By Maureen Lorenzetti
Congressional committees in the House and Senate moved forward with competing proposals designed to retool the federal government's role in buildin-g and maintaining local water infrastructure networks.
Sponsored by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT) and ranking Republican Bob Smith (R-NH). The Water Investment Act (S. 1961) would authorize $35 billion over five years for drinking water and clean water state revolving funds. That sweeping proposal (WW 4/02) was due to be voted on the committee in mid-April; however, the White House does not support the measure under its present form.
One possible amendment now being eyed by the committee will likely make the proposal even less palatable to the Bush administration: lawmakers are considering a labor-backed provision that would require improvement projects funded under the drinking water and clean water SRF programs to follow the terms of the Davis-Bacon Act. That law mandates that workers assigned to federal construction projects be paid the "prevailing" wage rate.
The White House also is unhappy with pending proposals in the Republican-led House.
Earlier this year, the House Trans-portation and Infrastructure Committee approved HR 3930 which would authorize a little over $20 billion over five years just on wastewater issues; it does not address drinking water funds.
Over the past five years, Congress has given about $1.4 billion annually for wastewater projects. This year's budget as proposed by President Bush for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 would lower that amount to $1.21 billion.
Another House panel, the Energy and Commerce's Environment Subcommittee, will tackle the drinking water issue with legislation that seeks to retool the Safe Drinking Water Act expected later this spring.
Exactly how much money the federal government should earmark to update local water systems is expected to be very controversial: a tighter domestic spending budget and election year politics may make it even more difficult for a divided Congress to reach a consensus although not doing anything at all could be even more politically damaging, industry lobbyists say.
"The president clearly defined his priorities in the State of the Union as defense and homeland security," Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's deputy assistant administrator for water recently told a House panel.
Recent testimony from the Congressional Budget Office also took issue with findings by the Water Infrastructure Network that predicted a $23 billion annual funding deficit over the next 20 years for both drinking water and wastewater system upgrades.
Congress to Consider MTBE Ban Proposals
Midwest lawmakers threatened in early April to seek support in Congress for legislation that would overrule a recent decision by California Gov. Gray Davis to delay a ban on the fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) until 2004.
Enforcing a ban at the end of this year would help curb groundwater contamination sooner and encourage the use of a more environmentally benign alternative to meet federal clean fuel requirements, said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA). Grassley's amendment is supported by other Midwest legislators and the California delegation who say MTBE contaminates drinking water supplies too easily when added to gasoline.
"We will try to amend the energy bill to overrule the governor of California," Grassley told reporters on the eve of a two-week spring break by Congress that ended April 8.
Immediately following Davis' decision in late March, the Association of California Water Agencies criticized the move, suggesting state residents would be willing to pay higher gasoline prices to ensure the water supply was MTBE-free.
