January 2015
» Archive

NACWA . . . Effective Advocacy, Rock Solid Reputation

As we celebrate NACWA’s 45th Anniversary this year, it is important to trace the roots of the organization from its humble beginnings to its powerhouse status today. A small group of General Managers of major urban utilities began meeting in 1969 and formed the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) in 1970 to bring attention to the need to provide significant funding to the Nation’s metropolitan areas as Congress debated the structure of what we now fondly refer to as the Clean Water Act. They sensed that Congress was going to up the ante and they did not want to be short-changed as they had been under the previous law. They wanted to speak with one voice on issues pertaining to water pollution control. They also wanted a way to exchange important information relating to the management of their utilities.

The first important decision AMSA’s founders had to address was where to house the new organization. With an anticipated shoestring budget, they considered affiliating with the National League of Cities (NLC) or the Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF – now WEF). In their view, however, WPCF was primarily focused on technical issues and NLC’s focus on a broad range of urban issues would drown out their desire to focus exclusively on water pollution control. They did not want to spend a great deal of time lobbying NLC or WPCF to embrace their large city point of view, choosing instead to jump-start the discussion of the important issues of the day. As a result, they opted it go it alone, signed incorporation papers in 1970, and opened for business in the offices of Seattle Metro, where Tom Gibbs – AMSA’s first President – served as General Manager.

Right from the start, AMSA focused exclusively on its legislative agenda. AMSA’s credibility with the House and Senate as they debated the new law was excellent and the new organization was highly thought of and looked to as a credible resource for information. In addition to federal funding, the key reason for AMSA’s formation, the group also advocated on the need to balance more stringent water quality requirements with the availability of financing, while also tailoring the new requirements to existing water quality conditions, with the proposed across-the-board secondary treatment policy of major concern. When the dust settled and Congress had agreed on the terms of the proposed new law, AMSA sent a telegram to President Nixon recommending that he sign the bill into law – this despite the fact that AMSA did not get everything it wanted. The President ignored AMSA’s advice and also the advice of the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and vetoed the bill, which was then overturned by the Congress by large margins and enacted into law.

With the new law in place, AMSA shifted its attention to regulatory issues and worked closely with EPA as it implemented the new law. First and foremost, AMSA pressed EPA for regulations to ensure that grant funds were distributed quickly without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. And when the Administration impounded half of the grant funding in the law, AMSA member New York City filed suit and ultimately prevailed two years later in the Supreme Court, which restored the funds to the program. In addition to the grant program, AMSA pressed EPA on the need for National sludge guidelines because AMSA members were ultimately going to be responsible for managing this by-product of the secondary treatment process; National pretreatment standards as a means to ensure better water and sludge quality; implementation of area-wide and river basin planning because a watershed approach to water pollution control made sense – even back then; and the need to develop wet weather water quality standards.

By the mid-seventies, as the fledgling organization’s reputation solidified and it continued to grow, AMSA’s leadership recognized that a Washington presence was essential for the future. Preston Tack, AMSA’s first Executive Director who operated out of Seattle Metro, deserves the credit for taking the seeds of AMSA and growing them into a full-fledged national organization. But with the implementation of the law by EPA in full throttle, AMSA needed a full-time presence in Washington.

The Association opted for a Washington DC-based management firm to represent its interests. The firm, Linton, Mields, Reisler and Cottone (LMRC), was headed up by Ron Linton, who became AMSA’s second Executive Director. Under Ron’s leadership, assisted by Lee White – AMSA’s long-standing General Counsel – the organization continued to flourish. A regular meeting schedule with the EPA Administrator was established; a technical conference schedule was instituted to focus on the big issues of the day; and the organization started to focus on the recommendations of the National Commission on Water Quality, established by the law to review progress and offer any needed mid-course corrections to Congress.

Now firmly entrenched in Washington, DC AMSA worked closely with Congressional Committees on the 1977 Amendments to the Act, focusing on the importance of continued grant funding and issues related to the ad valorem tax and industrial cost provisions of the law. AMSA also worked closely with EPA on the design and implementation of the National Pretreatment Program and the section 503 Sludge management guidelines, and began to stress the need to reign in the contributors to nonpoint source pollution. The eighties, of course, also marked the transition from grants to loans as the preferred funding approach, which AMSA strenuously opposed, as well as the initial debate about the need to control toxic pollutants discharged to the Nation’s waters and the importance of controlling wet weather discharges, including CSO’s and storm water.

By the end of the decade, it became clear that AMSA was outgrowing the services of its management firm in the Nation’s Capital. If AMSA was going to continue to grow and effectively represent the interests of its members, it needed its own office and its own staff. As a result, a new phase of the organization started on January 1, 1990, when AMSA opened its new doors as a stand-alone entity, with a skeleton staff and myself, who had worked for the management firm for twelve years, as AMSA’s third Executive Director. More than anything in my view, this transition recognized how sophisticated our members had become in implementing the Clean Water Act back home.

While these twenty-five years have shot by quickly, they have also been truly memorable. During this timeframe, the Association witnessed a five-fold increase in members and corresponding increase in its budget; expanded the staff in accordance with a strategic staffing plan approved by the Board; modified the dues schedule to expand the membership of the organization even further; purchased a permanent headquarters; established what is now the Targeted Action Fund to complement the advocacy agenda; recognized the need for a stronger legal presence to augment the organization’s legislative and regulatory advocacy; underscored the importance of collaboration with other members of the clean water sector; changed the name of the organization to the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) – a long-overdue decision designed to stress the end product of our members’ labors – and adopted a big audacious goal “when you say the word environmentalist, think of us first” (which was changed not too long ago because it had been met) and achieved numerous legislative, regulatory and legal successes on behalf of its members.

These developments mark the advent of a “new” organization committed to cleaning up the Nation’s waters in a scientifically sound and cost-effective way. While NACWA continues to focus on the bread and butter issues of funding and wet weather, to name just two, the Association has also broadened its reach to highlight security, competiveness and nonpoint source issues. Perhaps even more important, the Association initiated the Money Matters campaign, which ushered in the development of the integrated planning and affordability frameworks and the Water Resource Utility of the Future initiative, which will take center stage for a long time to come.

In retrospect, forty-five years later we are still battling many of the same issues the founders of AMSA talked about: the need for reasonable and science-based regulations to guide our future efforts; the need for more flexibility in the administration of the program because we know now what we knew then – that ”one size does not fit all”; and, equally important, the need to find innovative ways to finance necessary improvements without breaking the backs of the Nation’s ratepayers, who now shoulder almost 100% of the clean water infrastructure burden.

We have made tremendous progress over the past 45 years and AMSA/NACWA has risen to every occasion to represent its members’ interests in Washington and throughout the country. A great deal, however, remains to be done. On the plus side, NACWA’s reputation in Congress, at EPA and among the states is rock solid. They understand and appreciate NACWA’s members’ dedication and commitment to clean water and getting the job done. And, from my perspective, as well as theirs, the future is indeed in good hands!