Clean Water Infrastructure Investment Urged As Part of House Economic Stimulus Package

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will prepare a targeted infrastructure spending package to stimulate the economy, including spending on municipal drinking water and wastewater systems, within two weeks of Congress's return from the election, the chairman of the committee said at an Oct. 29 hearing.

Nineteen witnesses at the hearing, from various levels of state and local government, highway and transit groups, manufacturing, engineering, and economics all advocated a massive investment in infrastructure as the centerpiece of any stimulus package.
Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) told reporters after the hearing that the proposed infrastructure package would generally follow the lines of an earlier stimulus bill, H.R. 7110, that passed the House, but stalled in the Senate prior to recess. The new version likely would have higher funding levels, he said (189 DEN A-11, 9/30/08).

The earlier House package would have provide $61 billion to help restore the economy, including $30 billion for highway, bridge, public transit, Amtrak, airport, wastewater, and Corps of Engineers infrastructure investment. That figure included $6.5 billion in funding for the clean water state revolving fund and $1 billion for the drinking water state revolving fund under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Noting the $30 billion in overall infrastructure in that measure, Oberstar said the testimony showed “we can go up from there.” Committee staff will have the infrastructure part of a stimulus package ready by the week of Nov. 17, when lawmakers return to town for organizational meetings and a possible legislative session. But action on the overall package depends largely on the Senate, Oberstar said.

Water Project Funding Pushed.

In comments submitted to the committee, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies recommended expanding the clean water state revolving fund amount to $10 billion with a more significant grant or negative interest loan component to help communities that have been hit hard by the economic downturn.

NACWA strongly urged the committee and Congress to move forward “as soon as possible” with an economic stimulus package that includes funding for water infrastructure projects.

NACWA called expedited passage of an infrastructure-based stimulus bill even more critical as information mounts regarding severe effects of the economic downturn on the nation's municipalities.

Even before the economic downturn, NACWA said, municipalities had problems meeting a growing funding gap. According to the association, municipalities were paying more than $60 billion annually to upgrade their water infrastructure systems while the federal government reduced its contribution to the revolving fund to $650 million, the lowest level since passage of the Clean Water Act.

Massive Backlog of Projects.

The quick creation of jobs from infrastructure spending would be made possible not only by an available workforce but by the massive backlog of projects ready to build, a number of witnesses at the hearing said.

For example, NACWA said a survey it conducted found its members alone have identified nearly $3 billion in “ready-to-go” infrastructure projects. Based on these responses, NACWA estimated there are at least $10 billion in projects when extrapolated to the 16,000 treatment plants across the nation.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials had nearly $18 billion in highway and bridge projects and the American Public Transportation Association found $8 billion of transit projects, all that could begin within 90 days, their representatives said. The American Society of Civil Engineers found a $38.5 billion overall backlog of projects that only need funding.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, represented by former president and mayor of Louisville, Ky., Jerry E. Abramson, suggested large increases over the last measure for a number of areas, such as $9 billion for transit, $1.25 billion for Amtrak, $1.5 billion for airport improvement, and $18.75 billion for water infrastructure upgrades.

Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), ranking member of the committee, told reporters before the hearing that he was concerned with the size of the overall stimulus package possibly reaching $300 billion.

Mica said the infrastructure part of the earlier stimulus package was “okay” but that he was not happy with the overall package. That bill included $30 billion in total infrastructure spending—$12.8 billion for highways and bridges, $4.6 billion for transit, $6.5 billion for clean water, $5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $500 million for Amtrak, and $600 million for airports.

Major Investments Needed.

Speaking at a news conference in San Francisco, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee also called for major investments in the nation's aging infrastructure to help restore the economy.

Rebuilding the bridges, highways, and other critical infrastructure would jumpstart the economy, according to the prepared text of Boxer's remarks.

“Our central goal in the next Congress will be economic recovery,” Boxer said. “I believe that the Environmental and Public Works Committee will play a vital role in that effort because of our responsibility for infrastructure including roads, bridges, drinking water and wastewater systems, flood control and federal buildings.

“By addressing these challenges in the right way, we can create jobs, help American families, and address the needs of communities across the country,” Boxer said.

White House Hesitant.
The White House, which singled out infrastructure spending in its statement of administration policy against the earlier House package, still is leery of infrastructure spending in the stimulus.

Saying the administration is “open to ideas,” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino Oct. 29 voiced concern on the deficit spending, which witnesses generally advocated.

“Transportation funding is a concern of ours because while it's important that we fund roads and bridges, and there are meritorious ways to get those approved through Congress, these projects take a long time to get approved, they take a long time for the money to get out into the system, and a lot of the claims that are made about how much transportation could actually help build the economy are overblown,” she said.

By Adam Snider, Linda Roeder, and Carolyn Whetzel (Los Angeles)