[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THE RAW SEWAGE OVERFLOW COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT ======================================================================= (110-78) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ OCTOBER 16, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 38-516 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800 DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BOB FILNER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland GARY G. MILLER, California ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California (ii) Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Carolina HEATH SHULER, North Carolina TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin CONNIE MACK, Florida JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New Chair York ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Columbia Louisiana BOB FILNER, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York (Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi TESTIMONY Baer, Katherine, Director, River Advocacy, American Rivers, Washington, D.C................................................ 11 Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency........... 3 Lipp, Ph.D., Erin K., Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia............ 11 Shafer, Kevin L., Executive Director, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Milwaukee, Wisconsin........................ 11 Summers, Dr. Robert, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment.................................................... 3 Whitford, R.S., Stuart S., Water Quality Program Manager, Kitsap County Health District, Bremerton, Washington.................. 3 PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana............................. 22 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 25 Kagen, Hon. Steve, of Wisconsin.................................. 27 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 29 Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 32 Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado............................... 36 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Baer, Katherine.................................................. 39 Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H........................................ 57 Lipp, Erin K..................................................... 71 Shafer, Kevin.................................................... 78 Summers, Dr. Robert M............................................ 84 Whitford, R.S., Stuart S......................................... 99 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD American Public Health Association, National Association of Boards of Local Health, National Association of County and City Health Officials, Physicians for Social Reponsibility, written statement...................................................... 102 American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation Physicians for Social Responsibility, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, U.S. PIRG, written statement...................................................... 103 American Rivers, ``What's in Your Water? The State of Public Notification in 11 U.S. States,'' report....................... 105 American Water Works Association, written statement.............. 146 California Association of Sanitiation Agencies, Catherine Smith, Executive Director, written statement.......................... 153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.007 HEARING ON THE RAW SEWAGE OVERFLOW COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT ---------- Tuesday, October 16, 2007 House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Timothy H. Bishop [Member of the Subcommittee] Presiding. Mr. Bishop. The Committee will come to order. Today the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the importance of public notification of sewer overflows such as those provided in the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. Open notification of sewer overflows is an important topic that has not received the attention it rightly deserves. I would agree with the suggestions of our witness from the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District that the best way to avoid human health and environmental concerns for the sewer overflows is to ensure that they never occur in the first place. I am proud that the first Subcommittee markup of the new majority was to approve legislation to restore the Federal commitment to our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. With documented needs of between $300 to $500 billion for wastewater infrastructure improvements nationwide, the cost of repairing and replacing our Nation's infrastructure is daunting and will not be successful without increased Federal support. It should come as no surprise that reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is one of this Committee's highest priorities. However, that is only half the story because even with significant increases in investment sewer overflows will likely continue to occur. Therefore, it is equally imperative that we provide our citizens with comprehensive and timely notification of sewer overflows. The Environmental Protection Agency's own numbers on annual sewer overflows are staggering. For combined sewer systems, EPA estimates 850 billion gallons of raw or partially treated sewage is discharged annually into local waters. For separate sanitary sewer systems, EPA estimates that between 23,000 and 75,000 SSOs occur per year in the United States, discharging a total volume of 3 to 10 billion gallons per year. These discharges, laden with potentially harmful chemicals, pathogens, viruses and bacteria, often wind up in local rivers and streams, city streets, parks or, in unfortunate cases, directly into people's homes. We need to make sure that the public is aware of sewer overflows to give individuals the opportunity to stay out of harm's way. It makes no sense for certain owners and operators of local sewage agencies to know where and when overflows are occurring but to avoid making this information readily available to the public. This defies common sense. I was pleased to read the testimony of three of our witnesses here this afternoon which discuss their individual State and local governmental experiences providing enhanced public notification of sewer overflows. As these witnesses will later describe, enhanced public notification of sewer overflows is a common sense measure to protect public health and the environment, that one can be achieved without a significant burden to State and local governments. Notification of sewer overflows provides the public the greatest opportunity to avoid direct contact with potentially harmful chemicals, pathogens, viruses and bacteria as well as facilitates rapid response to overflows in order to minimize the potential harm to the environment. We need to replicate these success stories across the Nation. This is the premise behind the common sense legislation that I, Mr. LoBiondo and many of my Committee colleagues have introduced and hopefully something that we can unanimously approve through this Subcommittee in the near future. I am pleased now to yield to my colleague, Mr. LoBiondo, the co-sponsor of our bill for his opening statement Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Congressman Bishop. And I would like to repeat my thanks once again for you allowing me to join in with you in sponsoring this very important legislation. Earlier this year there were about 250,000 gallons of partially treated sewage that leaked from the Asbury Park, New Jersey sewage treatment plant into the Atlantic Ocean, threatening beach goers for miles downstream, or down the shore as we would say. It was a result of a broken pipe that went undetected for over 6 hours. Fortunately no one got sick and the environment did not suffer any long-term consequences, but that is not always the case. Congressman Bishop, as you just mentioned in your opening statement, the EPA estimates approximately 850 to 900 billion gallons of untreated sewage enter our waterways each year, sickening nearly 3.5 million people annually. The bacteria, parasites and other microorganisms in sewage can cause very serious and lasting disease and have in some cases even caused death for those who unknowingly came in contact with it. Over 700 combined sewer overflow systems and other aging sewer infrastructures are the primary culprit. Fortunately, we passed legislation through the House that provides billions in grants and loans and guarantees to help rebuild these systems over the next decade. But something needs to be done in the short term. That is why I was especially pleased to join with you, Congressman Bishop, to introduce the H.R. 2452, the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. It is a common-sense piece of legislation that will keep the public safe from waterborne illnesses, requiring sewer operators to put into place monitoring systems that detect overflows and to promptly notify the public. While some State and localities have strong notification programs in place, the majority do not. Establishing a minimum Federal standard is the right thing to do. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to have this be a reality, and once again thank you for holding this hearing. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. LoBiondo. Since we are late in getting started and some of our witnesses have travel commitments, I am going to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to refrain from making opening statements and submit their comments for the record. I also ask unanimous consent to include in the hearing record a statement from the American Waterworks Association and a statement from the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Without objection, so ordered. We will now proceed to our first of two panels. Panel I is comprised of the Honorable Benjamin H. Grumbles, a frequent visitor to our Committee. He is the Assistant Administrator for Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Robert Summers, who is the Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment. And Mr. Stuart Whitford, who is the Water Quality Program Manager for Kitsap County Health District in Bremerton, Washington. Mr. Grumbles, we will begin with you and, as always, we will accept your full comments for the record. We would ask you to limit your testimony to 5 minutes. TESTIMONY OF THE HON. BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OFFICE OF WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; DR. ROBERT SUMMERS, DEPUTY SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT; AND STUART S. WHITFORD, R.S., WATER QUALITY PROGRAM MANAGER, KITSAP COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT, BREMERTON, WASHINGTON Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you on behalf of EPA to testify on an extremely important and challenging subject. And that is the goal we all share, and that is to eliminate or reduce the number of sewer overflows, to increase reporting and recordkeeping and public notification. So, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your colleagues for getting this discussion going, to drawing attention to the subject, having the proposed legislation, and giving us all a chance to look for ways to advance the ball forward on increased reporting, recordkeeping and public notification. I would like to emphasize a couple things. One is the critical importance of prevention, taking steps, investing in infrastructure, managing those assets wisely to reduce the possibility of overflows, leaks and spills in the first place, but when they do happen, to follow up with strong regulatory consequences through permitting programs and enforcement. And then, thirdly, to emphasize the growing importance of green infrastructure, relying on not just the gray infrastructure, the concrete, the bricks and the mortar, but the wetlands, the stream buffers, the vegetation in the watershed to help reduce storm water pollution problems and sewer overflows. Your legislation emphasizes the importance of recordkeeping, public notification and reporting. We, too, at EPA share these goals. When it comes to CSOs, we issued a CSO policy. Congress codified it, so it is now in the Act, at section 402(q), and it requires for CSOs public notification and reporting. We also have, when it comes to SSOs, we have a regulatory framework under the existing Clean Water Act programs that emphasize the importance of reporting and recordkeeping to the permitting authorities. A very important step the agency took in August of this year was to issue a draft guidance document, a fact sheet for sanitary sewer overflows which embraces the concepts that you, too, are embracing and provides specific guidance to permit writers to ensure that there is immediate reporting and public notification when it comes to sanitary sewer overflows. As you and your colleagues have pointed out, this is a significant issue locally and nationally, given the number of combined sewer overflows and the number of sanitary sewer overflows and the potential public health risk and environmental impact. So the draft policy fact sheet that we issued in August is an important supplement to provide permit writers with more tools to work at the local level to increase public notification, recordkeeping and reporting. Mr. Chairman, I think a very laudable aspect of your legislation is that it understands and recognizes that in order to increase investment in infrastructure and pollution prevention there needs to be an emphasis put on public notification and reporting and recordkeeping. We have an existing regulatory framework and policies that we are looking at. And Mr. Chairman, we will commit to work with you and your colleagues as you continue to consider legislation amendments to the Clean Water Act. We will gladly work with you to find ways that are cost effective, that put a premium on increased reporting, recordkeeping and public notification. I also want to emphasize another important component of the EPA strategy when it comes to sewer overflows, and that is enforcement. We all recognize that working together, establishing common management frameworks, as we did earlier this year with national utilities on maintenance and operation of their facilities, but we all recognize that there are times when overflows, spills, leaks occur and there should be regulatory consequences. Our enforcement program at the agency has put this as one of its top priorities over the last decade. Wet weather overflow events is an enforcement priority. The agency has entered into over 50 judicial settlement agreements and orders. It represents, I counted up, over $13 billion in long-term investments by communities across the country in infrastructure systems. And I can assure you that as you work on public notification and other aspects of the sewer overflow challenge we will continue to put a priority on enforcement when the law is violated. And that is an important statement to make as the Clean Water Act is celebrating its 35th anniversary supplementing public notification and pollution prevention with strong enforcement. And that is entirely appropriate when we are talking about raw sewer overflows or combined sewer overflows. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering questions. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles. Dr. Summers. Mr. Summers. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here today. Thank you for asking me to testify about Maryland's experience with this overflow reporting. I commend the opening remarks. I think in Maryland we agree with everything that has been said so far regarding this very critical issue. I am the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Environment, but I have worked for the Department of Environment for 25 years on the Chesapeake Bay restoration, most recently, for the last 7 years as the Director of the Water Management Administration. So I have direct--I had direct responsibility for this particular issue within Maryland. Of course, overflows are a very significant public health and environmental concern. We have heard about the various pathogens that cause public health issues. But in Maryland we are particularly concerned with the Chesapeake Bay. And there are a number of different constituents that also impact our water quality. These significant impacts, obviously contamination of drinking water supply is a very critical issue. There are large areas in Maryland where there are impairments due to bacterial contamination, and this is affecting some drinking water supplies. We have closures of fishing and swimming, beach closures and so forth, fish kills, overall water quality degradation. A very important issue in an area like Baltimore City, the spills impact our parks and playgrounds and other public use areas which are located near streams. The benefits of reporting and public notification we have already heard a little bit about. They certainly protect the public from contact with the impaired waters, ensure that local health officials are aware and are dealing with the issues. It decreases inquiries from the media and the public. We found that proactive reporting actually has been a tremendous benefit to our local governments and other owners and operators of sewage systems. It has already been mentioned it builds public support for infrastructure improvements. Maryland is the host to several of the orders that Mr. Grumbles just mentioned. Baltimore City, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Baltimore County, we have very significant infrastructure expenditures that need to be made. The reporting increases the likelihood of timely response by the owners and it improves the analysis of the cause of the problem and leads to more rapid repairs and fixing of whatever the particular issue might be, which definitely gives a capital cost benefit to the local government involved. In Maryland we began requiring reporting as of October 2000 with a directive from the Director of Water Management Administration. That same year the Governor appointed a task force in upgrading sewer systems to look at the cost in financing of the necessary repairs. Of course that is a huge future issue and we strongly support the increases in Federal funding for the State Revolving Loan Fund and other programs to assist State and local governments with this critical issue. But public education is also a critical component because none of these improvements can be made without payments by the local governments generally requiring rate increases. And we found that the public notification, the public education definitely helps in that area. This was followed with specific legislation in 2001 and we have very detailed regulations as to the implementation of these requirements. Since the inception of recordkeeping in 2001 over 11,000 reports of spills, 2.7 billion gallons, the figures show how the breakdown between combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows look. This is around 380 million gallons a year of spilt sewage in Maryland. This graphic just shows our historical data on this issue. You will notice the peak discharges in 2003, 2004 and 2005. And it is tailing off in 2006 and 2007. I would like to say this is because we have got our systems repaired, but the fact is it is wet weather related. We had very wet years in 2003 and 2004, and I think what we are seeing here is a ramping up of reporting capability and the tailing off due to dry weather. And you can see a similar pattern for sanitary sewer overflows. Making this information available to the public is absolutely critical and we have all of these reports posted on the Web and certainly appreciate the opportunity to tell you a little bit about it. I can say with great certainty that local officials, local public works directors are very supportive of this effort. In fact, the Director of the Bureau of Wastewater in Baltimore City, which is under a consent decree and is in the process of spending over $900 million to repair their system, says that this has been extremely beneficial to the city's efforts to make the necessary improvements to their system. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Dr. Summers. We have a vote on right now. There is about 10 minutes left in that vote. And that will be followed by two others. So Mr. Whitford, we will go to you now. If you could complete your testimony within the 5 minutes. And then we will go to vote, and then we will reconvene as soon as we are done voting. So Mr. Whitford. Mr. Whitford. Good afternoon. My name is Stuart Whitford. I am the Water Quality Program Manager in Kitsap County. Kitsap County is a peninsula due west of Seattle, in case you guys don't know where that is. A very beautiful area surrounded by about 220 miles of marine shoreline, 28 lakes or so, probably 58 perennial streams. So we are very interested in protecting those resources from spills, and we have been doing a pretty good job of that since 1992. Since 1992, the Health District and wastewater utilities in Kitsap County have been cooperatively implementing sewage spill reporting and response procedures. The purpose of these procedures is to prevent public exposure to sewage spills through public information and notification. This is extremely critical in Kitsap County, given the miles of shoreline we have and approximately 44,000 recreational shellfish harvesters that we have on our beaches year-round. Since 1992, 208 sewage spills have been reported to us, to me, totaling about 11 million, 11.3 million gallons of raw sewage and about a half a billion or over a half a billion of combined sewer overflows. That is a staggering amount of sewage that has been discharged through our local surface waters. The procedures that we have require that wastewater utilities immediately notify the districts when a sewage spill or combined sewer overflow occurs. It also requires the utility to notify property owners in the immediate vicinity of the spill, post a warning sign at the spill site and clean-up to the maximum extent possible. The Health District visits the site typically within 1 to 8 hours to verify the information supplied, verify that the clean-up was done correctly and assess the need for additional public notification. This public notification may include additional door-to-door work that we do, and we have done that in the past quite a bit when we need to get to people right up front. We will also post warning signs throughout the affected area and issue advisories. Advisories are issued either by a press release or by a press release updating Internet home page, and we also have a water quality hotline that we update on a regular basis. If we have a commercial shellfish growing area present, we notify the State Department of Health immediately through a pager system if it is after hours. A recent sewage spill in Kitsap County highlights the need for this bill. At 1:30 p.m. on June 27, 2007, the City of Port Orchard reported a sewage spill to the district. They reported that a small spill occurred when a gravity main plugged, forcing sewage out of a manhole onto the surface of the ground. The area was fairly overgrown with vegetation so it appeared to city personnel that the spill was relatively small. Personnel proceeded to remove the plug and they applied lime in the immediate vicinity of that spill to control odors, soak up the remaining liquid and inactivate any pathogens that might be there. As we always do, we visited the site that afternoon and verified that the main had been restored to service and the immediate area had been cleaned up. However, our inspector observed a fairly steep drop-off just below the manhole and decided to push further into the brush, just to make sure that no sewage had made it down the hill. What he saw was shocking--a 15-foot wide swath of gray slime oozing down the hill with all the vegetation and trees standing lifeless. Unable to continue from up there he decided to get down below the area. He found a dirt access road downslope from the main that led to a city sewer pump station, private pond and wetlands. As he approached the stormwater pond the smell of sewage overcame him, and he called me on the phone and told me so. When he reached the perimeter fence he could see that the entire pond was filled with sewage. This pond was approximately 100 feet long by 50 feet wide and probably between 15 and 20 feet deep. When he reached the perimeter fence he could see that the entire pond was filled and every tree and shrub on its bank was dead. Looking up the hill just above the pond, you could see the swath of sewage that was the source of the spill. We immediately notified the City of Port Orchard and the State Department of Ecology. They responded and the city came out and pumped out the pond, the entire contents into the nearby sewer pump station. The next step was analyzing how did this occur. We received the pump run-time data for the downgrading pump station and reviewed it ourselves. The reason we did it ourselves is the sewer utility didn't know how. The city had been collecting this on a daily basis for years. They visit the pump station and read the meters right there on the pump. Through this effort we determined the spill had actually started 2 years previous, on June 12, 2005. Since that date approximately 6,500 gallons of sewage per day have been discharging to the stormwater pond and nearby wetlands. This means a total of 4.8 million gallons of sewage had been spilled. If the city had an alert system in place, as required by this bill, the impacts of this spill on the environment and the city Health District response cost could have been significantly mitigated. This is why we stand here today in support of this bill. We believe it will be a win for public health in the environment and in the long term save taxpayer money. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. We will now adjourn to go vote, and we will reconvene with questions for our first panel as soon as the series of votes are over. There is about three votes, so it will probably be at least 20 minutes or 25 minutes before we are all back. Thank you very much. [Recess.] Mr. Bishop. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee will come to order. Mr. Grumbles, if I may start with you, you indicated in your remarks that you talked about the critical importance of prevention, and we know that prevention is related to lots of things, but perhaps, most importantly, it is related to capital expenditures for infrastructure, upgrades and expansion. Yet, as you know, we have cut in this administration the funding for the State Clean Water Revolving Fund by about 50 percent, which clearly impacts on our ability to deal with needed upgrades and to cut into the multi-hundred-billion-dollar backlog of unmet need in terms of infrastructure. And I understand that that is a decision that is taken by the administration and not necessarily by the EPA. Given that, I was, I guess, surprised to see the comment in your testimony that you did not believe that Revolving Fund money should be used for the monitoring and used for the public notification, because that would reduce the amounts of funding available for infrastructure upgrades. So I guess my logic is that if we are not going to do the upgrades, therefore we are going to have a hard time dealing with the prevention part of the puzzle. Our next best hope is to deal with public notification and to deal with monitoring. If Federal funds cannot be used for that, are we going to be able to make the advances that we need to make in that area, recognizing that we have not made the advances we need to make in infrastructure upgrade? Mr. Grumbles. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question and your comments on the position of eligible uses of the State Revolving Fund. Our position, quite simply, is the State Revolving Fund should be flexible to take into account the many different types of capital infrastructure needs, water quality needs of communities and States. Really for us it is a question of O&M versus capital investment, and what we are saying is, essentially, that provision in the bill takes a significant departure from current practice and law by making eligible something that arguably is really O&M when it comes to monitoring and notification. The SRF is a critically important tool for infrastructure and for funding. It is not the only tool. Permit fees, other clean water funding mechanisms, revenues from ratepayers who understand the importance of infrastructure, I think, are important sources for increased monitoring and reporting and recordkeeping as well. So that is really the position we are taking on that piece of the bill. Mr. Bishop. I thank you for that, and that response leads me to a question I wanted to ask Dr. Summers. Dr. Summers, one of the goals that Congressman LoBiondo and I have in this legislation is that, by virtue of increased monitoring and increased public notification, we would build public awareness for the needs of our infrastructure, and that, therefore, there would be a greater tolerance for funding necessary improvements to those needs. My question to you is how has the notification and the reporting guidelines that are currently in existence in Maryland--to what extent has that influenced political support for the so-called "flush tax" in the State? Mr. Summers. Well, first of all, the flush tax is focused on upgrading sewage treatment plants, not the pipes bringing the sewage to the plants, but the reporting has certainly focused a lot of public attention and a lot of legislative interest on this issue virtually every year since we instituted this. We have been asked to provide briefings to our legislature. Maryland has capital funding which is directed towards the repair of failing infrastructure. It is not a huge amount of funding, but it is very hotly sought, and there is a lot of competition amongst our various jurisdictions for that. At the same time we instituted our reporting requirements, the Governor established a task force on sewage infrastructure, which also provided a report and cost estimate. So I think the bottom line is that the educational value of this reporting has been acknowledged pretty much across the board. We found it to be extremely important. I mentioned that the director of the Bureau of Water and Wastewater in Baltimore City has been very complimentary of this effort and how it has helped the city. Likewise, in western Maryland, we have had similar comments from public works directors in Frostburg and in Cumberland. So it has been well received in that respect. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I see my time has expired. Congressman LoBiondo. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For Mr. Grumbles, do you feel the public notification for sewer overflows is adequate? Mr. Grumbles. A couple of responses. One, I feel that this Nation continues to put a greater emphasis on public notification, and I think it is through the permits themselves. I know when it comes to existing regulations that we have under the Clean Water Act, there is no specific mention in the regulations on public notification. However, positions that the EPA has been taking in the last several years have been through policy to include public notification in permit writers, considerations for sanitary sewer overflows. Also, the CSO policy, as it was codified by you and others in 2000, did specifically pick up public notification for combined sewer overflows. So what we are committing to are continued and important discussions on ways to improve and to increase the amount of public notification, and one of the best and most flexible ways we can do that is through guidance and through working through with permit writers throughout the country who are issuing these permits for the various community sewer systems. Mr. LoBiondo. Do you think anything should be done to strengthen public reporting requirements? Mr. Grumbles. Well, I think that, from an EPA standpoint, continued effort on our part is to educate permit writers--to hold workshops. We issued guidance in August specifically for that purpose of improving public notification. Congressman, I would say we are willing and eager to review additional steps, whether it is through, you know, considering the various array of approaches to increased public notification, a possible regulatory approach through a regulation. Right now we have been focused on the policy guidance and also the enforcement program. As the enforcement office, in working with the Justice Department, enters into consent agreements or settlement agreements with communities that are violating the Clean Water Act, we do put an emphasis on increased public notification and reporting because that is a great opportunity to reassure and to get the community more invested in their sustainable infrastructure systems. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Dr. Summers, can you give us any rough idea of what you think it costs the State and local authorities in Maryland to implement the State's reporting system? Mr. Summers. Well, actually we have not compiled cost information from the local governments. I really do not have a lot of information in that regard. I would say that basically they have been able to incorporate this reporting and the various steps, in conjunction with the local health departments, with existing resources. There has not been a major increase in cost that has been reported to us. In fact, the reports that we have gotten are positive with the respect of it has actually benefited them by allowing them to proactively deal with citizen complaints and press reports. It has helped them in terms of getting support from their commissions or legislatures to finance the improvements to this system that are necessary; it has actually built support, but that is a question that we could certainly put to a number of our jurisdictions, if that would be useful. Mr. LoBiondo. I thought it might have been compiled. I certainly would not want to give any suggestion or directive to go back and to compile that, but it is just a curiosity thing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo. I am going to exercise the discretion of the Chair and ask Mr. Whitford a question. Obviously, Kitsap County was somewhat ahead of the curve in implementing your reporting and response procedures. Could you just tell us what kind of response you got from the local sewage agencies? Were they reluctant? If they were, have they now come around? What kind of response have you gotten from the public? Mr. Whitford. The response from the wastewater utilities has been great, and trust has been built up over 15 years now, so it does take time. When mistakes happen, the human thing to do sometimes is to try to mitigate it or to hide it, but that has gone away, you know, over the years to where now most of the reports that we get, except for the one example that I mentioned here, are accurate, that what they said happened actually did. So I would say that their participation has been great. I would say that the public sees the press releases constantly, and we get calls of people being very upset about that, but they know that we have a program in place to kind of detect these things and to warn them, so I think they are very appreciative. Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Bishop. That brings our panel number 1 to a close. Thank you all very much for your testimony, and we will now move to our second panel. Thank you very much. I know, Dr. Lipp, you have a time constraint, so we will go to you first, but our second panel is comprised of Dr. Erin Lipp, who is an associate professor in the Department of Environmental Health Science at the University of Georgia; Ms. Katherine Baer, who is the director of river advocacy for American Rivers; and Mr. Kevin Shafer, who is the executive director of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. So, Dr. Lipp, we will start with you, and we appreciate your patience. Thank you. TESTIMONY OF ERIN K. LIPP, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA; KATHERINE BAER, DIRECTOR, RIVER ADVOCACY, AMERICAN RIVERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND KEVIN L. SHAFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN Ms. Lipp. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. As has already been mentioned, I am an associate professor at the College of Public Health at the University of Georgia. I am an environmental and public health microbiologist, and my research is focused in the area of water quality, microbiology and the ecology of waterborne pathogens. For the past decade I have been involved in issues associated with pathogens like bacteria and viruses in sewage in natural waters in the Southeast United States, including rivers, streams, estuaries, coastal waters, and coral reefs. I would like to highlight five main points this afternoon which relate to the issues of waterborne disease, pathogens in sewage and the contamination of our Nation's waterways. First, the scientific literature shows abundant evidence of the role of contaminated waters as a source of infectious disease. According to the CDC's most recent reports, there were 62 outbreaks of disease associated with recreational water and 30 outbreaks associated with drinking water in 2003 and 2004. This affected a reported 5,400 people. However, this does not include the many sporadic cases which are not included in those reported outbreaks, and it is likely a very considerable underestimation of the actual numbers of people who became ill. Most cases of diarrhea and vomiting, which are the most common symptoms associated with waterborne diseases, are never recorded in State and Federal databases because people simply do not seek treatment or are not diagnosed. For example, one estimate suggests that only about 2.6 percent of all cases of Salmonella or illnesses with similar mild to moderate gastrointestinal distress are ever reported. Therefore, the problem of waterborne disease is likely much greater than the current data indicate. My second point is that sewage contains bacteria, viruses and parasites that come directly from infected people in the community. Because those infected people may excrete high numbers of these microbes while they are ill, sewage can be expected to carry high concentrations of numerous pathogenic agents. Wastewater treatment can be expected to reduce much of it. If raw sewage is released into a waterway, we are depending solely on dilution to reduce concentrations. For many pathogens, especially protozoa like Cryptosporidium or viruses like the cruise ship virus--the norovirus--the solution to pollution is simply not dilution. As few as one cell or virus can cause disease. To give you an example, noroviruses can be detected at concentrations as high as 10 million viruses per liter, so that is about twice the size of this small bottle of water here. If a milk-carton-sized container of sewage were dumped into a body of water about the size of a typical backyard swimming pool, there would still be around 100 viruses per liter. If a person swimming swallowed as little as 2 tablespoons of this water, he would likely ingest three viruses, and only one is needed to cause disease. My third point is that, because of lack of coordinated notification of sewer overflows and data collection during such events, we actually have relatively few studies that show a direct link between an overflow event, pathogens in the water and illness from exposure to those specific pathogens. However, there is a variety of research, studies that strongly suggest this linkage. I can give you an example from my own research. In the summer of 1999, the city of Key West experienced significant problems with their deteriorating sewer lines. This resulted in multiple and ongoing beach closures. During that period about 300 swimmers participated in an annual race around Key West. Following this 12-mile swim, 30 percent of swimmers reported infections of the eyes, ears, nose or diarrhea. These are all symptoms consistent with exposure to sewage-associated bacteria and viruses. In terms of drinking water, in 2002, the CDC estimated that the number one known cause of disease outbreaks from untreated groundwater or private wells was the seepage or overflow of sewage. Because our Nation's waterways and coastlines do not end at State boundaries, someone is always downstream. Therefore, Federal efforts to protect our natural water resources continue to be a laudable and achievable goal. Including public health and agency notification of sewer spills is clearly in the spirit of the Clean Water Act goals to maintain fishable and swimmable waters. Finally, I would like to make one last note, which is that research and regulations that support improved water quality guidelines that encompass the array of pathogens that can threaten human and ecosystem health would also allow for better management in the case of overflows or seepage of sewage. Along with public notification of sewer overflows, increased data collection on specific pathogens in our water and the surveillance of associated diseases, especially among our most vulnerable populations, are needed. To better implement strategies that effectively protect public health and our aquatic resources, we need to know what we are dealing with. In 1996, the EPA implemented the Information Collection Rule to determine the level of specific pathogens in source water prior to treatment for drinking. This collection period provided critical baseline information on the abundance of specific pathogens and allowed treatment plants to optimize practices to best reduce these agents. A similar information collection tool for sewage would, likewise, aid both treatment plant operators to optimize for pathogens, rather than the indicator system that they currently use, and those responsible for protecting our public health by giving them the knowledge of what pathogens were probably in the sewage when an overflow occurred, applying appropriate risk-assessment models to determine risk to the overall population and to our vulnerable populations, and finally, to determine which actions could best mitigate the problems. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Dr. Lipp, so that you may catch your plane, and with the indulgence of my colleagues, we will submit our questions for you in writing, and then we would appreciate a written response. Thank you very much. Ms. Lipp. All right. Mr. Bishop. Again, thank you for your patience. Ms. Lipp. Thank you very much. Mr. Bishop. We will now move to Katherine Baer of American Rivers. Ms. Baer. Good afternoon, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member LoBiondo and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Katherine Baer. I am director of American Rivers Healthy Water Campaign. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today in support of H.R. 2452, the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. I would also certainly like to thank you both for your leadership in introducing this important legislation. As sewers continue to overflow or to spill on a regular basis, citizens have a basic right to know when it is unsafe to swim or to play in local waters--streams, rivers and lakes. Just as we are alerted to code red unhealthy air days or to contaminated food--as you can remember in the case of when the bagged spinach was pulled so quickly off the store shelves in 2006--we similarly have a right to know about the sewage spills that can affect our health. I will make four brief points today in support of H.R. 2452. First, the contact with sewage is a serious public health threat that must be addressed. I think Dr. Lipp described it well. Every year many Americans and their loved ones risk serious illness, such as diarrhea and ear infections, when untreated sewage seeps into the water they use for recreation and drinking. In rare cases contact with untreated sewage can lead to more chronic conditions, including liver failure and cancer. Individuals, especially children and the elderly, become ill from contaminated recreational waters through ingestion or contact with ears, eyes, nose, and skin. According to EPA estimates, up to 3.5 million people become ill from contact with raw sewage from sanitary sewer overflows alone each year. However, the number of illnesses caused by untreated sewage could be much higher due to underreporting. For example, a recent study found that up to 1.5 million people get gastroenteritis at two beaches in California alone each year. My second point is that current Federal policy does not require public notification, leaving people at risk. Currently Federal public notification or right-to-know requirements for sewage are almost nonexistent. There are no requirements for public notification for sanitary sewer overflows, and compliance with the combined sewer overflow policy is highly variable, leaving people at risk. State requirements, where they exist, are also highly variable. While some States like we have heard from today, like Maryland, and others such as Michigan, and individual cities have excellent public notification programs, many do not. For example, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and many others do not have any statewide public notification requirements at all. The bill will create a consistent Federal minimum requirement that will level the playing field to better protect all Americans. Third, H.R. 2452 provides a straightforward, commonsense solution by requiring monitoring and notification to protect the public from sewer spills. The bill would provide an enforceable, consistent baseline, providing a safety net for everyone. H.R. 2452 requires publicly owned treatment works to use a monitoring system, technology or a management program to alert the owner or operator of an overflow. Just as cars have "check engine" lights, wastewater treatment systems should also have monitoring systems to inform them of potential problems. The bill allows a system to choose from a great range of monitoring techniques currently available. The bill also requires POTWs to notify the public when there is a sewage overflow with the potential to threaten human health so that people can avoid the risk of becoming ill. Notification must take place as soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the owner or operator becomes aware of the spill. This timeliness component is, of course, important in order to really protect public health. Fourth and finally, some cities and utilities are already doing an excellent job of notifying the public, using a variety of mechanisms, showing both that notification can be achieved, and that it is also an important part of sound management and community safety. Communities like Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, illustrate that strong monitoring and public notification is viable. There are a variety of public notification methods that can be used separately or in combination to reach the broadest possible audience in a timely manner. Public health agencies must also be notified when there is an imminent threat to the public. In some States and in some places like you have heard today, they are already involved in public outreach. H.R. 2452 allows each State or community to tailor a program to best reach the local population. Notification is not intended to be one-size-fits-all, and it should be designed with the end goal of protecting public health in the most effective way possible. In closing, knowledge is a powerful first line of defense that public notification can provide to keep us healthy while we continue to work for the solutions to reduce sewage pollution. We will continue to work hard with Members of Congress and with those in the wastewater treatment community to advocate for more funding for clean water infrastructure. In the meantime, however, public notification of sewage spills is essential so that people can protect themselves and their families from getting sick, while also galvanizing support for the solutions needed to reduce sewage pollution as mentioned by Dr. Summers in his testimony. Finally, I would like to submit, as part of my testimony, two letters, one from the CEOs of nine environmental organizations and the other from four national public health organizations, in support of this bill, as well as American Rivers' report on the status of public notification in 11 U.S. States. We urge the Committee to move this bill, and we are strongly in support of it. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 2452, and I look forward to any questions you may have. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, and your additions will be made part of the record. Thank you. Mr. Shafer. Mr. Shafer. Good afternoon, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member LoBiondo and Members of the Water Resources Subcommittee. I am Kevin Shafer, executive director of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, MMSD, and treasurer of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA. Thank you for your leadership on clean water issues. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act of 2007. This legislation is designed to achieve an important goal: ensuring the public's right to know about events that could impact their health and their environment. It is a goal that we in the clean water community endeavor to meet every single day. At home in Milwaukee, I, like others, have kids who thrive around our great Lake Michigan and the other area waterways. I want to know and my neighbors want to know that our children are playing in water that will not make them sick. It is of the utmost importance for us to know this, and we take this reporting challenge very seriously at the MMSD. Before I discuss H.R. 2452 from a national perspective, I would like to tell you about how Milwaukee achieves these challenges. Fortunately, in Milwaukee, we have an extensive monitoring program that has been in place for over 10 years that we feel exceeds the H.R. 2452 requirements. In the 1980s and 1990s, Milwaukee spent nearly $3 billion to reinforce our sewer system to protect Lake Michigan. As part of that program, we built a 19.4-mile-long, 405-million-gallon tunnel system that captures flows from both the combined sewer and separate sanitary sewer systems. Additionally, in 2006, we completed an 89-million-gallon deep tunnel that is devoted solely to separate sewage, and we are currently constructing another tunnel that will add 27 million gallons more to our regional system. These tunnels store the water until our treatment plants can treat it. Our stewardship of the water environment is impressive. Since the first tunnel became operational in 1994, we have reduced the number of combined sewer overflows from an average of approximately 60 in 1994 to an average of 2 in 2007. We have also reduced separate sewer overflows from an average of approximately 25 in 1994 to an average of about 2 by 2007, but we do still have overflows, and we are working diligently every day to address this. We are also continually improving our extensive monitoring and notification programs. The monitoring system that was installed in 1994 provided a regional umbrella coverage for our sewer system. Currently MMSD is upgrading this system with a $50 million, state-of-the-art technology that will help us drill down into the local system. This updated system will further help MMSD maximize the use of its wastewater storage systems and treatment plant capacity. In Milwaukee we are protecting our citizens and the environment, and we take that seriously and strive to overreport these occurrences. What I mean by this is we notify not only our regulators, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, of an overflow event as required, but we also notify the public health department, local media outlets, and scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Great Lakes WATER Institute, which uses these occurrences as opportunities to gather realtime scientific data to help us plan for our future water quality improvements. Additionally, during a storm, even before a sewer overflow might occur, we have posted on our Web site, www.mmsd.com, a storm update page which shows in realtime the volumes of wastewater and sewage we have kept from overflowing. During these large events, the public can log onto our system and see the status every 5 minutes. If we do have an overflow in our system during very large storms, we report this immediately on our Web site. As I said earlier, we take this challenge very seriously. Milwaukee and a few other utilities may be unique in our approach to monitoring and reporting, and from a national perspective, it is important to remember that every wastewater utility in the United States is different. Therefore, this issue should be treated as an ongoing partnership between the Federal, State and local governments because it is important on so many fronts to make sure that what is proposed actually helps solve the problem. It is critical to underscore that meeting the Clean Water Act's goals requires a sustainable partnership among all levels of government and a significant recommitment of resources from the Federal Government in particular. Our Nation now faces serious long-term funding shortfalls to meet its vital water and wastewater infrastructure needs. According to EPA and other Federal agencies, the Nation faces a $300 billion to $500 billion water infrastructure funding gap over the next 20 years. It is in this context that we must consider H.R. 2452. Sewer overflows continue to pose one of the biggest single challenges to clean water managers everywhere. The infiltration and inflow of stormwater into sewer systems is a primary cause of sanitary sewer overflows, and it is very difficult from an engineering perspective and costly to eliminate all together. Most NACWA members are already subject to detection, notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements imposed by EPA's part 122 regulations and the SSO facts sheet. Communities with combined sewer systems must implement monitoring and notification programs for overflows as part of their nine minimum controls for the CSO policy adopted in 1994. Any additional Federal legislation on monitoring and reporting should acknowledge the programs that are already in place and ensure that any new programs do not interfere with existing efforts or impose duplicative, unnecessary and often costly mandates. H.R. 2452 also states that all overflows with the potential to harm public health would trigger the notification requirements. Some NACWA members have expressed concern that even minor spills of a few gallons that can occur during the system routine maintenance of a sewer line could meet that notification. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Shafer, if you could wrap up, please. Mr. Shafer. I will. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Shafer. Sorry. NACWA believes that a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal approach to SSOs is needed. The EPA should promulgate SSO control regulations similar to the CSO control policy as they did in 1994. In 2001, the EPA attempted to use such a regulation that broadly addressed the management and reduction of SSOs. Finally, to further help cities address wet weather and other critical clean water infrastructure challenges, Congress should establish a sustainable, national clean water trust fund. As we approach the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, it is vital that we recall that success so far has been achieved through a Federal, State and local partnership. We look forward to working with you to ensure its continued progress and in improving the health of our Nation's waters, and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. My first question is for both Ms. Baer and Mr. Shafer. Ms. Baer, you have testified that H.R. 2452 is designed to allow each State or community to tailor its own program to meet the specific needs of their individual communities so as to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, which is precisely what Mr. LoBiondo and I had in mind when we worked on the bill. Mr. Shafer, you have described the very same legislation as a one-size-fits-all approach. So we obviously have a conflict here, and I would wonder if you could each expand on your positions on what apparently is, you know, a disagreement. Ms. Baer. Well, the bill requires notification of the public, but it does not actually define how this could be done. As you have heard from Mr. Shafer and from some of the other panelists, and as we have found in our research across the country, there are a number of excellent mechanisms, such as Web site alerts, postings, phone hotlines. There are a lot of different ways to notify people to most effectively reach them, given who is in your community and who is out using the water. So my reading of the bill certainly does not mandate any sort of type. It is not intended to be heavy-handed, nor is it--and it should be left open so that we can further define and let communities best tailor it to really make sure people have a right to know. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Shafer. Mr. Shafer. I am not sure there is really any conflict. We agree that we need to look at these issues, and, you know, we feel that, as we move forward, we need to work together, but we do know that every system is different. Some systems are as large as Dallas', which is very large, versus Milwaukee's, versus very small systems. So one of the concerns is maybe that there is not enough definition in this, and that that may be something that we could ask the EPA, which is to add more definition so that it would make some of the various members of NACWA feel more comfortable with the requirements. But we are in support of notifying the public, and we just need to make sure that there is more definition added to this issue. We are a little concerned that there may already be reporting requirements there through the CSO policy of 1994 and the EPA's work with the SSO facts sheet, and we just do not want to be duplicative with something that is already there. Mr. Bishop. It seems to me that our goal is to achieve nationally what you have achieved in Milwaukee. I mean, you clearly are presiding over a first-rate system, and as I read your testimony, I was a little surprised because you seem to be--no pun intended--lukewarm on H.R. 2452. Tell me why. I mean, is it because of your concern about duplicative requirements? Mr. Shafer. Absolutely, and it is also something where, in 2001, the EPA had promulgated a rule for SSOs that was never moved forward, and we need to be able to look at this in a comprehensive manner. Just like with watershed approaches, we need to look at everything in a comprehensive manner. We need comprehensive SSO guidance from the agency so that we can address all of these issues in a cohesive fashion, and we need to fund that as well. So I would not say we are lukewarm to it. We just need to make sure that we do not overlap with existing regulations that are there, and we need to work with all of the organizations similar to what we did with some of the other wet weather approaches that we have addressed--that "NACWA," when I say "we," has addressed, and that we move forward in a cohesive fashion to address these issues. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. My last question: Ms. Baer, in his testimony earlier, Administrator Grumbles indicated that he thought the best approach to public notification of sewer overflows would be that of flexibility to utilize existing guidance and working with permit writers to include notification requirements in the NPDES permits. Do you agree with that approach, or would you take a different approach? Ms. Baer. I think we believe that the current policy is insufficient to protect public health, and while we certainly appreciate Mr. Grumbles' efforts to move things forward through policy, so far this has not actually achieved its goals, and we know that many people are still at risk. I can give you specific stories from across the country. Even earlier this year in Florida, 200,000 gallons of sewage spilled into a stream that went into the Tampa Bay. Local residents were out in the water and did not know about it until the media came and told them 2 days later. We see complaints like this around the country. So, even though I think it is important to take a flexible approach and work with communities and permit writers, H.R. 2452 is critical to making sure there is a requirement nationwide and is consistent to protect public health. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our panel members for being here today. I appreciate your testimony. For Ms. Baer, I have had a couple of questions posed to me which I am going to pose to you, because I think you would have a better way of answering them than I would. I was asked, why focus on public notification? Why not focus on actively trying to reduce the amount of sewage pollution going into our waterways? Ms. Baer. I think it is a good question because, as we pointed out, there still is a lot of sewage pollution, unfortunately, going into our waterways. The way we see it is that right now we have an important public health threat that needs to be addressed that this bill addresses, but this bill also provides a great benefit that Dr. Summers really explained quite well, that it will galvanize support for the many solutions that we know are needed to raise the infrastructure investment in the clean water infrastructure. So we see this as an important step right now to address public health concerns, while we also continue to seek the solutions and to fight hard and to work with others in the wastewater treatment community and in the public health community to make sure there is enough money, enough funding, and resources to actually improve our infrastructure. Mr. LoBiondo. Another question that was posed to me: How do I know that there are not effective notification systems in most places? Why do we need legislation to fill the gap if we do not know for sure? Ms. Baer. Our own analysis of 11 States, as well as other reports that have looked at States and the Great Lakes, Florida and across the country, have shown that there really is a gap. We know the States I mentioned do not have any public notification policies at all, and so we are finding, both from looking actually at the policy as well as hearing of stories where we know people are, unfortunately, in streams and creeks when there is a sewage spill and they do not know about it, that there is this need for a Federal consistent minimum, and it is wonderful that some communities are already doing this, and because they would surpass those Federal requirements, those programs would remain in place. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Shafer, as Chairman Bishop indicated, you have kind of got the gold standard in Milwaukee of what we would like to see in a lot of other places. Can you tell us a little bit about what is involved with your monitoring system? What kind of equipment? Do you have any handle on what the costs were to get to the point where you are now? Mr. Shafer. We may have a gold-plated system, but there is always something that we can improve on. We always need to look at our system and see if we can improve. We spent about $50 million on various improvements to the instrumentation in our system and on the controls in our system. We have approximately 14 pump stations where we have indicators that, when a pump kicks on and starts overflowing to a creek, we know it immediately. We also have level indicators throughout the system so that, as the depth in the pipe gets above certain critical elevations, we know it immediately, and we have area velocity meters throughout our system so we can compute the flow and the velocity coming to our treatment plants. We also have a deep tunnel system that I testified to that has gates where we can measure the flow at those points, and at certain critical elevations we have to close those gates. We have a very intelligent system that allows us, through a central control system, to monitor over 300 miles of pipe that we can see flows, velocities and depths. Then, if we have an overflow, we report it immediately to the various regulators, to the public health department and to our public through our Web site. Mr. LoBiondo. Do you feel the age of your pipe is any kind of a problem for you? Mr. Shafer. The age of pipe is always a problem for a community the age of Milwaukee, and we are continually trying to either reline those pipes or replace those pipes. So capital improvements, as was stated earlier, preventing the overflow up front is the most important goal of all clean water agencies. That is done through good management, good asset management, and good capital improvement programs. So funding those programs is critical, the age of pipe is critical, and you need to always monitor the system very closely. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Boozman. Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just am curious. I know that we are referring to, you know, the combined and the sanitary sewer overflows. In regard, though, to the problem of raw sewage, what part do septic tanks play in the picture? Do you have any idea, Ms. Baer? Do you all have septic tanks in your community, Mr. Shafer? Is that a thing of the past or---- Mr. Shafer. We do not have septic in---- Mr. Boozman. No. Around a lot of the rivers and lakes and streams and things in rural areas, you know, that is a significant component. Again, I just was curious if you knew what percentage the raw sewage problem was in that regard. Ms. Baer. I do not have that information. I would be glad to respond to you in writing. I do know septic is a proportion of it, and this bill focused more on the big volume spills, which are more often from the---- Mr. Boozman. You mentioned the volume of the--and again, I am just curious. I believe Dr. Lipp talked about pouring like a cup or a cup and a half into a swimming pool, and then you mentioned the 200,000 gallons into Tampa Bay. Can you make a comparison in the swimming pool there? Is that like a thimble, or is that like a 5-gallon bucket? Ms. Baer. I am afraid I would have to get out my calculator to figure that one out for you. I can get back to you. I do not know. Mr. Boozman. Okay. Good. Well, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. If there are no more questions, I will dismiss the second panel with our thanks. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38516.142