<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:46013.wais]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 15, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-104
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-013 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DAN BURTON, Indiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah
DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Columbia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SALI, Idaho
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
------ ------
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
Lawrence Halloran, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of
Columbia
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
Columbia JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman JIM JORDAN, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Tania Shand, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 15, 2008................................... 1
Statement of:
Capacasa, Jon M., Director of Water Protection Division for
Water, Environmental Protection Agency; Thomas Jacobus,
general manager, Washington Aqueduct; Doug Siglin, Federal
Affairs director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation; and Robert
Boone, president, Anacostia Watershed Society.............. 120
Boone, Robert............................................ 144
Capacasa, Jon M.......................................... 120
Jacobus, Thomas.......................................... 126
Siglin, Doug............................................. 135
Martin, Robin B., chairman, Board of Directors, D.C. Water
and Sewer Authority; and Jerry Johnson, general manager,
D.C. Water and Sewer Authority............................. 82
Johnson, Jerry........................................... 90
Martin, Robin B.......................................... 82
Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office......... 59
Tangherlini, Daniel, city administrator, District of
Columbia, and D.C. WASA Board member; Anthony H. Griffin,
county executive, Fairfax County, and D.C. WASA Board
member; Timothy Firestine, chief administrative officer,
Montgomery County, and D.C. WASA Board member; and
Jacqueline F. Brown, chief administrator officer, Prince
George's County, and D.C. WASA Board member................ 157
Brown, Jacqueline F...................................... 172
Firestine, Timothy....................................... 167
Griffin, Anthony H....................................... 162
Tangherlini, Daniel...................................... 157
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Boone, Robert, president, Anacostia Watershed Society,
prepared statement of...................................... 146
Brown, Jacqueline F., chief administrator officer, Prince
George's County, and D.C. WASA Board member, prepared
statement of............................................... 174
Capacasa, Jon M., Director of Water Protection Division for
Water, Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement
of......................................................... 123
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois:
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Various prepared statements.............................. 3
Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia, prepared statement of......................... 199
Firestine, Timothy, chief administrative officer, Montgomery
County, and D.C. WASA Board member, prepared statement of.. 169
Griffin, Anthony H., county executive, Fairfax County, and
D.C. WASA Board member, prepared statement of.............. 164
Jacobus, Thomas, general manager, Washington Aqueduct,
prepared statement of...................................... 128
Johnson, Jerry, general manager, D.C. Water and Sewer
Authority, prepared statement of........................... 93
Marchant, Hon. Kenny, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement of...................... 201
Martin, Robin B., chairman, Board of Directors, D.C. Water
and Sewer Authority, prepared statement of................. 85
Siglin, Doug, Federal Affairs director, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, prepared statement of.......................... 137
Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
prepared statement of...................................... 61
Tangherlini, Daniel, city administrator, District of
Columbia, and D.C. WASA Board member, prepared statement of 159
Van Hollen, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland:
House Rept. 104-635...................................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m. in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Danny K. Davis
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis of Illinois, Waxman,
Cummings, Kucinich, Clay, Lynch, Norton, Sarbanes, Issa,
Marchant, and Jordan.
Also present: Representative Van Hollen.
Staff present: Tania Shand, staff director; Lori Hayman,
counsel; William Miles, professional staff member; Marcus A.
Williams, clerk; Earley Green, chief clerk; Howie Denis,
minority senior professional staff member; and Benjamin Chance
and Chris Espinoza, minority professional staff members.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The subcommittee will come to order.
The subcommittee would like to welcome Ranking Member
Marchant, witnesses and all of those in attendance.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the subcommittee's first
D.C. Water and Sewer Authority [WASA], oversight hearing of the
110th Congress. It has been nearly 3 years since a hearing has
been held on WASA and issues pertaining to the quality of the
city's drinking water and environmental conditions.
Today's hearing will provide the subcommittee with the most
current developments in WASA's operations, finances and
infrastructure improvement efforts.
Given the presence of the Federal Government in the
Washington, DC, area and the reliance on WASA for the provision
of water-related services to the Federal Government, today's
oversight hearing is a critical part of the processes for
ensuring the continual and reliable delivery of safe drinking
water and wastewater treatment services to area residents,
businesses, Government agencies and certain suburban
jurisdictions.
Since its creation as a quasi-independent regional utility
agency in 1996, WASA has made significant progress in carrying
out its statutory mandate of providing retail drinking water
distribution, wastewater collection and wastewater treatment
services to 570,000 District residential and commercial
customers and providing wholesale wastewater treatment services
to over 1.6 million customers in Montgomery and Prince George's
Counties through the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
and Fairfax and Loudoun Counties and the city of Vienna, VA.
Over the past decade, WASA has invested over $1 billion in
various infrastructure improvements, taken steps to guarantee
the region's safe drinking water, attained a AA bond rating,
and ensured that the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant
operated in compliance with all permit requirements. In other
words, we have come a long way from the boiled water alerts of
the mid-1990's.
Despite the apparent progress WASA and its regional
partners have made over the years, a number of issues,
challenges, and concerns remain to be addressed.
First and foremost, the subcommittee looks forward to
receiving an update on WASA's lead service line replacement
program and possible alternative approaches to reducing the
leakage of lead into the drinking water supply.
The Coalition of Parents for Non-Toxic Alternatives, the
Alliance for Healthy Homes and Clean Water Action have pointed
to ongoing shortcomings in WASA's management of the District's
lead in water problem. I ask unanimous consent that their
statement be entered into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.009
Mr. Davis of Illinois. With evidence of trace amounts of
pharmaceuticals in the area's water supply and concerns over
the health of local aquatic life, I anticipate that both the
quality of the metropolitan area's drinking water and the
condition of our area's waterways will be major topics of
discussion this afternoon.
Further, as part of a 10-year Capital Improvement Program
[CIP], WASA has adopted an aggressive and somewhat ambitious
time schedule for making these enhancements to the agency's
aging infrastructure, equipment, and systems. Two of the most
noteworthy Capital Improvement Projects currently underway
include the combined sewer overflow project, a part of WASA's
long-time control plan, and the Blue Plains total nitrogen
program.
It is my understanding that WASA and the Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA] have been conducting ongoing
discussions on how best to meet the Blue Plains' recently
modified national pollutant discharge elimination system
permit. The subcommittee looks forward to hearing about the
outcome of recent negotiations on WASA's proposed plans for its
Blue Plains total nitrogen program.
Today's hearing will examine H.R. 5778, ``The District of
Columbia's Water and Sewer Authority Independence Preservation
Act,'' which would amend the D.C. Home Rule Charter Act to
provide the legal authority for WASA to function as a fully
independent authority by officially shifting oversight of the
agency's financial operations and personnel matters to WASA's
Board of Directors instead of the District of Columbia's chief
financial officer.
I thank you and I look forward to hearing the testimony of
today's witnesses.
I also ask unanimous consent that the statements of Ranking
Member Marchant and full committee Member Tom Davis be entered
into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.016
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I now yield to Ms. Norton for an
opening statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
particularly thank you for this hearing. When Representative
Tom Davis was Chair of this committee we took to holding
hearings on an annual basis, particularly after WASA had
significant lead in the water problems.
This is a hearing I can endorse. We do not have hearings
here on District of Columbia matters because we are not the
Council of the District of Columbia, but this is a hybrid
agency if ever there was one. It is located in the District of
Columbia. It has been a District of Columbia agency since it
was established. Yet, serves the region, and the region pays
for its services so it is appropriate that we have these
hearings.
Now, because it is classified as a D.C. agency, and should
be, of course, the matter goes to the Council and the Mayor, as
well, but it has always been treated as what it is: an agency
that, yes, chiefly serves the District of Columbia, but it also
serves neighboring counties, who also pay for the service,
particularly the fewer services.
Before I get to the real subject matter of this hearing, I
would like to get to what the hearing is not about. The hearing
is not about what you discussed, Mr. Chairman, because the
matter that you clarified as to changes that I have agreed upon
has been done. I think it is very important, when we get the
cooperation of all of us concerned--that is certainly the way I
deal with most Members of Congress, especially of the region--
that we make sure we always handle matters in that way.
I do want to say that there was an attempt to put something
on the D.C. appropriation. You are looking for a fight if you
do that. If you have a problem with the District of Columbia,
they could be wrong. I would be willing to negotiate with you,
because if they are wrong I am going to tell them they are
wrong. But the one thing I will fight you on is to change law
by fiat by doing what, frankly, is not allowed, Mr. Chairman,
and that is trying to change the law on an appropriation bill.
I found a very effective partner, and I am not surprised,
given the way in which he and I have always operated, that he
and I could sit down and come to an agreement on this matter,
and so I want to acknowledge and thank my good colleague, Chris
Van Hollen, for the way he has worked with me constantly so we
could solve this matter and it will not become a matter of
contention. I think it ought to be handled in this hearing so
that it does not become a matter of contention.
It became clear to me in letters I wrote to the Mayor and
to the Council, who have cooperated fully with me, that members
of the Council, seeing that WASA, in particular, was a D.C.
agency, began to treat it, or at least one or two members did,
and then proceeded to treat it as if it were just another D.C.
agency. Well, they were ignorant of some of the changes that
Chairman Davis and I painstakingly negotiated when WASA got
into deep trouble.
So it seemed to me that the way to handle this was to, in
fact, inform the Council of what had happened. Mr. Chairman, I
wrote two letters and sent copies of this letter to the
appropriate people in the region, the Representatives and
others, Senate and House, one on March 14th and another on
April 10th. The one on March 14th I actually released. I am
releasing and asking that the two letters be put into the
record. Another letter on April 10th, when it was clear that
this matter had not been settled.
To just read one sentence from the letter, I say,
``Therefore, I ask the Council to move expeditiously in the
Budget Support Act, using the emergency process to remove the
provisions that affected the WASA personnel structure.''
Mr. Chairman, this simply involves the fact that the
District had no commuter tax, has many of its agencies with
members from the region, and in its frustration sometimes tries
to at least see to it that D.C. residents get jobs. That is not
appropriate for an agency which is regional in its span.
I want to thank Mayor Fenty and Chairman Vincent Gray for
cooperating with me. In the Budget Support Act is an amendment
to section 213 of the D.C. Code that removes any priority for
any member of the region, including the District of Columbia,
for jobs.
Essentially, what has been agreed upon by the Member from
Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, and me is that these are matters for
the Board. This is the status quo ante. If, in fact, you have a
board that has members from three regions, you have something
that is unusual in this country. It is sort of like the Metro
Board, but it is sort of different, because Metro is not a D.C.
agency. We have done a hybrid here and we have to make sure
that we re-educate officials every so often, for example: new
members of the Council as to how this works, because there is
nothing quite like it.
Therefore, we make it clear that it is the Board, not any
jurisdiction, that is to decide matters affecting finances,
procurement, and personnel. You can't have a regional agreement
otherwise.
I hope that this matter will not become any point of
contention here because, in fact, we need to move on to what
this hearing must be about. We have been doing an annual
hearing on WASA, and the reason we had to do it on an annual
basis is we discovered lead in the water led to a huge
controversy. Several hearings were held here a few years ago
when that happened. It led to really path-breaking hearings on
lead in the water that alerted many other jurisdictions. The
chairman, then Ranking Member Mr. Waxman, and I introduced a
complete revision of the Clean Water Act that he had been
responsible for, even before I came to Congress.
This water still is controversial in the District of
Columbia, and it is one of the most important things that we
have to discuss in this hearing.
We are going to be discussing both water and sewer
services. We are going to be discussing what I think are really
important questions raised by the decision of WASA, under
pressure, to do partial replacement of lead pipes. When you
replace a lead pipe on the public part, the part that the
public controls, and yet the private citizen does not; there is
still lead in the water.
Meanwhile, the Aqueduct had to respond, as well, and we
will be at pains to hear whether the new chemical in the water
solves the problem for all intents and purposes.
Beyond questions of safety for residents of the city and
the region, I have a principal reason, as the lead sponsor of
the Anacostia Watershed Initiative, which was passed last year
as part of the Water Resources Development Act, and my own
interest in broader efforts to green the District of Columbia
and the national capital region. Indeed, tomorrow I am going to
be holding a hearing in the subcommittee that I chair, first of
a series on greening Washington and the national capital
region, because the Federal Government has the largest
footprint in this region, and therefore should be the leader in
greening and energy conservation in a number of ways. We should
be the leader for the rest of the country.
Mr. Chairman, the Anacostia River matter is particularly
important to members of the region. Actually, most of the
Anacostia River is in Maryland. Most of the stuff that gets
into the District of Columbia starts upstream. But they are our
friends and we work together. Everybody in the region works on
this bill, from Mr. Hoyer on down, if I may put it that way.
But there is a special advantage to the fact that the
District of Columbia has a part of the Anacostia. It has
enabled me to go to the President of the United States, both
Democratic and Republican Presidents, to get money put in the
D.C. budget for the Anacostia River. That could not have
happened, Maryland and Virginia but because our budget has to
go to the President anyway, he normally adds a few dollars here
and there. Most of the money I have been able to get came that
way or from my membership on the Water Resources Subcommittee,
where we have just gotten $35 million for upgrades and $20
million to clean the Anacostia.
This year the President responded by putting $14.5 million
in the D.C. budget for combined sewer overflow, the major
reason why the Anacostia is polluted, and he should have and
the Water Resources Committee and Congress should have, because
of Federal involvement in the pollution of the Anacostia. It is
the Federal Government that is on the banks of the Anacostia.
It is the Corps of Engineers who built the sewer system that is
the problem in the first place.
We just erected a new Department of Transportation that
overlooks the stinking Anacostia River. We have just bought to
the Navy Yard from Virginia, the Naval Sea Systems Command, to
a renovated Navy Yard right there on the Anacostia. The
original and most serious District side contamination came from
the old Navy Yard. The Federal Government owes the region, and
particularly this city, for the contamination that is there
now.
Yet, we have been unable to get long-term money for what is
essentially a Federal problem. I am going to be seeking the
help of other Members of the region.
I note that in my own Water Resources Subcommittee there
are members of the subcommittee who have been able to get
authorizations for hundreds of millions of dollars at a time
for combined sewer overflow, because this is a national
problem. The difference between them and us is that the Federal
Government had nothing to do with their combined sewer problem.
They don't have a Federal river like the Anacostia, built by
the Corps of Engineers. Yet, because of the way in which money
gets distributed in this place, these people get hundreds of
millions of dollars in order to deal with the problem, but we
have not been as fortunate and the Anacostia is one of the most
polluted rivers in the United States.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a hearing that we may be asking
you to have on a regular basis, simply because, although the
Council does have oversight, obviously Maryland and Virginia
are not subject to their oversight. In fact, this matter was
resolved continuing WASA as a D.C. agency only because then
Chairman Tom Davis and I worked to get an amicable compromise.
I believe that the agreement we have achieved between my good
friend, Mr. Van Hollen, and me takes us back to the status quo
ante, which is working quite well, thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you. Without objection, your
request will be included in the record.
Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, thanks for this
hearing. I look forward to the testimony. I think Congresswoman
Norton brings an extremely responsible perspective to the issue
of the jurisdictional structure of WASA. Of course, she brings
that regional perspective through the particular lens of the
District of Columbia. I come to this discussion and the issue
of the regional perspective through the particular lens of
Maryland. I look forward to hearing from Congressman Van Hollen
and hearing more about the balance that has been struck here.
I would note that when we talk about the regional reach or
effect or impact of WASA, it is not just the immediate region,
because obviously there are impacts on the Chesapeake Bay and
the wider region and I have that perspective, as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and the ranking member for holding this hearing on the D.C.
Water and Sewer Authority and thank you for allowing me to join
with you today.
I do want to thank Congresswoman Norton for being such a
constructive partner in this effort as we seek to resolve some
of the issues that have already been discussed today.
WASA, of course, has a regional impact, as you and others
have noted. It affects a lot of my constituents, both as
receivers of the services and also as employees and ratepayer.
As Mr. Sarbanes has noted, it also has an impact regionally on
the waterways, both the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, and
also the Chesapeake Bay.
I am pleased that we have been able to work together on a
regional basis with respect to trying to get more Federal funds
to clean up the Anacostia and the Potomac and the Chesapeake
Bay. In fact, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force, which is
made up of Members from the entire region, is fully supporting
the request for the cleanup of the Anacostia, and we want to
make sure that we get those funds.
WASA has come a long way from the days of earlier
environmental and financial mismanagement that plagued its
predecessor agency. As I think has been noted by the chairman,
the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant was continually
cited by the EPA and the Justice Department for contamination
of local waterways back before the regional authority was
created. In addition, the Justice Department cited the former
agency for diversion of $96 million in fiscal year 1995 from
the operations and maintenance of this regional wastewater
treatment center into the general fund of the District of
Columbia.
It was those problems and the misuse of regional user fees
that led to WASA's creation in the first place, and it was
largely due to the foresight of members of this committee--
Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Tom Davis--who crafted that
earlier solution to this problem. They created WASA as a
utility within the District of Columbia but with independent
financial personnel and procurement operations authority to be
governed by an independent board of directors.
This board is comprised of members from each of the
participating jurisdictions, from the District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia. In fact, the principal board members
from each participating jurisdiction are the chief
administrative officers from their respective localities, and
we are going to be hearing from some of them later in today's
hearing.
The House Report 104-635 from this committee in 1996
reflects the hard work of this committee and that of Ms. Norton
and Mr. Tom Davis to establish WASA as an independent entity,
and I request that it be included in the record today.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.042
Mr. Van Hollen. Fortunately, those earlier problems that
plagued Blue Plains are over and behind us; however, much of
WASA's success can be attributed to the new regional authority
and design that was established earlier by the work of the
Congress to make sure that it is run as an independent,
professional enterprise that is accountable to the entire
region that it serves.
It should be noted that the suburban jurisdictions of
Maryland and Virginia contribute in excess of $100 million a
year to WASA. It is important to ensure that sufficient
controls are build into the system to prevent a future
commingling of the funds between WASA's user fees and the funds
of the participating jurisdictions.
I believe, as Ms. Norton has said, that it is essential to
WASA's continued success to maintain its regional autonomy.
The Home Rule Act that established the District of
Columbia's CFO has created ambiguity regarding the relationship
between the WASA CFO and the D.C. CFO, and two recent
enactments of the D.C. government served just to cloud the
question of WASA's independence.
I am pleased to have been working with Ms. Norton and Mr.
Davis and others to resolve these conflicts and to ensure
WASA's independence. I appreciate the letters and work of Ms.
Norton and her communications with the D.C. Council in that
regard.
We need to put these conflicts regarding governance behind
us so that we as a region are better able to confront the
formidable undertakings that lay before us.
As has been said, this subcommittee has had hearings on
this subject in the past, and hopefully with the chairman's
indulgence will continue to have them going forward to really
address the very serious issues that confront WASA. But
resolving this governance issue is essential to that success.
WASA is currently contemplating massive upgrades to the
region's sewage and wastewater treatment infrastructure. These
are changes that are necessary to prevent raw sewage, in
addition to nitrogen discharge, from contaminating our rivers
and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.
In working with Ms. Norton and Mr. Davis and others, I have
introduced a bill, H.R. 5778, that will clarify the
independence of WASA's CFO and clarify WASA's personnel
procurement and financial management powers and make it clear
that they should be regulated by its regional board of
directors.
We look forward to working with the D.C. City Council to
ensure that recently passed legislation that provides personnel
preferences to D.C. residents does not apply in this regional
organization, and look forward to continuing to work with them
in this regard.
I am looking forward to the testimony of the members of the
panels that we are going to hear from today, and look forward
to moving forward to address the important regional issues that
we are going to be hearing about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Van Hollen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.049
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Hollen.
Without objection, your request will be included in the record.
We will now move to our first witness. Mr. John Stephenson
is the Director of Natural Resources and Environment Issues for
the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Mr. Stephenson's
work focuses on diverse environmental protection issues such as
clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, safe chemical
controls, toxic substances, climate change, Superfund, and
hazardous materials' spill prevention and cleanup, as well as
critical infrastructure protection.
Thank you, Mr. Stephenson.
It is our tradition that witnesses before the committee be
sworn in.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The record will show that the
witness answered in the affirmative.
Thank you very much, Mr. Stephenson, and we will proceed.
Of course, you know that we try to do this in 5 minutes, and
then we will have questions. We will use the light. Please go
right ahead.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to participate in
this oversight hearing of the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority
[WASA]. I will summarize GAO's reports on WASA's efforts to
reduce lead exposure in drinking water, but I want to put my
comments into context by summarizing other GAO work on the many
challenges facing all large water utilities like WASA across
the Nation.
As we all remember, media reports in early 2004 about lead
contamination in the District's drinking water raised serious
concerns about the health risk posed from existing lead service
lines and about how well local and Federal agencies were
carrying out their responsibilities.
After much debate, WASA ultimately signed a consent decree
to improve water sampling, enhance public education, and
identify and replace lead service lines. WASA undertook a $400
million program to replace roughly 35,000 lines by 2016 and
provided incentives to encourage homeowners to replace their
portion of the lines. It also added orthophosphate to the water
supply. This treatment causes the formation of a protective
coating inside the lines that helps prevent lead from leaching
into the water.
So where are we today? WASA has replaced their portion of
14,260 lead service lines through the first quarter of fiscal
year 2008; however, of these, only 2,128 homeowners
participated in the private side replacement. To be effective,
homeowners must spend up to $2,500 to replace their portion of
the lines, but most are, for a variety of reasons, deciding not
to do so.
Many questions remain about the benefits of partial lead
service line replacement. Research suggests that short-term
spikes in lead levels occur immediately after partial
replacement, and little long-term reduction in lead levels is
achieved. This, coupled with the fact that for the past 3 years
the drinking water has consistently tested below the Federal
action level of 15 parts per billion for lead in drinking
water, largely due to the introduction of orthophosphate into
the water supply in 2004, make it understandable why WASA,
after spending $105 million on this program, is re-evaluating
the merits of spending an additional $300 million to replace
the remaining 21,000 service lines.
As important as the lead contamination problem has been to
WASA and its customers, it is by no means the only issue with
which the utility must grapple. WASA is responsible for
operation and maintenance of not only the drinking water
infrastructure, but also the wastewater treatment and sanitary
sewer systems. Some of the components of these systems date
back to the early 19th century, and the infrastructure
replacement costs are staggering. Over 700 million over the
next 10 years to maintain the drinking water system, another
2.2 million over the next two decades to meet the EPA's mandate
to address combined sewer overflow problems, for example.
WASA's difficulties in meeting its many fiscal demands are
mirrored across the country by some 53,000 drinking water
utilities, 17,000 municipal wastewater facilities, and 7,000
communities served with storm sewer collection system. Water
infrastructure needs nationwide are estimated to range from
$485 billion to nearly $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years.
A few years ago we conducted a survey over several thousand
drinking water and wastewater utilities and found that 29
percent of the drinking water utilities and 41 percent of the
wastewater utilities were not generating enough revenue from
user rates and other local sources to cover the full cost of
service. We also found that about one-third of the utility's
deferred maintenance because of insufficient funding had 20
percent or more of their pipelines nearing the end of their
useful life and lacked basic plans for managing their capital
assets.
The Federal Government has a significant impact on the
Nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. EPA has
promulgated regulations to implement the Safe Drinking Water
Act and the Clean Water Act, and the cost of compliance with
these regulations are high.
Last year Congress appropriated about $1.5 billion that EPA
grants to the States to capitalize the revolving loan funds.
Utilities can use these funds to finance improvements to
drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities; however,
this is only a small portion of what is needed.
Some argue that because of the high cost of compliance with
requirements the Federal Government should do more. Others
argue that it is the customer who enjoys the benefits of clean
water that should assume a larger share of the infrastructure
repair and replacement costs by paying higher rates. The truth
is probably somewhere in between.
One thing is clear: the fiscal challenges facing water
utilities are not likely to be resolved any time soon.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the summary of my statement. I
will be happy to answer questions from you or any members of
the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.067
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
I will go to Ms. Norton first.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I found your report from GAO, Mr. Stephenson, very helpful.
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. It gives us some context. Above all, without
saying so, you make clear we are dealing with a zero sum gain
here, particularly in your discussion of new chemicals in the
water versus WASA's present strategy. At the hearings we had,
the question was already raised, and I could never get an
answer to it, and that question was: if you can only replace
the public portion of the lead pipe, is there substantial
benefit?
Mr. Stephenson, I am co-sponsor with the chairman of the
full committee of a bill that would require the replacement of
the public portion. A couple years ago I began to wonder
whether that made any sense, in light of what I know as a
member of the Water Resources Subcommittee about the needs that
you just described.
In your testimony you indicate that the water now tests,
and you say because of orthophosphate which has been
introduced, that for that reason that the water supply ``has
enabled WASA to consistently test below the Federal action
level.''
The question, it seems to me, in light of the competing
water needs of this and other jurisdictions, the question for
me is whether it makes financial or health sense for large sums
of money to go to replacing only the public portion, without
any assurance that the private portion would be replaced. Let
me ask you whether it would make sense if the homeowner said,
here's my money for the private portion, as well, I still would
ask whether that is the best place to put the money--you know
what the long-term problems of WASA and combined sewer overflow
are--in light of the health effects or benefits of relying only
on orthophosphate to do the job?
Mr. Stephenson. It is a multi-part answer, I guess. The
only thing that has changed really is the orthophosphate, and
it takes several months to years for that to become effective,
and so that is why I attribute the success in meeting lead
level standards to that.
Ms. Norton. Could I just pause and ask you: have the
effects been shown? You are certainly not the first and
certainly not the only to use this particular chemical. Have
beneficial effects been shown more definitively in other water
supplies?
Mr. Stephenson. Yes. It has been shown definitively in many
public water supplies around the country. By the same token,
research suggests that partial lead line replacement offers
very little benefit, if no benefit, to the objective of getting
lead out of the drinking water. It is obviously the ultimate
solution to----
Ms. Norton. And that is in part, is it not, Mr. Stephenson,
because not only do you leave part of it with the lead still
flowing into the household, but, in order to do the work of
cutting the pipes, you disturb even more lead, which may stir
up lead that might not have flowed from the public section in
at all if you would just let it be and rely on the chemical?
Mr. Stephenson. Right. There are generally spikes in the
lead levels right after you perform the replacement. So I would
suggest that it has to be carefully evaluated in light of all
of the other fiscal needs that a big water company like WASA
faces. They get precious little money from the revolving funds
from either the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The needs are great and the Federal funding that follows that
is not very great.
Ms. Norton. Well, suppose the private homeowner said, I
want mine replaced. Does that justify the public expense, in
your judgment?
Mr. Stephenson. We think that is still the best solution,
and that does make sense.
Ms. Norton. That is the best solution even if it stirs up
lead to have the public and the private replacement?
Mr. Stephenson. In the long run, yes, it is better to get
rid of the lead service lines, but it is a very expensive
undertaking, $300 million.
Ms. Norton. So it may fail a cost/benefit test, but it may
be that if you were doing the Cadillac approach that is what
you would do?
Mr. Stephenson. Exactly.
Ms. Norton. You have looked at the needs of WASA. Pretty
staggering. I have described my attempts to get money, and we
get a little bit of money, but you see it is a little bit of
money every year that we have gotten. We haven't gotten
hundreds of millions of dollars at one traunch that other
jurisdictions have, and I must tell you that while we are on
pay-go I can't promise that we are going to do that, whatever
the Federal involvement in this particular water system is.
By the way, anyone that goes to the White House and into
Federal buildings, I guess they are all drinking bottled
water--watch out for those bottles--in order to assure their
health, but, of course, there are many in the region who rely
upon the water. I have news for Members of Congress and people
who go to restaurants and the White House: some of that water
gets into your food. They are not taking water out of the
bottles and cooking with it. Of course, we know it has its
greatest affect on children and babies and pregnant women.
But let me ask you, having looked at the many needs, pretty
Herculean needs of the supply here and WASA, how would you
categorize, how would you prioritize if you were king for a day
where you would start, since you have already testified you
wouldn't start here, because you don't see the cost/benefit.
Mr. Stephenson. We haven't done a detailed study of WASA,
per se. My experience is more with facilities like WASA around
the Nation. But you would have to weigh the merits of each and
every expenditure. WASA, itself, is estimating $3.1 billion in
capital improvement programs over the next 10 years, I believe.
That is $310 million a year. So how do you allocate that? They
have huge expenses associated with the Blue Plains facility to
reduce nitrogen. They have the combined sewer overflow program,
which is estimated at $2.2 billion over the next two decades,
let alone just normal replacement of pipes.
Ms. Norton. The reason I am indicating that there is no
need here, I am doing what Congress does and saying, you know,
either we are going to give you money for this or we are not.
In light of what you just said, that those are the needs that
you described, is there any other alternative for those needs?
At least we have the chemical alternative here. For the needs
you have just described, providing sewer overflow and the rest,
is there a substitute that we could rely on for those needs,
even as you have testified the chemical has been definitively
shown to be effective in other jurisdictions, even as there may
be a substitute for requiring change in the public portion of
the lead pipe?
Mr. Stephenson. Again, we haven't studied that
specifically, but for the combined sewer overflow, for example,
I mean, you need huge capital expenditures to be able to build
the facilities that you would need to handle combined sewer
overflow in a wet weather event. So the alternative is to
pollute the Anacostia River, if you don't address that.
Ms. Norton. So essentially you are testifying there really
isn't any other way to deal with combined sewer overflow, for
example, or with the long-term control plan other than to deal
with it. There is no substitute here or anywhere else. We are
just spending the money there where there may be, may be a
substitute for spending the money on the lead pipe,
particularly when the private portion is left intact.
Mr. Stephenson. That is true. The only question is where
the money will come from.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.
Mr. Sarbanes, any questions?
Mr. Sarbanes. Not at this time.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the report
though. I think it raises some important questions.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I don't really have any questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Let me just ask one. I was struck by
the amount of money that you expressed a need for. How do you
see this in relationship to the needs of water systems across
the country?
Mr. Stephenson. It is very similar. As I said, the total
estimates that aren't GAO's but are prepared by the
Environmental Protection Agency and many of the water industry
associations who do this for a living, are in hundreds of
billions to a trillion dollars over the next several years.
Obviously, the Federal Government isn't going to pay for all of
that. The ratepayer has to pay for some of that. But there
needs to be a balance.
WASA, itself, estimates that about 45 percent of their
capital improvement is to respond to Federal requirements.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So any way you cut it, we are going
to need a lot of money?
Mr. Stephenson. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, thank you very much. We
appreciate your being here.
Mr. Stephenson. You are welcome.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. We will proceed to panel two, our
second panel. While they are being set up let me just introduce
them.
Robin Martin is the current Chair of the D.C. Water and
Sewer Authority's Board of Directors representing the District
of Columbia, and Mr. Martin has served in this capacity since
May 2, 2007.
Mr. Jerry Johnson is the general manager of the District of
Columbia's Water and Sewer Authority. As the first general
manager of WASA, Mr. Johnson has guided the unrated agency with
a projected $8 million deficit to an organization with an A-
plus credit rating and $170 million reserve, all within a 2-
year period.
Gentlemen, would you join us. While you are doing that, why
don't I just go ahead and swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The record will show that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Gentlemen, we thank you very much for being here. Of
course, we try to do this in 5-minute spurts. If you would
summarize your statement in 5 minutes, the entire statement is
in the record.
We will begin with you, Mr. Martin.
STATEMENTS OF ROBIN B. MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
D.C. WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY; AND JERRY JOHNSON, GENERAL
MANAGER, D.C. WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
STATEMENT OF ROBIN B. MARTIN
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Chairman Davis and members of the
subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify.
My name is Robin Martin. I am a private citizen, a resident
of the District of Columbia, and I have honored to have been
appointed by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty to be the chairman of the
Board of Directors of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority.
D.C. WASA was created in a compromise requiring foresight
and leadership. I will share briefly my views about our
opportunities and challenges.
The Board of Directors is working very hard with management
to build on past successes. One key objective is to allow the
average citizen to turn on the tap and drink the water with
confidence. I am pleased to report to this subcommittee that
our water is safe to drink.
Distributing drinking water is a critically important
mission, having been the subject of hearings before this
subcommittee. To strengthen the oversight of this critical
mission area, I recently appointed Dr. Joseph Cotruvo to Chair
the ad hoc Committee on D.C. Drinking Water Quality. His
experience will prove invaluable.
We must continue to maintain our distribution system and to
strengthen our relationship with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Washington Aqueduct, which provides drinking water
treatment services. Most of our consumers and many policymakers
are unaware of the bifurcation in the District's drinking water
treatment and delivery system.
The most controversial problem in D.C. WASA's history was a
drinking water quality issue, the exceedance of the Lead and
Copper Rule lead action level. The Board's lead service
replacement program grew out of these issues in 2004.
These experiences provided lessons which the Board and
management have taken very seriously. Among the most prominent
is the importance of transparency. As the D.C. WASA Board began
to explore publicly the merits of potentially modifying the
ongoing lead service replacement program last year, we have
once again been subjected to criticism from certain advocates
and to some negative media coverage, as well.
However, there is ongoing dialog with the public about a
path forward, and for some stakeholders the issue remains D.C.
WASA's credibility, but for most it is reaching an
understanding of what constitutes safe water and ensuring its
delivery.
We have an obligation and an interest in protecting the
environment, particularly the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers,
Rock Creek, and the Chesapeake Bay. We are proud to be in the
forefront of these efforts.
D.C. WASA is investing enormous sums to restore and
preserve waterways. While I have confidence in management, it
is the Board's responsibility to ensure that these large
projects--over $2 billion for the long-term control plan and
nearly $1 billion for the Chesapeake Bay nitrogen removal
program--are well-planned, executed, and financed.
We must also provide strategic guidance to management in
its negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency to
ensure that these programs are technically achievable and
affordable for all our customers.
Congress and the administration have been strong partners
in these efforts, providing, for example, in excess of $100
million in funding for the long-term control plan. We want to
continue this partnership, which is critical to our success.
In 2007, the District Council charged D.C. WASA with
engaging an independent consultant to review the budget to find
ways to contain rising retail rates and to review capital
improvement plan disbursements and the financial plan. The
Board enthusiastically supported this review, and the report
found that D.C. WASA compares favorably in a variety of
categories when benchmarked against other utilities.
The independent review of the budget is one step along a
long path we are taking to try to ensure that our development,
planning, and execution of operations and the capital program
are as effective and efficient as possible. We recently learned
that Standard & Poor's has awarded D.C. WASA an unsolicited
bond rating upgrade. In this difficult financial environment, I
regard the upgrade as an endorsement not only of D.C. WASA's
performance, but of its governing board and management.
Nevertheless, the Board has the responsibility to ensure the
continuing financial health of D.C. WASA to enable it to
maintain, rebuild, and upgrade the aging infrastructure so
vital to the provision of our services.
The Board is also committed to maintaining fairness and
equity in our retail rate structure. For example, we are now
developing an impervious surface area rate to allocate more
equitably the cost of the long-term control plan to the users
who actually produce the stormwater runoff that contributes to
the combined sewage overflows.
D.C. WASA has earned a positive reputation in the industry
for its financial management, administrative prowess, research,
capital program planning, development, and project management
and execution. We still face major challenges, but we have a
solid foundation on which to build.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, for this opportunity
to address the subcommittee. I would be happy to respond to any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.072
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.
We will proceed to Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF JERRY JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman Davis
and members of the committee. I am Jerry Johnson, general
manager of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority.
I appreciate the committee's interest in receiving an overview
and update on D.C. WASA.
I would like to start by briefly noting a few recent
positive developments.
On March 13th I had the pleasure of submitting to the D.C.
WASA Board of Directors the 11th consecutive unqualified audit
opinion for the year ending September 30, 2007. A clean audit
is nothing less than our stakeholders deserve, and we should be
providing it as they expect it.
With respect to the bottom line, fiscal year 2007 ended
with revenues exceeding expenditures by approximately $23
million, and with cash reserves in excess of the board's
required 180-day operating and maintenance cost of $111
million. Those excess funds were used for pay-go and for rate
stabilization fund.
Mr. Martin mentioned the unsolicited bond upgrade, but I
would like to point out that a portion of our outstanding debt
issuance has included bonds known as auction rate securities.
As you may know, under the current credit market conditions,
these securities have experienced volatile interest swings. We
took actions to refund the outstanding auction fund debt,
eliminating the risk of our overall operating costs. The
largest portion of this refunding, $310 million, has been
successfully offered in the marketplace and will close at the
end of this month at a fixed rate of 4.89 percent, which is
about outstanding, given the circumstance that many
jurisdictions face in not being able to get rid of those types
of securities.
Mr. Chairman, in 2007 the District of Columbia Council
budget legislation included a provision directing the Board of
Directors to engage with an independent consultant to review
the budget and certain aspects of the capital program. The
Board commissioned the review even before the law was enacted.
The report offered several recommendations, including, for
example, continuing our effort to build internal staff capacity
to manage and utilize costly commodities like electricity and
chemicals.
Overall, the consultant stated, ``D.C. WASA is a high-
performing water and sewer utility with good management
practices which are, in some cases, best in class, and one of
the best-kept secrets on the east coast.''
By way of background, WASUA, D.C. WASA's predecessor
agency, operated as an enterprise fund, and revenues from that
were segregated from the local government's general fund. As
you may recall, in the late 1980's and 1990's the District of
Columbia experienced significant financial challenges, and the
District made use of approximately $85 million of WASUA
enterprise funds for pay-go government expenses. It is
important to note that these funds have since been repaid, but
at a time the District-wide hiring freeze, long deferred
maintenance, capital improvements, the water distribution
system and wastewater collection system, and treatment systems,
and a 10-year hiatus in adjusting the rates to collect revenues
needed to operate and upgrade the system alternative came
together in a giant crash.
The demand for prudent utility operations prompted in 1996
the District of Columbia, the participants in the Blue Plains
service area, and the U.S. Congress to agree to create the
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, an independent
agency of the District of Columbia.
Many policymakers took part in the negotiations, but
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's leadership in that effort
was critical in building the foundation for the organization's
success that exists today.
In celebrating our 10th anniversary, I noted that I
believed that a model for regional cooperation was created, and
it stands today for others to emulate.
D.C. WASA's enabling legislation also provided that the
agency would have procurement, personnel system that were
separated from the District, along with independent authority
to establish policy in those areas. The enabling statute also
granted D.C. WASA's board the authority to issue debt. Since
1996, D.C. WASA's board of directors has been solely
accountable for the hiring of financial management staffs,
setting financial policies, developing and adopting the
organization's financial plans and practices, setting fees and
charges, adopting annual operating and capital budget, the 10-
year capital and financial plan, as well as setting rates.
As one of the larger utilities in the United States, D.C.
WASA has two critical missions: those of purchasing drinking
water from our partner agency, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and
distributing it to 130,000 or so customers in the District of
Columbia; and also for collecting and treating sanitary flow
that is discharged into the Potomac River, and for producing
about 4,400 tons of bio-solids per month for the land applied
in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
D.C. WASA is one of the strongest environmental stewards in
the region, investing hundreds of millions of dollars in
improving water quality in the Anacostia, Potomac, and the
Chesapeake Bay. We are in compliance with all MPDES permit
requirements. We are also in compliance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act and all standards pertaining thereto,.
With respect to capital improvements, WASA is responsible
for the operation of utility plant assets in excess of $2.2
billion. For example, the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant, perhaps the largest in the world, streaming capacity of
370 million gallons a day. We are very proud of the national
reputation that we have achieved there.
But we are also responsible for thousands of miles of
underground infrastructure, as was mentioned by the
representative from GAO, with a number of hydrants, valves, and
other larger facilities.
Since D.C. WASA was created in 1996, we have invested over
$1 billion in capital improvements. Through 2016, D.C. WASA
plans to spend an additional $3.1 billion in capital assets.
This substantial increase as compared to last year's investment
of $2.2 billion for the capital improvement program is mandated
by the U.S. EPA as benefiting the Chesapeake Bay.
Specifically, roughly $900 million of increase is almost
driven entirely by the Blue Plains total nitrogen project. This
investment is required to meet the new Federal nitrogen limits
imposed for the discharge at the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant. We estimate that fully 45 percent of the CIP
that is currently in place is required by regulatory mandates.
There are a number of other projects that are listed in the
testimony that you have received, so I will not go into all of
those, but we have made a commitment of $636 million over the
next 10 years to maintain and enhance the water quality
throughout the capital and improve operations in our water
distribution system, and another $150 million going to the
Washington Aqueduct for projects that will be undertaken there.
We have also undertaken a comprehensive sewer assessment
program in the District that spanned about 5 years that will
result in major capital projects that we will have to
undertake.
I would be remiss if I did not note and express our
appreciation for the Federal funding support that we have
received since 2003. We have received about $106 million in
Federal support of the $2.2 billion long-term control program
to reduce combined sewage overflows into the Anacostia, Potomac
Rivers, and Rock Creek. We have matched this extraordinary
level of funding with 100 percent of local funds, principally
from District ratepayer.
Ms. Norton, you have been a leader, and it is once again
that you have provided that extraordinary leadership in helping
to obtain these funds, and we are truly gratified that you and
other Members of Congress from around the region, like
Congressman Van Hollen, have joined in seeking additional
support under WRDA and additional resources to support the
massive capital programs. With congressional support, we have
already eliminated 33 percent of CSOs. By the end of 2008 we
will have reduced it by 40 percent.
The continuing challenge is that it will require nearly a
decade and a half and an additional $2 billion to complete the
project, and continuing Federal commitment is critically
important for the District of Columbia.
Building on industry leading automated systems and
technology, we have begun installing a high-tech system that
allows us to notify our customers when there are problems with
the water bills, and we are able to do that in advance.
I would also like to salute the Board's leadership that has
resulted in a focused and long-term commitment to improving
operational efficiency, which is important to our customers as
we continue to rebuild aging infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman and Members, D.C. WASA has evolved from a
troubled beginning to become a respected and responsible
forward-looking utility poised to successfully meet the
challenges of the future. We have moved from crisis to
stabilization to stability.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to give the
committee an overview of D.C. WASA and its operations. I will
be happy to respond to any questions you or members of the
committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.083
Ms. Norton [presiding]. I thank both of you, Mr. Johnson
and Mr. Martin, for that important and indispensable testimony
to this hearing.
Now, if I may say so, count yourself lucky and the District
unfortunate that this is not a vote in the committee, as a
whole, the only House vote on which I can cast a vote for the
District of Columbia, so my colleagues, including the Chair,
had to go to vote, and your humble Member is left here, much to
her regret, with all apologies to you that she cannot do the
important work of casting a vote for the residents of the
District of Columbia. We are only three votes short in the
Senate. That is the place where you need 60 votes. That is how
you get a majority there. It is the only place that a majority
is defined by more than 51 votes.
That said, the chairman, if he were here, would have asked
a question that is prescient inasmuch as I would have asked it
if he hadn't, and he asked how many District residents are
waiting a full-pipe replacement. How many are awaiting that in
the District of Columbia, full pipe? Full pipe--that must be
you get some kind of guarantee that they are going to do the
other or they pay you to do both at the same time? Is that how
it works?
Mr. Johnson. Before we begin in a neighborhood to do the
lead service line replacements, Ms. Norton, we will notify the
residents and provide them with at least a 45-day lead time and
an opportunity to replace the private portion while we are
replacing the public portion.
Ms. Norton. Sir, I am just trying to find out how that
works. Do they have to do that first?
Mr. Johnson. No, ma'am. We will do all of the work first
using our----
Ms. Norton. So how do you know they will do it? Do they
then remit an amount to you to do it and then you decide to do
the private and the public all at the same time?
Mr. Johnson. We have several different options for
approaching that. One, they can set themselves up on a payment
plan with the water and sewer authority. We have also made
arrangements through Wachovia Bank for a discounted rate loan
that can be made to our customers, and we work with the D.C.
housing----
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I didn't hear a payment plan here,
but I appreciate that detail. What I really want to know is how
many residents are awaiting full-pipe replacement and decided
to invest in that measure, which you heard from the previous
witnesses, is the best way to remove lead from the water?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am. I cannot give you a going-forward
number. The number to date has been somewhere around 23 percent
of the total----
Ms. Norton. That is 23 percent of what, sir?
Mr. Johnson. Of the total number that we have done public
side replacements. It is a rolling number because we are
constantly sending----
Ms. Norton. The number I am asking for wasn't rolling at
all. I am just asking how many have contacted you to say they
want to do full-pipe replacement. Do you have that figure?
Mr. Johnson. To date it has been about 22 percent of the
14,200 and some that we have done.
Ms. Norton. So of those that have already been done, 14
percent of the replacements, the others have been public-side
replacement only?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. You heard my questions to the GAO, pretty
definitive, that replacement on one side may do more harm than
good, but that replacement of both is the top of the mark, the
gold standard. Do you have consultants that indicate to you
that partial replacement, in light of the alternative, is not
the best option for WASA?
Mr. Johnson. I believe, Ms. Norton, that any lead that is
removed certainly has some benefit, but in a case where you
only replace a part of the lead service line and you still have
quite a bit remaining----
Ms. Norton. Have you a consultant that says if you do
only--there will be others after you. Perhaps they can testify
to this, too. You say any removal. Well, the testimony before
you was that it was a no statistically significant effect.
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. I hate to ask these questions in this way.
Remember, I am the one who cosponsored a bill to say do the
whole thing, and if you can't get the private sector to do it,
go do it anyway, public sector. But I also am contending with
your competing priorities, and I can tell you this without fear
of being contradicted: every single bill that goes to the House
of Representatives is a pay-go bill, and it is going to be that
way for eternity because of the huge increase in the deficit
that we have built up in the last 8 years with the war and with
tax cuts for wealthy people, so we are left in this zero sum
gain notion of what are the priorities.
If you had to answer the same question that I gave to the
GAO, ranking, what would be the most important place to put
money to have the greatest health affect and the greatest
effect on the region? What would be first for you or, for that
matter, for the Board, Mr. Martin?
Mr. Martin. Let me try to answer that question. I think one
of the things that we are attempting to answer is the question
of whether, if there are no replacements whatsoever, public
side or private side, if orthophosphate is sufficient to
provide clean drinking water, and the tests that we have so far
show that we are below the lead action level. So that would
seem to appear to us that, in fact, would be the case.
Ms. Norton. Well, more important than that, the GAO said it
has been definitively shown in other jurisdictions, which use
orthophosphate for a far longer time than we have.
Mr. Martin. Right.
Ms. Norton. Again, you know, this is what is going to
happen in the Congress. You can't get a bill through here for
the gold standard, so the first thing one has to do--I have
already spoken to the chairman about this, and he said he would
get the Chair to look at it, because he has been the standard
bearer of this, and I joined him enthusiastically, and have not
been convinced yet that we should change the bill. But I must
say that the more the evidence rolls in--I continue to be an
academic, teach one course every year, as I did before I came
to Congress, and it is very hard for me, in the face of
evidence that there is a cheaper way to do it, to say keep
replacing the public portion. I have a problem with that.
This is a free society. You can't make somebody change the
private portion. One could, of course, say you must change them
when the other side, the private side, says, I want them
changed. Of course, still the money is coming from the
taxpayers, so it is still not a free lunch. If they wanted to
say, OK, I will pay for changing the public and the private,
that is another story.
For myself, I want to say right here, you know, the pipes
that most interest me are the pipes that we found during the
controversy in D.C. public schools. Those are pipes I am
interested in, and those are pipes which you go to the fountain
and there was a concern about lead. We dealt with that in part
through other means. Can you assure me that when you turn on
the water fountain in every D.C. public school and every part
of the region that may be served, that you will not get out of
those pipes from that water fountain lead-contaminated water?
Mr. Martin. Ms. Norton, I think one of the issues is that
even if the public side and the private side of the lead
service line are replaced, there are still fixtures within a
home, within a building, within a school that may contain lead
fixtures. So the issue that----
Ms. Norton. And you think that might be the case in public
schools?
Mr. Martin. It very well could. Yes.
Ms. Norton. This is what Democrats got accused of, spending
money no matter what the effect. We refute that more often than
not, but I am looking here for the evidence, the facts. As they
say, nothing but the facts.
My major concern, when you get to be as old as most of the
people in the room, the fact is the evidence is that lead has
less and less affect, and the great and horrific concern in the
District was with pregnant women and with children of school
age, and most particularly elementary school age, but yes, all
children who are still in formation of their brains and other
body structures.
In 2008 there was tap water that appeared to implicate as
the source of lead as a problem for 15 percent of children in
the District of Columbia who had elevated lead, blood lead
levels, whose water was actually tested for lead. Yet, you both
have claimed that the District's water is safe to drink. How
can we accept that testimony in light of these tests that were
dong?
Mr. Johnson. I can't say that I am familiar with those
tests and how they were conducted.
Ms. Norton. It was from the D.C. Department of Environment
reports. It is a report from the District of Columbia
Department of Environment, 2007-2008, which reported that tap
water was, indeed, implicated as a source, apparently not the
only source, as a source of lead for 15 percent of D.C.
children. I will have to ask them the extent to which the
report showed that lead in the water, but apparently it did
show that lead in the water was a source for these children,
for 15 percent of these children whose drinking water had
actually been tested for lead.
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Norton, I am not a health expert and I
don't think that I would----
Ms. Norton. But you did tell me that the District's public
water was safe to drink.
Mr. Johnson. And I will stand behind that statement and
will certainly----
Ms. Norton. I am going to make available to you this
report.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Ms. Norton. I can't believe that somebody in WASA hasn't
seen it or at the Aqueduct, and I am going to ask you in 30
days to comment on the question I just asked about this 15
percent of the children who were actually tested. And I am the
first to understand the lead may have come from multiple
sources. I had a discussion with someone recently who told me
that they were winning lead cases in court.
I said, how can you be winning lead cases brought by
children? This young man was one of my students when I was a
full-time professor of law at Georgetown and he's very much
about my politics. He works for a big law firm now. He said,
because of cause and effect, the source problem becomes a very
big problem, given the children who have lead and the varied
sources of contamination.
I am very evidence-oriented. I questioned him, I cross-
examined him. He said they were winning cases in Mississippi. I
don't know if you know the storied Mississippi juries which sit
in order to award money to deep pockets.
Anyway, I asked this question not because I preclude an
answer one way or the other, but because this report was done,
and we will make available to you the report.
Many of us saw the outcry about the lead in the water, Lead
and Copper Rule compliance, but because they did not include
measurements that were taken in between late May and early July
in 2006 and 2007. Because you are trying to regain the public
trust, I wonder why those months would have been excluded
rather than simply explained perhaps?
Mr. Johnson. That is simply not the case, Ms. Norton. I
think that we have documentation of the time of year----
Ms. Norton. You took measurements between late May and
early July? Did you make them public?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. This is a period when lead in the drinking
water has been documented to reach its peak. That is why I am
asking the question.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. We have the documentation of the times
and dates that we did all of the sampling. It was done in
strict compliance with the EPA requirements for sampling and
identifying the evidence.
Ms. Norton. Did you make those public right away, the rate?
Mr. Johnson. Sure. They have been made public.
Ms. Norton. No, right away.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Johnson, within 30 days would you get your
compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule during the months I
have just described in 2006 and 2007, that is between May and
early July, and offer evidence that you informed the public?
Mr. Johnson. I am told that we do the testing in January
through May. June is the reporting month, and we begin to start
again in July.
Ms. Norton. I am talking about 2006 and 2007. I don't want
to quibble here. Just get it to me.
Mr. Johnson. Sure.
Ms. Norton. And then get me how you informed the public.
Apparently there were errors made in your--I recall this
very distinctly--your 2006 post partial pipe replacement data.
Which lab made those errors?
Mr. Johnson. As I recall, I don't believe that there was a
laboratory error; I believe that there was a dating error that
confused the date that the sample was actually taken, versus
the date that the sample was analyzed. That information, the
way it was represented came out as an error. And we used two
laboratories, and we are determining now which one of them made
the error.
Ms. Norton. I ask this question because when it was known
that I would have this hearing residents of the District of
Columbia asked me, because they say they have been unable to
get this information from you about the lab, and if it wasn't
the lab error and it was the date, apparently this matter was
raised in a meeting with Council Member Jim Graham on February
24, 2008, and then a written inquiry was sent. These people
watch you all after lead in the water.
Mr. Johnson. We are putting that data together now, and in
terms of----
Ms. Norton. Would you make it available to Council Member
Graham and would you make it available to me within 30 days?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. But it simply was not available,
so we couldn't actually give it to the----
Ms. Norton. Why wasn't it available?
Mr. Johnson. Because we have to go back and determine where
the error was made.
Ms. Norton. You are talking about 2006, and people are
still giving me that question here in April 2008. A written
inquiry was sent to D.C. WASA on April 6, 2008. I raise this
question because it is not a quibble because you have to
respond to members of the public like a first priority, again
because the public lost confidence. You have done a great deal
to try to regain that confidence. Nothing can do it better than
saying, look, here is what the real deal is, or, it will take
us time to gather that information. Here is a date when it is
going to be there.
Mr. Johnson. I think that we have advised them that it was
going to take some time to pull the data together. We have two
sets of data, one set of data that is compliance data that we
provide to the EPA and is posted on the Web site and is out
there, and then we have some other data that we are just
collecting in order to satisfy ourselves that we are doing the
appropriate thing.
Ms. Norton. Or to satisfy the residents that you are doing
the appropriate thing, and that is what they wanted to know.
This is a date, for goodness sake. How long does it take to
find out?
Mr. Johnson. We are researching it. It is a very recent
issue.
Ms. Norton. Two years of research? You can't afford that,
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Martin. That is your job. Remember, I sat
here and said, yes, it is not Congress' job, it is your job. I
am going to hold you accountable too, sir.
Mr. Martin. Right. I agree.
Ms. Norton. I have a problem that I remember raising in the
first hearings that lead and copper pipes join together. Here
is where science and follow-through and being willing to change
or not change based on the science is so important. You put the
lead and the copper together and you accelerate the lead
erosion. There is a device which we understand is inexpensive
called a dielectric. Apparently, you do not use dielectrics.
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. If you do use dielectric in order to keep from
extending and accelerating lead pipe erosion, this is your time
to inform the public.
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Norton, the acceleration of corrosion
depends on a number of factors, and it is not just whether you
connect a lead and copper pipe together. It depends on soil
conditions and a number of other factors, and----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Johnson, that----
Mr. Johnson. That is simply not correct, the information
that you have.
Ms. Norton. Let me just stop you here with respect to
answers to our questions.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Ms. Norton. You notice that I am not looking for zero in
terms of what science can provide. I have talked about the gold
standard, and I have been real clear I know nobody is going to
get the gold standard. Now you are trying to tell me other
sources. I am asking a direct question about mitigation here
through the use of dielectric, inexpensive device. Do you or do
you not use it, yes or no?
Mr. Johnson. We do not.
Ms. Norton. Why do you not use it?
Mr. Johnson. Because we don't believe, in these soil
conditions and with the pipe that we are putting together, that
it is necessary.
Ms. Norton. So you think that there is no acceleration and
extension of lead corrosion, and you have evidence to prove
that?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, we do. We have an EPA report and study
that was done that looked very specifically at this issue, and
it indicated that there was a minuscule----
Ms. Norton. So putting lead in cooper is OK?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. All right. Submit that report within 30 days.
You are under oath.
Mr. Johnson. We will do that.
Ms. Norton. You are under oath. Both of you are. So if
there is a mistake, admit it, but don't tell me unless you can,
in fact, back up what you say. I ask some of these questions
because the public has not been able to get answers to them.
Mr. Johnson. I am very mindful of that.
Ms. Norton. Apparently this was a question that was
submitted long ago, and according to the information my staff
has gathered was a very exact date on February 21st. Again, at
Council Member Graham's meeting an engineer did finally admit
that WASA had never used dielectrics. You say it was because
they were unnecessary. Last thing I am going to do is say spend
money on something that you don't have to spend money on. I do
note that this is inexpensive, and since it is inexpensive and
most of what you have to do is not, would you also submit the
cost of it?
Mr. Johnson. Sure.
Ms. Norton. I am told it is inexpensive. I don't want to
hold anyone to that.
Mr. Johnson. Along with other information related to other
problems that it can cause by using that particular device.
Ms. Norton. Will you say that again? I am sorry.
Mr. Johnson. There are other associated problems with
grounding of electricity within a residence that are caused by
the use of that device, as well.
Ms. Norton. Would you explain that, please? In other words,
there is a harmful effect, you are testifying?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Norton. And that would be?
Mr. Johnson. Well, because houses are typically grounded
using the water pipe, and when you do this disconnect with the
dielectric and the copper and lead fitting, it could very well
break that ground and create electrical problems within the
home. I will be glad to provide you with the research data
associated with that, as well.
Ms. Norton. I would appreciate that within 30 days, as
well.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Here is an opportunity for you to explain
something that I think is important for the public to know, and
that is, when you increase the rate structure, a lot of it has
to do with the surface, impervious surface rate structure, and,
just to be as clear as I can without getting into technical
matters, those large buildings are often the source of these
impervious land structures, and so the water flows into the
Anacostia and they cost and they increase pollution.
Let me see if I can find a neutral way to say this. Who in
this region would be the No. 1--don't use the word villain,
Eleanor--who would be the No. 1 land owner who is the source of
the problem or problems from impervious surface runoff?
Mr. Johnson. Our initial look, it appears that the Federal
Government probably owns the largest number of square feet of
impervious cover.
Ms. Norton. And I think you are certainly right. You heard
me indicate I am having a hearing even tomorrow. We were going
to call you to that hearing, but it seems unnecessary to do
that, especially with your coming today. I know that the rate
structure is being increased. Are you saying that the largest
increase will come, because the Federal Government is a
ratepayer, to the Federal Government?
Mr. Johnson. I think the largest shifting of cost will
occur in the Federal customer category.
Ms. Norton. What does that mean?
Mr. Johnson. We are not adding additional cost; what we are
doing is unbundling the basic sewer charge as it currently
exists, because it is all based on a volumetric charge now, so
you will----
Ms. Norton. But I thought there were going to be rate
increases.
Mr. Johnson. Well, the rate increase, which is projected at
8.5 percent, and a portion of that----
Ms. Norton. That was 8.5 percent?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am. A portion of that is water and a
portion of that is sewer. On the sewer charge what we are
attempting to do is take out the cost that is associated with
the long-term control plan and segregate that, so instead of
there being an 8 percent rate increase, it would probably be
something on the order of a 3 to 4 percent rate increase on the
sewer side, and we would collect the balance of that in this
impervious area surface charge.
Ms. Norton. And that will be charged to he or she who is
responsible for it?
Mr. Johnson. That is what we are moving toward. Yes, ma'am.
If you looked at a family of four in a house where they are
washing and cooking and bathing and doing all the things that a
family normally does, and they are paying their water and sewer
charged based on the volume of water that they use, so we base
how much you are going to pay for your sewer cost on the number
of gallons of water you use. And you look across the street and
let's say that there is a large big box store and that big box
store has 300,000 square feet under roof and two or three acres
of parking, and maybe only one or two toilets inside, then
their volumetric charge is going to be disproportionate to that
of the family of four.
So what we are trying to do is equalize this so that the
cost causers are the ones that are paying for the actual cost
of this particular program, so that the single family----
Ms. Norton. Then I don't understand why this has been
controversial. Do people understand? Will the average homeowner
get a rate increase? Perhaps a rate reduction?
Mr. Martin. Ms. Norton, I think the issue is that this is a
new rate. It is a change in every customer's bill. Part of our
program from the Board's perspective is to make sure that we
explain this in a very transparent way so that people
understand exactly----
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Martin, will there be an increase to
the average homeowner?
Mr. Martin. We don't have the impervious surface rate
actually defined at this point because we are still working on
it, but the preliminary numbers say no, probably not. When you
add up the water rate by volume, the sewer rate by volume, and
the rate for impervious surface, it is probably about the same,
a few pennies one way or the other. That is the preliminary
data. Let me not say that is----
Ms. Norton. I know this is hard to explain, because when
you get into what most of us--certainly I didn't know anything
about this division of cost or that it was all bundled. I am
sure this is going to be hard to explain. When will you know
for sure?
Mr. Johnson. There are some new customers, too. There are
people who have typically not been a customer, people who own--
--
Ms. Norton. Like who?
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Parking lots and parking decks
who don't get a water bill.
Ms. Norton. How in the world could they not have been
customers?
Mr. Martin. They don't have water service.
Mr. Johnson. They don't have water service, so they are not
getting----
Ms. Norton. They don't have any water service in a parking
lot of any kind?
Mr. Johnson. In a flat surface parking lot, typically no.
Ms. Norton. Unless they are part of a building.
Mr. Johnson. Right. And so those are customers that will be
added. I can't say that they will be coming on willingly.
Ms. Norton. When will you be able to definitively--you did
the right thing to get out here early and alert people, but, of
course, in the 15-second ad atmosphere and all of us are too
busy, this is seen by some, I think, as a rate increase. Mr.
Martin has offered very helpful and important testimony that it
probably isn't, given who the source of the problem is.
When, Mr. Martin or Mr. Johnson, will you have a definitive
answer?
Mr. Martin. We have proposed rates as of earlier this year
that are----
Ms. Norton. Well, they were a rate increase.
Mr. Martin [continuing]. Combined rates. They were combined
rates that are not unbundled.
Ms. Norton. Why would you do that? If you are trying to
unbundle, why would you alarm people by giving them all a rate
increase?
Mr. Martin. Because that rate increase is probably going to
reflect in their total bill, that same rate increase. In other
words, we have a 10-year plan that----
Ms. Norton. You just said that there would not be a rate
increase for the average homeowner. I asked you that.
Mr. Martin. That is the total average bill for a homeowner.
What we proposed back in February would reflect an 8.5
increase. When we unbundle it and then add up what the average
homeowner would get, it will be about 8.5 percent with
everything added up together.
Ms. Norton. All right. For the record, there will be an
increase to everybody?
Mr. Martin. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Unbundling only lets you know how much of it
comes from your impervious land, and there will be an increase
because of the CSO, isn't it, because of combined sewer
overflow?
Mr. Martin. In part, correct.
Ms. Norton. I just think you have to be candid with people.
There is no free lunch. And if you are trying to make the
increase fall more on those who are most responsible, say that,
but if you have to increase everybody's water rate tell them
why. There is concern about water purity here. If you tell them
why, I think people really are willing to pay.
This is hard to explain, but remember it was the
explanation of lead in the water that led to issues for WASA
before.
Now, these water rates apparently are not progressive. You
may have read in the Post, I guess it was, in recent days that
one-third of families in the District of Columbia are poor. Why
should a poor family pay the same water rate that Eleanor
Holmes Norton and Jerry Johnson and Robin Martin pay?
Mr. Martin. Ms. Norton, I think that is a very good
question, and that is something that, since I have been on the
Board, has been on the top of mind of every District member
whose responsibility is to make sure that not only do we have
as reasonable rates as possible, but that they are affordable.
My feeling as Chair in navigating through the rate
structure is that we need to get the impervious surface rate
introduced, and that the next project after that is to, in
fact, look at our rate----
Ms. Norton. After the poor people have already paid, then
look to see whether or not. Then, of course, you don't give
them back any money.
Mr. Martin. We have to understand the issues that are
involved in terms of making sure the public is aware of the
issue----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Martin, look, let me suggest something.
Part of the problem for poor people is they often don't own the
property. Calculating in some fashion--this is not rocket
science--how much of what you pay comes from the price of
water, as it were, is kind of elementary math. I am trying to
keep these people from being socked in the middle of one of the
worse recessions anyone can remember, and I don't think, given
the fact that you have a pretty hefty raise, and you say
everybody is going to have it, 8.5, I am going to have it and
the poor lady down the street is going to have it, I must ask
you if you are, in fact, going to put this rate on people, why
you can't do the climate changes or a rebate? I don't even want
to suggest. There are a thousand ways to say to a poor person
you don't have to pay the same amount as Robin Martin does.
In the District of Columbia we are famous for rebates of
various kinds to poor people. We have done it with taxes here.
There are multiple ways to go about this, but if you lost your
job and that is what we have now, if you have no sub-prime
mortgage but you are feeling all of the reverberations of the
present recession, all you need is an 8.5 increase, which
landlord, assuming you do not own the property, will be happy
to pass along to poor tenants.
So I am asking a very serious question here. I am not
questioning the need for an increase. I don't think you are
trying to throw rates at people. I am such a big proponent of
doing something about combined sewer overflow. I think you are
trying to hold the Federal Government and other big landowners
in the way they should, but I don't see that you--in fact, you
have testified that you will get to the poor people after they
have already been socked with 8.5, because first you have to do
the rate increase. You have already announced that. Then you
have to do the unbundling, then you will get to them. Of course
by then nobody is saying, here's your money back. Last time I
saw an agency do that I cannot remember.
So I have to ask you why you cannot do it, or, put another
way, why you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
Mr. Martin. Ms. Chairman, I think we are. And let me
correct my statement before. I think I was responding to a
question about the rate structure. There are two programs that
WASA has had for a number of years that, in fact, address that
exact question. One is called the splash program, in which we
solicit from ratepayer and billpayers voluntary contributions
which we then distribute to people who are in need. We have a
customer assistance program which is tied in through the other
utilities where----
Ms. Norton. Well, the one-third of families who will be hit
with an 8.5 increase in their water bill have access or get a
rebate through--is it a rebate they get? Is it a lower rate?
Mr. Martin. Go ahead, Jerry.
Mr. Johnson. In the case of the cap program, the first four
CCFs, or about 3,000 gallons of water----
Mr. Martin. What's a CCF?
Mr. Johnson. A CCF is 748 gallons of water, so about 3,000
gallons of water is provided at no cost to low-income customers
in the District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. How do you know if a low-income customer is
getting that?
Mr. Johnson. We do it the same way that the power company
and the LIHEAP program. If you qualify for LIHEAP----
Ms. Norton. Oh, so you could do this easily? You already do
it?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Martin. We do it.
Ms. Norton. OK. So the answer to my question that is are
you willing to do this--I will call it a rebate. You can call
it what you like--with one-third of working families who are
poor in the District of Columbia with respect to this 8.5
percent increase in the water rate? Can they be included? You
are telling me that some of them are already included. Are you
not, or are you? Are they already included?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Martin. Some of them are, certainly.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Martin. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. Those same people who would quality for the
LIHEAP program would qualify for this same discount, and it is
run by the same people who run the program for----
Ms. Norton. All right. Unfortunately we have a terrible
period here. There are all kinds of people not in the LIHEAP
program. My question to you is: will families who can
demonstrate that they are poor--and you know what that standard
is--be eligible--this would be on an annual basis. This is not
forever--be eligible for this reduction, not just a LIHEAP
family, the family who worked yesterday and is not working
today. Will that family, if that family submits evidence that
they don't have a job, have no means to pay for an increase,
will that family be eligible for what you are telling me you
already do for poor people?
Mr. Martin. That is not something that is in the policy at
this point. We have been reviewing both the CAP program and the
splash program because one of the things that we are finding is
a lower participation rate than we think is appropriate, or
reflects what the needs are of the community.
Ms. Norton. So you prove my point. You have plenty of room
left in that program.
Mr. Martin. But we are attempting to figure out why people
aren't participating. We think more people ought to be
participating and qualified to participate.
Ms. Norton. I am scratching my head. OK. Given the fact
that you already have some people who are not participating,
how about those who would like to participate as soon as the
8.5 increase goes into affect? Is there any reason why that
would be inappropriate, Mr. Martin?
Mr. Martin. Ms. Norton, we would have to define what the
qualifications are to be----
Ms. Norton. You already know what they are. You just
testified.
Mr. Martin. Well, if they qualify----
Ms. Norton. You just testified that LIHEAP----
Mr. Martin. Yes.
Ms. Norton. The qualifications are defined as poor under
the Federal Government's standards. I mean, we really shouldn't
answer me that way. If you don't know or you are unwilling, you
are not going to get away with that kind of answer to me, Mr.
Martin. I am asking you a straight-out question. In the middle
of what some people are defining as a recession--I certainly
would not like to use that word--added on to the problems
people are already having with bills for necessities such as
water and heat, if there are such families and a third of them
in the District of Columbia are poor, I am sure I speak for my
colleagues when I speak of those who are poor in their
jurisdictions, will you take an already existing program and
make it available to families who, when this program goes into
affect, cannot pay 8.5 using the same evidence and proof that
you use on LIHEAP program?
Mr. Martin. Absolutely. If they qualify under LIHEAP, they
will qualify here.
Ms. Norton. So I don't know what took us so long to get to
that answer. I tell you what, you said if they qualified for
LIHEAP but are not in LIHEAP----
Mr. Martin. No, no. I misunderstood your question. The
answer is, of course.
Ms. Norton. OK. They are not in LIHEAP, but they would
qualify under LIHEAP or the appropriate standard, then they
could, in fact, get this reduction?
Mr. Martin. Yes. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. I don't know why you didn't say that in the
first place.
Mr. Martin. I misunderstood the question. It is my error.
Ms. Norton. My fault then. Sorry, I will try to be clearer.
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Norton, I think that one thing we keep in
mind as we go about doing these programs is that the only
source for payment are the other customers, so we are, in
essence----
Ms. Norton. Have you ever heard of progressive taxation?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Have you ever heard of the earned income tax
credit? At the big dollars we are paying you, Mr. Johnson,
shouldn't you be paying more than people who are now on the
earned income tax credit?
Mr. Johnson. I fully understand what you are saying. I just
want to make sure----
Ms. Norton. There have been people who tried to repeal
progressive taxation here. They haven't quite succeeded,
notwithstanding tax cuts for the richest Americans. So yes,
there is a shift of cost. That is why you pay more Federal
income taxes than the poor people I am talking about.
Mr. Johnson. I know. I had the experience yesterday.
Ms. Norton. And why you should. You make a handsome living
compared to people who are going from hand to mouth.
I am almost through. Huge controversy about nitrogen and
how you are handling nitrogen. You and I have worked together
on trying to get the nitrogen out of the water. I go every year
to try to get more and more money. Then I find you working at
cross purposes with me. Scientists now say we won't reach our
goal in reducing nitrogen by the date we had set, 2010. Do you
agree?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. Why would you pursue in court or other legal
strategies in the face of evidence about WASA's practices, for
example, EPA regulators just this last month--and EPA will tell
you they are not my favorite people--rejected, that is to say
its Environmental Appeals Board, your arguments regarding
nitrogen were rejected, and I understand they have been
rejected twice.
I understand you have yet another appeal going forward. Why
are you resisting what the EPA says are your obligations to
pursue efforts to reduce nitrogen, one of the most lethal and
dangerous pollutants? Why are you going to court against the
regulators or otherwise pursuing legal remedies through the
administrative process when the regulators keep giving you the
same answer and you tell me yourself that by 2010 you are not
going to meet the goal that has been set for you to meet?
Mr. Johnson. Well, let me start. I think that is a multi-
part question, Ms. Norton. Let me start with the 2010 piece of
it first.
Simply because of the time that it takes to design,
construct, and build these facilities, it is literally not
physically possible to get it done by 2010. I mean, we have
to----
Ms. Norton. Is that the argument that you are making, that
it is just a time factor?
Mr. Johnson. I am trying to answer the question in
segments, if I may.
That is the question with respect to timing. We have worked
with the Environmental Protection Agency and worked with them
on the technical and engineering side to understand that there
is a timeframe in which we can complete this, and we have
agreed tentatively that we can accomplish the construction of
some $950 million worth of facilities between now----
Ms. Norton. Say that again, please.
Mr. Johnson. $950 million worth of facilities that have to
be constructed at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Ms. Norton. Why did you file another protest on April 1st?
Mr. Johnson. I am going to come to that part. So we have
agreed on a date that we can get everything constructed.
Assuming EPA approval of the plan, we could get it constructed
by 2014, and that by 2015, January 2015, we would be in
compliance. So that is getting everything in the ground.
Ms. Norton. Did you say EPA has agreed to that?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Why are you filing an appeal then?
Mr. Johnson. The appeal has to do with some of the
technical aspects of the plan. One has to do with a Federal
consent decree and the method by which they wanted to include
the dates and timeframes for getting it done.
Ms. Norton. Well, shame on you. You have a Federal consent
decree, so you would think that you would know you had to do
that anyway.
Mr. Johnson. Well, if we----
Ms. Norton. If you signed it, that is what a consent decree
is.
Mr. Johnson. The consent decree has to do with the combined
sewer overflow project, not the total nitrogen project. We----
Ms. Norton. And you don't see the two as related,
intimately related?
Mr. Johnson. They are related, but that, too, took a
considerable amount of time working with EPA to convince them
that we ought to look at the two projects together, as opposed
to having a stovepipe over here for CSO and another one over
here for total nitrogen, and it took some time to convince them
that, from an engineering and environmental----
Ms. Norton. All right. If you convinced them, why are you
appealing?
Mr. Johnson. OK. I am coming to that.
Ms. Norton. April 1st you filed another appeal.
Mr. Johnson. So we joined. We were on the same side as the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation in saying, put it in the permit,
because that is the simplest, easiest, quickest way to get it
done, and that is where the EAB ruled. They said yes, it should
be included in the permit, so we were right on that point.
The other point that we appealed had to do with the
allocation of nitrogen for the wastewater treatment plant, and
the allocation we believe was not done on a scientific basis,
and as a result we have had certain portions of our allocation
for the Blue Plains plant that has been allocated to both
Virginia and to Maryland. We are simply trying to recover that
so that we get the full benefit of all the allocation that we
should get at the plant.
Ms. Norton. Are you telling me that EPA would object to
your recovering that from Maryland and Virginia?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I mean, that is what the allocation
appeal is all about. That is what the basis of it is. It is a
very----
Ms. Norton. Why did EPA object to where you get the
recovery from?
Mr. Johnson. I think you would have to ask. There are some
representatives here.
Ms. Norton. You know why. They would not tell you by fiat
without telling you why, Mr. Johnson. You can't come here and
testify to something like that and say, oh, I don't know. You
have to ask them.
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Norton, I----
Ms. Norton. You know. They told you why.
Mr. Johnson. I do not know. We firmly believe that----
Ms. Norton. Did you ask them?
Mr. Johnson. They said they have a right to do it.
Ms. Norton. Right to do what?
Mr. Johnson. To move the allocation from Blue Plains to
Maryland for the plants in Maryland. We think that allocation
is rightfully ours.
Ms. Norton. I want to thank both of you for your testimony.
Mr. Johnson. It is a very complex issue. It also has to do
with reordering the way that we operate the wastewater
treatment plant, and in reordering the way that we operate the
wastewater treatment plant there are a couple of outfalls there
that are designated for different purposes. And if a certain
loading requirement is placed on one versus the other, then it
creates a whole different scenario in the way that we operate
both the CSO control program and the nitrogen program.
And let me say that, in working with EPA and getting them
to agree on this change in technology and the way that we are
operating the plant, we were able to save our ratepayer, both
in the District of Columbia and the surrounding jurisdictions,
over $500 million.
Ms. Norton. You know, Mr. Johnson, I commend you on that.
One of the things I most admire is negotiating out matters. A
lawyer though I be, I hate litigation as a way, a most
expensive way, to settle matters. Your testimony seems to be,
see, we were able to set without, and yet you have a string of
protests and other challenges to EPA where they and you end up
coming to some resolution. I particularly applaud you when you
come to resolutions that save money.
On the other hand, do not expect me to be a continuing
partner working my you know what off over here for more funds
for WASA if WASA is working at cross purposes with me by
opposing a regulator who I do not regard as very strict.
Mr. Johnson. I assure you----
Ms. Norton. I mean, we took them to task on lead in the
water more than we did you.
Mr. Johnson. I assure you, Ms. Norton, that we are not
working at cross purposes and that we are working diligently
with EPA in order to try to resolve the outstanding issues. We
have met with them as recently as last week, last Wednesday,
and I believe that substantial progress was made at that
meeting. We have already moved forward to--I don't want to
admit this in front of Mr. Capacasa, but we have already
prepared the documents to go out to bid for the project
management and designer on the project. So we are moving the
process forward, even though we have not gotten final approval
from EPA on the design plan. And we will continue. We are very
diligent and serious about the project.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Martin and Mr. Johnson, because we try to
have these on an annual basis, we are going to ask you
difficult questions. We don't have endless hearings. I think
that the region has indicated some confidence in your work with
some real caveats. We understand the huge cost and cost/benefit
problems you face in trying to decide what to do. We have
straightened out some of your business very recently.
And I do want you both to know that, speaking from the
perspective of someone who saw the decline, fall, if not the
collapse of WASA, at the time we essentially built a new basis
for the WASA you, yourself, Mr. Johnson were chiefly
responsible for improving, speaking from the perspective of
knowing from whence you started at ground truly zero or below
to where we have come today, you deserve some credit.
Do expect that this committee will and intends to do annual
oversight, and I do ask you this: when people do not get
responses quickly to WASA, they call their Congresswoman. And
particularly when they can't get responses through their
Council member, like Jim Graham, they have to go to somebody
else. I have enough work. So, just as I said that you should
get responses to me within 30 days, I ask you--and I don't want
to set the time period--to remember that, as part of restoring
trust in WASA, a WASA that you had no part in collapsing, part
of restoring trust in it, may be the most important thing you
could do would be responses very quickly to questions that are
asked, particularly since you seem to believe you have the
answer.
If you do not have the answer, Members of Congress find,
because people often come to us with things--it is not our
jurisdiction, we can't do anything about it. You know, the very
fact that we responded promptly, heard them out, told them what
our problem is gives people lots of confidence in their Member,
which is how they get elected.
I suggest that imitating that would erase some of the
controversy that continues to swirl among some with respect to
some of your work.
Congratulations on the work you have done. You will find us
standing behind you with the job that lies before you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Martin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Panel three, Joe Capacasa, I think, Director of
Water Protection Division for the Environmental Protection
Agency in Region III, responsible for the Clean Water Act, safe
drinking water programs here and in the mid-Atlantic States.
Thomas Jacobus, general manager of Washington Aqueduct. Doug
Siglin, director of Federal Affairs, Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Robert Boon, co-founder, Anacostia Watershed Society.
Would you all stand, because it is the committee's policy
that all witnesses are sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. Norton. The record will show that each witness answered
in the affirmative.
Your entire statement will be recorded in the record. The
green light is there to indicate that your 5 minutes have
passed. The yellow light, of course, is a warning light, and
the red light tells you the time has expired. We don't gavel
down witnesses, but you see the hour and how we certainly had
to question the last witnesses, so that we ask you to stay to
the greatest extent possible within the timeframes allowed.
Mr. Capacasa.
STATEMENTS OF JON M. CAPACASA, DIRECTOR OF WATER PROTECTION
DIVISION FOR WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THOMAS
JACOBUS, GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT; DOUG SIGLIN,
FEDERAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION; AND ROBERT
BOONE, PRESIDENT, ANACOSTIA WATERSHED SOCIETY
STATEMENT OF JON M. CAPACASA
Mr. Capacasa. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the
committee, for the opportunity to update you on our activities
at EPA with regard to WASA.
I am Jon Capacasa. I work in the Region III office of EPA
in Philadelphia. I am the Director of the Water Protection
Division there and am pleased to be here today.
EPA's Region III's role in relation to WASA is to serve as
the Clean Water Act permitting and enforcing agency in D.C. and
as the primary enforcement agent for the Federal Drinking Water
Act.
In addition to our regulatory role, we administer the clean
water and safe drinking water State revolving fund funding
programs in D.C., manage special appropriation projects for
capital improvements, and work in partnership with local
utilities to protect regional water quality.
We are in frequent contact with D.C. WASA, and also in
close cooperation with the D.C. Department of Environment, as
well as D.C. government and other regional water utilities.
Regarding the quality of drinking water services in
District, D.C. WASA and the Washington Aqueduct report directly
to EPA Region III on the results of the sampling analysis they
do, and these results are audited periodically.
Based on this information, EPA can report that the drinking
water serving the District of Columbia meets all Federal
health-based standards and the system is in compliance with all
national primary drinking water regulations.
A requirement of EPA regulations is that utilities notify
their customers annually through something called a consumer
confidence report about the quality of water served and its
compliance status for regulated parameters. The latest consumer
confidence report was submitted to EPA and the public by WASA
in June 2007 and has been provided to the committee for your
use.
D.C. WASA reports that the D.C. water system has been at or
below the action levels for lead and copper under the lead and
cooper regulation for three consecutive years since the report
in early 2005. The latest report submitted to EPA by WASA
states that the 90th percentile of over 100 samples taken was
10.9 parts per billion below the action level of 15 parts per
billion or greater under the Federal rule.
The D.C. water system is now meeting the requirements of
the Lead and Copper Rule such that additional lead service line
replacements are no longer required, in accordance with Federal
regulations.
This spring EPA will conduct a triennial inspection of the
water distribution system in the District, and we will continue
to coordinate research on planned and potential water treatment
changes at the Washington Aqueduct.
With regard to wastewater controls on the wastewater
regulatory front, EPA issues and ensures compliance with Clean
Water Act permits in the District. Such permits are issued to
D.C. WASA for operation of the Blue Plains facility and for the
control of combined sewer overflows into local rivers.
In April 2007 EPA issued an amended Clean Water Act permit
to D.C. WASA which incorporates new limits for nutrient
reduction to the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Blue Plains
is the largest point source of nutrients for the bay. I would
like to point out that WASA has already achieved the 2010
Chesapeake Bay program load cap for phosphorus reductions, and
the new nitrogen limit of no more than 4.6 million pounds
annually will require a substantial upgrade to the facility.
In 2007 WASA developed a total nitrogen wet weather plan
for the Blue Plains facility to meet the new nitrogen limit.
WASA presented that plan to EPA and we have commented on it
extensively. The submitted plan involves major modifications to
the Blue Plains facility and to the previously approved wet
weather plan for control of combined sewer overflows.
Given the complexity and extent of this major capital
project, EPA and WASA have agreed to a 7-year compliance
schedule until July 2014 for project completion. EPA intends to
reissue the WASA's Blue Plains permit with year with a
compliance schedule to get the job completed. This permit will
be submitted for public review and comment as is required.
With regard to the enforceable schedule of control of
combined sewer overflows, to ensure the protection of the
Anacostia River, Rock Creek, and the Potomac from the effects
of discharge from the combined sewer system, EPA initiated
Federal enforcement action earlier in this decade against WASA
which resulted in a 2005 Federal consent decree. This decree
provides WASA with a long-term enforceable compliance schedule
for the completion of those controls under the national CSO
policy and the Clean Water Act.
We are very pleased to note that later this year WASA is on
schedule to achieve a 40 percent reduction in overflows to the
Anacostia River. When that plan is fully implemented, overflows
to the Anacostia River are expected to be reduced by 98 percent
in an average rainfall year.
EPA will continue to carry out its duties in administration
of the clean and safe drinking water programs in the District,
in close contact and cooperation with WASA and local officials.
With regard to Federal financial assistance, in D.C. clean
water and drinking water State revolving fund programs provide
annual grants to D.C. government. In the past 5 years in D.C.
the clean and safe drinking water revolving fund programs
provided grants in the amounts of $23 million under the clean
water side and $39.5 million from the drinking water revolving
fund. Such funds are directed to priorities established by D.C.
government using an intended use plan, and typically 100
percent of those funds are directed to capital improvement
projects of WASA.
EPA also administers infrastructure projects authorized
through special congressional appropriations, and in the last 6
years these have totaled approximately $3.5 million.
I would last like to mention the fact that we are also
working in partnership for watershed and source water
protection. In addition to our regulatory and funding roles, we
work through innovative partnerships in the D.C. area for
drinking water source protection and the Potomac Basin for
water security and preparedness, and, as part of the newly
formed Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership. EPA has
been a leader and active participant in the partnership efforts
to restor the Anacostia River. EPA and WASA are members of what
is called the Potomac River Basin Drinking Water Source
Partnership, which is an organization to actively promote
protection of drinking water sources in the basin.
We will continue to work in close cooperation with D.C.
WASA and D.C. government in addressing drinking water and
wastewater issues and needs.
Again, thank you for this opportunity. We will be glad to
answer questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Capacasa follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.086
Mr. Davis of Illinois [presiding]. Thank you very much.
We will proceed to Mr. Jacobus.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS JACOBUS
Mr. Jacobus. Thank you, Chairman Davis and members of the
subcommittee. I am Tom Jacobus, the general manager of
Washington Aqueduct. Thank you for inviting me here today to
discuss drinking water quality and the interaction between the
Washington Aqueduct and the District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority.
Washington Aqueduct is a public water utility providing
wholesale service to the District of Columbia; Arlington
County, VA; and the city of Falls Church service are in
northern Virginia. It is a Federal entity that is part of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District.
Washington Aqueduct's working relationship with D.C. WASA
is sound and productive. Working together with effective
oversight from EPA Region III, we provide the residents of the
District of Columbia with excellent water, delivered with
exceptionally high reliability at reasonable cost.
Washington Aqueduct also works well with other Federal,
State-level, and local agencies that have stewardship
responsibilities over physical and biological resources. That,
coupled with our interest in working with private advocacy
groups, gives us the opportunity to contribute to solutions to
environmental issues.
One of the great strengths I see in both of our
organizations, the Washington Aqueduct and WASA, is our
willingness to continually evaluate our performance and to make
improvements wherever we can. The public expects and they
should receive no less.
Washington Aqueduct's treatment plants employ multiple
barriers to remove physical, chemical, and biological
contaminants. We are fully in compliance with all drinking
water regulations, and in many cases achieve standards far more
conservative than the national regulations. However, as the
potential contaminants become more complex and the ability to
detect them in extremely low levels advances, we must continue
to evaluate what changes in treatment may be needed to meet
emerging Federal regulations and public health standards.
We, along with Fairfax Water and the Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission, will cooperatively begin to acquire more
data on pharmaceuticals and endocrine-disrupting compounds in
general. The levels found to date have been extremely low, but
we believe it is our responsibility to continue to look into
the environment and see the water as we are using as our source
water and learn more about it. We take that on willingly and we
believe it is our responsibility.
The Washington Aqueduct's financial needs are approved and
supported by the Wholesale Customer Board. This board's
principals are the general manager of D.C. Water and Sewer
Authority, the Arlington County manager, and the city manager
of the city of Falls Church. They are supported in that board's
actions by their utility staffs. The board represents the
population served by the water produced at Washington
Aqueduct's Dalecarlia and McMillan water treatment plants. Its
members report to their authority board or to their county or
city government. In my judgment, this arrangement works very
well.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to
give testimony. I look forward to responding to any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobus follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.093
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Jacobus.
We will now proceed to Mr. Siglin.
STATEMENT OF DOUG SIGLIN
Mr. Siglin. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Congresswoman
Norton, Congressman Van Hollen.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Doug Siglin. I am the Federal
Affairs director for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and on
behalf of our 200,000 members I thank you for the opportunity
to be here today.
You have my written statement. I am going to try to just
summarize briefly the four points that I want to make here.
First is that D.C. WASA, through its Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant, is absolutely critical to the health of the
Chesapeake Bay. I use a little fact in the testimony that Jerry
Johnson provided for me, that if you took the daily flow from
the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant and put it
in gallon milk jugs in 1 day and line those milk jugs up side
by side, it would go around the earth one and a half times.
That is to say that it is an enormous contributor of water to
the Chesapeake Bay.
The concentration levels of nitrogen in the water that is
discharged from the Blue Plains plant is enormously important.
As Mr. Capacasa just said, it is the largest source of
nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay that we have in our 64,000 mile
watershed. That is to say what Blue Plains does is extremely
important.
The Chesapeake Bay is suffering from an overload of
nitrogen, which causes a deficit of dissolved oxygen in the
water. We call these dead zones. It is the same kind of dead
zone that is in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, EPA tells us there
are 44 estuaries and coastal areas in the United States now
that are suffering from these kinds of dead zones.
There are scientists who believe that the overload of
nitrogen in our water is equal on an ecological perspective to
an excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causing climate
change. It is a worldwide problem of huge magnitude.
The challenge that we have before us is how do we address
that in the Chesapeake Bay. Since the Chesapeake Bay 2000
Agreement, there has been a regional process that has involved
the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, the State of
Virginia, the State of Pennsylvania, and what we call our
watershed headwater States, New York, Delaware, and West
Virginia, to make allocations of reductions of nitrogen
throughout the entire watershed. The scientists tell us that we
can have no more than 175 million pounds of nitrogen in the bay
to have it healthy. We have far more than that now. In order to
get to 175 million pounds we have to make reductions.
There was a very complex, multi-year process to create
those allocations. Blue Plains was given an allocation. Blue
Plains, the WASA management, has challenged the allocation from
the time that EPA first offered its draft permit in 2006 and
has, once again, challenged the allocation at the Environmental
Appeals Board on April 1st.
It is true, and I want to acknowledge the fact that they
are moving ahead with plans, but at the same time they are
moving ahead with plans to meet the allocation, they are
challenging it legally. They are on a two-track strategy. I ask
you what is going to happen if, in fact, the two-track strategy
succeeds and the allocation is, in fact, rejected. That means
that we are going to have to go back and reconsider that
lengthy process that led to the allocation that Blue Plains
has. That means that the State of Maryland and the State of
Virginia are going to have to reconsider their allocations. And
I would submit to you that is going to be more delay and a much
longer time before we can actually get to the place where the
bay is clean and healthy again.
Finally, Ms. Norton, you know that I have been working with
you since the year 2003, and with the appropriators, to get
Federal appropriations for WASA. We have been quite successful.
Because of your good work and the good work of the
appropriators, we have been quite successful in that. I want to
continue to work with that to get appropriations for D.C. WASA
and the Blue Plains Treatment Plant. It is absolutely essential
that the Federal Government do that.
But what I want to do today is propose the notion that the
management of WASA should voluntarily try to get past the legal
minimum which is being assigned to it by this long, complicated
process and EPA permit, to voluntarily go beyond, to try to get
more nitrogen out of the system so that we can save the
Chesapeake Bay, if you will, faster, and in return for that
commitment, then it seems to me that all of us the region--
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, and
New York--would owe an obligation and that we all should work
together to find the sources of financing that are going to
make that possible.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Siglin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.131
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
We will go to Mr. Boone.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOONE
Mr. Boone. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Ms. Norton, Mr. Van
Hollen. I truly appreciate this opportunity to speak with you
today and share the point of view of the Anacostia Watershed
Society. We have been observing the performance of the
discharge of sewage in the watershed since 1989, and it was sad
but we had to file a lawsuit to get the attention of WASA to
stop discharging sewage into the Anacostia.
We have a vision for a swimmable and fishable river by--
well, we started out with the year 2000, and we are slipping
now to 2010. We don't want to slip much more than that. It is
pleasant outside today, but 3 months from now it would be very
appropriate to see kids and myself, too, probably out
refreshing and enjoying the river swimming in it. So we hope to
meet that clean water mandate of a swimmable Anacostia River,
but to do that we are going to have to get the sewage out of
the water.
I am very glad to say we have been a great supporter of
WASA. You know, we don't realize it, but this is the largest
wastewater treatment plant in the world, and that is words, but
accomplishing that is another story. We look to WASA to solve
our problem. If we can get the sewage out of the water, we can
have a swimmable river, but not until we do that.
I must say that I have been told today by Mr. Johnson that
40 percent of that 100 years of dumping sewage in the water, 40
percent of that will be stopped coming September of this year.
That is cause for celebration right there, I must say. The
ecology of the water will profoundly change with 40 percent
less sewage going into it. Not swimmable yet, but much better
off.
We are very concerned about the pharmaceuticals and the
endocrine disrupters that are ongoing now. We are finding out
more about those, and it is getting to be very scary, quite
frankly. We would like to see a lot more energy focused on the
removal of nitrogen, but also pharmaceuticals and endocrine
disrupters.
There is another issue about transparency. You know, with
transparency within WASA's process it would eliminate a lot of
the paranoia and a lot of the scandals and so forth that are
going around. I think more effort in being transparent would
effectively put forward WASA's effectiveness that people don't
know about at this time.
It is a regional burden that WASA bears, and it should be a
regional solution, and a transparent regional solution. One
puzzling problem I have right now is this impervious surface
tax that we strongly support, but I understand that the
District government is also proposing an impervious surface
tax, and so we have two proposals floating around. You know, a
ratepayer receiving two bills about impervious surface is going
to give impervious surface a bad name, so we need to have one
combined or worked out solution to the impervious surface,
because the impervious surfaces are creating the stormwater
that is the major problem with the Anacostia River water
quality.
That is all I have to say. It is getting late. I thank you
for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boone follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.095
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, thank you very much. I want to
thank all of you gentlemen for being here with us.
Mr. Capacasa, in reference to the amended Clean Water Act
permit EPA issued to WASA last year to incorporate new limits
for nutrient reduction to the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay,
in your opinion, what are possible and achievable solutions or
ways to bring the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant into
compliance with the updated standards?
Mr. Capacasa. Well, Mr. Chairman, WASA has already
submitted a plan to us to achieve the job. It is a very
innovative plan, very creative plan which merges two goals in
one, one of reducing overflows to the rivers, and one of total
nitrogen reduction. So that plan has been submitted to us. We
have commended it greatly and I think the job right now is
getting on with the work of implementing a plan. I heard Mr.
Johnson today committing to basically take the next steps to
implementation. It will take until 2014 to complete the job
because of the magnitude of the upgrade, but it will be a
vitally important milestone to complete in the Chesapeake Bay
restoration when it is done.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jacobus, given the role of the Washington Aqueduct in
ensuring the public's safe drinking water and recent concerns
raised about trace amounts of pharmaceuticals, what are the
Aqueduct's long-term plan for continually upgrading or
improving the quality of the District's water supply to stay
ahead of new industry standard regulations?
Mr. Jacobus. Yes, Mr. Chairman, all water treatment plants
look at their source water and design treatment that meets the
needs to remove contaminants from the source water. We do that
right now. In the future, as we look at contaminants such as
endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals being one of
them, and if we can't find better ways to keep them out of the
water and if we find that their levels are increasing to a
point that treatment is required, then we will certainly be in
a position to employ treatment, because we are now initiating a
study to look at alternative treatment sources, but it is based
on what is the contaminant, what is an appropriate treatment,
and then we have to then look at the cost and then the phasing
in of that.
So we are going to continue to, starting now, with a new
study looking at some of these emerging contaminants, to look
at the long-term efficacy of our treatment plants to make sure
that we will always be in compliance and that we will
communicate with our customers and collaboratively deal with
those we serve in the District of Columbia and our Virginia
customers to make sure they understand what the potential risks
are, what the potential treatment opportunities are, look at
the costs and benefits of all of that, and we will work
together to make a decision to make these capital investments.
But it will be science-based, it will be risk based, and it
will also be best practices, and we are committed to a process
to determine that which will give us a suite of options. We
will select from among those and do the projects that will be
required to keep the drinking water safe into the future as
contaminants continue to get into the watershed from other
human activity.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, gentlemen, thank you very
much. I am going to go to Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few quick questions.
If I can just get direct answers, I think we will be fine.
Mr. Jacobus, you heard my concern and my understanding that
there are competing priorities when, for example, Washington
has to decide where to spend the money, if it is lead pipe,
partial lead pipe replacement, and the alternative,
orthophosphate.
Now, the District has a lot of experience of others on
which to rely. When can you tell us it will be appropriate to
rely on orthophosphate or not in this particular jurisdiction?
Mr. Jacobus. I think the orthophosphate has shown, since
its induction into the system and introduction in 2004, that it
is working well, and that it has brought the levels of lead--
remember, the lead comes from the lead service line pipes, and
so as the water sits in those pipes it tends to leach it out.
The orthophosphate puts a barrier on the inside or the pipe.
That is working, and the demonstration that it is working
effectively are the results that are being shown in the last
several cycles of the testing.
Ms. Norton. You think it has already been definitively
proved?
Mr. Jacobus. I think it has been very effective and it is
properly protecting the citizens, as it was intended to do, and
the test results show that.
Ms. Norton. Given the cost benefit issues that particularly
you, Mr. Siglin and Mr. Boone know and worked so hard with me
and other Members of the region to address, do you think the
time has come to rely on this new approach rather than to put
public money into the gold standard of replacement of the
public portion, whether or not--I will make the question
harder--whether or not the private party wants to do its share,
as well.
Mr. Jacobus. Looking at my responsibilities at the
Aqueduct, ma'am----
Ms. Norton. No, I am asking Mr. Siglin and Mr. Boone.
Mr. Jacobus. I am sorry. Excuse me. I apologize.
Ms. Norton. Given the competing priorities that they know
very well, because they help me here as I try to get more
money. They have heard the testimony. They have had to sit
through this testimony. And they have heard me say we are on
pay-go, and they have put in a lot of elbow grease. You have
heard the testimony of Mr. Jacobus. You have heard testimony of
GAO. You heard the testimony that other jurisdictions have even
more definitively shown. In terms of the priority, do you think
the priority should be in putting money, public money, into
replacing the public portion of lead pipes in the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Siglin. Congresswoman Norton, I have become an instant
expert on orthophosphates over the last 2 hours.
Ms. Norton. Last two what?
Mr. Siglin. Hours, sitting here in the hearing. Seriously,
I can't make a judgment about lead pipes and the----
Ms. Norton. That is not what I am asking you to make a
judgment about. Others who have expertise, I am asking you
about where the money ought to be spent.
Mr. Siglin. I understand.
Ms. Norton. Do you think, if you had the choice to make
that WASA should put the money into the public portion of lead
pipes or should put the money into CSO or other parts of the
system which are crying for money--I mean, somebody has to make
that decision. I am pleased to make it; I am just looking for
input from people who have credibility with us instead of
simply making it. You heard the evidence. I tell you I go by
the evidence.
Mr. Siglin. Congresswoman, I can only repeat back to you
what I think I heard today. What I think I heard today is if
you only replace the public portion of the lead pipes and not
the private portion it is not going to be as effective as you
want it to be. I think I also heard that the orthophosphate
treatment has been working and that appears to be a possible
solution. That is the sum of what I know about that particular
aspect.
Ms. Norton. To the extent of that evidence is not
contradicted, you know, the reason I put you on record on this
is everybody accuses my environmental friends of wanting to
spend money whether or not, and I am just giving you the
opportunity to say if you prove it, and we haven't heard
evidence to the contrary, and you have huge priorities
otherwise, you need to advise public officials because they
have to make the decision. As far as I am concerned, you
answered the question, but I am going to go on.
Maybe you can help me, Mr. Capacasa. I am trying to find
out about all these. I asked our two prior witnesses about
whether or not WASA is working at cross purposes with many of
us who are trying to take nitrogen, eliminate nitrogen from the
Anacostia and from the water, when they engage in attempts,
protests, you set one standard, then there is a protest--and
there is an appeal appearing right now, April 1st. His answer
is, you know, we settled these things. Are you lowering the
standard? If they are settling them, why aren't they settling
them before protests and appeals happen?
Mr. Capacasa. We believe, through the Chesapeake Bay
program, the D.C. Mayor represents D.C. government and comes to
the tale and makes agreements, and the allocation that we
provided to D.c. was respective of the allocation that D.C.
agreed to as part of the Chesapeake Bay Compact, if you will.
So we do think it is an unnecessary delay and unnecessary
challenge.
The process allows for parties to exercise their rights of
appeal, and that is what we have.
Ms. Norton. Do you think they are doing it because these
are very costly? I mean, are they trying to save money, because
they obviously don't have a lot of money.
Mr. Capacasa. Well, certainly it is a large cost. I think
they want to get it right because if they are going to be
building cap facilities for $800 million they want to get it
right. I just think we spent 10 pages in our response to
comments explaining a rationale for the total nitrogen limit.
We think it has been thoroughly vetted and explained and very
transparent to those who want to know why it is what it is.
Ms. Norton. When I heard something that apparently doesn't
cost money, I think your testimony found that the Lead Copper
Rule, that they were in compliance. The so-called dialectics
where you had to wring out of WASA that they don't use
dielectrics when lead and copper pipes are joined. Should they
be, particularly since it doesn't present a tremendous cost?
Mr. Capacasa. Ms. Norton, e can share with you a report
that is on the EPA Web site right now which looked at the
specific issue of two different metal pipes joining each other
in the D.C. water system. It is called galvanic corrosion. When
the treatment process is working as good as it is now in D.C.,
this report determined that it was really a minimal benefit, a
minimal effect to have this.
Ms. Norton. So it is really not worth the cost? I am not
trying to make anybody spend money.
Mr. Capacasa. In our view it is a minimal benefit.
Ms. Norton. How much does it cost?
Mr. Capacasa. I can't speak to that. It may be minimal
cost, but it is not----
Ms. Norton. Would you provide that information to the
committee within 30 days if you don't have it.
Mr. Capacasa. Sure. We will share that report with you.
Yes.
Ms. Norton. If it is not necessary, it is not necessary.
Would you clear up this flushing problem for us. There is a
lot of controversy about flushing by EPA. Now, EPA regulates
the first draw of water samples, but we all know the second
draw is equally, if not more, representative of how we operate,
how people use water to cook and to drink. WASA seems to take
advantage of the fact and has been accused of lots of flushing.
The one that most disturbed me, Mr. Capacasa, was in 2007 when
WASA instructed the D.C. public schools to flush every school
for 45 minutes the night before sampling. Do you think that is
appropriate?
Mr. Capacasa. We do have protocols that apply to large
buildings such as schools. The protocols are different between
a residential sample method and larger buildings such as
schools. The protocols do allow for the nightly----
Ms. Norton. Forty-five minutes of flushing the night before
the sampling?
Mr. Capacasa. If it occurs the night before and the water
stays stagnant for a period of 8 hours or more----
Ms. Norton. So it is all right to flush the night before
within the rules?
Mr. Capacasa. Some flushing the night before is within the
rules. I would be glad to share----
Ms. Norton. Why did they flush? Wy do you think that they
did flush? There may be some good reason for it.
Mr. Capacasa. We can double check on that, but, like I
said, we have provided the appropriate protocols to the D.C.
school system for the sampling of the schools. Two rounds of
sampling of the schools have occurred using an EPA protocol. I
would be glad to share that with the committee.
Ms. Norton. Excuse me, sir. How much flushing should occur
before water at a school is sampled? What does the EPA require,
if anything at all?
Mr. Capacasa. I think we had a recommendation of shorter
time perhaps, maybe 4 or 5 minutes, but I want to be sure about
that before I definitively state that is the answer.
Ms. Norton. You were clearly informed. I can't believe you
were not informed of this. Is there anything that EPA can do
about these flushing incidents?
Mr. Capacasa. We have provided quite a bit----
Ms. Norton. Which may give a completely false picture of
whether or not thousands of people have contaminated water.
Mr. Capacasa. I understand the concern, and certainly where
school children are involved we want to make sure the best is
done. We provide quite a bit of assistance to the D.C. school
systems on sampling protocol, and EPA does----
Ms. Norton. They were instructed. They were instructed by
WASA, so I am not asking what they would do; I am asking, if
WASA tells them flush this thing for 45 minutes and that is
what they do, I guess, I am asking you if EPA monitors that in
any way.
Mr. Capacasa. It is an area of the law where we don't have
any direct authority.
Ms. Norton. So maybe Congress needs to give you some?
Mr. Capacasa. Large buildings and schools are not within
our direct authority under the Drinking Water Act. It is
primarily water as distributed in the distribution system.
Ms. Norton. As a matter of fact, you are right. That is why
our bill, the bill with Chairman Waxman--and before this
hearing I said to him that even if we do not proceed with the
whole bill, with respect to the parts having to do with
children and with schools, it seems to me we ought to pull that
out and try to move it.
Mr. Capacasa. Ms. Norton, we are going to be sponsoring a
workshop this year for owners of large buildings within D.C. to
make sure they understand the proper protocols for testing and
maintenance of water quality in large institutions.
Ms. Norton. Remember, I am dealing with the water guys,
WASA, telling them to flush, so they would presume that it had
your blessing and that it was appropriate scientifically.
I don't want to keep this panel. We have been here a long
time. I am very concerned about what is beginning to come out
on bottled water. It is a complete hazard to the environment,
and now we are learning that some bottled water which people
regularly drink while they are engaging in healthy activities,
like water and running, may, because of the nature of the
bottles--and there are some numbers, three, seven. I don't know
which numbers are supposed to be worse than others.
Could I ask any of you, do you think it is appropriate for
people to use bottled water, even in light of all you know
about water and what we are trying to do to improve water here?
Mr. Capacasa. I will just start by saying that the water is
delivered to the tap.
Ms. Norton. Excuse me?
Mr. Capacasa. The water as delivered to the tap in the
District meets all Federal health-based standards. I personally
don't see----
Ms. Norton. So it is not necessary?
Mr. Capacasa. I personally don't see a need to----
Ms. Norton. To use these bottles which they now tell us,
themselves, may be contaminated with some harmful chemical?
That would be your view, Mr. Jacobus?
Mr. Jacobus. Congresswoman, I would like to say that I
would like to come to the next hearing you hold and find a
pitcher of water with ice and glasses on the table.
Ms. Norton. You won't. This is what we use. I am asking you
if this is what we should be using.
Mr. Jacobus. But the thing is I don't think there is
anything wrong with this water, but there is also----
Ms. Norton. No, I am asking you whether there is anything
wrong with this bottle.
Mr. Jacobus. I suspect that concern is way overblown, but
the fact that people are drinking bottled water in lieu of the
city water that we have gone to all of the trouble and expense
at the ratepayer' expense, and it is perfectly good to drink.
The problem is not the water; the problem is the confidence
that people have in their water.
We are, with your help and others within the District of
Columbia government, we want to work harder to find a way to
get people's confidence in our water supply so that they can go
to the tap and take a drink of water. This bottle is 250 times
more expensive than a glass of water drawn from the tap.
So while we are talking about raising water rates over
here, on this hand people are buying water that is much more
expensive than the cost they will incur with the increased
rates. So we are working with D.C. WASA, with Jon, and everyone
else. We, I believe, need to work in a way to restore the
public confidence.
I am here to tell you that we at the Washington Aqueduct
continue to have confidence in what we do and we want to work
with our partners, because we deliver great water to all of our
customers that is perfectly good to drink. The trouble is that
people aren't convinced of that, and that is an area that we
have to find the connection, because it is a public service
that we offer and people are not getting the advantage of it.
Ms. Norton. We have you at the same table with Mr. Siglin
and Mr. Boone because of a seamlessness of our environmental
concerns. Leave aside for a moment whether number three and
seven--you have to look on here to find out which number. Leave
that aside for the moment and let me ask both of you: should
these containers be eliminated in light of where we know they
end up?
Mr. Boone. I will answer first. I think absolutely yes they
should be eliminated. They end up in the Anacostia River. They
end up in the ocean. There is research that has confirmed that
plastic doesn't disappear. It breaks down into little pieces
and it ends up in the food chain, becoming an endocrine
disrupter. There has been considerable research about this done
on the Pacific side of the United States. And so the plastic is
persistent in our environment. It is all over the place.
But I must say, Congresswoman, by having it here, you
affirmed its use. You set the standard that this is all right,
this is good to have.
Ms. Norton. You are absolutely right. Don't think I won't
bring it to the attention of the chairman of the committee. We
all do this just out of habit. No one thinks about it. We do
have a Speaker who is greening the Capitol. I am going to
suggest to her that when it comes to our offices, where they
bring these great big bottles, there may be nothing else you
can do, nor do I know whether lead in the pipes exists here in
the Congress. It probably does. But if we didn't invest in
these, I bet we would save gobs of money. I asked it in order
to engage in an act of self-incrimination.
Mr. Siglin, I don't know if you have a response to that.
Mr. Siglin. Congresswoman Norton, my children think I am a
real pain because I do everything I can to keep them from
drinking bottled water. In fact, we had a couple that we
refilled because I didn't want them to buy new ones, and then I
read some place that wasn't a good thing to do either, so I am
with you completely. Talk to the Speaker and see if we can get
it out of here.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Siglin, could I just thank you for your
suggestion. My colleague was not here when Mr. Siglin spoke
about getting more nitrogen out, in other words, rising above
the EPA's standard in light of what happens to the bay and
rivers and tributaries, but he also had heard testimony about
competing costs, and so he didn't offer a free lunch. Why don't
you folks come up with some more money to get the nitrogen done
with and the standard where it should be, especially since we
are missing the deadline that had been set.
Mr. Siglin, you said that we should ask for a better
standard, an improved standard, if the three jurisdictions in a
version of win/win would also engage in financing the reduction
of nitrogen, as well, was that your testimony, essentially?
Mr. Siglin. Yes, I would like to be clear that I think the
Federal Government ought to help, to the greatest degree
possible, WASA achieve the nitrogen concentration limits that
it has been given by the EPA in this draft permit. But on top
of that I suggested that I thought it would be the right thing
to do, since we seem to be actually failing in the big picture,
which is to figure out how to get the bay clean. The Clean
Water Act has given us substantial progress since 1972, but the
job isn't getting done.
If we continue with the regime of only doing the minimum
necessary by law, and, in fact, fighting the minimum necessary
by law, but ultimately only doing the minimum necessary by law,
we are not going to get to the goal. So what I am suggesting is
that, if it were possible, it would be a wonderful thing if the
WASA Board of Directors would say, you know, WASA management,
don't just take the legal minimum that has been handed to you
by the EPA, but go beyond it.
We, in fact, do have the capacity at Blue Plains to do
that. We could go beyond that if the decision were made.
Now, there is a cost involved, and, of course, a lot of
this hearing to day is about how huge the cost of all these
things are and where the tradeoffs are and all of that thing,
but I guess that I would say it would be a wonderful thing if
the world's largest advanced wastewater treatment plant, which
happens to serve the Congress of the United States and the
White House and the capital city of the free world, would say
we are going to do more than the legal minimum, and then to
have all the partners in this region say, yeah, we like that
and we are going to help you pay for it.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Siglin, I know you realize there is a
precedent for that. We finally got all of the region to agree
on the same kind of win/win if we can get the money out here
for Metro.
Mr. Siglin. Yes.
Ms. Norton. For the capital costs for Metro in return for
dedicated funding from all three sources. That is the precedent
that your suggestion seems to suggest.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.
We will go to Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
question, and it really follows on to Ms. Norton's question
about the WASA compliance with the requirements and standards
set out in the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement, which I
understood to be no more than 4.689 million pounds annually.
I guess my question is to you, Mr. Capacasa, to just
comment if you would on Mr. Siglin's testimony, because he
raises what I think are some important points here. While you
covered a lot of the EPA's relationship with WASA, you didn't
raise in your testimony this issue, which I understand from Mr.
Siglin's testimony that they continue to challenge the EPA's
nutrient reduction goals that you have set out.
And, as he said in his statement, Mr. Siglin's statement,
``WASA provides a case study in why we are failing to achieve
that goal. Rather than accepting it as a result of a detailed,
legitimate process, WASA needs to pursue legal strategies to
try to avoid its ecological and legal obligations. Its
arguments have been rejected twice by EPA regulators and
unanimously rejected last month by the EPA's Environmental
Appeals Board, yet it continues to pursue this protest.''
I didn't see that in your testimony. I guess my question
is: isn't this a legitimate concern? Wouldn't we all be better
off trying to stick to the standard that EPA set for the
benefit of trying to clean this up? And is this consuming a lot
of your time, energy, and resources, this fight over the
nutrient reduction standard?
Mr. Capacasa. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, in short
response, it is consuming a lot of time. There are three
appeals to the permit that are eating up a lot of our time and,
more importantly, delaying the important job of cleaning up the
bay.
I think, in fairness to WASA, and I do want to be fair to
them, D.C. was the first jurisdiction to meet the 2000
Chesapeake Bay goal by putting BNR in place at the D.C. WASA
facility. They have already well exceed the phosphorus
requirement for the bay. They are well beyond the legal minimum
requirement for phosphorus induction to the bay. We are working
now with them cooperatively on this nitrogen project.
But yes, in short answer, I wish the appeals went away
because we would be able to get on with the job. I think it is
unnecessary because the D.C. government had agreed to those
allocations as part of the Chesapeake Bay program compact.
Again, in fairness, they are exceeding the phosphorus goal
already, they are well beyond the legal limit, and we think,
frankly, everybody should drop the appeals so we can get on
with the job of finishing the upgrades to the facility that are
necessary.
Mr. Van Hollen. I agree. I mean, it seems to me that we
have set this goal, we have set these standards that we should
do everything we can to try and meet them. As we all know, I
think, we are already behind schedule with respect to the
cleanup, and this delay simply puts us farther behind schedule.
In the interest of time I am not going to pursue this right
now, but I do think that it is important for all these entities
to get on board with the agreement that was signed, as has been
pointed out, by all the regional entities here. It does raise
lots of concerns when, having signed an agreement and agreed to
certain goals, it appears that people are trying to backtrack
out of it. But we can have a longer conversation on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Capacasa. Thank you.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
As we prepare for our fourth panel, I will proceed to
introduce them. Mr. Dan Tangherlini is the city administrator,
Deputy Mayor to Adrian Fenty, and serves as a member of WASA's
Board of District railroads. Dan has served as the director of
the District of Columbia Department of Transportation from June
2000 to February 2006, and is well known for his work as the
interim general manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority.
Mr. Tony Griffin is the county executive of Fairfax County
and has held the position since January 2000. Mr. Griffin
serves on the Board of Directors of WASA.
Mr. Timothy Firestine, since 2006, Timothy Firestine has
served as the chief administrative officer for Montgomery
County, MD, also a member of the WASA Board of Directors. He
has spent the last 28 years of his life working for Montgomery
County.
And Dr. Jacqueline Brown is the chief administrative
officer for Prince George's County, MD. She is the first woman
in the history of the county to hold this position and has the
responsibility of coordinating government services for 27
municipalities in addition to her role as a member of WASA's
Board of Directors.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. If you would,
stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The record will show that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Let me thank you all so much for your public service and
for your patience today and being here at this hour. We will
begin with Mr. Dan Tangherlini.
Sir, you may proceed 5 minutes to summarize your statement.
Of course, your full statement, as will be the statement of all
the witnesses, is included in the record.
STATEMENTS OF DANIEL TANGHERLINI, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, AND D.C. WASA BOARD MEMBER; ANTHONY H. GRIFFIN,
COUNTY EXECUTIVE, FAIRFAX COUNTY, AND D.C. WASA BOARD MEMBER;
TIMOTHY FIRESTINE, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, AND D.C. WASA BOARD MEMBER; AND JACQUELINE F. BROWN,
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OFFICER, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, AND D.C.
WASA BOARD MEMBER
STATEMENT OF DANIEL TANGHERLINI
Mr. Tangherlini. Thank you very much and good afternoon,
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Federal
Workforce, Postal Services, and the District of Columbia. Thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you today
about the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority [D.C.
WASA].
My name is Dan Tangherlini, as previously stated, and I am
the city administrator for the city of the District of
Columbia. In this role I am responsible for the daily
operations of the D.C. agencies under mayoral control,
preparing the District's annual operating budget, setting
operational goals and performance measures to ensure that
agencies are meeting the needs of the residents of the District
of Columbia.
I am also privileged to be appointed by Mayor Adrian M.
Fenty as a principal member of the District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority Board of Directors and have been serving in
that capacity for the past year.
D.C. WASA plays a vital role in protecting the health and
safety of District of Columbia residents and visitors by
providing safe drinking water and wastewater treatment
services, as well as critical infrastructure needed for fire
suppression and emergency response in the Nation's capital.
D.C. WASA operations, from operating the largest advanced
wastewater treatment plant in the world to the development and
implementation of the EPA mandated long-term control plan, will
also greatly impact the cleanup of the Anacostia River
watershed and economic revitalization along the waterfront.
It is important to recognize the history of D.C. WASA and
its relationship to the District of Columbia and the greater
Washington metropolitan region. In doing so, it is important to
note that D.C. WASA's assets are the property of the District
of Columbia, and that the predecessor organization to D.C. WASA
was created as an entity to serve the Federal city and its
residents, as represented by the majority it holds on the D.C.
WASA Board of Directors.
In my view, the three critical issues facing D.C. WASA are
the same today as they were almost a year ago when I initially
was nominated to the D.C. WASA Board, and that is, one,
undertaking the long-term control plan; two, upgrading the Blue
Plains Water Treatment Plant to comply with the newly issued
EPA permit requirements; and, three, investing in and improving
the water and sewer infrastructure.
The first two issues will be critical in improving the
water quality of the Anacostia River and surrounding ecosystem,
which we can all agree has been neglected for far too long. The
third affects the quality and dependability of drinking water
in the District and efficient use of our sewer system.
Together, these three issues present a substantial challenge to
D.C. WASA's finances and will greatly impact District and
regional ratepayer.
Due to the fact that the District inherited its antiquated
water and sewer infrastructure from the Federal Government, it
is appropriate that our Federal partners remain engaged with
this issue related to D.C. WASA. Further, I look forward to
working with the committee and Congress to find ways to
financially support our efforts to address the critical
improvements that have been discussed here today.
Finally, I recognize that issues related to the financial
oversight of D.C. WASA are of an interest to the committee;
therefore, I would like to affirm that the District remains
committed to working with my fellow D.C. WASA Board members,
the region, and Congress to reach an agreement on governance
that will be amenable to all parties and ensure the continued
strength and quality of D.C. WASA.
Thank you very much for your time. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tangherlini follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.098
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
We will go to Mr. Griffin.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY H. GRIFFIN
Mr. Griffin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member, members of the subcommittee. I am Anthony H. Griffin,
county executive, Fairfax County, VA. I also have the privilege
to be serving as Fairfax County's voting member to the District
of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. I have
taken the liberty to coordinate my testimony with my regional
colleagues and fellow D.C. WASA Board members to minimize
repetition in our comments.
As the most senior in tenure on the Board, having been
Fairfax County's voting member since November 1996, I will
attempt to give some historical perspective and context to this
hearing. My colleagues will address current issues.
When the first meeting of the D.C. WASA Board of Directors
was convened in October 1996, it was an organization borne of
the District of Columbia Department of Public Works, saddled
with debt, unreliable revenue, and a physical plant that was
barely functioning.
Just this past March, D.C. WASA's bond rating had been
improved to AA by one rating agency. Its reserves are healthy
and its overall operation is approaching premier status, with
the Blue Plains facility earning the industry's Platinum Award
for its quality operation.
Consultants hired by the D.C. WASA Board of Directors to do
a comprehensive budget review of the Authority at the behest of
the City Council of the District of Columbia called D.C. WASA
``the best-kept secret on the east coast.''
The success achieved today has come about because the Board
of Directors checked their jurisdictional hats at the door and
committed to make D.C. WASA a world class organization. The
District of Columbia and its jurisdictional neighbors can only
make our metropolitan area a success if we all work together.
The core cannot succeed without its neighbors, and the suburbs
are diminished without the capital city state.
Twice the Board of Directors has commissioned a Board
committee and studies to look at the issue of governance. The
first time was in response to a legislative mandate, District
of Columbia Law 11-102, Section 43-1677, to include responding
to the requirement of ``determining the feasibility of
establishing the Authority as an independent regional authority
and make recommendations for the ongoing relationship of user
jurisdictions to the Authority.''
The threshold question for the first study was, ``Would
sufficient benefits result from changing the current D.C. WASA
governance structure to that of a regional authority model?''
At the time of the study, the Authority was believed to be
independent in that D.C. WASA had established its own rate
structure and operating and capital budgets, provided that the
Mayor and the Council of the District of Columbia could review
and comment prior to being incorporated into the annual
appropriation legislation sent by the District to Congress.
Water and sewer funds had been segregated from the
District's general fund, and D.C. WASA had established
independent bonding authority. New financial procurement and
personnel systems had been created to support D.C. WASA's
ability to operate.
Against this 3-year record of independent operation, the
tasked committee and the Board of Directors concluded that,
while a wholly independent regional authority was technically
feasible, no change in D.C. WASA's governance should be
pursued.
I was on the committee and was the maker of the motion to
not change D.C. WASA's governance structure. My rationale was
that the current organization, while not perfect, was
sufficiently independent and accomplishing what was intended in
terms of accountability. Additionally, seeking change would be
politically difficult and not the best use of resources.
One recommendation from the initial governance study was to
revisit the question of governance no later than 2005, on the
theory that there is benefit from re-examining whether the
purpose of D.C. WASA is still being accomplished.
The second review completed in 2006 reached a similar
conclusion to the first in that the current structure was
working. The additional consideration not addressed in the
initial study concerned D.C. WASA's long-term interest in who
operates the Washington Aqueduct currently operated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
I recite this history because I believe it is important to
make clear that D.C. WASA has become a success story because
all the jurisdictional partners focused on making it a success.
Fairfax County was looking to make sure that its investment
produced accountable and reliable service, nothing less, but
nothing more. D.C. WASA will not advance if it is at the
expense of one or more of its member jurisdictions.
I am, on the county's behalf, very sensitive to the
ownership and location of the Blue Plains facility. The Board
strictly adheres to voting according to joint use and non-joint
use on contractual and financial issues. Retail rates are
approved only by District members of the Board, but my
observation is that rate increases have been balanced between
the legitimate business requirement of D.C. WASA and the needs
and the ability to pay of the customers being served. This
balance was not always observed, requiring the creation of D.C.
WASA.
As long as the Board of Directors continues to be
fiduciarily prudent and responsible, the financial independence
that Congress intended for D.C. WASA should not be compromised.
Consequently, Fairfax County supports the passage of H.R. 5778,
clarifying that the chief financial officer for the District of
Columbia cannot override decisions of the D.C. WASA Board of
Directors. The proposed legislation is, quite frankly, the
clarification that Congressman Tom Davis intended in his
colloquy on H.R. 4942, fiscal year 2001 District of Columbia
appropriations on water and sewer authority.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the privilege to speak. I
will be pleased to respond to the committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.101
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much. I am going to
ask Ms. Norton if she would continue with the hearing while I
run and vote.
Ms. Norton [presiding]. Of course, Mr. Chairman.
The next witness is Timothy Firestine.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY FIRESTINE
Mr. Firestine. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton and members
of the subcommittee. I am Tim Firestine, the chief
administrative officer for Montgomery County, MD, and a
principal member of the Board of Directors of the D.C. Water
and Sewer Authority.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about
preserving the independent regional nature of the D.C. Water
and Sewer Authority. In particular, my testimony focuses on
preserving the separate financial existence of WASA from
District of Columbia governance. In order to accomplish this, I
support passage of H.R. 5778, the District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority Independence Preservation Act.
As has been mentioned several times today, WASA was created
in 1996 to respond to serious operational and financial
problems at the Blue Plains Wastewater Management Plant. In a
1996 report of this committee about the District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Act of 1996, it was noted that, ``A collapse of
Blue Plains would be an ecological catastrophe.'' This same
report made it clear that the path to recovery required that
WASA finances be managed independently from the District's. It
also noted that, in order for WASA to be successful, it must
remain a regional authority.
The report also pledges that, ``The Committee commits
itself to careful monitoring of the Water and Sewer Authority
as it moves forward. It will do anything it can to help or
improve the prospects of the Authority, and will be vigilant in
looking for problems or attempts to subvert the performance of
the Authority.'' That is where we need your help.
Unfortunately, the independent WASA that has flourished
over the past 10 years or so is jeopardized by the possible
implication of subsequent Federal legislation that established
the position of chief financial officer for the District and
granted far-reaching authority to the CFO. Until 2006 an MOU
between WASA and the District CFO addressed this conflict
between the legislation creating WASA and that which created
D.C. CFO position.
In 2006 an interpretation of law that created the D.C. CFO
requires that position oversee WASA and is not allowed to enter
into an MOU with WASA. That changes the status quo. This
interpretation endangers the financial independence so desired
by this committee and the regional partners when WASA was
created.
Since its creation, WASA has established independent
systems of governance, including those for financial
management, procurement, human resources, and retirement. The
suburban jurisdictions or WASA's wholesale customers depend on
sewage services, not water, as was noted before, provided by
WASA and have an ownership stake in these joint use sewage
facilities, including the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
For over 30 years D.C.'s suburban partners have paid more
than 50 percent of Blue Plains' operation and maintenance
costs, amounting to about currently $55 million annually. Our
share of Blue Plains' capital costs is even higher at 60
percent, and is expected to exceed $1 billion over the next 10
years as WASA embarks on the nitrogen removal wet weather plan
to advance the goals of the Chesapeake Bay program. With over
$100 million of resources from the suburban governments being
committed to at Blue Plains annually, there is a clear interest
on the part of the suburban jurisdictions to continue to share
in the financial oversight of this regional utility.
Over the years, WASA has been a model now of successful
regional cooperation. As was noted, the bond rating agencies
just recently upgraded the bond rating to a strong AA. In the
report issued by the Standard & Poor's credit rating agency,
``the upgrade is based on a demonstrated track record of sound
financial operations over time.'' Bond rating agencies have
consistently cited the participation of the suburban
jurisdictions and WASA's financial independence as key WASA
strengths that have played a role in the strong bond rating
that has evolved for WASA.
As noted, recent actions seriously compromised the
independence of this regional authority, and we hope would be
reversed. Therefore, I would urge the committee to reassert its
support for WASA's independent regional authority. Since this
is a matter of an inadvertent conflict with Federal law, this
issue cannot be remedied without congressional intervention;
therefore, I would respectfully request that the committee
consider the adoption of H.R. 5778, the District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority Independence Preservation Act, which
removes any ambiguity in Federal law as it relates to the
authority of the D.C. CFO's fiscal authority over WASA.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before
the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Firestine follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.104
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
My good colleague has to go to vote. Since I can't go, I
asked him to vote for me and offer his statement.
Mr. Van Hollen. I apologize for having to run for a vote,
but I just want to do two things; thank all the members of the
panel, with special thanks to those who are here representing
two of the jurisdictions that I represent, Mr. Firestine and
Ms. Brown. Thank you for your testimony.
And thank you, Ms. Norton, for working with us to try and
address this issue which, as you said, we just want to make
sure that the intent that you and others put together and put
on paper back in the 1990's is something that is preserved
going forward. I think there has been, as Mr. Firestine just
said in his testimony, other intervening Federal actions
created a cloud of uncertainty here which we are now trying to
resolve, and we have to do it through Federal law. So thank you
for your partnership on this and I thank the witnesses.
If I can get back, I will.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Brown.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE F. BROWN
Ms. Brown. Good afternoon, Congresswoman. I am Dr.
Jacqueline Brown, and I have served as the chief administrative
officer for Prince George's County government since December
2002. Since April 5, 2006 I have served as a principal member
of the Board of Directors of the D.C. Water and Sewer
Authority.
As a Board member, I serve on the Budget and Finance
Committee and on the Human Resources Committee. I take my
responsibility to meet the mission of WASA very seriously,
because what happens to and with WASA affects the region.
My focus today is the residential diversity of the WASA
work force. I would like to start off by saying that I am
extraordinarily grateful and supportive to Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton for her April 10th there to Mayor Adrian
Fenty and Chairman Vincent Gray that requested the D.C. City
Council introduce emergency legislation which would exempt WASA
from the Jobs for D.C. Residents Amendment for 2007. Very, very
indicative of the support and the collegiality that has been
demonstrated here today.
In addition, I am very grateful for the support of Mayor
Adrian Fenty's proposed language in the fiscal year 2009 Budget
Support Act of 2008 that exempts WASA from the Jobs for D.C.
Residents Amendment for 2007.
What I would like to do in terms of that is just to take
time to do a little fact-finding that, as a suburban Board
member of this essentially important and regionally important
authority, I want to just present some of the work force facts
that are here for the record.
The employees are about 923, and almost 26 percent are from
the District of Columbia. Almost 65 percent are from Maryland,
and 9 percent are from Virginia, and .2 percent are from
somewhere else. We actually have breakdowns in some of the
counties in Maryland, since Maryland has about 65 percent of
the work force for WASA. In Maryland we have 20 employees from
Anne Arundel, 20 from Baltimore County, Charles County has 107,
Howard County has 5, Montgomery County has 50, Prince George's
has 376, and other counties have 21 members.
What we have here is a situation where the residentially
diverse work force in WASA has actually produced one of the
stellar water authorities in the Nation. I think every last one
of our employees is dedicated to fulfilling the regional
mission of serving all of our customers with outstanding
service by providing reliable and cost effective water and
wastewater services in accordance with best practices.
Again, I strongly support the efforts by Congresswoman
Norton and by Mayor Fenty in terms of protecting the
residential diversity of the WASA work force. I also, like my
colleagues, strongly support H.R. 5778, which is the District
of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Independence Preservation
Act.
I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you and to
thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.123
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Brown. I have just a few
questions.
I do want to say to Ms. Brown that the District of Columbia
is pleased to contribute so heftily to the gross regional
product of the state of several counties in Maryland. I
understand your concern. But I think the concern of the
District was that these people do their job. They are unionized
workers, earn their money here in the District of Columbia. The
point is they earn it from the region, as well as from this
city, and I appreciate the way in which Mr. Tangherlini, the
Mayor, Mr. Gray, and the Board have worked with me and with Mr.
Van Hollen to arrive at an amicable way to meet a resolution.
Could I ask each of you, you heard a proposal much akin to
the Metro proposal. We have a very big nitrogen problem here,
and we are really playing games here. You heard the testimony.
You know the issue enough to know that WASA feels so hard-
pressed that it fights the EPA, knowing full well that EPA does
not have the gold standard for getting nitrogen out of the
river and out of our water, yet WASA feels all kinds of
competing priorities, particularly when it comes to cost.
You all, I think, now participate in a bill that the entire
region has cosponsored, a win/win bill that we are trying with
some success--we think we can still do it--to get the Federal
Government to pay for an increased share of Metro for capital
spending in return for dedicated funding from the region, since
we are the only Metro that doesn't have dedicated funding.
Mr. Siglin testified that the only way to get out of the
nitrogen rut without pretending that we are really cleaning up
the Anacostian water is to do something similar. He didn't cite
that. I cite that as the precedent.
If the Federal Government, which is the primary actor and
the largest ratepayer, were to come forward, do you think that
it would be appropriate for members of the region to increase
their funding for this purpose, or do you like things the way
they are?
Mr. Tangherlini. I will start, and I will say that, whether
we think it is appropriate or not, we are going to have to as
we try to meet the standard set by EPA and the commitments we
have made as a region. I think as you discuss the nitrogen
problem, that is a huge problem. It is about a $900 million
problem. You can't ignore the CSO problem, as well, which is
about a $2 billion problem.
So really as you look at the water quality issues
associated with cleaning up the Anacostia and reducing the
continued impacts to the Potomac, you really have to look at
the two problems combined. Frankly, those problems combined are
the result of the infrastructure that we inherited in the
District of Columbia. We might have built it differently. Even
if we didn't, we think that the Federal Government has some
responsibility for that and a broader regional and national
goal of maintaining these waterways and enhancing the
Chesapeake Bay.
So I think the fact--and I speak for one jurisdiction--this
is a commitment we have already made, and we are already
committing substantial resources to it.
Ms. Norton. Yes, but I didn't ask about those resources,
because the suggestion was that increased Federal resources in
return for increased local resources, essentially. That is the
suggestion. Just like you have decided to do that with respect
to Metro.
Mr. Tangherlini. And I think, just like we have decided to
do with Metro, we will more than likely decide to do here. I
don't know what the specifics are.
Ms. Norton. We don't have any specifics.
Mr. Tangherlini. You are just dragging a promise out of me.
Ms. Norton. No, I am just dragging out how committed you
are. In fact, you bring CSO into it. Good, whatever it is,
because the Federal Government plays a large role. My job is to
push them, and we have been doing that, and we want even more.
The question is going to come back on us, OK, what are they
going to do that is beyond what they are already doing.
Mr. Tangherlini. I think that is reasonable, and I would
like to hear the answers to the left of me, but I think the
fact is that we are committed to it and it would be great,
actually, if that commitment was backed up with a Federal
commitment, because that is the one commitment that is missing.
Ms. Norton. So you say you are contributing more money than
the Federal Government is at the moment? Is that what you are
saying?
Mr. Tangherlini. I think that is fair to say, absolutely,
through our ratepayer.
Ms. Norton. So you are saying at the very least the Federal
Government ought to equal what you are now doing?
Mr. Tangherlini. Yes, at the very least.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. Congresswoman, Fairfax County, I believe,
supports doing what we need to do to clean the Chesapeake Bay,
and if that means an increased contribution for our share at
Blue Plains, I am sure that my Board would support that. I
would just note that Fairfax operates the largest treatment
plant in the State of Virginia, and we have not enjoyed the
same level of Federal support that Blue Plains has, so that if
you are successful in obtaining additional Federal funds on
behalf of Blue Plains, if you could expand that to include
other treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that
would be greatly appreciated.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Griffin, you know the one advantage of
being in the Nation's Capital is the big kahuna here is the
Federal Government, and that is why you are getting any CSO
money in the first place, because the Federal Government is a
player here and a ratepayer here.
Now, unless they have that role in Virginia do not expect
Uncle Sam to come up with the same kind of piddling funds--I am
not very satisfied with what they have here--but I can
understand your concern. Certainly through us as the Nation's
Capital these funds will reverberate whatever we can get and
whatever--I appreciate your testimony--you are willing to do
will certainly have its affect on, of course, the masterpiece
of the region, the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Firestine.
Mr. Firestine. Thank you. Well, obviously, we share the
same concerns. WASA has a strong environmental stewardship role
here. We understand, and that is why our emphasis on the fact
that this organization and resolving the nitrogen issue is a
regional issue and will require resources of the region.
Certainly we are willing to commit our share to that.
As you know, there is a fee that was put into place in
Montgomery County, at least my county. Maybe you don't know
that. That basically goes toward the collection of moneys to
help with our share of funding the resolution of this issue,
which is also connected to our concern about the financial
issue. We know that over time our commitment is going to be
greater to this entity to resolve the problems that you
mentioned, and that is the reason we want to assure that the
fiscal independence does remain there as more resources would
flow to resolving this problem.
Ms. Norton. Dr. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Yes. In Prince George's County there has been a
real concerted effort to make sure that the waterways are
clean, both in terms of debris but also chemically and in those
kinds of things, working very closely with things having to do
with the Anacostia, a commitment from our government to do
that.
I think your analogy of WMATA and this, although there are
some slight differences, share a fundamental reason for all of
the members of the region to contribute. Water knows no
boundaries. Water really doesn't. I think it is very foolish of
us to assume that the nutrients will stop, or whatever
contaminants are will stop here and they won't cross the line
because of some manmade or legislative boundary. That makes no
sense whatsoever.
And so the commitment to what is necessary is something
that would be very seriously considered by the Prince George's
County government if we could see that our Federal partners
would be stepping up to the plate also in terms of doing their
fair share. The headset and the demonstrated commitment to that
by action and by resources is already a part of what happens to
Prince George's. The three rivers that surround us are critical
for us, the Potomac, the Patuxent, and the Anacostia. They are
critical.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Brown. I think all of you show a
willingness to do our share if we can get the folks up here to
finally really do what they have not done for decades. It all
certainly helps us.
Could I just have some indication--I don't know if you
know, but I indicated in my bill, the Anacostia River
Initiative, finally passed. I had it in the WRDA bill, the
Water Resources bill. This is very important because it is the
predicate for getting more funds for the Anacostia. It says 10-
year plan with all of the actors. The Corps is the lead, so you
see the Federal Government is deeply implicated, taking the
lead.
Within 1 year--I don't have the deadline--from enactment--
but it has been enacted several months ago now--the 10-year
plan has to come forward. Do you know whether the Corps has
reached out to you or any of you with respect to this plan to
within a year of enactment of the Anacostia River Initiative,
which is a predicate to more money for the Anacostia? Have you
had any?
Mr. Tangherlini. I haven't been reached out to personally
and directly, but that doesn't mean we haven't been reached out
to as an organization.
Ms. Norton. I realize I am talking to the top. Can I ask
you to do this, in terms of my own follow-through. Would you
within 30 days let us know by addressing this question to the
appropriate officials whether or not the Corps is at work? We
intend to hold them to this deadline, and particularly in light
of your testimony about funding, region willing to do its
share, Uncle Sam hasn't done its, can't do anything unless
there is a plan. The plan, we put in the bill 1 year so that
nobody could skate off of that.
Only a couple more questions.
Mr. Tangherlini, we are told that the new stadium, thrills
us all, had environmental issues in mind as it went up. Was it
LEED or anything like LEED?
Mr. Tangherlini. LEED registered. It has received a LEED
certification. I am not sure what level, but it did receive a
LEED certification, which makes it the only stadium to have
accomplished that.
Ms. Norton. In the United States?
Mr. Tangherlini. As far as I know.
Ms. Norton. Of course, it is the only one that has been
built, but I congratulate you on that. So on the banks of the
Anacostia--and you know my concern there--you are about to
build on Poplar Point?
Mr. Tangherlini. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Never was intended for development, even more
precious than what you have had to do around the stadium.
Initially a green area, a National Park Service area, it took
every drop of sweat to get that bill out of here. How will you
preserve, in light of the massive development that may take
place, how will you preserve Reservation 13 and Poplar Point,
the environmental, the pristine environmental qualities of
these two areas which have now been entrusted to you for which
neither the framers nor anyone else ever expected that there
would be development of any kind?
Mr. Tangherlini. It is an excellent question. I think the
District has taken a number of specific actions to improve its
environmental stewardship as it seeks development.
In the case of Poplar Point, roughly 35 acres of the 105
that are there would actually be preserved perpetually as open
space, and the proposals that have been discussed include a
much more aggressive management of that open space than is
currently being happened with the National Park Service.
Actually, if you look at the Poplar Point area you will see
that a good chunk of the area is actually developed for a Park
Service maintenance facility, helicopter landing pad, and
police station. There is an old----
Ms. Norton. That is really a rather small chunk compared to
what you are going to do.
Mr. Tangherlini. Right. There is the old capital
greenhouses there. A piece is actually under the Frederick
Douglas Bridge.
With your assistance, we have been moving forward with a
proposal to move the Frederick Douglas Bridge and open up some
of that land actually for re-redevelopment, if you will, as a
park.
So one of the big issues with developing Poplar Point, in
particular, is to create a meaningful environmentally sensitive
park, as well as then subject the entire development to the new
Green Building Act standards of the District of Columbia, which
requires as small a footprint as possible, environmental
footprint as possible, on that development. That would also be
the case with Reservation 13.
Reservation 13 was, in many ways, the exact opposite of
Poplar Point in the sense that it is for the most part paved
parking lots without stormwater management on it. That actually
could benefit from some kind of investment.
Ms. Norton. As long as the river, itself, is protected and
one doesn't build onto the river and one uses state-of-the-art
techniques for making sure that the runoff, which is inevitable
wherever people are, doesn't get to the river, making it any
worse than it already is, we may have a chance.
I appreciate that answer.
Finally, actually this may be for all of you. You heard the
testimony. I asked about water fountains. I believe this is the
case, because this was an issue always in the several hearings
that we had on contaminated water before. It has to do with
schools and fountains. There was credible testimony at these
hearings that a lot of that had to do with the fixtures and not
with WASA.
We got WASA then, now, and we will always hold them
accountable, but how do you know that the water fountain out of
which children drink is not really the responsibility of the
District of Columbia or counties represented here and not WASA
at all, because of lead-based fixtures? Can you tell me that
there are not lead-based fixtures, internal fixtures, that
children may be exposed to quite apart from anything WASA has
done?
Mr. Tangherlini. I can't tell you right now which of those
fixtures have lead base components to them, but I can tell you
this is among the reasons why the Mayor sought the Authority to
have direct control over the school system, got it through the
Council, and then got it through here on the Hill with your
support.
Having that kind of direct accountability so that problems
like this can be identified and addressed, and then the Mayor
can be accountable for it, is one of the reasons why we have
made that a key priority of the administration.
Then you support that. We support that with a $200 million
investment in reconstruction of our school facilities, with one
of the key components being the replacement of the drinking
water infrastructure in those schools.
So that is a key issue that we are looking at as we go
forward with the modernization of our entire school facility
structure.
Ms. Norton. I don't know if this has been a problem
elsewhere. I won't ask you to run through. This is a special
issue for me and my own environmental work. But I have to
indicate and to concede, frankly, the primary reason I am
concerned about lead in the water has little to do with the
average person; it has almost everything to do with children. I
do not know of a child who had cancer when I was a young woman,
or in college, or having my baby. I didn't know any. I have no
recollection of any of these things. They certainly would have
come to our attention because it was so rare.
All this does is to confirm that somehow or the other we
who are grown may well have escaped what for children now
becomes a part of the way in which they are born into this
world, that they are exposed to things that, if you are exposed
to it when you are older you may get through it, but there has
to be a hypothesis. You begin with that. There has to be a
hypothesis that something is happening to younger people.
Cancer is no longer merely the old person's disease it was when
I was a kid. Children get diseases. I am not talking about
people at life's end, at the beginning of life.
One hypothesis may be that maybe those children wouldn't
have lived in the first place. But the fact is that they were
born and in elementary school and junior high school they get
cancer.
When we talk about nitrogen and the other contaminants, we
basically, although all of us are exposed, are essentially
talking about what we, in order to get the benefits of spending
and whatever and the chemicals out of which the entire society
is made, have essentially exposed a generation to unheard of
diseases at a very young age.
As I take Mr. Siglin's suggestion that maybe we all ought
to buckle up and understand that it is going to take some more
expenses, I would just urge you to bear in mind that we
unknowingly, unwittingly may be forcing off diseases onto
younger and younger generations that may have been prevented
had we been willing to spend a little more money.
As I close this hearing with the chairman still being
fortunate enough to be voting on the floor, I must offer the
apologies of the committee, but particularly apologies for
myself, who have taken disproportionate amounts of time on
other witnesses, and yes, even on you, and may I thank you very
much for your testimony. That was indispensable to this
hearing.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Tom Davis and Hon. Kenny
Marchant follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6013.127
<all>