By Judy Sheahan
December 19, 2011

Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle, testifying on behalf of the Conference of Mayors, and Kansas City (KS) Mayor Joe Reardon, testifying on behalf of the National League and Cities, joined other local government officials in discussing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new approach to achieving Clean Water Goals at a December 14 hearing of the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. EPA's approach, entitled "Achieving Water Quality through Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Plans" was the result of a two year effort by the Conference of Mayors Water Council asking EPA for flexibility in how they worked with cities on negotiating Combined and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Consent Decrees. Both Suttle and Reardon have actively participated in those discussions and expressed "cautious optimism" that this memorandum would achieve the goals that the mayors wanted.

Suttle called the memorandum a "landmark departure from EPA's normal approach" that had great potential. "We need to be true partners with the EPA and Congress to ensure that Combined Sewer Overflow plans across the country achieve what the mayors have asked for, which is a flexible, cost efficient way to meet our Clean Water Goals," he said.

"Right now [the memorandum] is a statement of policy intention, and will only provide the requested flexibility if EPA carefully develops and adopts the right policy implementation framework," Suttle told the subcommittee and its chairman, Congressman Bob Gibbs (OH).

Reardon said, "I know I speak for city leaders across the country when I say we are encouraged by EPA's steps to establish a new policy framework whereby local governments can collaborate with their state and federal counterparts on an approach to regulatory prioritization based on principles of affordability and financial capability, while maximizing environmental benefit, to meet the requirements and objectives of the Clean Water Act."

Suttle summarized the major issues surrounding mayoral concerns with CSO/SSO enforcement including: affordability, green solutions, new technology, grant funding and replacing enforcement with a permitting process.

Suttle discussed the tremendous financial burden that unfunded mandates can have on citizens. "EPA and Congress can no longer ignore the regressive financial impacts caused by unfunded mandates on low and moderate income households," he said. Suttle outlined how a household that is making $25,000 and paying $1000 for water and sewer is allocating four percent of their income to that bill. If that rate increases by $250, they are spending 5 percent of their income and if their rate goes up to $500, it is six percent of their annual income.

Reardon echoed Suttle's concern regarding the regressive nature of the costs versus the benefits for his citizens. Twenty-five percent of Kansas City's population is below the poverty line and the city has had to increase its sewer fees by 40 percent over the past three years. To meet the consent decree requirements, Reardon said that the sewer fees would have to increase 400 percent in the next five years.

"So, when I consider the terms of the pending consent decree, I ask myself, ‘Are regulations which are so costly to comply with really reasonable? Are the economic hardships these forced regulations will create really in the best interest of the public?' I think the answer is ‘No'," Reardon said.

Gibbs agreed, saying, "Regulators need to realize that their unfunded mandates do not just force local governments to pay more. Local small businesses, schools, hospitals, and citizens struggling economically also face increased user rates or taxes that they can ill afford. In our currents economic climate, this is unacceptable."

Suttle also focused on achieving water quality goals through a permitting process rather than enforcement via the consent decree process. Suttle described that because of EPA's enforcement strategy, mayors and other local officials wake up as "criminals" as defined by EPA.

"It doesn't matter if the mayor was elected ten years ago or took office yesterday; they are by definition ‘criminals' because their wastewater systems have sewer overflows, primarily as a result of a significant rainstorm," Suttle said. "I can think of no other federal administrative policy that has done so much damage to the intergovernmental partnership between federal and local elected officials and it should end immediately."

Gibbs spoke favorably regarding the idea of using permits to regulate water quality as opposed to the consent decree process.

"I am hopeful that today's hearing will start moving us away from a ‘one size fits all' mandate and enforcement approach to an integrated regulatory planning and permitting approach to help EPA regional officials and state and local governments better prioritize Clean Water Act regulatory requirements while protecting the environment in a cost efficient manner."

Other panelists who testified included Todd Portune, Commissioner of Hamilton County (OH); Walt Baker, Director, Division of Water Quality - Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Testifying on behalf of the Association of Clean Water Administrators; Carter H. Strickland, Jr., Commissioner – New York City Environmental Protection; David Williams, Director of Wastewater -East Bay Municipal Utility District, Testifying on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies; and Katherine Baer, Senior Director, Clean Water Program - American Rivers. Testifying on behalf of EPA were Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water and Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.