|
Headlines
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. |
Introduction of a bill July 14 to create a $10 billion annual federal water trust fund met with mixed reaction at a hearing in the US House of Representatives. Some industry associations support it, while AWWA and others don't support the concept at this time.
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
Senate confirms Silva to head USEPA water office
 | | Peter Silva has been confirmed as head of USEPA's water division. |
The US Senate approved the nomination of Peter Silva to be assistant administrator for water of the US Environmental Protection Agency, by voice vote July 10. As USEPA’s water chief, Silva will supervise staff charged with implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.
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:
Panel asks questions about bottled water regulation
 | | House subcommittee chairman Rep. Bart Stupak displayed this information at the hearing, based on the GAO report. |
Following a House subcommittee hearing on bottled water, congressional leaders sent letters to 13 bottled water companies asking them for the kind of information that public water systems routinely provide in the course of adhering to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The House Energy and Water Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held the July 8 hearing to examine current federal regulation of bottled water and to receive two reports: Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said (PDF) the two reports "raise questions about why the regulations governing bottled water are weaker than those governing tap water, as well as the widespread public perception that bottled water is healthier than water from the tap." Stupak said the GAO study was originally requested to examine whether federal and state authorities are adequately ensuring the safety of bottled water and the accuracy of claims regarding its purity and health benefits. Stupak thought some companies exaggerate claims about the health benefits of their products. "Bottled water is a billion-dollar-a-year industry, with sales up more than 83 percent this decade," Stupak said, and cited a Water Research Foundation that found 56 percent of bottled water drinkers cite health and safety as the primary reason they choose bottled water over tap water. "Consumers may not realize that many regulations that apply to municipalities responsible for tap water do not apply to companies that produce bottled water," Stupak said and put up a chart that outlined some of the differences. Summarizing the GAO report, John Stephenson (PDF), the GAO's director of natural resources and environment, said the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration, which has jurisdiction over bottled water as a food product, "generally mirror" the primary drinking water regulations that the US Environmental Protection Agency administers — with one "notable exception." The FDA is 15 years past the deadline for acting on DEHP (an organic compound widely used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride plastics). The "FDA deferred action in 1996 on DEHP in a final rule published in 1996 and has yet to either adopt a standard or publish a reason for not doing so," Stephenson said. The GAO report recommended, and the FDA agreed, that FDA take action on DEHP within a year after the conclusion of its study of the issue. The GAO found that FDA's statutory authority has key differences from those of other regulatory authorities, Stephenson said. For instance, he said, "FDA does not have the specific statutory authority to require bottlers to use certified laboratories for water quality tests or to report test results, even if violations of the standards are found." FDA does not require, nor is there any statute requiring the agency to order manufacturers to provide information to consumers information on the water's sources, detected contaminants and compliance with national primary drinking water regulations or on the potential health effects of certain drinking water contaminants — information such as USEPA requires public water systems to provide. Stupak said he has introduced The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR2749), which was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee June 17 and "which provides FDA with much-needed authority to access testing records of food and water suppliers." The environmental impacts of bottled water, also analyzed by the GAO report, are that three-quarters of the water bottles produced in the US in 2006 were discarded and not recycled. The production and consumption of bottled water is "much more energy-intensive than the production of public water," Stephenson said. Lastly, Stephenson noted, bottled water's status as a food has "subjected it to many of the same problems more generally affecting FDA oversight of food safety." The GAO issued a report in January 2007 designating federal oversight of food safety as a "high-risk" area. Not only is food safety a function that is fragmented between 15 federal agencies, but the FDA's dwindling resources have resulted in a 19 percent decrease in the number of FDA jobs devoted to food safety oversight between 2003 and 2007. He repeated the earlier conclusion that a fundamental examination of the food safety process is needed, and "FDA's lack of authority and resources to effectively regulate bottled water should be part of it." Letters signed by Stupak (PDF) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., were sent that same day asking 13 major bottlers (e.g, CocaCola, Pepsico, Nestlé) about their water sources, testing results (including any that exceeded the FDA's maximum contaminant levels), consumer complaints, treatment methods and more. Four underlying positions of the Environmental Working Group were outlined in testimony by Jane Houlihan (PDF), senior vice-president for research: - Consumers have a right to know where their bottled water comes from.
- Consumers have a right to know how their bottled water is treated.
- Consumers have a right to know what pollutants are in their bottled water.
- Many bottled water labels' claims and claims of purity are potentially misleading.
Houlihan said, "Our survey shows that far too often consumers have no simple way to learn [the first three] essential facts…Many large bottled water brands obscure basic data about their products." Furthermore, she said, consumers spend 1,900 times more for bottled water than for tap water, yet they rarely know basic information about exactly what's in their water bottle. Only 2 of 188 bottled water brands list specific water sources and treatment methods on their labels and offer recent water quality test reports on the Web sites. In particular, she wanted bottled water companies to test for unregulated chemicals that may leach from plastic bottles. Additional AWWA Resources
Water sector seeks higher priority in disaster recovery
When it comes to recovery from a major disaster, water systems are likely to get higher priority if President Obama accepts last week's recommendation from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council. In the wake of disasters such as hurricanes Katrina and Ike, the 2008 Iowa floods and the 2009 ice storm, leaders of the Water and Wastewater Agency Response Networks (WARNs) now organized in 43 states have said the needs of the water sector continue to slip on the priority ranking of disaster response agencies. It isn't that water systems were unimportant in the response category they were in, says Kevin Morley, AWWA's security and preparedness program manager. "It's more that water systems just got lost in the logjam of requests regarding roads, bridges, traffic control, debris removal, dams and levees." Hence the President's NIAC undertook a study focusing on response and recovery of infrastructure services from major disasters. With Ed Archuleta, president and CEO of El Paso Water Utilities as co-chair, the study group concluded that water services needed to be elevated to its own emergency support function (ESF) under the National Response Framework. The entire council concurred with the study group's recommendation. "Now — if the president accepts this recommendation — water will have its own desk and dedicated staffer in the emergency centers," Morley said, "and won't have to compete for attention with the debris and bridges and roads and all." Another recommendation accepted by the NIAC was adoption of the Best Practices for Water Services Recovery Planning, which includes water services in all disaster/emergency response and recovery training and exercises. What that does is - Allow Homeland Security grants to address auxiliary backup power systems for key water systems sites,
- Include a WARN-focused curriculum in Emergency Management Assistance Compact training programs to improve understanding of WARN system networks and mutual aid and assistance programs, and
- Establish guidelines that will ensure emergency response plans address necessary chlorine transportation for water treatment during an emergency.
In related news, the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterISAC) announced a joint webinar on WARNs presented by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Water and Wastewater Agency Response Network (CalWARN) on Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2:30-3:30 p.m. ET. The webinar will include - The history of the WARN Program;
- Examples of WARN success stories;
- Tools, training and technical assistance available to develop robust WARNs; and
- The future of WARNs in an all-hazards security environment.
Sign up can be done online. Additional AWWA Resources
Water Legislation — Appropriations, chemical security
Following is a roundup of actions in the 111th Congress affecting the US water industry. Topics covered below: SRF changes, reauthorization — Chemical security — Interior/USEPA appropriations — Water appropriations: House, Senate —.Agriculture appropriations — Bottled water regulations — Perchlorate regulation — Arkansas River protection PROGRESSING - Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2009 (S1005)
Reauthorizes the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund (SRF) and the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund to improve wastewater and drinking water infrastructure in the United States.
The bill also makes changes to the SRFs
—Expands the entities and activities eligible for assistance;
—Establishes and improves other related grant and technical assistance programs;
—Requires USEPA to establish simplified procedures for small systems to obtain assistance and to publish those procedures in a manual;
—Provides new flexibility for states in providing assistance to disadvantaged communities and incentives for states to increase the use of cost-saving water treatment and energy efficiency improvements;
—Ensures that treatment works are able to receive financing for engineering costs and other planning costs that precede actual construction. This provision will ensure that small communities with few resources available to develop a project in its early stages can receive assistance for pre-construction activities, and develop SRF applications;
—Clarifies that capital costs associated with monitoring equipment for combined or sanitary sewer overflows are eligible for SRF funds.
The bill establishes a new research program at the US Environmental Protection Agency, focused on water conservation, efficiency and reuse, and establishes a demonstration grant program to promote innovative water treatment and conservation technologies.
The bill gives official authorization to USEPA's WaterSense program, which certifies water-efficient consumer products.
It authorizes appropriations over five years of
—$20 billion for the capitalization of state revolving funds,
—$1.8 billion for sewer overflow control grants,
—$25 million for grants to small treatment works to overcome barriers to accessing the SRFs,
—$15 million for grants to medium treatment works to overcome barriers to accessing the SRFs,
—$50 million for the watershed restoration grant program.
Status: Approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitution and placed on the Senate calendar for a vote on July 15. Introduced May 7.
Sponsor: Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md. Co-sponsors: Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. (E&PW Committee chair); Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., (ranking member); Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.
- Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act of 2009 (HR2868)
Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend, modify and recodify the authority of the secretary of Homeland Security to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, and for other purposes.
Removes the previous exemption and now includes drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities under the purview of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). Prohibits the federal government from ordering any wastewater treatment facility to cease operations. Orders DHS to consult with the USEPA regarding security at co-owned or co-operated drinking water and wastewater facilities.
Would require all public and private drinking water and wastewater facilities to complete an initial assessment of their chemical holdings.
Republican members expressed surprise that the majority did not accommodate President Obama’s request for a one-year extension. The Democrats were unwilling to entertain a one-year extension of DHS’s current chemical facility regulatory authority.
However, President Obama’s FY2010 budget request submitted to Congress included this extension as part of DHS' FY2010 appropriations bill (HR2892), which passed the House June 24 (389–37); passed the Senate July 9 (84–6) and is now in conference to reconcile differences. This provision would remain in effect if HR2868 does not pass.
Status: Reported to the House July 13, as amended by the House Homeland Security Committee and referred to the House Judiciary Committee for a period ending not later than July 31, 2009.
Sponsor: Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.Co-sponsors: 6 Democrats
- Interior - Environment Appropriations Fiscal Year 2010 (HR2996)
A bill making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, US Environment Protection Agency and related agencies for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended trimming the president's request by $330 million to $10.16 billion — taking $230 million from the State and Tribal Assistance Grants program and the remainder from programs and buidlings.
Status: Reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee to the Senate July 7 and sent to the full Senate, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Sponsor: Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. No reported co-sponsors
- Energy and Water Appropriations for FY2010 (HR3183)
[Senate version listed separately below]
Appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies — e.g., Bureau of Reclamation, US Army Corps of Engineers, Central Utah Project, California Bay-Delta Restoration.
The House bill for FY2010 totals $33.3 billion, a decrease of $1.086 billion from the president's budget request, and $46 million above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2009.
The House Appropriations Committee recommends $5.5 billion for the programs of the US Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of $416 million from the budget request, and $138 million above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The House committee recommended $1.037 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation, $17 million above the budget request and $37.9 million below the FY2009 enacted level, excluding emergency appropriations. The committee recommends $42 million for the Central Utah Project, same as the budget request. Related Bills: HRes645, S1436.
Status: Passed by the House July 17 (320–97). Introduced and referred out of the House Appropriations Committee July 13.
Sponsor: Rep. Ed Pastor, D-AZ. No co-sponsors.
- Energy - Water Appropriations Fiscal 2010 (S1436)
An original bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010.
Under the Senate bill, the Army Corps of Engineers also would get $5.5 billion. The Bureau of Reclamation would get almost $1.1 billion, which is $38 million less than in fiscal 2009 and less than the House bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee listed 622 member-directed earmarks valued at more than $342 million in the draft fiscal 2010 energy - water appropriations bill it approved on July 9.
Many of the amendments focus on funding for water infrastructure and drought-relief projects. Other amendments include
• An amendment by California Democrats Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza that would facilitate water transfers within their state’s Central Valley Project.
• An amendment by Costa and Cardoza to boost funding by $10 million for the California Bay - Delta Restoration Program, diverting the money from the Bureau of Reclamation’s commissioner’s office.
Status: Approved July 9 by the Senate Appropriations Committee and sent to the Senate; placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
Sponsor: Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D.No reported co-sponsors
- Agriculture Appropriations for FY2010 (HR2997, S1406)
Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies programs for the FY2010.
Status: HR2997 passed the House (266-160) on July 9, with 95 percent of Democrats supporting, and 85 percent of Republicans opposing, and 6 not voting. Includes:
$546.2 million for the rural utilities service (the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act) for rural water and waste programs, which is exactly what the president asked for, but $10 million less than what was appropriated for FY2009. Funding for grants under this program increased $65 million, while funding for loans declined $72 million.
S1406 was reported to the Senate July by the Senate Appropriations Committee and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Includes $568 million for rural utilities service.
Sponsors: In the House, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. No reported co-sponsors. In the Senate, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. No reported co-sponsors.
INTRODUCED: - Safe Drinking Water for Healthy Communities Act of 2009 (HR3206)
A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require a national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate.Not later than 12 months after enactment, USEPA shall publish in the Federal Register a proposed national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate.
"Not later than 18 months after the date of publication of the proposed national primary drinking water regulation…, after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate."
Status: Introduced July 14 and referred to House Energy and Commerce.
Sponsor: Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif. Co-sponsors: 26 Democrats
- Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2009 (S1417, HR3123)
A bill to require the Bureau of Reclamation, to remedy problems caused by a collapsed drainage tunnel in Leadville, Colo., protecting water supply for Leadville and downstream communities on the Arkansas River.
Status: Introduced in both houses on July 8. Referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee.
Sponsors: Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo. and Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo. No reported co-sponsors.
Hot Topics — Climate change, conservation, SAB, stimulus
SDWA — WORKSHOP — CONSERVATION — STIMULUS — CALIFORNIA — SAB — RESEARCH — WARN — WATER QUALITY SDWA. The US Environmental Protection Agency announced that Massachusetts and Rhode Island are in the process of revising their Public Water System Supervision programs to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Massachusetts has adopted regulations for the 2002 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; upon review, USEPA announced that it intends to approve the program revision. Rhode Island has adopted regulations for the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, the 1998 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, and the 2000 Radionuclides Rule. Upon review, USEPA says it will approve those program revisions as well. WORKSHOP. The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators will host a water resources/climate change workshop in Denver Sept. 29–Oct. 1. The principal audiences are state and utility drinking water staff and state and local water resource planners and managers. All interested federal, state and local partner organizations are invited to attend but space is limited. CONSERVATION. Dan Bena, head of sustainability efforts for PepsiCo, will be the opening keynote speaker for the WaterSmart Innovations Conference and Exposition, Oct. 7-9 in Las Vegas. In 2007, PepsiCo adopted global metrics to track its environmental footprint and was one of the first companies of its size to publicly commit to resource-conservation goals. Using 2006 as a baseline, the company is pursuing 20 percent reductions of water and electricity and a 25 percent reduction in fuel use. STIMULUS. USEPA announced the following awards to Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and other drinking water projects: Tribal Lands - $90 million Arkansas - $24 million Louisiana - $27 million New Mexico - $19.5 million Oklahoma - $31 million Texas - $160 million Puerto Rico - $72 million Colorado - $27 million Indiana - $27 million Tennessee - $77 million The agency says that $6 billion will be awarded to fund water and wastewater infrastructure projects across the country under the Recovery Act in the form of low-interest loans, principal forgiveness and grants. CALIFORNIA. The US Bureau of Reclamation released for comment the Delta-Mendota Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Intertie is a proposal to connect the Delta-Mendota Canal to the California Aqueduct to improve DMC conveyance. Two public hearings are scheduled on the Draft EIS: Aug. 4 in Sacramento, and Aug. 5 in Stockton. Comments on the Draft EIS are due by August 31. And the US Geological Survey released a water-modeling tool that provides a detailed picture of how water flows underground and how it relates to surface water in rivers and canals in the Central Valley. "Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California,” gives water managers the ability to simulate a number of water-management scenarios and assess possible changes in both groundwater and surface-water supplies, the USGS said. SAB. The USEPA's Science Advisory Board is requesting nominations of experts to augment the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee to review an agency white paper on deriving estimates for the value of mortality risk reduction for use in cost-benefit analysis of agency rules and regulations. Nominations should be submitted by July 29; anyone wishing more information may contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, designated federal officer at the SAB staff office. Also, the SAB announced two public teleconferences to conduct quality reviews of two draft reports. A quality review of the SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee draft report on USEPA's Economic Analysis Guidelines Update is scheduled from 2- 3:30 p.m. ET on Aug. 6; a review of the draft report from its Expert Elicitation Advisory Panel will be held from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET on Aug. 28. Agendas and other materials for the teleconferences will be placed on the SAB Web site before each meeting. RESEARCH. USEPA announced the withdrawal of the policy document "Guidance for Submission of Probabilistic Human Health Exposure Assessments to the Office of Pesticide Programs." The document offered submission and review guidance to the Office of Pesticide Programs, but the agency said it has been superseded by "Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide Chemicals That Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity (PDF),'' and by the "General Principles for Performing Aggregate Exposure and Risk Assessment (PDF).'' WARN. WaterISAC subscribers can join representatives from USEPA and the California Water and Wastewater Agency Response Network on Aug. 4, 2:30-3:30 p.m. ET, for a webinar about mutual aid and assistance in the water sector. The webinar will include a history of the WARN program; examples of WARN success stories; tools, training and technical assistance available to develop robust WARNs; and a look at the future of WARNs in an all-hazards security environment. WATER QUALITY. USEPA announced public meetings in each Great Lakes state on the federal government's draft action plan for restoring the Great Lakes. The meetings will focus on five principal areas: toxic substances and areas of concern; invasive species; near shore health and runoff; habitat and wildlife protection and restoration and accountability, monitoring, evaluation, communication and partnerships. Dates and times for the meetings are available on the agency's Great Lakes Restoration page.
In the news
The best drinking-water reporting and resources from around the Web, as recommended by AWWA Streamlines staff: Water Management "State's water debate now in Congress' hands," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 18, 2009 "Feds document shrinking San Joaquin Valley aquifer," Sacramento Bee (Calif.), July 13, 2009 "Officials recommend merger of San Bernardino area water agencies," The Sun (San Bernardino, Calif.), July 11, 2009 "Water forever says Walker," Payson Roundup (Ariz.), June 26, 2009 Conservation "Surge in water saving," Press-Democrat (Santa Rosa, Calif.), July 12, 2009 "Truth drought: California's real shortfall," San Francisco Chronicle, June 30, 2009 Water Rates "Cal Water proposing rate hikes," Chico Enterprise-Record (Calif.), July 11, 2009 "Troubled water district rejects plan to boost rates," Napa Valley Register (Calif.), June 27, 2009 Chlorine "VVWRA forced to make $15 million in upgrades," Daily Press (Victorville, Calif.), July 10, 2009 Arsenic "Local engineer combats arsenic-contaminated water," Rancho Santa Fe Review (Calif.), July 10, 2009 Other "USGS: Ogallala aquifer water quality currently acceptable," Lincoln Journal Star (Neb.), July 19, 2009 "Bottled Water Makers in the Hot Seat," New York Times, July 17, 2009 "Advancing Crucial Clean Water Standards," Washington Post, July 13, 2009 "Guilty pleas by burglars accused of posing as Santa Clara Water Company workers," Mercury-News (San Jose, Calif.), July 11, 2009 "City runs drinking water under landfill without permission," KTAL (Shreveport, La.), July 10, 2009
Technology & Practice
A heavenly security check
Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.  | | The York Water Company's fisheye lens caught the only image of the falling meteor (upper right). |
At 1 a.m. July 6, a brilliant light and large boom rattled houses and woke up people all along the Mason–Dixon Line in Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Although no damage was reported, calls poured into 911 centers and local media hot lines. News reports throughout Monday mentioned the event and described several eyewitness accounts of a large light crossing the sky. According to online news accounts, no one seemed to have gotten a picture—which surprised Jeffrey R. Hines, president and CEO of The York Water Company. As he read the news accounts about the lack of pictures or video, it dawned on Hines to check the utility's security cameras. Since 9/11, York Water, like many water utilities, has invested in cameras as a means to deter, detect and respond to physical security threats at its facilities. Hines can view all of the company’s supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and security camera feeds from his office in downtown York, Pa. Hines soon discovered that at least six of the cameras at four different locations picked up the bright light, but only one camera was oriented to actually see the meteorite. It was a small fish-eye lens located at a gate so that a plant operator can see who is in a vehicle. All the other cameras are generally posted high up and pointed down to the ground. "After we realized we had a recording of the meteorite, we decided to send it to the media for a couple of reasons," said Hines. First, the meteorite on camera was an interesting news story and good public relations for the community and the company, which is the oldest investor-owned utility in the United States. Even more compelling for the utility was the message about security. "Sharing the video didn’t compromise security; it actually put folks on notice that water utilities are being vigilant," said Hines, whose utility serves 170,000 people in 46 municipalities in York and Adams counties in Pennsylvania. The streaking meteorite has provided York Water with several simple security checks: - Verification of camera operation. The event provided an excellent reason to review all of the security camera recordings to verify that they are in good working order and that the recordings are working.
- Assessment of nighttime recording. One of the things Hines' staff noticed was that bright light in the field of vision can degrade the picture because some of the cameras are designed for low-light and/or infra-red (IR) use during the night. York has since reviewed all of its cameras and either made adjustments to where the camera was aimed or to the lights so that they highlight the targeted area instead of washing it out.
- Evaluation of "loop" length. Different cameras have different "loop" lengths. All of the cameras record to a digital video recording (DVR) hard drive. Depending on the size of the hard drive, number of cameras on the system and quality of picture, some of the cameras were looping in as little as 48 hours. Also, as more cameras are added, the loop length gets shorter.
York Water previously thought that 48 hours would provide an adequate history. However, this incident and some previous incidents in which the cameras detected some potential criminal activity on adjacent properties prompted the utility to lengthen the minimum loop length to one week. Critical cameras have longer time loops. Another way to extend loop length on the DVR is to set internal cameras in empty rooms at night to only record when they sense movement. The only recording of the large meteorite, the 2-second video was a hit with the media and is now posted on YouTube. Twelve newspapers and TV stations requested permission to use the video. The meteorite still hasn’t been found, despite the efforts of four meteorite hunters who have passed through the area trying to locate any objects that may have fallen to earth. One of the hunters, Steve Arnold, co-star of Science Channel's "Meteorite Men," brought along his producer and cameraman. "Although York Water hasn’t started pointing all of its cameras to the heavens to hunt meteorites, it has turned into an excellent exercise," Hines said. "Of course, the next question is: Should we include "meteorite hit" in our vulnerability assessments?"
Colorado Springs takes slow, steady approach to social media
Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article. When managers at Colorado Springs Utilities made the decision to dip a toe into the social media waters, they knew they were headed to a place few utilities had gone before. But they figured that with plenty of deliberation and planning, they could avoid making any big mistakes. So far, that caution has paid off, as CSU's numbers of Facebook friends, Twitter followers and YouTube views have built steadily over the past few months. "We really want to make sure that we have an overall strategy, that we aren't just doing things to do them," said Gabriel Romero, senior communications specialist at the utility. "We talked about how to go about this for quite a while before we put anything up [on the Web]." Romero said part of the utility's deliberate approach to social media includes incorporating it into traditional marketing. "Follow us on Twitter and Facebook" appears in CSU's bus, print and Web advertising, as well as in the videos it has posted. Probably within the next month, Romero said, the utility will start hosting a blog, which will also be incorporated into the mix. "At our media meetings every week, along with the usual topics, we talk about what to post," he said. "We want to make sure that we're putting content up there all the time, so that people don't just find something that hasn't been updated in months." Romero said that some of the hassles reported in other businesses, such as inter-departmental turf fights and pushback from higher-ups who don't "get" social media, were not a problem at CSU, probably because of the systematic approach his team took to getting the work approved. "We had to make a proposal, which clearly said what we hoped to accomplish and what it was going to take to get there," Romero said, "and how we could measure the effectiveness along the way. We really didn't have any problems with people who didn't 'get it,' because we made the case that this was something we thought was worth doing." "And even though utilities aren't typically on the cutting edge of things, it's not as if this is something no other companies are doing," Romero said. "Coca-Cola, Pepsi, lots of big companies are doing this, and they're all new at it, too, seeing what works and what doesn't." Romero said that there were initially some IT issues. "Being a utility, we were behind such a firewall that you couldn't even check your Hotmail account," he said. "But once we got approval from higher up, the IT department worked with us and we haven't had any trouble." CSU, which incorporates the city's water, wastewater, electricity and natural gas services, may have more to post about — and more frequently — than just a water department would. So far the bulk of the utility's Facebook and Twitter posts have been related to energy savings, with some water-conservation information thrown in. Romero says Twitter could eventually be used to notify customers of service interruptions, but that may be a while — and a lot more subscribers — off. "This time of year, we might be posting more about water issues than other things," he said. "But in the winter it could be more about energy. We're just seeing how different things work and taking our time finding our way along." The slow and steady approach is the one Romero would recommend to other utilities that may be thinking about giving social media a try. "Think about content, see what people respond to, and keep track of what works and what doesn't," he says. Additional Resources
Utility Briefs — Atlanta, Wichita, East Bay MUD, Baltimore...
ATLANTA, GA. — WICHITA, KAN. — SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY — EAST BAY MUD — SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT — MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT — ARIZONA STIMULUS RECIPIENTS — BAD RIVER BAND (WIS.) — BALTIMORE PUBLIC WORKS ATLANTA, GA. Georgia's drought declaration may have been lifted, but Atlanta's mayor warned citizens July 20 that they need to continue conserving water. "Our water resources are not unlimited. The city of Atlanta is doing its part with the $4 billion Clean Water Atlanta water and sewer infrastructure overhaul," Shirley Franklin said. The city cut its water use 17 percent over pre-drought usage and is pursuing a vigorous lead reduction program. One hundred miles (160 km) of water mains have been replaced; 750 leaks a months are being repaired vs. a pre-2003 repair rate of 750 leaks per year. WICHITA, KAN. The US Bureau of Reclamation announced it will help the city of Wichita, Kan. complete the aquifer storage and recovery component (ASR) of Wichita's Integrated Local Water Supply Plan. The broader ILWSP was developed in 1993 to provide municipal and industrial water to Wichita and surrounding region through the year 2050. The ASR component would collect water from the Little Arkansas River basin and pipe it into the local Equus Beds aquifer for recharge and storage. Operation, maintenance, replacement and liability of the new division would be the responsibility of the city. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY. SDCWA announced construction is under way for the San Vicente Dam Raise project — the tallest dam raise ever in the United States and a vital component of the San Diego County Water Authority’s long-term plan to improve regional water reliability. The $568 million project will increase local water storage capacity by 152,000 acre-ft (187 million m3). Raising San Vicente Dam will provide the biggest increase in regional water storage in San Diego County history. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT. East Bay MUD has the first wastewater treatment plant in the nation to turn food waste into energy, according to a release from Region 9 USEPA. EBMUD takes food waste from restaurants and commercial food processors and processes it through anaerobic digestion to produce energy. A video on the East Bay Utility District’s anaerobic digester is available online. SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. SBVMWD announced earlier this month (PDF) it had accepted a $50,000 donation from Inland Empire Resource Conservation District for a proposed water conservation garden to be located at California State University–San Bernardino campus. The partnership saw the project as an opportunity for classroom environmental education. MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. MMWD announced results of an opinion poll, showing customers rated the county's long-term water supply as the number one challenge — ahead of jobs and traffic, even. Some 58 percent of consumers would support a desalination option in a multi-pronged approach to the district's future water supply. This rose to 68 percent when more information was provided. Conservation was viewed as providing part of the solution; 55 percent thought they could do more to conserve. ARIZONA STIMULUS RECIPIENTS. The Arizona Water Infrastructure Finance Authority has posted online the loans of stimulus funds made to individual water and wastewater utilities. They include $63.5 million Phoenix, Tempe and other Maricopa County agencies (PDF), $2.3 million to Arizona American Water and $1.8 million to improve the water supply for Flagstaff. BAD RIVER BAND. The US Environmental Protection Agency has granted authority to the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians to run its own water quality standards program on its northern Wisconsin reservation. This authority is for the standards programs only. The tribe will have to submit the actual water quality standards developed to USEPA for another round of review and approval. Since 1989, 45 tribes in the United States have been authorized to administer the water quality standards program. These include five tribes in USEPA Region 5: the Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake), the Lac du Flambeau Band of Chippewa and now the Bad River Band of Chippewa in Wisconsin; and the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa and the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa in Minnesota. The band's application and the decision documents will be posted on USEPA's Web site. BALTIMORE PUBLIC WORKS. The city of Baltimore imposed immediate mandatory water restrictions (PDF) July 17 for an area including 150,000 residents. The public works department said it is performing preventative maintenance on a 54-inch (1,350-mm) water main providing drinking water to northwestern portions of Baltimore City and County and began experiencing heavy water use in the area. Prohibited are lawn watering, ornamental waterfalls and fountains, use of automated sprinklers in gardens and washing cars except in a business with a conservation plan. Updated Dec. 1, 2009, to correct error in East Bay Municipal Utilities District name.
New volunteer feature highlights opportunities
Editor's Note: This new feature will detail openings on AWWA committees, divisions and councils. Starting next issue, readers can click on the VOLUNTEER button to find out about current requests for volunteers. AWWA committees, all staffed by volunteers, are the workhorses behind all that AWWA does ― determining the standards, writing the policy statements and manuals, selecting workshops and presentations for conferences and seminars. Thousands of AWWA members already support their profession and the association through service on these volunteer groups, and, except for administrative committees, they add members throughout the year. Occasionally new committees are formed, and most committees have few restrictions on numbers and qualifications of volunteers. The Standards committees, however, are restricted to equal membership from utilities and manufacturers. To learn more about volunteer opportunities, visit our Get Involved/Volunteer page, which links you to all essential resources, including our online list of committees, staff contact information and an online Volunteer Application Form. Currently, AWWA is looking for volunteers to serve on Also, every September, AWWA solicits nominees for administrative committees, councils and divisions through Streamlines.
Webcasts: Chemical quality, security
AWWA is offering two webcasts in the upcoming weeks that deal with chemicals. On Wednesday, July 29, 1 p.m. ET, the first one will deal with new federal legislation regarding chemical safety and security. Speakers for the 90-minute webcast, Outlook for Chemical Security: Are You Prepared?, will be - Kurt Vause, engineering division manager at the Anchorage (Ak.) Water and Wastewater Utility and member of AWWA's Water Utility Council,
- Dennis Deziel, deputy director of the US Department of Homeland Security's Infrastructure Security Compliance Division,
- Paul Swaim, global technology leader for water treatment for CH2M HILL, and
- Steve Creel, engineering practice leader for American Water.
After an update on the scope and current status of the chemical security legislation, the speakers will address the impact on water utilities, key elements of chemical facility security, including security issues in the choice of disinfectants, and maintaining compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and regulations. The webcast will provide utilities with the information to begin preparing for anticipated changes in chemical security regulations. The next webcast will be a week later on Aug. 5 at 1 p.m. ET. The Chemicals: Best Practices for Quality Assurance webcast will provide practical tools for selecting chemicals, evaluating chemical feed systems, establishing delivery procedures and reviewing security and emergency response plans. The 90-minute webcast will address best practices and evaluation of chemical selection, optimization and process control, and protocols for quality assurance and safe handling of treatment chemicals, as well as emergency response plans. The webcast will also look at market issues. Speakers include - Brad Coffey, water treatment manager for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
- Raj Vaidya, an engineer with CDM, and
- Phil Zollinger, water maintenance supervisor for St. Paul (Minn.) Regional Water Services.
Participants can receive credit for continuing education or professional development for each of the webcasts.
Bookshelf: Choosing a disinfectant
A new guide for utilities provides a systematic method for evaluating disinfectants for water, wastewater and reuse treatment.
Central to the design and operation of drinking water, wastewater, and reuse systems, disinfectants cover a wide range of chemicals; each has unique advantages, risks and security issues. To make the best decisions, utility managers must evaluate disinfectants not only for operation and maintenance issues, budget impact and effectiveness in meeting water-quality requirements, but also for operator and community safety, physical security requirements, potential risks and environmental impacts. Selecting Disinfectants in a Security-Conscious Environment can help decision makers identify the best choice. The guide compares various disinfectants side-by-side. Charts list the advantages, disadvantages, typical uses, effectiveness, regulations, relative costs, safety and security considerations, and other relevant parameters, for - free chlorine (gas, sodium or calcium hypochlorite, on-site generated hypochlorite)
- chloramines
- ultraviolet light
- ozone
- chlorine dioxide
The report also provides a scientific methodology to analyze and quantify safety and security risks and costs for any type of disinfectant. It is the latest report funded by the Water Industry Technical Action Fund, which undertakes projects in support of sound and effective legislation, regulation and drinking water policies and programs. The information presented is consistent with the US Environmental Protection Agency's water utility security guidelines and the Department of Homeland Security’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. Orders for the print issue can be placed online, by phone (1-800-926-7337), by e-mail to AWWA Customer Service or by mail to 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver CO 80235-3098. Note: AWWA utility members have received notice of how to download a PDF file of this guide, which will be available for free until Aug. 10.
Safety policy revisions proposed
The AWWA Technical and Educational Council has approved the revision of the Policy Statement on Safety. The policy was originally adopted by the AWWA Board of Directors in 1997 and revised in 2004. The supporting section of the policy statement has been rewritten to emphasize the importance of leadership, a culture of safety and the participation of everyone in the workplace. To review or comment on the proposed policy statement, click on the title. The deadline for comments is Sept. 18. Comments will be reviewed by the Administrative and Policy Council before being approved for consideration and action by the AWWA Board of Directors.
Journal looks at cap-and-trade bill
Fred Pontius analyzes the effect the proposed cap-and-trade bill would have on water utilities in the July issue of Journal AWWA. The regular author of the magazine's "Legislation/Regulation" column tackles a lengthy and complex piece of legislation in "ACESA Cap-and-Trade to Affect Water Utilities." (The Journal AWWA is a member benefit; to see the article online, readers must log in.) Titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR2454), the 900-page-plus bill covers a wide range of issues, including renewable electricity requirements, carbon sequestration and energy efficiency. Pontius cites studies that critique the hoped-for limit on warming temperatures and assesses the impact on energy prices and the cost of living. While the bill has already passed the US House of Representatives with major changes, the issues the bill is intended to address will occupy senators and the public for the foreseeable future.
Water For People reports record year for fundraising
Despite tough economic times, people are finding a place in their hearts to donate to Water For People and the cause of safe drinking water and sanitation around the world.
The employees of several large corporations have made this a record fundraising year for WFP. Employees from CH2M HILL raised more than $229,000 through online donations, personal checks, fundraising events and payroll deductions. Elisa Speranza, a CH2M HILL executive who also is the president of Water For People’s board of directors, said, "We are especially gratified by the participation from many in our offices outside of North America this year. Even in this economy, our people remain committed to bringing clean water and sanitation to those most in need and are willing to open their hearts and their wallets." American Water, the largest investor-owned US water and wastewater utility company, donated more than $216,000 to WFP through its companywide 2009 fundraising campaign. More than $140,000 of that was raised from employee contributions through personal checks and payroll deductions. "I cannot overstate Water For People’s tremendous work throughout much of the developing world in securing quality water and health resources for those who strongly and urgently need it," said Ellen Wolf, American Water senior vice president and chief financial officer, who serves on the WFP board. As the chair of American Water's 2009 giving campaign, she credits the creativity of American Water employees in promoting fundraising campaigns and events. "Water For People's roots are in the North American water and wastewater community, and they remain our core supporters every year," said Ned Breslin, WFP chief executive officer. "We wouldn’t be where we are today if it weren't for the employees of companies like CH2M HILL and American Water." These companies are joined by other workplace-giving supporters at Denver Water, CDM, Miami - Dade Water and Sewer Department, Brown and Caldwell, the Las Vegas Valley Water District and AWWA.
Quick Take
| 
