ARCHIVE SITE - Last updated Jan. 19, 2017. Please visit www.NACWA.org for the latest NACWA information.


Print
To: Members & Affiliates,
Legislative Policy Committee
From: National Office
Date: Sept. 18, 2008
Subject: SRF Reauthorization, Sewer Overflow Notification Bills Pass Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Reference: LA 08-4

 

The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee approved bills Sept. 17 establishing a sewer overflow notification program and reauthorizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) and Drinking Water SRF.  Both bills were reported out of committee by voice vote.  The Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act (S. 2080) icon-pdf, introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality, would establish a national program for monitoring, reporting, and notification of sewer overflows.  The Water Infrastructure Financing Act (S. 3500) icon-pdf would provide $38.5 billion over five years for both SRFs.

 

Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act (S. 2080)

The version of the bill approved by the EPW committee is based on legislation passed by the full House in June.  NACWA worked for several months with American Rivers and key staff from the House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee on the House version of the bill (H.R. 2452), introduced by Rep. Timothy Bishop (D-N.Y.), which passed June 23.  However, NACWA’s Board raised concerns with the final version of the House bill, especially with the fact that the definition of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) would amend the Clean Water Act and potentially lead to new liability concerns.  To address this problem, NACWA sent a letter in July to the Senate EPW Committee seeking a change to this provision.  In the Senate substitute amendment, NACWA successfully ensured that the definition of SSOs was moved to a section of the bill that limits its applicability to the monitoring, notification, and reporting provisions of the bill only.  In short, it does not amend the CWA’s definition of an SSO.  Speaking on the legislation at the mark-up, Lautenberg made this point that the substitution amendment contained a technical amendment that addresses liability concerns regarding accidental overflows. For further information please contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , NACWA’s general counsel, by email or phone at (202) 533-1803.

 

Water Infrastructure Financing Act (S. 3500)

The committee approved the bill in a voice vote with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the committee, opposing it.  The bill was amended to include the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions, which Inhofe opposes, saying it adds to the cost of the projects.  NACWA and the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) worked hard to get this legislation introduced in the Senate after it was passed by the House.  The original Senate bill contained $40 billion over five years for both SRFs — $20 billion for clean water; $15 billion for drinking water — as well as grants to small communities and $50 million for “critical water infrastructure projects,” focused on watershed restoration.  The bill also contained $2 billion in grants to address sewer overflows.  A second amendment reduced the cost of the entire bill by 2 percent, cutting overall funding to $38.5 billion.  More information on the SRF reauthorization bill is available from Susie BruningaThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , NACWA’s legislative and public affairs director, by email or phone at (202) 833-3280.

Because the Senate has a full schedule and a short timeframe in which to work before adjourning Sept. 26, the prospects for full passage of the bills are uncertain.  However, President Bush promised to veto the SRF reauthorization bill when it passed the House saying it was too expensive.  The House did pass it by a veto-proof majority, but again, time constraints could prevent this bill from becoming law, unless Congress decides to return after the election for a lame-duck session.