Senator Bob Smith
Ranking Member
Environment & Public Works
Committee
February 26, 2002 – “Water
Investment Act of 2002”
Good Morning. I am pleased
to be here to discuss our recently introduced bipartisan legislation: the Water
Investment Act of 2002. When I
became chairman of this committee in 1999, one of my top priorities was a
renewed commitment to our nation’s water systems. I am pleased that Senator Jeffords has continued to make this a
priority
This bill is particularly
timely, as New Hampshire is in the midst of our worst drought in 50 years, and
it has had a devastating impact on our water supply. One of the reservoirs, Bellamy, which provides water for a
number of New Hampshire’s towns, is down over 50 percent. Our bill will help to alleviate these
problems with new funding for water conservation, recycling and re-use
projects.
We also take steps to
address potential future water shortages.
We require the U.S. Geological Survey to provide information on water
shortages, surpluses and planning models.
We also require streamlined procedures for the local governments to work
with federal agencies responsible for water resources. This valuable information will be helpful to
communities facing a severe water shortage like so many of those in New
Hampshire. It will also help to
minimize the threat of future droughts.
Beyond the drought, the
nation faces a potential water infrastructure crisis. So much of our nation’s
water infrastructure is aging and in desperate need of replacement. Coupled with the aging problem is the cost
burden that local communities face in order to comply with ever increasing
State and Federal clean water mandates.
This bill addresses these
problems and makes structural changes to ensure that we avoid a national crisis
now and in the future. I am a strong
advocate of limited government and when it comes to water infrastructure, I do
not believe the primary responsibility of financing local water needs lies with
the Federal government.
I am equally adamant,
however, that the Federal government shouldn’t place unfunded mandates on our
local communities. We recognize both of
these principles and strike a responsible balance.
The legislation authorizes
$35 billion over the next five years in Federal contribution to the total water
infrastructure need to help defray the cost of the mandates placed on
communities. This is a substantial
increase in Federal commitment, but not nearly as high as some would have
preferred. Even so, this commitment
does not come without additional responsibilities.
When the Clean Water Act
was amended by Congress in 1987, a debate I remember well, we set up a
revolving fund to provide a continual pool of money for water needs. Unfortunately, not everyone met their
commitment to plan for future needs and what was not to be Federal
responsibility became a Federal necessity.
This bill makes certain
that we do not go down that road again.
The Federal government will
help to defray the costs of Federal mandates, but with the new money comes a
new requirement that all utilities do a better job of managing their funds and
plan for future costs. We also make
additional structural changes to the law both to address financial concerns and
to help achieve improved management of these water systems.
One such change to the
Clean Water Act is to incorporate a Drinking Water Act provision that allows States
to provide principal forgiveness on loans and extends the repayment period for
loans to disadvantaged communities. It
will be a tremendous help to many struggling communities in New Hampshire and
across the country.
It is my hope that we can
move it through the committee process and see it passed by the Senate in short
order. I believe that if we keep to
this deal and not try and load it down with any poison pills, we can move this
bill quickly.
One such poison pill is
Davis Bacon.
According to GAO, Davis Bacon will increase by costs by 5-15 percent nationally and perhaps by as much as 38 percent in rural states like New Hampshire. Many states, like New Hampshire have long ago eliminated Davis-Bacon-like rules from their state statute books, because they want to maximize their investment in clean water. Davis Bacon will result in less capital improvement and less safe drinking and clean water. We need to spend every penny we can to get safe drinking water, and the way to do that is this bill, without amendment.
Big unions are beholden to
prevailing wage legislation, because it supports their members to the exclusion
of other workers. I believe all
Americans should be treated equally and none should be held back the way they
are by Davis-Bacon.
Davis-Bacon laws preclude
the hiring of “helpers” who not only
perform much-needed lower skilled work, but free up more experienced workmen
for the more difficult tasks.
This bill is a bipartisan
product, which is a testament to the hard work of the Chairman and Senators on
both sides of the isle. It is my hope
that we can move a clean bill -- one that will move through the process quickly
and one that I can continue to support.