines story: "Chemical security bills moving in different directions" (July 7)
• AWWA Bookstore: "Selecting Disinfectants In A Security-Conscious Environment"
• On July 29 AWWA broadcast a webcast — "Outlook for Chemical Security: Art You Prepared?" Usually such webcasts are archived and made available for after-the-fact purchase. However, due to technical difficulties in recording this webcast, it's uncertain whether it will be available. Those interested should keep checking the above Web site or call Owen Swick at 303-347-6204.

2009 year of regulatory preparation

Alan Roberson, AWWA Director of Regulatory Affairs

Discussions on high-level drinking water issues, such as long-term infrastructure funding and climate change, are ongoing. The congressional debates on climate change, chemical security and other subjects may translate into regulatory requirements at some point in the future, but the products of these debates take a fair amount of time to become legislation and, ultimately, regulations.

For the US Environmental Protection Agency, the pressure to do something is probably equally spread throughout the Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory development process—from the Contaminant Candidate List and its subsequent regulatory determinations to perchlorate and to the second Six-Year Review.

USEPA decided not to regulate 20 contaminants in its first two regulatory determinations in 2003 and 2008, and some think that this means that the regulatory process is broken. USEPA will be under pressure to regulate something in its third round of regulatory determinations in 2013.

A potential candidate for regulation is nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), either by itself or with other nitrosamines, because the health effects data is sufficient for a risk assessment, and NDMA has the most frequent occurrence of any analyte from the first round of data from the second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR2). But regulating nitrosamines would not be simple, as the shift to chloramination to comply with disinfection by-product (DBP) regulations typically increases the concentration of nitrosamines.

The final CCL3 was probably the most significant regulatory action listed in the table of USEPA’s five regulatory actions for 2009 (see table). The final CCL3 was published Oct. 8 and listed 116 contaminants for potential regulation. The only notable difference between the draft CCL3 (104 contaminants) that was published in February 2008 and the final CCL3 was the addition of one antibiotic and nine hormones. Perchlorate again was listed on CCL3 (it was also listed on CCL1 and CCL2).

Another regulatory action was the reconsideration of the preliminary regulatory determination to not regulate perchlorate in the fall of 2008 under the Bush administration. In early January, it appeared that USEPA was going to ask the National Academy of Sciences to provide advice on its methodology for the health reference level (HRL) of 15 micrograms/L.

However, on Aug. 19, USEPA published a supplemental notice for comments on its preliminary regulatory determination. This supplemental request for comments broke down the potential HRLs by age category and presented an alternative method to determine the HRL by age category for comment.

The potential implications of including an explicit breakdown of health risk according to age on a potential perchlorate regulation is not completely clear, either for a perchlorate regulation or for any other drinking water regulations.

A notice of data availability (NODA) for the Geologic Sequestration (GS) Rule was published Aug. 31. This NODA summarized some of the data from the various carbon sequestration pilot projects and proposed a potential waiver process for carbon sequestration above or in-between underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).

AWWA reiterated its previous comments that protection of USDWs should be the top priority and that carbon sequestration should only be allowed below USDWs.

USEPA also published some additions to approved analytical methods on Aug. 3 and some minor corrections to the Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rule (DBPR) on June 29.

The final regulatory action, the second Six-Year Review, didn't make it out in December. It should be published in early 2010. In the first Six-Year Review, completed in 2003, USEPA decided only to revise the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). The second Six-Year Review may be significantly more work, as USEPA is under pressure to do something.

The regulatory frameworks could potentially change for existing standards such as atrazine (and/or total triazines), nitrate, fluoride, chromium, arsenic and trichloroethylene (TCE) and changes in the compliance monitoring framework. In addition, USEPA is still working on several new risk assessments and new detection limits using improved analytical methods. All these may be addressed in the second Six-Year Review.

On Dec. 3-4, USEPA held the initial meeting of the Climate Ready Water Utilities Working Group. The CRWU Working Group is a Working Group to the agency’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council.

The CRWU Working Group will evaluate the concept and scope of what constitutes a climate-ready water utility and will provide recommendations to the NDWAC on the development of a program for utilities to account for climate change impacts.

Findings and recommendations will likely cover:

1. Developing an understanding on how to use available data to develop climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies.
2. Identifying climate change-related tools, training and products for utilities, consulting engineers and decision makers.
3. Exploring recognition mechanisms.

The CRWU Working Group comprises 21 individuals representing a wide variety of stakeholders including utilities, environmental advocates, elected officials, academics, primacy agencies and Indian tribes. Several federal agencies are also participating in the discussions.

USEPA is continuing to move forward with the development of the proposed Revised Total Coliform Rule based on the Agreement in Principle from the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee.

USEPA held a stakeholder meeting on April 3 to discuss and solicit input on several technical issues. USEPA staff is working on the proposed RTCR, which is scheduled to be published in August or September of 2010.

The Research and Information Collection Partnership has made some progress on research issues that will influence a potential future distribution system rule — noting that no decision has been made on whether such a rule is needed or not, and whether the research results should provide some help in making that decision.

Many challenging issues remain in building the analytical frameworks and a succinct list of priority projects for the variety of research issues for distribution systems.

USEPA’s 2009 REGULATORY ACTIONS

Economic crisis means cheaper chemicals, at least

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

The report and its conclusions will also be the subject of a webcast by the foundation scheduled for April 15. The webcast will be open to AWWA members. Those interested in viewing "Water and Wastewater Treatment Chemicals: Shortages and Skyrocketing Prices" can register online through the Water Research Foundation.

The report, "Supply of Critical Water and Wastewater Treatment Chemicals — A White Paper for Understanding Recent Price Increases and Shortages," includes information gathered by the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies in a survey of US drinking water utilities about chemical prices and supplies. It concludes that the decreasing worldwide demand for commodities and lower energy prices will mean lower prices and greater supply availability for the rest of this year.

The white paper identifies several strategies to help utilities minimize the impact of future supply and price volatility, including

• Contracting — Utilities that had long-term contracts in place were the most insulated from fluctuations in the chemical market over the past year, but many chemical suppliers have since resisted making long-term agreements. One approach is to tie contract prices to a price index, using independent indices such as the producer price index (PPI) to set prices.
• Dual sourcing — Using multiple suppliers may be beneficial and outweigh the cost advantages of large-volume purchases, but only if the utility can be sure the chemicals come from distinct sources (using different materials sources or manufacturing processes).
• Joint purchasing — Regional purchasing solutions can help take advantage of potential economies of scale, sharing the cost of shipping or storage.
• System design — Designs for new facilities, or upgrades of existing ones, should take into account the price and availability of chemical supplies. Handling and delivery systems can be designed for multiple chemicals (such as lime as well as caustic soda), and new facilities can be designed to use treatment methods that require few or no chemicals, albeit at higher energy costs.

The report concludes that as the current recession ends and worldwide growth returns, commodity demand will increase, as will energy prices. It predicts that treatment chemical prices will increase at moderate rates over the long term, but makes no specific prediction as to supply or price levels. Reduced supplies of some chemicals, such as caustic soda and fluorosilicic acid, are expected to last until production of other products (chlorine and fertilizer, respectively) increase.

The research was funded by the Water Research Foundation, the Water Industry Technical Action Fund, UKWIR, and WERF.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• “Chemical prices skyrocket, no end in sight,” E-MainStream, 7/15/2008
• Other WITAF reports

SRF increase of 157 percent touted at congressional hearings

Lisa Jackson, USEPA Administrator

On May 12, Jackson testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Chair Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., greeted the FY2010 USEPA budget with pleasure, noting that the agency's budget requests had declined 26 percent during the previous eight years.

The $10.5 billion budget request of Congress for FY 2010 compares with $7.6 billion appropriated for FY2009. Most of that increase would go to the Drinking Water and Clean Water state revolving funds, which are proposed to receive $3.9 billion (versus $1.5 billion in 2009).

In prepared remarks, Boxer noted, "Our states and cities are faced with an unprecedented need to invest in drinking water plants and wastewater treatment facilities…. This money [the increase of nearly $2.3 billion] is more than a down payment on protecting public health; it also will put people to work in their communities rebuilding the crucial infrastructure that keeps our families healthy."

Jackson told the committee, which has jurisdiction over both drinking water and wastewater issues, that the increased funding would finance 1,000 clean water and 700 drinking water projects across America.

Other water-related highlights from Jackson's testimony follow:

The budget for IRIS — Integrated Risk Information Systems — would increase by $5 million to a total of $14.5 million, which Jackson said would "increase assessment production and reduce our backlog of assessments for chemicals previously identified as priority needs." Increased toxicology funding is requested as well.

The Research and Development programs also are seeking a hefty increase — $52 million for a total of $842 million. "This funding will support the rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analyses that we must use as a basis for our environmental decisions," Jackson said.

The Leaking Underground Storage Tanks program is requesting $128 million, including $113 million for the LUST trust fund.  "Almost 80 percent (or 377,019) of all reported leaks have been addressed to date," Jackson said, "leaving a backlog of almost 103,000 cleanups that have not yet been addressed."

The Non-Point Source Program budget request for FY2010 is $200.9 million — for grants to states, territories and tribes to reduce the amount of phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment in runoff.

Public Water System Supervision Grants would total $105.7 million if USEPA's budget request is granted. In FY2010, USEPA will emphasize that states use their PWSS funds to ensure that drinking water systems of all sizes meet new and existing regulatory requirements, Jackson said.

Jackson got sharp questioning from the panel over a $24 million increase in the Superfund program (total $1.3 billion) when the number of projects targeted was lower than past years, which, according to news reports, she attributed to the completion of cheap, easy cleanups and leaving the "more complex" to be done. She said the Superfund budget assumes reinstatement of a "Superfund tax" on chemical and oil companies that expired in 1995.

The multi-agency Great Lakes Initiative has $475 million in the USEPA budget. The 2010 budget also includes funding to protect, maintain and restore the Chesapeake Bay and Anacostia River, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, Lake Champlain and other large water bodies, Jackson said.

Jackson covered the same ground at a May 19 hearing before the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Washington and Idaho representatives told Jackson that small towns couldn't afford SRF loans and likely would not be able to undertake the water projects they needed, according to BNA Daily Environment.

Asked why she preferred SRF loans over grants, Jackson said she would take a look at that situation, but noted states are the ones making the tough decisions. In general she said she prefers loans because the repayments and interest are recycled back into the program to keep generating more funding for water projects, in addition to ongoing federal funding.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• See AWWA Streamlines' story "SRF reauthorization bill would solve many problems" May 12, 2009.
• Follow progress of the Water Infrastructure Financing Act (S1005) in today's Water Legislation Roundup  
• AWWA Government Affairs Web site offers regular updates

Consultants not hitting panic button yet

Most engineering and construction consulting firms depend on utilities and governments for their revenue, so it isn’t surprising they consider their short-term fates tied to the stimulus. What may be more surprising is the degree to which even the major players have found themselves exposed internationally, in an industry that has long considered global reach to be the best insurance against economic downturns.

“There’s definitely a feeling that everything went south, all over the world and in fairly short order,” says Denholm Brugman, an industry analyst in Los Angeles. “I think some of the bigger firms have found that the protection they thought they’d bought themselves through growth and diversification hasn’t been as strong as they imagined, given the magnitude of what’s been happening.”

Still, Brugman says, any very large projects consultants might be working on have likely been under way for years, with money already allocated. Budgetary processes being what they are, he says, it could be some time before the larger firms, at least, have to come to terms with their prospective clients’ slimmer pocketbooks.

“The debt markets have definitely suffered, but they could come back if a good-sized stimulus package makes investors feel better about those bonds,” Brugman says. “The projects that are working now were financed a while back, and if this paralysis in the markets doesn’t last too long, there may not be a terrible lag before the investment starts flowing again. But if investors don’t like the looks of the stimulus, all bets are off.”

That’s exactly what some firms, particularly smaller ones, don’t want to hear.

“[A stimulus] doesn’t do us any long-term good unless it sort of ‘re-boots’ the bond markets,” says Scott Wyse, a Chicago-based construction consultant. “It’s all well and good to have a few million dollars to invest, but for the stimulus to be helpful for more than a year or so it will need to spur a new flow of private dollars into utility investment.”

Wyse says one thing he hopes will come from increased public attention to infrastructure issues is a realization on the part of consumers of the “real” cost of water.

“It’s an old saw to say that people don’t think about water until they turn on the tap and nothing happens, or electricity until the lights go out, but that doesn’t make it any less true,” he says. “Maybe if people hear about millions [of dollars] going into infrastructure and then see the construction while they’re out driving around, it will remind them that all these services have to be created, they don’t just happen organically, and they need to be paid for and maintained.”

That mindset change, Wyse says, is what will be required to ensure that utilities don’t find themselves behind the infrastructure 8-ball again.

“I hope the stimulus works, and creates jobs and allows us to start upgrading some of these systems,” he says. “But I hope even more that the people who follow us in this industry don’t have to have this same conversation in another 50 or hundred years, when things start falling apart again.”

Three candidates up for director-at-large position

Three candidates have been nominated for director-at large to serve on the AWWA Board of Directors:

• Alissa Lockett, Texas Section
• Gary McCoy, Georgia Section (Georgia Association of Water Professionals)
• Marsi Steirer, California – Nevada Section

The election will take place during the winter board meeting in St. Petersburg, Fla., Jan. 16-17. The winning candidate will begin a three-year term at the close of the AWWA annual conference in Chicago, June 20 – 24, when Pamela Marchand will complete her director-at-large term.

There are four directors-at-large on the AWWA Board of Directors. The other three — Daniel Duchniak, Joel Neulight and Marie Pearthree—are in the middle of their terms.

To read the profiles of the candidates and their answers to questions from the Nominating Committee, click on their names.

Senate confirms Jackson as USEPA chief

Jackson promised "scientific integrity" as a core value for USEPA, during her confirmation hearing. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said she was “really pleased that the Senate has taken the first steps toward restoring the EPA and CEQ to their proper role as organizations that fight to protect the health of our families and the safety of our air, our water and our planet.”

Jackson, a chemical engineer educated at Princeton and Tulane universities, most recently headed New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection and oversaw implementation of a statewide chemical security program that is considered the toughest in the nation. Prior to that, she worked 16 years for USEPA, initially at its headquarters in Washington and more recently at its regional office in New York City.

Speaking at a national conference on climate change and environmental justice at Fordham University Jan. 30, Jackson said that President Obama is committed to the idea that "you do not have to choose between environmental protection and the economy," which she said was "an answer for people who want to scare us into backing off strong environmental protections."

In her first memo to agency staff, Jackson listed protecting water resources among her priorities, asserting that USEPA “will make robust use of our authority to restore threatened treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, to address our neglected urban rivers, to strengthen drinking-water safety programs, and to reduce pollution from nonpoint and industrial dischargers.”

The Council on Environmental Quality coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. The CEQ's chair serves as the principal environmental policy adviser to the president.

Sutley comes from a position as Los Angeles deputy mayor for energy and environment. That city recently launched two major water policy efforts — Securing L.A.'s Water Supply (PDF) and an Emergency Water Conservation Plan — along with the Los Angeles Solar Energy Plan (PDF).

She also worked as a regional administrator for USEPA and at the state level in California. President Obama lauded her work as being “on the cutting edge” of states and cities that “take initiative in forging innovative solutions on energy.”

Newly confirmed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar also spoke with Interior Department employees, drawing on his five-generation family farming history as responsible stewards of the land and water in southern Colorado's San Luis Valley.

Included in his remarks were these water-related comments, "We must also do a lot more with a whole host of other issues including dealing with our water issues, and not just in the West. It used to be that most water issues were out in the West on the Colorado River and a whole host of other projects that I have worked on in the past, including the Animas-La Plata project.

"Now I am getting calls about a major water dispute going on in the Southeast. And I know that this department is well-poised with its leadership and expertise to help resolve many of these interstate conflicts," Salazar said.

Aquatic pesticides rule changes will affect utilities

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

Water utilities that spray algaecides, herbicides or any other kind of pesticide need to keep an eye out for revised regulations from the US Environmental Protection Agency within the next two years as it wrestles to replace a permit-exemption rule struck down in federal court earlier this year.

The consequence of the court ruling is that all biological pesticide applications and chemical pesticide applications that leave a residue in water will need to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act.

In November 2006, USEPA had issued a final rule on aquatic pesticides, stating that if pesticides were used to control pests in water — such as a utility controlling algae on a reservoir — and used them in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), no NPDES permit would be required.

That rule was challenged in 2007 by industry and environmental groups (National Cotton Council of America v. EPA, 6^th Cir., No. 06-4630), and on Jan. 7 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated USEPA's rule (PDF), noting that even USEPA agreed that residue from the pesticide applications that remained in the water did constitute a pollutant.

While many expressed alarm at the overwhelming workload the decision will cause, USEPA opted not to seek a rehearing of the decision. Instead, the agency asked the court to stay implementation so that it could develop, propose and issue a final NPDES general permit for pesticide applications and give states time to develop permits and educate the regulated community.

The court granted a two-year stay earlier this summer — until April 9, 2011. That's a reprieve for hundreds of thousands of regulated entities nationwide — including utilities, farms, public health agencies, state environmental agencies and timberlands.

Water utilities will be affected when applying algaecides to reservoirs or herbicides to reservoirs to kill rooted plants or close to water bodies in the course of facility maintenance.

Jack Faulk, who is the NPDES pesticides permitting team leader in the rural branch of USEPA's Water Permits Division, says, "We are working to develop a general permit for those areas where EPA is still the permitting authority for these types of discharges. Generally, this includes five states (Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico), District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and most other US territories, and Indian lands nationwide."

Several states already have a process for general permits for aquatic pesticides, including California (PDF), Washington and New York.

Faulk said, "We are aware of California's efforts to develop general permits, as well as a number of other states that have developed some type of permit program for at least a segment of the pesticide application universe for which we will now be issuing permits. In fact, more than half of the states have issued permits for pesticide applications. We are looking at as many of those permits as we can to help us shape our own NPDES permit."

The situation also prompted a letter from Congress, signed by Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, which asked USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to

• provide uniformity in regulation for pesticides,
• allow for continued emergency pesticide use and
• eliminate any unnecessary burdens on farmers or the USEPA.

The letter noted that Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack had asked her to seek further review by the court.

Meanwhile, the National Cotton Council and other agriculture and industry groups did file for a rehearing (PDF) of the court's decision vacating the USEPA's Final Rule.

Additional AWWA Resources

• "Algae Detection And Removal Strategies For Drinking Water Treatment Plants"
•  Journal AWWA: "Water-Soluble Pesticides in Finished Water of Community Water Supplies" (October 2004)
• Opflow: "How Can You Control Organic Contaminants?" (February 2008)
• AWWA will be publishing a new manual (M57) on algae in the spring of 2010.

House okays hefty increase in USEPA budget

An increase of 39 percent in USEPA's FY2010 appropriations passed the House of Representatives.

That is $84 million above the administration's FY2010 request for USEPA and up nearly 39 percent from the agency's current budget, not counting the $6 billion appropriated earlier in the stimulus bill. Compared to the president's request, the House approved

• Slight decreases for Drinking Water ($1.443 billion) and Clean Water ($2.307 billion) State Revolving Funds — but still huge increases over 2009;
• A decrease for Water Security Initiative ($18.7 million, which is $5 million less than the administration request but still $3.7 million above 2009);
• An additional $160 million for state and tribal assistance grants (STAG) infrastructure grants to $5.2 billion — a 75 percent increase over 2009;
• An additional $81.5 million for USEPA's environmental programs and management to $3 billion;
• An additional $77.8 million for rehabilitation of Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain and Lake Pontchartrain.
• Otherwise, the administration's FY 2010 requests were granted, unchanged.

Meanwhile in the Senate, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an Interior-Environment Appropriations bill on June 25 that totals $32.1 billion, some $225 million less than Obama had requested and also less than the House approved.

The Senate version would give USEPA $10.2 billion, including $3.6 billion for drinking water and wastewater SRFs. That doesn't include the money the SRFs received via the stimulus package approved earlier this year. (See Hot Topics.) The Senate has not scheduled the bill for a vote.

Additional AWWA Resources

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

A look at the regulatory agenda ahead

Alan Roberson

The new administration’s initial focus in the water arena is on high-level issues such as infrastructure funding and climate change. “These debates may translate into regulatory requirements at some point in the future,” Roberson says, “but these debates take time to translate into legislation and ultimately into regulations.”

Two US Environmental Protection Agency efforts that will continue to play out are the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) process and the six-year review, which covers all existing regulations, he said. The first six-year review was completed in 2003, with only a decision to revise the Total Coliform Rule, he noted.

“One never knows what could be included in the second six-year review, as the regulatory framework could potentially change for existing standards, such as atrazine or total triazines, nitrate, fluoride, chromium, arsenic and trichloroethylene (TCE),” according to Roberson.

USEPA is still working on several new risk assessments and new detection limits using improved analytical methods, he says, “So it is not completely clear at this time what might be addressed in the second six-year review.” A draft of that review is tentatively scheduled in mid-2009 with completion in 2011.

Some 2008 activities will continue to play out in 2009:

• The Draft Third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL3) released last year is expected to be published in final form in mid-2009. The Draft CCL3 contains 93 chemicals and 11 microbials. USEPA’s future decisions to potentially regulate additional contaminants through the third round of regulatory determinations, tentatively scheduled for 2013, will start with this list.
• Among the final round of regulatory determinations for CCL2 issued last year was one — perchlorate — which still isn’t finished. USEPA proposed not regulating perchlorate, saying such regulation would not provide the “…meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction as mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act.” That decision met with both significant support and significant objections.
          In January 2009, USEPA asked the National Academy of Sciences for an evaluation of the modeling used to drive a health reference level (HRL) of 15 micrograms/L. Given the NAS typical timeframe, a final decision on whether to regulate perchlorate in drinking water may not be made “for a couple more years,” Roberson comments. However, Congress may have other ideas. (See budget story.)
• USEPA’s proposed regulation for the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, a favored strategy for mitigating climate change, was published for comments in July 2008. The regulation establishes a new class of wells in the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control program, with many new regulatory requirements. AWWA’s comments focused on protecting underground sources of drinking water and the potential for unintended consequences from carbon sequestration.
         A notice of data availability for this rule could be issued in late 2009 or early 2010, Roberson believes, “depending on what data is available from the various carbon sequestration pilot projects.” The final rule is likely in late 2010 or early 2011.
• The Total Coliform Rule/Distribution System Advisory Committee signed an agreement in September 2008 the results of which were published in the Jan. 13, 2009, Federal Register. USEPA has scheduled a stakeholder meeting on April 3 in Washington, D.C., to provide an update on the regulatory development process for the Revised TCR. The proposed revision is expected in 2010, with the final rule published in 2012.
• USEPA has begun an evaluation of available research on the Lead and Copper Rule and is engaging stakeholders in determining what additional LCR revisions should be considered beyond the short-term revisions finished in 2007. Long-term revisions are possible.
• The Department of Homeland Security’s current regulatory program for facilities with specific chemicals above certain thresholds — the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards — ends on Sept. 30. Water and wastewater facilities are currently exempt from CFATS, but Congress came close to passing legislation last year amending CFATS to remove this exemption for water and wastewater facilities. Legislation establishing a significant new regulatory program for chemical security is a likely possibility this year or next year.
• Congress also has been holding hearings and paying close attention to research and regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and other contaminants.

 Additional AWWA Resources:

• See Alan Roberson’s video clip on the AWWA Government Affairs Web site.
• Streamlines story: “USEPA defers perchlorate regulatory decision” (Jan. 20, 2009)
• WaterWeek stories: “CO2 sequestration rule aims to protect groundwater “ (July 21, 2008); “SAB: CCL 3 improved, but still lacking” (Oct. 13, 2008); “Accord reached on revising TCR” (Sept. 22, 2008); “USEPA gathers Lead and Copper Rule issues” (Oct. 20, 2008)

USEPA defers perchlorate regulatory decision

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

Handing the final decision on the drinking water contaminant to the Obama Administration, the move could delay the determination another two years. USEPA made a preliminary decision last fall that regulation was not warranted, which drew thousands of comments and outrage from Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

USEPA’s latest action seeks NAS review of its rationale for setting an Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perchlorate (.pdf) of 15 micrograms/L, which is based on the reference dose (RfD) of 24.5 micrograms/L that USEPA set as recommended earlier by NAS.

Specifically, USEPA now asks NAS to evaluate

• its derivation of the health reference level;
• the use of modeling to evaluate impacts on infants and young children,
• the implication of recent biomonitoring studies,
• the role of perchlorate relative to other iodide uptake inhibiting compounds, and
• other public health strategies to address this aspect of thyroid health.

In response to USEPA’s move, Boxer again blasted the agency, "EPA's decision to delay setting a drinking water standard for perchlorate is immoral.”

She also made good on her promise to bring up the subject when she conducted a Senate hearing Jan. 14 on the Obama Administration’s nomination of Lisa Jackson as USEPA Administrator.

Asked if she would revisit this perchlorate decision when she is confirmed, Jackson said yes. [See separate story.]

Perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel, fireworks, flares and explosives, as well as occurring naturally, had been studied as part of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 1) and had been included on both Contaminant Candidate List 1 and 2. However, it was dropped from UCMR2 and CCL3.

The agency proposed Oct. 10 that perchlorate not be regulated based on a finding that regulatory action would not provide a meaningful opportunity to protect public health. USEPA extended the comment deadline once. Ultimately, the agency said it received more than 32,000 comments, [which can be viewed at EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0692], including calls for reconsideration of the action from even the agency’s own advisors.

The chairs of USEPA’s Science Advisory Board and the SAB’s Drinking Water Committee wrote USEPA Administrator Stephen Johnson citing the committee’s sense that perchlorate is a top priority for regulation.

The chair of USEPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee wrote (PDF), “The CHPAC feels strongly that all three conditions [set under the Safe Drinking Water Act for setting a maximum contaminant level (MCL)] are met in the case of perchlorate. The committee was particularly alarmed that the health risk level was based on adults, which made it “clearly too high for infants.”

Two states with high concentrations of perchlorate contamination already have established their own standards for perchlorate — California (6 micrograms/L) and Massachusetts (2 micrograms/L).

New Jersey’s MCL of 5 micrograms/L for perchlorate is expected to take effect early in 2009. Jackson was commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection when, in May 2008, she wrote USEPA urging adoption of an MCL for perchlorate (.pdf).

At her confirmation hearing to head USEPA, she noted that New Jersey's perchlorate regulation had first been recommended in 2005 and the state actually has been enforcing a 5-micrograms/L MCL "for some time now," but due to budget constraints had not  put resources into finalizing the official regulation until recently.

Comments filed by AWWA noted that USEPA’s decision is supported by the criteria established in the SDWA. The comments (.pdf) concluded that setting a national standard for perchlorate “would not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems. The comments were based on independently developed assessments of both occurrence and exposure commissioned by AWWA. [See attachment to comments (.pdf)]

The occurrence of perchlorate, while present in at least 26 states and Puerto Rico, was “typically present at concentrations of less than 12 micrograms/L,” AWWA’s comments noted. Even if an MCL of 2 micrograms/L were established, only 4 percent of all US drinking water systems would be impacted.

Likewise, AWWA wrote, the proportion of the population potentially affected would be quite small based on extensive analysis of occurrence, food basket studies and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This finding, that the total dietary exposure (food and drinking water) of reproductive age women in the US is approximately one-third of the RfD for perchlorate at the 95th percentile, is complimentary to the findings referenced in the proposed decision based on a joint assessment prepared by USEPA and CDC, AWWA wrote. Given this evidence related to limited exposure potentials and estimated intakes well below the RfD, AWWA concluded that there is limited potential for perchlorate to present a significant adverse affect on the nation’s health, including sensitive subpopulations.

Kevin Morley, AWWA regulatory affairs analyst who has monitored the perchlorate issue for years, said, "All scientific evidence, including the EPA and NAS reports, suggests that the regulation of perchlorate is an extremely inefficient way to manage the underlying health risk — iodine deficient diets.'

A draft report on perchlorate issued Dec. 30 by USEPA’s Office Inspector General (OIG) indicated that USEPA was in error in only studying a single chemical — perchlorate — when other chemicals (nitrate and thiocyanate) and a general iodine deficiency in a mother’s diet had the same potential effect on the thyroid.

“Limiting perchlorate does not effectively address this public health issue,” the OIG report said. “By contrast, addressing moderate and mild iodide deficiency occurring in about 29 percent of the US pregnant and nursing population appears to be the most effective approach of increasing [the total iodide uptake level] to healthy levels during pregnancy and nursing, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of permanent mental deficits in children.”

Additional AWWA Resources:

• Perchlorate will be discussed in the Journal AWWA March issue
• Read AWWA's July 2008 report, National Cost Implications of a Potential Perchlorate Regulation.
• AWWA has posted information to help utilities communicate to customers about perchlorate.

Ice storm’s boil orders being whittled away

Southeastern Missouri finally cleared the last of its boil orders on Friday, according to a Feb. 13 report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Kentucky remains the hardest hit. FEMA reported boil-water orders remaining in effect on Feb. 13 in 15 counties, affecting a total population of 42,025. That dropped from 22 counties on Feb. 10 and 55 counties with 189,685 customers on Jan. 29, shortly after the storm hit.

FEMA has confirmed 30 fatalities attributed to the storm, which did heavy damage to powerline infrastructure.

Arkansas reported 13 boil-water orders remaining in effect for eight counties, four counties fewer than was reported on Feb. 10. The Arkansas Department of Health issued boil-water orders for 72 public water systems between Jan. 28 and Feb. 2 — all caused by power outages. Arkansas reported 19 confirmed fatalities.

Missouri reported Feb. 13 that all boil-water orders (BWOs) caused by the storm had been lifted. Missouri still had three BWOs in effect on Feb. 10, a significant improvement from the 30 orders in effect on Jan. 29. Missouri attributed eight confirmed fatalities to the storm.

High winds and tornadoes that ripped through the area on Feb. 11, caused some power outages; however, those outages apparently did not result in any boil-water orders.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• Streamlines story: Ice storm clobbers 100+ water systems  (Feb. 3, 2009)
• The WARN Web site has numerous resources and assistance on establishing WARNs.

Contaminators should pay water cleanup costs

As recommendations are being developed for President Obama’s new Executive Order on Federal Regulatory Review, a request for comment was sent out. AWWA and the Association of Municipal Water Agencies cooperated to develop seven pages of ideas, including one topic that wasn’t on the request list.

An important omission in the regulatory framework that should be addressed, wrote AWWA Deputy Executive Director Tom Curtis and AMWA Executive Director Diane VanDe Hei, is that the Clean Water Act “does not provide an effective incentive for upstream nonpoint dischargers to accept responsibility for their discharges and meaningfully support source water protection.

“Contaminants can often be controlled more effectively and more economically at their point of generation rather than at a water treatment plant,” Curtis and VanDe Hei said. They urged the Obama administration to put the responsibility on those who generate the contaminants rather than adding to the financial burden of drinking water utilities.

The comments (posted on AWWA’s Web site) (PDF) focus on eight topics on which the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs asked for suggestions. The topics and the recommendations in the letter, signed by Curtis and VanDe Hei, are summarized below:

The relationship between OIRA and the agencies:
AWWA and AMWA recommended that each regulation and regulatory process be accompanied by a clear statement of its purpose and the expected achievement.

Disclosure and transparency:
Merely posting a volume of background documentation online does not equal clarity. Modeling approaches and underlying assumptions need to be clear and understandable. “’Black box’ modeling approaches where a third party cannot reproduce model outputs should not be allowed in any federal regulatory development process.”

Encouraging public participation:
Participation needs to be meaningful; stakeholders should feel that their input has been adequately considered. After the stakeholder process, some form of continued communication with participants and the public should occur. The comment response process needs some improvement; it’s often unclear whether an organization’s comments have been incorporated or had any impact on the final rule. Improving this process might also decrease “backdoor” remedies, such as litigation and lobbying Congress and the executive branch.

Role of cost - benefit analysis:
Though reinforcing that cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is “a vitally important and useful tool that should be routinely applied to all federal regulatory proposals and programs," AWWA and AMWA began their comments by noting that use of CBA is becoming increasingly difficult, yet increasingly critical.

“As we move forward to address more subtle and perhaps even uncertain risks, the tendency is for further improvements to produce a small benefit, but at a much higher cost,” Curtis and VanDe Hei wrote. They recommended that where statutes do not require or allow use of CBA, they should be developed anyway as a matter of policy.

Second, CBAs should “be conducted in an accurate, balanced, technically robust, comprehensive, transparent and objective manner” — not overlooking ancillary costs and benefits, conveying qualitative as well as quantified outcomes. Third, CBAs should not become the sole decision criterion in the regulatory development process.

Role of distributional considerations, fairness and concern for future generations:
The organizations noted that SDWA regulations may raise water rates to the point of adversely affecting low-income consumers in small water systems — the issue of “affordability.”

The considerable cost of protecting sensitive subpopulations led the organizations to suggest “greater attention is needed...to consider the opportunity for cost-effective alternatives, including non-regulatory alternatives.” They also pointed out that “the science surrounding sensitive populations is not always as strong as it should be.”

Methods of ensuring that regulatory review does not produce undue delays:
Noting that a typical rule can take two to four years for USEPA to develop, the letter suggested that the speed of the process could be improved if OIRA were involved earlier in the process. OIRA also might need more resources.

Role of behavioral sciences in formulating regulatory policy:
Behavioral and social science research is needed, they said. Only limited research has been done on the concepts of “willingness to pay” (especially as applied to potential health effects) and “willingness to sell.”

The best tools for achieving public goals through the regulatory process:
They again emphasized developing explicit guiding principles on the purpose and nature of regulations and the regulatory process and explicit objectives and performance metrics.

Breaking down the “programmatic silos” is another way that a new Executive Order could help. For example, when talking about Cryptosporidium, consider the contribution to overall risk exposure from food, as well as water. They speculated that the drinking water standard might be stricter than the risk would warrant simply because it’s more difficult to regulate the contaminant in food.

Additional AWWA Resources:

• AWWA Governmental Affairs Regulatory Issues site
• Navigating the Maze of Effective Treatment Options, Opflow, January 2008
• Benefit-Cost Implications of Multicontaminant Drinking Water Standards, Journal AWWA, March 2004

Agriculture, Interior budgets boost water climate help

• the Department of Agriculture and
• the Interior Department's
  •  Bureau of Reclamation,
  • US Geological Survey and
  • Army Corps of Engineers.

While not as dramatic as the increases proposed for USEPA water programs, the regular water programs in Agriculture and Interior budgets showed modest gains or remained at levels similar to what was enacted for FY2009. Some budgets declined slightly, usually following large funding boosts from the recently passed economic stimulus legislation.

US Department of Agriculture's FY2010 budget (PDF) asks for $1.64 billion for loans and grants to water and wastewater projects under the Rural Development - Rural Utilities program, roughly the same as enacted for FY2009.

This is separate from the $615.8 million in water and environmental projects that were funded in late April through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which minimizes farmland sources of water pollution, is set to receive $1.2 billion via the FY2010 budget, slightly higher than the $1.1 billion enacted for 2009. That would be enough for 45,000 new contracts, covering nearly 16.4 million acres.

Department of Interior’s FY2010 budget proposal — $12 billion — touts $133 million in spending for climate change impacts (PDF). Some $50 million goes to water conservation efforts, including competitive cost-share grants, basin studies, and water reclamation and reuse programs under the Bureau of Reclamation. In the competitive cost-share grant program, $26 million is reserved over a two-year period for funding at least 110 new water conservation projects of the following types:

• Water marketing projects, matching willing sellers and buyers, including water banks that transfer water to other uses to meet critical needs for supplies,
• Water efficiency and conservation projects that allow users to decrease diversions and use, or transfer the water saved,
• Projects to improve water management by increasing operational flexibility such as constructing aquifer recharge facilities or making system optimization and management improvements, and
• Pilot projects that demonstrate the technical and economic viability of treating and using brackish groundwater, seawater or impaired water.

The two other water conservation pieces fall under the

• Basin Study program, which partners with state and local entities to conduct water supply and demand studies in the West, and
• Water Reclamation and Reuse program, which identifies opportunities to reclaim and reuse wastewaters and naturally impaired ground and surface water.

The total FY2010 request for the Bureau of Reclamation's (PDF) water and related resources totaled $1.02 billion (but $985.6 million after considering the Central Valley Project offset). That's $27.1 million lower than was enacted for FY2009. Included in the Bureau's FY2010 budget are the California Bay - Delta and Central Valley Project restoration projects, which also have lower budgets than in previous years.

However, the Bureau benefited from $1 billion through the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In addition to funds for California projects, the ARRA funding added $200 million for Rural Water Supply projects — to be used in part for municipal and rural water systems for towns and Indian reservations in Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico and South Dakota.

Reclamation's Safety of Dams program has a request totaling $101.9 million in the FY2010 budget, up $13.5 million from 2009.

US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations efforts are slotted for $227.9 million in the USGS FY2010 budget (PDF), which is $6.5 million above the 2009 enacted level — another component of the Department of the Interior's focus on assessing water-related climate impacts.  

Of that increase, $5 million would go to re-establish discontinued stream gauges, USGS says, "with an emphasis on those stations with the greatest potential to provide information in support of climate change monitoring." For instance, New York City's water department announced in March it would cease providing funding to USGS for 22 gauges in its watershed because of economic shortfalls.

Other USGS water programs are as follows:

• National Water Quality Assessment — fully funded to continue to describe status and trends in water quality, and provide an improved understanding of the natural factors and human activity affecting water quality.
• Cooperative Water — $65.6 million to continue state, local and tribal partnerships supporting the national hydrologic data network of stream gauges, wells and monitoring sites.
• Water Resources Research Act — $6.5 million for state, regional and national coordination of research, training, and information and technology transfer.

A House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on USGS's FY2010 budget was held May 19.

US Army Corps of Engineers FY2010 budget (PDF) is $5.125 billion, down from $5.4 billion in 2009. Response to climate change is also part of the Corps' budget; $5 million is slotted for an evaluation of how and where climate change may affect the management of the agency's projects. The Corps is charged with identifying options, such as changes in operation or other modifications, in response to climate change.

The Corps' budget for civil works also includes $214 million for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program, which includes the restoration of the Everglades. The investigations budget is set at $100 million for finding solutions to water and related land resource problems. The regulatory program — to protect US waters and wetlands — is budgeted at $190 million.

Corps officials testified at a May 12 hearing before the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

Additional AWWA Resources

• Watch AWWA Streamlines and the AWWA Government Affairs Web site for updates

Gavel passed, Woolard becomes president

Craig Woolard receives the president's gavel from Mike Leonard at ACE09 in San Diego.

Outgoing President Mike Leonard, water operations manager for Roswell, Ga., handed over the gavel of office on Wednesday evening during the AWWA annual conference.

Woolard, who is treatment director for the Anchorage (Alaska) Water Works, also promoted changes that will open up the association and the industry to younger professionals, rejecting the notion that they lack interest in a professional organization like AWWA.

He used the story of Dr. Snow and Rev. Whitehead — who by proving that cholera was a waterborne disease saved lives — to illustrate the power of collaboration and volunteerism. "The true value of AWWA is our ability to bring together our thoughts, our ideas and ourselves to advance the cause of public health," Woolard said.

Link to Craig Woolard's first blog as AWWA President.

Read Craig Woolard's speech at the gavel-passing ceremony.

Dougherty: 'Things will change' at USEPA

Cynthia Dougherty speaks at AWWA's Annual Conference Tuesday in San Diego.  Photo by David Hathcox

Speaking at the AWWA annual conference, she reviewed the priorities for the new administration and new USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. The Obama administration has established four priorities that directly relate to the agency:

• maintaining infrastructure,
• safeguarding public health,
• mitigating climate change and
• ensuring water security.

Jackson's first memo to staff set forth the standards for the agency: science-based decisions, adherence to the rule of law and unparalleled transparency.

"Things will change," said Dougherty, who expects a shorter timeframe between decision and action, as well as reconsideration of how the review process works.

She reviewed the OGWDW programs, starting with the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The agency has disbursed to states more than $1.2 billion of the $2 billion from the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the proposed 2010 budget from the president nearly doubles the 2009 DWSRF appropriation.

The new Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey estimates that $335 billion will be needed for capital investment over the next 20 years. The majority of those capital needs are required to continue drinking water service and not driven by regulatory compliance, Dougherty said. She said USEPA will release a draft policy for sustainability under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

She also said the agency received almost 32,000 comments on its decision not to regulate perchlorate. A supplementary notice is now going through interagency review and will be out for comment this summer.

Jim Taft, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, provided an overview of state activities, seeing a major workload for state regulators in the implementation of microbial/disinfection byproduct and groundwater rules.

When it comes to water security, "the utility-based WARNs are particularly important," he said. Another area of collaboration is source water protection, he noted. ASDWA is partnering with several land management organizations to conduct pilot projects in New Hampshire and Ohio and several other states.

Despite the heavy workloads, "the amount (of money) to run state programs continues to be anemic," said Taft, who doesn’t see any change in the near future. It will require tough choices about priorities, he warned.

Other speakers reviewed the status of work on a proposed revision to the Total Coliform Rule, regulatory timelines and outlook. Kevin Morley of AWWA's government affairs staff reported that he doesn't expect USEPA to seek additional review of perchlorate by the National Research Council.

In response to an audience question, AWWA Director of Regulatory Affairs Alan Roberson said he doesn’t see radon on USEPA's regulatory horizon.

A.P. Black honoree Mike McGuire recalls his mentors

Mike McGuire, A.P. Black honoree, spoke at ACE09 on Tuesday.  Photo by David Hathcox

Quoting Isaac Newton, A.P. Black honoree Mike McGuire recalled the mentors who not only shared the subjects that encouraged a young student and engineer to a career of research and solutions but also the values that have shaped his career.

McGuire's crew coach, father-in-law and water professionals have modeled integrity, focus, passion, collegiality, public service and volunteerism. The result has been a 40-year career studded with the day's challenges to water quality.

At a plenary session during AWWA’s annual conference, McGuire described meeting Samuel S. Baxter in 1969 while still a student at the University of Pennsylvania. He embodied "public service as a noble calling."

McGuire also recognized Irwin (Mel) Suffet, formerly a professor and environmental chemist at Drexel University and now at the University of California at Los Angeles. Together they investigated the surface chemistry of granular activated carbon.

As a mentor, research partner and colleague, Suffet taught him that after "you do what you have to do, then you do the fun stuff, the stuff that’s important." Suffet also emphasized sharing the results of the work; publishing is a "measure of what you are doing [and] how you are focused on real solutions," McGuire said.

Jerry Gilbert, former AWWA president and AWWA Research Foundation chairman as well as the general manager of two major water utilities, steered McGuire to AWWA and volunteer activities. McGuire considered Gilbert's a "career founded in volunteer service."

McGuire gave a nod to "all of you who have mentored me in so many ways," acknowledging what AWWA and its members have offered him over the years. He also recognized well-known figures in water supply research, including Vern Snoeyink, Carol Tate, Phil Singer and Perry McCarty, as well as his many co-workers.

McGuire gave a speedy tour of the research areas his career has covered:

• granular activated carbon,
• taste and odor,
• treatment optimization,
• covering open finished water reservoirs, 
• ozone/PEROXONE treatment and
• disinfection by-products.

During his 13 years at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, McGuire instituted the use of copper sulfate to treat blue green algae, developed a closed-loop stripping method for analysis of MIB (2-methylisoborneol) and geosmin, incorporated the use of flavor profile analysis and consumer panel studies. The district's switch to chloramines was the first step in reducing trihalomethanes in finished water.

After leaving MWD to set up his own consulting firm, he helped Tucson, Ariz., turn around a disastrous introduction of Central Arizona Project water to its system. He also worked with utilities on nitrification control and hexavalent chromium issues.

"Look over the horizon" and see beyond the immediate application, McGuire advised.

Look for an in-depth interview with Mike McGuire in the September Journal AWWA.

Warning: water agencies overestimate their ability to respond

Peter Gleick speaks at ACE09 in San Diego Monday. Photo by David Hathcox

Gleick is the co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security and a leading voice in the discussions on the effects of climate change.

For those working in the United States, particularly in the West, “your jobs are much harder” because of the delay nationally and internationally in dealing with the effects of climate change, Gleick said. He does not accept arguments that the economy would suffer if the nation took action to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) and conserve energy.

“The cost of doing nothing is far greater than addressing it now,” he said. Part of the problem is the inertia of institutions and policy makers. “The infrastructure may have locked us into slow and inadequate responses,” he noted, pointing to responses to Katrina, drought in the southeastern United States and the near-decade drought in Australia.

He posed the question: How do we get water agencies to reduce greenhouse gases and react to the implications of climate change?

"The world is already past the point of unavoidable consequences, but utilities can reduce their GHGs and thus reduce how much they will have to deal with climate change," he said.

It is a matter of managing the unavoidable in water-related changes from hydrological effects, such as warmer temperatures and greater weather extremes, to system impacts on reservoirs, treatment, and storm sewers.

Water operations involve a lot of “embedded energy," but they have an obligation to reduce their energy footprint, Gleick argued.

“Water managers do a pretty good job of dealing with variability,” he said, but that variability will now include wider extremes, occur faster and include new impacts. “We are overestimating our ability to respond.”

“All cities should be metering,” he said, urging the measuring of all energy and water use to develop baseline information.

And he urged an open mind regarding rates and water rights, noting that water rate structures may not be optimal for dealing with climate change issues. “We need to be open to restructuring water rights,” he said.

USEPA nominee points to challenges ahead

Peter Silva    Photo by David Hathcox

"While we have made great progress (in water issues), we are seeing great challenges — in nonpoint pollution and emerging pollutants," he said, noting that the water sector is seeing a merging of issues from the drinking water and wastewater side.

"There is a growing nexus between the way we supply water and how we face environmental impacts," Silva told the audience.

He pointed out increased use of water recycling and desalination in the response to drought and increased water demands. "Even direct potable reuse is being considered," Silva said.

Funding is an important role for the federal government, according to Silva, and he said he was glad to see AWWA's proposal for a federal water infrastructure bank.

Earlier in the session on Monday, AWWA President Mike Leonard talked about AWWA's commitment to help members address the issues they face in these hard economic times

"It's a smart solution, a commonsense solution, which strikes just the right balance between federal assistance and local responsibility," Leonard said.

More than a dozen awards were also presented at the session, along with a tribute to the late Jack Mannion, who served as AWWA's executive director for eight years.

High-schoolers find ideas, inspiration at ACE09

Streamlines Editor Mary Parmelee interviews students from a San Diego high school specializing in science about what they learned from touring the exposition at ACE09.  Photo by David Hathcox

The teenagers and their teachers showed up at the AWWA annual conference, touring the exposition and talking with the exhibitors about the kinds of experiments they had done during their sophomore year as they studied environmental science, including issues of water quantity and quality and types of water treatment.

Their solutions to the water crisis in Southern California include potable reuse, desalination, conservation and restrictions. They all said they would drink recycled water directly from a reuse treatment plant.

The San Diego city water department has a partnership with the High School of Connections and Technology at Kearny, which is one of the specialized high schools in the San Diego Unified School System. Several water department employees serve as mentors and advisors at the high school, and AWWA provided passes for the students to come to the annual conference.

Several of the students talked about some of the memorable things they ran across in the exhibit hall: nonmetallic equipment, a desalination process that has received its first approval for use in Japan and maps using geographical information systems.

At this point, the 15–16-year-olds are considering a variety of careers, from medicine and engineering to forensics, law and psychology. One girl even has a specialty in mind — pediatric rheumatology.

World Water Week tackles water's role for peace

Stockhold Water Prize Laureate Bindeshwar Pathak  Photo courtesy SIWI

A special focus this year is on transboundary waters, with sessions on the Jordan, Tigris–Euphrates, Nile, Zambezi, and Mekong rivers and Lake Chad basins. The annual event draws an international crowd to participate in more than 90 sessions on such topics as climate change, sustainable development, competing uses, water footprint, WHO wastewater guidelines, water recharge and reuse, private financing, safe water service post-conflict, UN initiatives, and energy use.

World Water Week formally opened with a plenary session Aug.17, featuring a dozen top-level policy makers from around the world.

Stockholm Water Prize Laureate Bindeshwar Pathak, recognized for his work to extend sanitation in India, spoke about the social and health effects of installing toilets in all important public places. "These technologies [composting toilet and biogas technology] are free of patent. This is very important," he said. "Any country can take it and use it."

Speakers challenged the audience and the world to think in new ways about the role of water in peace, economic development and public health.

Anders Berntell, executive director of the Stockholm Water Institute, sponsor of World Water Week, said, "We can provide astronauts with a safe supply of drinking water when they travel to the moon, but we cannot provide the same service to slum dwellers in Kibera, Nairobi or Dharavi Mumbay."

His point was echoed by Hon. Rejoice Mabudafhasi, South Africa deputy minister of water and environmental affairs. "Meeting growing water demand is essential for the economic growth of the [South Africa] region and Africa generally and in particular for the reduction of poverty."

"Water can be a catalyst for conflict or a catalyst for cooperation," said Jan Eliasson, Chair, WaterAid Sweden, and former president of the United Nations General Assembly, pointing to conflict in the Sudan.

Looking at the money spent by the governments of Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinians, Munqueth Mehyar, chair of Friends of the Earth–Middle East, noted, "The budget for sustaining conflict and supporting wars is very large. Peace and restoration activities will only require a very small percentage of that budget."

In addition to poverty and peace, speakers raised the issues of economics and climate change. "The mandate before our world is to prevent the avoidable and adapt to the unavoidable. Even with the best mitigation strategies, water related effects of climate change will come. The challenge for many nations is, how to adapt" said Berntell.

The Stockholm Water Prize, which was announced March 25, will be presented at a royal ceremony Aug. 20 to Bindeshwar, founder of the Sulabh Sanitation Movement in India. The Stockholm Industry Water Award was given to Trojan Technologies, a Canadian developer of large-scale ultraviolet disinfection systems, during an awards ceremony Aug. 17. On Aug.18, Ceren Burcak Dag of Turkey won the Stockholm Junior Water Prize and $5,000 for her innovative method for generating energy through piezoelectric impluses from falling raindrops.

What lies ahead for LCR?

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

There is little agreement, however, on what changes to the rule should be made, if any.

Marc Edwards, a civil engineering professor at Virginia Tech and a 2007 recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship for his work on the chemistry and toxicity of urban water supplies, has been a longtime and outspoken critic of DC WASA. He said the LCR is mostly adequate, and that it would be impossible to make it "foolproof."

"You could work to close every possible loophole in the rule," Edwards says, "but utilities will always be able to get around the rules if they want to."

Edwards did say, however, that making a single testing protocol the standard would be a step in the right direction.

"Why should we have 10,000 different at-the-tap sampling protocols?" Edwards said. "If one protocol were used by everyone, we would at least be able to have some consistency between utilities and their results."

Edwards said that some utilities could use the "wiggle room" offered by unclear standards or guidance as a way to sidestep their responsibilities under the rule.

Another weak spot in the rule, Edwards said, is its requirements for the selection of premises to be tested. "It needs to be clear in the rule that [premises] that should be tested are the ones where the highest lead levels are suspected," Edwards said. "That hasn't always been the case."

USEPA modified LCR monitoring and reporting requirements in Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications (72 FR 57782) and has issued guidance to states and USEPA regions on LCR sampling, sample plans, monitoring data, and compliance calculations in 2004 and 2006 that also clarify USEPA’s interpretation of the existing LCR requirements.

The agency has also been considering altering the rule, or at least making more clarifications to it, for some time; in a public meeting in October, agency officials discussed changes to the LCR treatment technique beyond the administrative changes captured in the Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications rulemaking, including:

• Clear public communication (e.g., What do action levels and action level exceedances actually represent? What information should be provided to customers after a partial lead service line replacement?)
• Adequacy of existing sample site tiers, in view of copper occurrence patterns and the aging of the currently targeted housing stock.
• Appropriateness of current LCR sampling practices (such as standardizing stagnation period prior to sampling, sample timing and type of samples employed following lead service line replacement).
• Degree to which analytical methods and sampling practices capture particulate lead.
• Short-term exposure consequences from lead service line replacement.
• How emerging corrosion control strategies fit within the LCR treatment technique framework.

Whether all these changes or clarifications are necessary or even desirable is an open question. AWWA's position is that the LCR doesn't require wholesale changes, but that the agency may want to offer some clarifications on certain aspects of it.

Steve Via, regulatory engineer in AWWA's Washington office, said that one thing USEPA should work on is reinforcing the distinction between the use of sampling results to track corrosion control efforts and their use to gauge lead exposure or health risk in individuals.

"There is nothing about [an individual’s lead] exposure in those guidelines," Via said. "They are only useful in monitoring corrosion control. Individual exposure or heath effects is a separate question."

In a January 2008 letter to USEPA, AWWA and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the agency should work harder to make clear that distinction, as well as summarizing LCR analytical method requirements separately for water system operators and certified laboratories.

Also, the letter said, agencies should be required to offer information on flushing and aerator cleaning to residents when their lead supply lines are replaced and to work with other stakeholders to develop effective on-premise water quality education for homeowners and building managers.

In any case, Via said, USEPA is unlikely to be offering any more guidance until the new administration's leaders are in place at the Office of Water. Enesta Jones, a USEPA spokesperson, said that although the agency is reviewing the LCR, there is no timeline for when any changes or clarifications might be made.

Additional AWWA resources:

• Distribution System Corrosion and the Lead and Copper Rule: An Overview of AwwaRF Research (PDF)
• Comments on the “Ground Water Rule Triggered and Representative Source Water
• Monitoring Guidance Manual (Public Review Draft, December 2008)” (PDF)

Water sector to measure security progress

The Water Sector will be the first critical infrastructure group to launch a second round of sector-specific security metrics. The 2009 metrics survey is set to launch on Sept. 22.

Last year's responses indicated that drinking water and wastewater utilities had made significant progress in many areas of security. To measure additional progress and gain an even better understanding of the sector’s overall security posture, the metrics collection effort is being conducted again.

The survey will be available online via the WaterISAC public website next week.

All utilities, regardless of ISAC affiliation, are encouraged to participate in this voluntary effort. The measures consist of a short series of questions expected to take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. All responses will be anonymous; participants will not be asked to list utility names or contact information.

These measures, developed by the Water Sector Coordinating Council, in partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Homeland Security, are an important means to determining the extent to which the sector is progressing in the areas of security, preparedness and resiliency.

A final report of aggregated sector-wide data will be made available in January. In addition to serving as a benchmarking resource for systems to use for comparison, the report will be used to inform sector security partners regarding the proactive posture of the nation's drinking water and wastewater utilities.

For questions or additional information, please contact Vance Taylor at WaterISAC.

Rural water appropriations pass both houses

Congress also shifted more funding for rural water and wastewater into grants.

The total Department of Agriculture appropriation for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010, totals $121.2 billion — $264 million more than the 2009 budget (which included the stimulus money) and $12.8 billion more than the regular FY2009 appropriation.

HR2997 makes appropriations for agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies' programs.

Here's what is in the bill for rural communities from a water point of view:

• Rural Utilities: Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program — $568.7 million
              More funding is shifted into grants, instead of loans. This amount is $12.5 million above the regular appropriation for FY2009 (more detail below).
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program — $1.18 billion
              (vs. $1.1 billion in FY2009)
• Water quality research — $12.6 million
• Natural Resources Conservation Services — $887.6 million
      including $37 million for congressionally designated projects
              (vs. $758 million in FY2009). Includes:
  • Grassroots Source Water Protection — $5 million
  • Watershed Rehabilitation Program — $40.2 million
  • Watershed and Flood Prevention — $30 million

The conference agreement provides $568.7 million for the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account, the amount proposed by the Senate, instead of the $556.2 million proposed by the House and the $546.2 million requested by the administration.

It includes $70 million for water and wastewater programs for Native American tribes and the Hawaiian Home Lands.

That also includes $19.5 million for technical assistance to rural water and wastewater systems, including $15 million for contracting with National Rural Water Association for a circuit rider program to provide technical assistance for rural water systems — a significant boost from FY2009 when $11.5 million was appropriated for that program.

That fund also supports the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. Language in the conference bill says that if the secretary of agriculture "makes a determination of extreme need," a $6 million grant from this fund would be made available to "a qualified nonprofit multi-state regional technical assistance organization with experience in working with small communities [under 3,300]"; the purpose of the grant would be to improve the planning, financing, development, operation and management of their systems.

The House passed its version of the bill (266 to 160) July 9. The Senate passed its version (80 to 17) Aug. 4. The House agreed to the conference report Oct. 7 and the Senate on Oct. 8. The president is expected to sign the bill.

Additional AWWA Resources

• "With 2009 budget passed, eyes turn to new water bill," AWWA Streamlines, (March 17)
• AWWA Government Affairs Web site offers regular updates.

Perchlorate comments vary as USEPA extends period

Perchlorate

As of the Sept. 23 announcement in Federal Register, the new comment period had gleaned around 500 comments, including one from Mark S. Mayer, natural resources director from South Dakota. He wrote, "Because South Dakota doesn't have any occurrence data, a new rule for perchlorate would be another regulatory burden for our drinking water systems but would result in no positive health benefits for their customers."

Comments filed by Mic Stewart, manager of MWD's water quality section, explained that perchlorate-contaminated groundwater seeping from a former Kerr-McGee plant in Nevada was flowing into Lake Mead, which is MWD's primary source. That plume created levels as high as 20 micrograms/L. Some 160 miles (260 km) south of the point where the perchlorate plume entered the lake, levels as high as 9 micrograms/L were detected at MWD's intake structure.

Since that discovery, the state of Nevada has worked with the plant's current owner (Tronox, Inc.) to bring the perchlorate volume down by 90 percent. However, Stewart says, that firm has now declared bankruptcy. As a result, the cleanup effort could be impeded or reversed, Stewart says, and California's maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 6 micrograms/L is not enforceable across state lines.

"Metropolitan believes that a determination by EPA not to regulate perchlorate in drinking water could adversely influence cleanup efforts along the Colorado River and other contaminated sites," Stewart wrote.

AWWA filed comments on Sept. 18, arguing that the primary health issue in this situation is iodine deficiency.  Perchlorate, a rocket fuel additive also found in fireworks and in nature, has been found to cause thyroid problems and growth retardation for fetuses of pregnant women who have an iodine deficiency.

If iodine 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 there are other sources of perchlorate than drinking water, such as food. 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.

AWWA added it "believes that the population exposed to perchlorate that was indicated by EPA's UCMR1 data is no longer valid." An informal survey conducted by AWWA found that agencies that had detected perchlorate had either quit using the source water or were treating it.

The cost of addressing the iodine deficiency via the SDWA was pointed out in a recent study published in Journal AWWA — "National Cost Implications of a Perchlorate Regulation" — that estimated the national compliance cost of setting an MCL of 4 micrograms/L would be between $76 million to $140 million per year.

USEPA included perchlorate on the first and second Contaminant Candidate Lists that were published in the Federal Register on March 2, 1998, and Feb. 24, 2005. On Oct. 10, 2008, USEPA released a preliminary determination that setting a national drinking water standard for perchlorate is not justified under terms of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Less than 1 percent of drinking water systems have perchlorate levels above the health reference level (HRL), the agency noted.

USEPA derived a perchlorate HRL of 15 micrograms/L for pregnant women and determined that this level is also appropriate for other subpopulations, including fetuses. A 30-day comment period followed after the Federal Register notice was published.

The action provoked protests from Congress and citizen groups. On November 12, 2008, EPA extended the comment period for 15 days. Ultimately the agency received 32,795 comment letters, 96 percent of which were from seven different apparent mass-mailing and letter-writing campaigns that did not support the preliminary determination.

Of the remaining 1,163 comment letters that would be considered "unique,'' 30 commenters provided USEPA with detailed comments. Of those 30 comment letters, six supported EPA's preliminary determination, the agency said.

USEPA reopened the comment period in August but originally said comments would close Sept. 18. The extension filed Sept. 23 was signed by Michael H. Shapiro, acting assistant administrator in USEPA's Office of Water, rather than by Peter Silva, USEPA's new water chief, who formerly was an advisor to MWD.

Additional AWWA Resources

• "USEPA re-evaluating perchlorate science," Streamlines, Aug. 18
• "USEPA: perchlorate MCL not justified," E-MainStream, Oct. 7, 2008
• AWWA study: Perchlorate Occurrence Mapping 2005. Author Philip Brandhuber has updated this study and will publish an article in Journal AWWA later this year.
• AWWA Government Affairs' Web site links on the perchlorate issue
• AWWA's DrinkTap.org page information for consumers on perchlorate

'Buy American' rule causing headaches for utilities?

Since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment  Act in February, industry officials have fretted over the law's "Buy American" provision, which nominally requires procurement for stimulus-funded projects to be 100 percent domestic content. Many in the industry have expressed concern that the requirement would hamper project development because of a lack of domestic suppliers for certain products.

But the law also provides agencies with authority to waive the "Buy American" provision, if it is deemed "in the public interest," if the use of American-made iron, steel or manufactured goods would increase the overall cost of the project by 25 percent or if domestic materials are not available in sufficient quantity or quality.

USEPA has already used a public interest waiver to get around the clause and allow some previously-funded water projects to obtain better financing. That waiver,