Localities protest amendment threatening water programs.

WASHINGTON -- State and local governments are upset over an amendment the House added to a spending bill last week that would cut off funding for safe drinking water and sewage treatment projects unless Congress passes legislation to renew and restructure both programs.

Rep. Louis Stokes, D-Ohio, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, pushed the amendment through the House to encourage passage of the two water measures currently moving through Congress.

In a letter to Stokes, state and local government would only further hurt the already "inconsistent funding for infrastructure programs."

"We believe the de-funding amendment is counterproductive to the efforts of all elected officials in protecting the quality of the nation's water," the letter said.

According to the National League of Cities, the amendment is designed to force states and municipalities to agree to "new restrictions, requirements and mandates" proposed in the bills that would reauthorize both programs through the year 2000.

"We do not believe that we have serious disagreements with Congress or the Administration concerning clean water objectives; consequently, we are continuing to work with [Congress on a bill] that succeeds in this era of limited resources," the letter said.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the EPA in the Senate, indicated he may support a similar amendment.

In a speech to the American Metropolitan Sewer Agencies, Baucus said he would not allow "a bill, for example, with a lot of money to clean up the border with Mexico but nothing on non-point source pollution; or with money to city water agencies but no commitment to reducing toxics."

"'Clean Water Lite' is the politics of selfishness," he said.

The amendment came as no surprise to James N. Smith, executive director of the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities, whose organization represents local agencies that finance water infrastructure projects.

The amendment is a "signal" from the House Appropriations Committee to Congress and interest groups "that we've got the money available, but you have to pass a bill before we let the money out," Smith said.

The downside of the amendment is that it has "severe implications" for the state revolving loan funds, Smith said. Both water bills have slowed in Congress, and if the reauthorization bills are not passed this year the revolving funds would be in limbo without the necessary financing, he said.

"The door hasn't closed 100% of the way, but there is not a lot of legislative time left" in Congress this year, Smith said.

For reprint and licensing requests for this article, click here.
MORE FROM AMERICAN BANKER