H.R. 2452House110th Congress (2007-2009)Passed House

Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

17 earlier actions

SenateIntro Referral Latest Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Environment and Public Works Committee

August 1, 2008

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

May 23, 2007

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

May 23, 2007

HouseCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee

May 25, 2007

HouseCommittee

Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee

May 7, 2008

HouseCommittee

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .

Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee

May 7, 2008

HouseCommittee

Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

May 15, 2008

HouseCommittee

Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

May 15, 2008

HouseCommittee

Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-723.

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

June 19, 2008

HouseCalendars

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 458.

June 19, 2008

HouseFloor

Ms. Johnson, E. B. moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

June 23, 2008 • 4:28 PM

HouseFloor

Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5820-5824)

June 23, 2008 • 4:28 PM

HouseFloor

DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2452.

June 23, 2008 • 4:28 PM

HouseFloor

Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5820-5821)

June 23, 2008 • 4:41 PM

HouseFloor

On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5820-5821)

June 23, 2008 • 4:41 PM

HouseFloor

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

June 23, 2008 • 4:41 PM

HouseFloor

The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.

June 23, 2008 • 4:41 PM

SenateIntro Referral

Received in the Senate.

June 24, 2008

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Environment and Public Works Committee

August 1, 2008

Floor Debate

8 members

What members said about H.R. 2452 on the floor

3 Republicans5 Democrats

Rep. Eddie Bernice JohnsonD-TX-30 · Jun 23, 2008

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2452) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to ensure that sewage treatment plants monitor for and report discharges of…

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2452, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-To-Know Act, offered by my colleague on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Bishop, is an important commonsense proposal to enhance the monitoring and public notification of sewage spills.

I applaud Mr. Bishop's work to raise the public's awareness of sewage spills and for his tenacity in bringing together relevant stakeholders on this issue to work through potential differences and produce the fine product under consideration today. I also applaud the work of our colleague, Mr. LoBiondo, for his efforts in supporting and advocating for H.R. 2452.

Public notification of sewage overflows is an important topic that has not received the attention it rightly deserves. During committee hearings on this legislation last summer, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment received testimony on the overwhelming extent of the problem of sewage overflows. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's own numbers, the frequency and volume of annual sewage overflows is staggering.

For combined sewage systems, EPA estimates that 850 billion gallons of raw or partially treated sewage is discharged annually into local waters. For separate sanitary sewer systems, EPA estimates that 23- to 75,000 of these sanitary sewage system overflows occur each year in the United States, discharging a total volume of between 3 and 10 billion gallons annually.

Worse still is the fact that these sewage overflows can be laden with potentially harmful chemicals, pathogens, viruses, and bacteria and often wind up in local rivers and streams, city streets, parks, or, in unfortunate cases, directly into people's homes.

These statistics further emphasize the importance of investment in our Nation's water-related infrastructure. For too long our communities and citizens have been waiting for us to renew our commitment to meeting the water-related infrastructure needs of this country. While the House of Representatives strongly approved legislation to reinvest and rebuild and replace our failing and outdated waste-water treatment infrastructure and sewers, we have faced continued opposition from this administration investing in our Nation's infrastructure.

I remain hopeful that we will be able to send legislation to the President this year that will meet the water-related needs that we all know exist and are necessary to ensure the economic and environmental health of our Nation.

However, in the interim, we need to make sure that the public is aware of sewage levels to give the individuals the opportunity to stay out of harm's way. It makes no sense for sewage agencies to know where and when overflows are occurring but to avoid making this information readily available to the public. This type of practice defies common sense. Equally troublesome are agencies that lack sufficient monitoring technologies or programs to alert them to the presence of sewage overflows.

The legislation under consideration here today is an essential step in protecting the public's health and environment from the dangers of sewage overflows. H.R. 2452, the Sewage Community Right-to-Know Act, is a commonsense approach to enhance the monitoring and notification of sewage overflows to protect human health and the environment. It is also an approach that can be achieved without significant burden to States and local governments. Monitoring and providing public notification on sewage overflows provides the greatest opportunity to avoid direct contact and potentially harmful pollutants as well.

Facilities' rapid responses to overflows in order to minimize the potential harm to the environment, this legislation amends the Clean Water Act to ensure that all publicly owned treatment works incorporate enhanced monitoring notification and reporting requirements into the existing permits for those systems under their operational control.

Under this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is given 1 year to issue regulations to define the parameters for monitoring and notification to be carried out by the publicly owned treatment works. Following completion of this rulemaking, all publicly owned treatment works are required within a defined time period to incorporate the monitoring and notification criteria from the rulemaking into the existing clean water permits.

However, to help minimize potential paperwork concerns, this legislation allows owners and operators to incorporate the enhanced monitoring provisions in their existing permits as such permits come up for periodic renewal modification.

To enhance the availability of public information on sewer overflows, H.R. 2452 requires the enhanced notification requirements to take effect 30 days after completion of the rulemaking. The legislation under consideration today is slightly modified from the version that was reported favorably from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on May 15 to address a few technical and transitional concerns that were unresolved before the committee markup.

In addition, the bill under consideration today provides a mechanism for States with active notification programs to petition EPA for the ability to carry out the existing notification programs provided that these programs are determined to be functionally equivalent to the national standard for State notification programs called for in this legislation.

I commend the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Boozman, and the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Mica, and my Chair, Mr. Oberstar,

for working in a bipartisan fashion to resolve all the outstanding issues related to this important legislation.

Let me conclude by thanking the following organizations for their efforts in reaching the compromised language that is under consideration today: The American Rivers, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Water Environment Federation and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. The hard work and willingness of each of these organizations made it possible to reach this agreement and to bring forward this important bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.

June 23, 2008.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Mica,

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Tim Bishop,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Frank LoBiondo,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and

Representatives Bishop and LoBiondo: On behalf of our members

and supporters across the nation, thank you for reporting

H.R. 2452, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act.

Our organizations strongly support this legislation and

applaud your efforts to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

By requiring public notification, H.R. 2452 could protect

millions of Americans from exposure to untreated sewage

spills that could make them sick. This first line of defense

is critical as hundreds of billions of gallons of raw and

partially treated sewage are dumped into our streams, rivers

and lakes every year. Many American are unaware when a sewage

spill occurs in the local waterways where their families swim

and play.

The bacteria, viruses and parasites found in untreated

sewage can cause severe symptoms including gastrointestinal

problems, infection and fever, as well as heart, liver or

kidney failure, arthritis and even cancer. By requiring the

public to be notified when sewage spills threaten their

health, we can help Americans protect their families by

avoiding contaminated areas until the threat has passed.

Thank you again for your hard work on this important

legislation. We look forward to working with you to see this

bill enacted into law this Congress.

Sincerely,

Eli Weissman, Director of Government Affairs, American

Rivers; Christy Leavitt, Clean Water Advocate,

Environment America; Tiernan Sittenfeld, Legislative

Director, League of Conservation Voters; Nancy Stoner,

Director, Clean Water Project, Natural Resources

Defense Council; David Jenkins, Government Affairs

Director, Republicans for Environmental Protection;

Angela Howe, Legal Manager, Surfrider Foundation.

Paul Schwartz, National Policy Coordinator, Clean Water

Action; Shawnee Hoover, Legislative Director, Friends

of the Earth; Corry Westbrook, Legislative Director,

National Wildlife Federation; Will Callaway,

Legislative Director, Physicians for Social

Responsibility; Debbie Sease, National Campaigns

Director, Sierra Club.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I ask for support of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-BalartR-FL-21 · Sep 25, 2008

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this…

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

Rep. James L. OberstarD-MN-8 · Jun 23, 2008

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2452, the ``Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act''. Let me begin by congratulating our Committee colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.…

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2452, the ``Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act''. Let me begin by congratulating our Committee colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), for introducing legislation to provide common-sense standards for public notification of both combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. This well-thought-out legislation will be a welcome addition to Federal efforts in protecting public health as well as the natural environment.

The most reliable way to prevent human illness from waterborne diseases and pathogens is to eliminate the potential for human exposure to the discharge of pollutants from combined sewer overflows (``CSOs'') and sanitary sewer overflows (''SSOs''). This can occur either through the elimination of the discharge, or, in the event that a release does occur, to minimize the potential human contact to pollutants.

Unfortunately, Federal law does not provide uniform, national standards for public notification of combined and sanitary sewer overflows. Notification of sewer overflows is covered only by a patchwork of Federal regulations, State laws, and local initiatives aimed at limiting human exposure to discharges.

Potential human exposure to the pollutants found in sewer overflows can occur in a variety of ways. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'), the most common pathways include direct contact with sewer discharges in recreational waters and beaches, drinking water contaminated by sewer discharges, and consuming or handling contaminated fish or shellfish. However, humans are also at risk of direct exposure to sewer overflows, including sewer backups into residential buildings, city streets, and sidewalks.

In October 2007, in my own Congressional district, basements and city streets across the city of Duluth were flooded with sewer overflows that resulted from massive rainstorms in the Lake Superior basin. The Western Lake Superior Sanitary Sewer District reported at least seven major sewage overflows in its service area, with reports of numerous additional backups into local streets and basements.

Similarly, earlier this month, heavy rains in the Midwest and flooding along the Mississippi River system resulted in a significant overload to the sewer systems and treatment works, and resulted in the release of untold gallons of untreated or partially treated sewage into the homes and street of communities along the Mississippi River system. As families are starting to return to their homes, they are in need of information on any health risks from coming into contact with potentially contaminated waters.

The cost of eliminating CSOs and SSOs throughout the nation is staggering. In its most recent Clean Water Needs Survey (2000), EPA estimated the future capital needs to address existing CSOs at $50.6 billion. In addition, EPA estimates that it would require an additional $88.5 billion in capital improvements to reduce the frequency of SSOs caused by wet weather and other conditions.

Upon being elected Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I made it a priority to renew the Federal commitment in addressing the nation's wastewater infrastructure needs.

In March 2007, the House approved two bills reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure--H.R. 720, the ``Water Quality Financing Act'', and H.R. 569, the ``Water Quality Investment Act''--to reauthorize appropriations for the construction, repair, and rehabilitation of wastewater infrastructure, including measures to address CSOs and SSOs.

H.R. 720 authorizes appropriations of $14 billion over four years for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which is the primary source of Federal funds for wastewater infrastructure. H.R. 569 authorizes appropriations of $1.7 billion in Federal grants over 5 years to address combined sewers and sanitary sewers. Both bills are pending before the United States Senate.

However, even with significant increases in Federal, State, and local investment, it is likely that sewer overflows will continue. In the event that a release does occur, the most effective way to prevent illness is to provide timely and adequate public notice to minimize human exposure to pollutants.

H.R. 2452, the ``Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act'', amends the Clean Water Act to provide a uniform, national standard for monitoring, reporting, and public notification of sewer overflows. This legislation, which was approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by voice vote, will strengthen the monitoring and public notification requirements of the Clean Water Act to encourage increased awareness and public notification of overflows in an expeditious manner.

The bill under consideration this afternoon is a slightly modified version of this legislation as reported by the Committee. The bill, as amended, makes a few technical and clarifying changes to the bill, as well as addresses a few transitional issues on the implementation of this Act.

The framework of this amendment was developed jointly by the majority and minority Members of the Committee, it consultation with the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Water Environment Federation, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and American Rivers. I appreciate the hard work by all parties to help move this common-sense legislation to increase public awareness of combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.

Again, I applaud Mr. Bishop for introducing this common-sense legislation to ensure that our citizens are made aware of the potential public health threats caused by sewer overflows. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2452.

Rep. Dennis A. CardozaD-CA-18 · Sep 25, 2008

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1491 and ask for its immediate consideration. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1491.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1491 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, September 25, 2008, on 44 separate measures. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not unusual. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days. This bill limits the suspension of rules only to those measures listed in the rule itself so Members on both sides of the aisle are aware of exactly what bills may be considered under this suspension of the rules.

This is standard procedure at the end of the legislative session and includes both House bills that we will send to the Senate for consideration and Senate-passed bills that are ready to become law once they pass the House.

I would remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that bills considered under suspension of the rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule which will simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that is important to our constituents and

that will receive overwhelmingly bipartisan support and that will hopefully become law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any additional speakers. I am the last speaker on my side.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida has raised several issues with regard to the procedures of the House for the last 2 years. The gentleman is correct that there have been a number of closed rules this year. But I would like to just say, in response to that, that we have had to try and manage this House with a very obstinate Republican minority in the Senate.

There has been a record number of filibusters that have been put forward this year to try and stop everything that we have tried to accomplish in this body. In fact, there has been an absolute stonewalling on the number of conference committees, breaking down the bipartisan process, breaking down the comity that engages both Houses, so that we can get something done for the American people. By refusing to go to conference, this has gummed up the arteries of this body, and it, frankly, is the Republican minority in the other body that has really made this a very difficult House and institution to manage.

Madam Speaker, I would also say that the gentleman mentioned that this is--well, first of all, he acknowledged that we are telling everyone today the 44 bills that we are, in fact, bringing forward in this rule. Six times the gentleman's party, in the last Congress, did not tell us what they were bringing forward in a rule. And I can cite the dates. We have the information.

The reality is that this is not an uncommon practice at the end of the session. We would like to, as we are doing in this rule, do it every time, but sometimes it's possible at the end of the session we're simply running out of time.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a standard procedure at the end of the legislative session that will simply

help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that will receive overwhelming bipartisan support.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question, Madam Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Rep. Ellen O. TauscherD-CA-10 · Jun 23, 2008

Madam Speaker, I raise in support of H.R. 2452, the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. Sewer overflows present serious threats to the environment and to human health. Our crumbling…

Madam Speaker, I raise in support of H.R. 2452, the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. Sewer overflows present serious threats to the environment and to human health. Our crumbling wastewater infrastructure has resulted in an increasing number of sewage spills, most commonly through combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.

As this Congress works to reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and improve our wastewater infrastructure, it is essential that our constituents receive prompt notification when a spill occurs. H.R. 2452 provides a national Standard for such notification and permits the use of Clean Water State Revolving funds for publically-owned treatment works to monitor their infrastructure for spills.

In California, we have an existing notification process that is the most aggressive in the Nation. I applaud Chairman Oberstar and his staff for recognizing the existence of State notification programs and ensuring that duplication of State and Federal standards does not overburden local sanitation officials. In this bill, States like California may operate their own notification program if the EPA certifies that it is substantially equivalent to the Federal program.

I would like to include a letter from the California Association of Sanitation Agencies that expresses full support for H.R. 2452. I commend Mr. Bishop and Mr. Oberstar for their hard work on this legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act.

California Association of

Sanitation agencies,

Sacramento, CA, June 23, 2008.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Mica,

Ranking Republican, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica: On behalf

of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA),

I write in support of H.R. 2452, which would address the

important issue of reporting and notification for sewer

overflows. This legislation represents the culmination of a

collaborative approach involving wastewater treatment

operators and the environmental community. We appreciate the

committee's willingness to address CASA's concerns.

CASA understands that the legislation has been amended to

address one of our major concerns, which relates to

longstanding California requirements for notification of

regulatory authorities and the public in the event of a sewer

spill that threatens public health or the environment.

Specifically, the amendment provides a delegation process so

that existing state notification programs designed to inform-

the public of health threats emanating from sewer overflows

will not be supplanted, provided EPA determines that the

programs are substantially equivalent to the federal program.

This is vital to avoid inefficient and potentially confusing

duplication of effort. Further, this amendment will allow

POTWs to target their limited resources to fulfilling their

responsibilities as first responders when spills occur.

Second, we understand that the committee report clarifies

that satellite collection systems are not subject to the

provisions of the bill. This is important because many

regional POTWs do not manage these upstream systems, and have

no authority for spills that occur from facilities outside

their jurisdiction.

There is one provision in the amended bill that has given

rise to a new concern. This new provision is designed to

ensure that the notification provisions of the bill will be

implemented in a timely matter. However, as written, there is

no mechanism for informing permittees of their new, fully

enforceable obligations, which appears to be at odds with

basic due process rights. We hope that as Congress considers

the bill that this matter can be further reviewed and

addressed prior to final passage.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work with the

committee on this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Kamil Azoury,

President.

Show 3 more

Rep. Timothy H. BishopD-NY-1 · Jun 23, 2008

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the residents of eastern Long Island, I would like to commend Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Johnson and Congressman LoBiondo for their leadership and unwavering dedication to clean water issues. I would also like to thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff for their hard work and commitment to advancing this legislation to the full House today.

Madam Speaker, the EPA estimates that sewer overflows discharge roughly 850 billion gallons of raw or partially treated sewage annually into local waters. These discharges, laden with potentially harmful chemicals and pathogens, often end up in local rivers, lakes, streams, and the ocean.

In response, the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee has taken appropriate measures to restore the federal commitment to our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. In the 110th Congress, we have passed the Water Quality Financing Act, authorizing funds for the State Revolving Fund; and the Beach Protection Act, to carry out coastal recreation water quality monitoring and notification programs. Today, we take our commitment to water quality one step further by passing the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-know Act.

As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: The best way to avoid human health and environmental concerns from sewer overflows is to ensure that they never occur in the first place. However, even with significant increases in investment, sewer overflows will continue to occur. Therefore, it is imperative that we provide the public with comprehensive and timely notification of sewer overflows. We need to make sure that the public is aware of sewer overflows to give communities the opportunity to protect themselves.

It makes no sense for operators of local sewer systems to know where and when overflows are occurring, but not to promptly notify the public. Notification of sewer overflows will help the public avoid direct contact with potentially harmful chemicals and pathogens, and it will facilitate rapid response to overflows in order to minimize the potential harm to the environment.

Accordingly, the Bishop/LoBiondo Sewage Overflow Community Right-to- know Act provides for the monitoring, reporting and public notification of sewer overflows from Publicly Owned Treatment Works by requiring POTWs to institute and utilize programs to alert operators to overflows, notify the public within 24 hours of discovery of an overflow by an operator, and notify public health officials when human health is endangered.

The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency establish criteria to guide POTWs in assessing whether a sewer overflow has the potential to affect human health and developing communication measures to ensure the public is notified. The bill also establishes a process for EPA to determine if a State's existing notification program is substantially equivalent to, or better than, the requirements established in this bill, and should be allowed to continue.

This bill is a result of hard work by several organizations who believe that Americans deserve clean, safe waters. Without their many insights this legislation would not have been possible. Therefore, I would like to thank American Rivers, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Water Environment Federation, and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies for the countless hours they have given to refine the bill's language to ensure that public health and the environment are protected.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense legislation, and I again thank my friend and colleague, Mr. LoBiondo, for his leadership and support in authoring the bill.

Rep. Thelma D. DrakeR-VA-2 · Jun 23, 2008

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2452, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. Our Nation has nearly 23,000 miles of ocean…

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2452, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act.

Our Nation has nearly 23,000 miles of ocean and gulf shoreline along the continental United States, 5,500 miles of Great Lakes shoreline and 3.6 million miles of rivers and streams. Public confidence and the quality of our Nation's waters is important to every citizen of this Nation, but it is also critical to industries that rely on safe and clean water.

To improve the public's confidence in the quality of our Nation's waters and protect public health and safety, Representatives Bishop and LoBiondo introduced H.R. 2452, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to- Know Act. Sometimes, especially during wet weather, sewage systems can leak or overflow. This can be caused by inadequate design or capacity or by breaks in the system of pipes that are often old and in need of repair.

H.R. 2452 requires the publicly owned treatment works develop and implement a feasible monitoring program that is reasonably able to detect the occurrence of an overflow or leak in their sewer systems in a timely manner and to notify the public and health authorities whenever a release would threaten public health and safety.

The Environmental Protection Agency is to develop regulations to help local utilities implement these monitoring and notification requirements starting 180 days after these regulations have been issued. EPA or the States, as the case may be, are to incorporate these monitoring and notification requirements into local utilities' Clean Water Act permits on a rolling basis as their permits come up for renewal.

This should provide for the orderly implementation of this program and minimize the need to reopen utilities' permits. To minimize burdening local

utilities with duplicative notification requirements, States that have substantially equivalent release notification programs in place may seek EPA's approval to implement the State's notification program instead of the requirements under H.R. 2452. The bill authorizes the use of State revolving loan funds to help communities pay for this monitoring and notification program.

Under this program, EPA and local utilities must define the appropriate amount of monitoring to reduce risk and reasonably protect human health. However, they need to be careful not to unwisely use up funds that are meant to address the very infrastructure problems that are causing the release of sewage in the first place.

I congratulate Representatives Bishop and LoBiondo on sponsoring this bill. The public has a right to know when their waters are threatened by sewage release. So I encourage all Members to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Rep. Frank A. LoBiondoR-NJ-2 · Jun 23, 2008

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2452, the Sewage Overflow Right-to-Know Act. Last year, nearly 250,000 gallons of partially treated sewage leaked from the Asbury Park, New Jersey,…

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2452, the Sewage Overflow Right-to-Know Act.

Last year, nearly 250,000 gallons of partially treated sewage leaked from the Asbury Park, New Jersey, sewer treatment plant into the Atlantic Ocean threatening beach goers for miles down the shore. It was the 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.

The EPA estimates approximately 900 billion gallons of untreated sewage enter our waterways each year, sickening nearly 3.5 million people annually.

That is why I was pleased to join with Representative Bishop to introduce H.R. 2452, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. This commonsense legislation will help keep the public safe from waterborne illness by requiring sewer operators to put in place monitoring systems to detect overflows and to promptly notify the public in the event of an overflow. While some States and localities have strong notification programs in place already, the majority do not. Establishing a minimum standard for public notification is the right thing to do.

H.R. 2452 makes sewer operators eligible for existing grant funds and loans to help defer the cost of implementing monitoring and notification programs, and it provides flexibility to States that already have these critical programs in place.

I want to thank the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and American Rivers for working with Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica to make improvements to this legislation. The bill before us today represents a good compromise between all interested parties.

I want to thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking Member Boozman for their assistance and support. I also want to thank Jon Pawlow on Mr. Mica's Staff, Ryan Seiger on Mr. Oberstar's staff, and Mark Copeland on Mr. Bishop's staff for their tremendous effort. I urge all members to support this common-sense measure.

Bill Text

4 versions available

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF

Referred in SenateIssued August 1, 2008

        [Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 2452 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

2d Session
H. R. 2452

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 24 (legislative day, June 23), 2008

Received

August 1, 2008

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works

_______________________________________________________________________

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to ensure that
publicly owned treatment works monitor for and report sewer overflows,
and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-
Know Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(25) Sanitary sewer overflow.--The term `sanitary sewer
overflow' means an overflow, spill, release, or diversion of
wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. Such term does not
include municipal combined sewer overflows or other discharges
from a municipal combined storm and sanitary sewer system and
does not include wastewater backups into buildings caused by a
blockage or other malfunction of a building lateral that is
privately owned. Such term includes overflows or releases of
wastewater that reach waters of the United States, overflows or
releases of wastewater in the United States that do not reach
waters of the United States, and wastewater backups into
buildings that are caused by blockages or flow conditions in a
sanitary sewer other than a building lateral.
``(26) Treatment works.--The term `treatment works' has the
meaning given that term in section 212.''.

SEC. 3. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SEWER
OVERFLOWS.

Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(r) Sewer Overflow Monitoring, Reporting, and Notifications.--
``(1) General requirements.--After the last day of the 180-
day period beginning on the date on which regulations are
issued under paragraph (4), a permit issued, renewed, or
modified under this section by the Administrator or the State,
as the case may be, for a publicly owned treatment works shall
require, at a minimum, beginning on the date of the issuance,
modification, or renewal, that the owner or operator of the
treatment works--
``(A) institute and utilize a feasible methodology,
technology, or management program for monitoring sewer
overflows to alert the owner or operator to the
occurrence of a sewer overflow in a timely manner;
``(B) in the case of a sewer overflow that has the
potential to affect human health, notify the public of
the overflow as soon as practicable but not later than
24 hours after the time the owner or operator knows of
the overflow;
``(C) in the case of a sewer overflow that may
imminently and substantially endanger human health,
notify public health authorities and other affected
entities, such as public water systems, of the overflow
immediately after the owner or operator knows of the
overflow;
``(D) report each sewer overflow on its discharge
monitoring report to the Administrator or the State, as
the case may be, by describing--
``(i) the magnitude, duration, and
suspected cause of the overflow;
``(ii) the steps taken or planned to
reduce, eliminate, or prevent recurrence of the
overflow; and
``(iii) the steps taken or planned to
mitigate the impact of the overflow; and
``(E) annually report to the Administrator or the
State, as the case may be, the total number of sewer
overflows in a calendar year, including--
``(i) the details of how much wastewater
was released per incident;
``(ii) the duration of each sewer overflow;
``(iii) the location of the overflow and
any potentially affected receiving waters;
``(iv) the responses taken to clean up the
overflow; and
``(v) the actions taken to mitigate impacts
and avoid further sewer overflows at the site.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Notification requirements.--The notification
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall not
apply a sewer overflow that is a wastewater backup into
a single-family residence.
``(B) Reporting requirements.--The reporting
requirements of paragraphs (1)(D) and (1)(E) shall not
apply to a sewer overflow that is a release of
wastewater that occurs in the course of maintenance of
the treatment works, is managed consistently with the
treatment works' best management practices, and is
intended to prevent sewer overflows.
``(3) Report to epa.--Each State shall provide to the
Administrator annually a summary of sewer overflows that
occurred in the State.
``(4) Rulemaking by epa.--Not later than one year after the
date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator, after
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, shall
issue regulations to implement this subsection, including
regulations to--
``(A) establish a set of criteria to guide the
owner or operator of a publicly owned treatment works
in--
``(i) assessing whether a sewer overflow
has the potential to affect human health or may
imminently and substantially endanger human
health; and
``(ii) developing communication measures
that are sufficient to give notice under
paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C); and
``(B) define the terms `feasible' and `timely' as
such terms apply to paragraph (1)(A), including site
specific conditions.
``(5) Approval of state notification programs.--
``(A) Requests for approval.--
``(i) In general.--After the date of
issuance of regulations under paragraph (4), a
State may submit to the Administrator evidence
that the State has in place a legally
enforceable notification program that is
substantially equivalent to the requirements of
paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C).
``(ii) Program review and authorization.--
If the evidence submitted by a State under
clause (i) shows the notification program of
the State to be substantially equivalent to the
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C),
the Administrator shall authorize the State to
carry out such program instead of the
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C).
``(iii) Factors for determining substantial
equivalency.--In carrying out a review of a
State notification program under clause (ii),
the Administrator shall take into account the
scope of sewer overflows for which notification
is required, the length of time during which
notification must be made, the scope of persons
who must be notified of sewer overflows, the
scope of enforcement activities ensuring that
notifications of sewer overflows are made, and
such other factors as the Administrator
considers appropriate.
``(B) Review period.--If a State submits evidence
with respect to a notification program under
subparagraph (A)(i) on or before the last day of the
30-day period beginning on the date of issuance of
regulations under paragraph (4), the requirements of
paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall not begin to apply
to a publicly owned treatment works located in the
State until the date on which the Administrator
completes a review of the notification program under
subparagraph (A)(ii).
``(C) Withdrawal of authorization.--If the
Administrator, after conducting a public hearing,
determines that a State is not administering and
enforcing a State notification program authorized under
subparagraph (A)(ii) in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph, the Administrator shall
so notify the State and, if appropriate corrective
action is not taken within a reasonable time, not to
exceed 90 days, the Administrator shall withdraw
authorization of such program and enforce the
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) with
respect to the State.
``(6) Special rules concerning application of notification
requirements.--After the last day of the 30-day period
beginning on the date of issuance of regulations under
paragraph (4), the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C)
shall--
``(A) apply to the owner or operator of a publicly
owned treatment works and be subject to enforcement
under section 309, and
``(B) supersede any notification requirements
contained in a permit issued under this section for the
treatment works to the extent that the notification
requirements are less stringent than the notification
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C),
until such date as a permit is issued, renewed, or modified
under this section for the treatment works in accordance with
paragraph (1).
``(7) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Sewer overflow.--The term `sewer overflow'
means a sanitary sewer overflow or a municipal combined
sewer overflow.
``(B) Single-family residence.--The term `single-
family residence' means an individual dwelling unit,
including an apartment, condominium, house, or
dormitory. Such term does not include the common areas
of a multi-dwelling structure.''.

SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE.

(a) Purpose of State Revolving Fund.--Section 601(a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' the first place it appears; and
(2) by inserting after ``section 320'' the following: ``,
and (4) for the implementation of requirements to monitor for
sewer overflows under section 402''.
(b) Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Funds.--Section 603(c)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383(c)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' the first place it appears; and
(2) by inserting after ``section 320 of this Act'' the
following: ``, and (4) for the implementation of requirements
to monitor for sewer overflows under section 402''.

Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2008.

Attest:

LORRAINE C. MILLER,

Clerk.