guidelines are critically important to the industries and guidelines and criteria for the State and local governments to use. They have to be issued in a timely fashion for this program to be effective, so we appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like Linda to outline for you, very quickly, a needs assessment that we did as an amplification on the Federal EPA's needs survey. The agency did not have money to do as comprehensive a needs survey as they have done in the past, and the States were very concerned that the requirements of the 1987 amendments were not incorporated in the needs survey, which would be a misrepresentation, or at least an incomplete picture of what the needs actually are out there, and she'll go over it very, very quickly.

Ms. EICHMILLER. The 50 States have documented in the municipal arena $116 billion of traditional needs of secondary advanced treatment, collectors, combined sewer overflows, et cetera, and over $22 billion of the newer needs of storm water, nonpoint source control, and estuary protection. So as we stand on the threshold of reauthorization, municipalities are facing needs of, right now documented, $138 billion. This is a base line.

The 1987 amendments are going to increase those needs because of standards revisions, small community needs, pollution prevention, and diffused sources of storm water, estuary protection, and nonpoint sources. So right now, the needs that we'll be talking about today, 40 percent relate to existing problems before the Clean Water Act of 1987 was envisioned, and 60 percent relate to these new challenges.

Ms. SAVAGE. Mr. Chafee has been very voca! in his concerns for the State revolving loan fund and what it has been able to accomplish, and as you know, all 50 States currently have delegation and are implementing their State revolving loan funds. We want to be very clear that, as you know, we were active in the development of the SRF concept because we took Mr. Reagan's threat of no construction grants as real. We feel that the SRF is an effective tool, though not working as effectively in some instances-especially in small communities-as we'd like.

So we would like to see the SRF live up to our commitment, and your commitment of $18 billion. Then expand it to be a clean water fund, which is the concept that you have employed within your bill. There are some small tweakings that we would like to do so that all the programs could be a subset of the State revolving loan fund rather than separated out. It is functioning well, we're pleased with our progress, and to have a program like this functioning in four years is quite amazing, a true success.

We are very concerned with the re-initiation of the grants program. There's a very real possibility that we will be going back to the promise of Federal grants for local governments. The States put themselves on the line, as did EPA and members of Congress, to instill the understanding that the State revolving loan fund would be the financing mechanism of the future. We would like to continue to see that is the case, and I think we can certainly work with you to ensure an even more effective program.

There are a number of areas we outlined in our testimony for streamlining the SRF, and-my time is out, so I thank you very

much. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chafee, I brought your Clean Water Act T-shirts, as members of our Board for America's Clean Water Foundation. We appreciate your involvement, and though you didn't run in the 10K Run for Clean Water on Earth Day, I brought you a 10K T-shirt for your next job around capitol hill.

Senator BAUCUS. Where was the 10K Run for Clean Water?

Ms. SAVAGE. It was here at Haines Point, and the next day we did a clean-up in the Anacostia River. We had hundreds of people out in the rain pulling dirty tires and whatnot out of the Anacostia River.

Senator BAUCUS. When on Haines Point?

Ms. SAVAGE. On Earth Day.

Senator BAUCUS. Good for you.

Ms. SAVAGE. So next year. You can start practicing now.

Senator BAUCUS. Senator Jeffords, do you have a statement you'd like to make?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate these hearings and am looking with interest to the evidence. Like all of us here, we have many other obligations, so I'm sorry to be late and have to leave early.

I believe we can safely say that my State of Vermont is one of the most proactive environmental States in the country, and we have led the Nation in many areas of environmental protection, from recycling to limitations in CFCs and toxic use reduction to water pollution control. Vermonters want environmental protection, and I'm glad that the representatives from municipal governments can be here today.

The towns in Vermont are crying out for help in complying with all of the Federal environmental mandates. They want to comply. The mayors and selectmen truly want to protect the environment; however, many towns do not have sufficient resources to accomplish this goal. In many cases, the total net worth of the entire town is not sufficient to even make a down payment on some of the facilities they need. Clearly, we must reach out and help these communities.

One town selectman recently called my office and asked for help, saying that they desperately want to improve their waste water treatment plant. At Lake Champlain, the receiving water is in danger of being overloaded with nutrients. This town, however, is currently faced with a deadline for a double-line landfill, for surface water filtration, and for storm water control, all within the next few years. They simply cannot raise enough money fast enough to meet all these deadlines.

Administrator Reilly has appeared before this committee at least twice this year saying that we need to begin to prioritize our environmental obligations. EPA's Science Advisory Board reached the same conclusion. One member of this advisory board is Jonathan Lash of the Vermont Law School. Mr. Lash is a well-respected environmentalist from the leading environmental law school in the country, according to U.S. News and World Report. That's not my

comment. But anyway, he agrees that we need to begin prioritizing our activities.

Last week I introduced the Small Town Environmental Planning Step Act designed to help small towns reach full compliance while at the same time prioritizing their compliance activities. This bill would help small towns get the biggest benefit for the available resources. I believe this bill to be complimentary to Senator Burdick's small community assistance bill. Senator Burdick's bill recognizes that Federal money will be needed to help our towns. Money alone, however, will not solve the problems our towns face. There simply isn't enough Federal money to go around.

I have read several EPA reports on the subject of small town environmental compliance. EPA states that 20 to 30 percent of towns will face severe and I want to emphasize severe-hardship just trying to meet current obligations. I believe we must help these towns, that we must not write off these towns and force those that truly want to comply into costly litigations, spending most of their money on lawyers from the Vermont Law School.

[Laughter.]

Senator JEFFORDS. But anyway, the main complaint that I have heard so far to my bill is that the definition of a small town is too small. The current definition is a population of 5,000, and I have heard that 500,000 is more appropriate, but due to other obligations, I think we must be reasonable in our size.

I want to thank you for coming here today for testimony, and I look forward to listening as long as I can.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator.
Next, John Bullard.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BULLARD, MAYOR, CITY OF NEW
BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL
LEAGUE OF CITIES

Mayor BULLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure for me to come and testify before your committee.

I'm the Mayor of New Bedford, Massachusetts, a seaport of 100,000 people, mostly working class, and I come down here having suffered many political wounds from decisions that I had to make for the cause of clean water.

One of the first acts I did as new mayor five years ago was to sign a consent decree, which I have always called a partnership agreement, between us and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal Government. I have sited a sewer plant, and I'll tell you that's not a fun thing to do. I have, with our City Council, increased sewer rates. I have sat across the table from industries headed by friends and neighbors in a city of 14 percent unemploy ment and told them why their industrial pretreatment standards I will have to be increased and their costs will have to be increased. All of this causes loss of political blood, but I'm still breathing, and I'm happy to be here. I continue to believe that clean water is important for our community, and our community is a poor one$8,500 per capita income-and the cost of capital improvements per capita for clean water is about $5,000 per person.

I'd like to briefly address three issues-the CSO requirements; secondly, the issue of funding; and third, mandates—and I'd like to be able to follow up later with additional written testimony.

Senator BAUCUs. At this point, let me just tell all the witnesses that your full statements will be included in the record.

Mr. BULLARD. In terms of CSO requirements, New Bedford is one of the 1,200 cities that have CSOs, and we have laid out a plan that will cost us, we think, about $250 million over a 15-year period.

One thing that we note when we make decisions spending our own money is that some CSOs are more important than others. Our CSOs that discharge into a cove with very rich fishing beds that is now closed because of those discharges have the highest priority. The CSOs that discharge into our inner harbor, which has been polluted with PCBs and is a Superfund site and will not be swimmable or fishable no matter what we do with the CSOs, seem to me to be of a lower priority.

I think this legislation has to recognize, as the Senator said, prioritization is important. With limited dollars-and as I go through the bill, it does seem to be limited dollars-we must essentially be able to say, "These need to be done, these can wait."

One of the aspects of the bill in terms of the six-hour storm, I'm told by engineers, is going to add $20 million to the cost of cleaning up our cove. I'm trying to figure out how that $20 million comes from a citizenry that saw four months ago one fire station close and that will not be able to go to a single public library during the month of July and why we should pay this extra money for something that I do not believe provides discernible additional environmental benefit.

I think also that in terms of CSOs, you have provided funding, and I congratulate you for that. Certainly, $2 billion is a significant amount of money, but it does not come close to what many people estimate is a $100 billion national cost. I would suggest there are two options.

One is to make a larger contribution, and if that is not possible, then to set up some kind of hierarchy based on both environmental need and economic distress and look to fund demonstration projects in this country that will lay out in concrete, real, measurable terms for people what the benefits of CSOs are. Most people don't even know what CSOs are, and I think if we did CSO improvements in half a dozen cities and could follow the results of that, we would build the case for better and more adequate funding in the future.

In the clean water portion, on funding in general, I think that we are able to go forward building a secondary waste water treatment plant, because in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts we have I hope there are no legislators here—an extraordinarily generous State revolving fund. They took your requirement and added their own money-and you know the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is suffering distress-to bring it up to a $2.2 billion authorization.

I'm not sure we could build our secondary plant with State revolving funds as constituted in other States. Even with this, we are going to increase our effective debt by about $50 million, and our financial folks say that that's about 40 percent greater than our ca

pacity, but we are willing to make that stretch. I think that-I'll make the obvious point-that the funding in this bill is simply not up to the need in this Nation, and as you make choices and make us make choices, I hope you will take into consideration not only environmental need, but economic stress.

Finally, and very briefly, I think there are mandates in this provision that are costly and of unproven benefit, and I would like to submit additional written testimony on the bill, because it's quite lengthy.

In closing, I commend you for your mission, which is "to authorize adequate funding for construction of water pollution control facilities," and I'd ask you to take another look at the bill and see if truthfully you can say you are authorizing adequate funding for construction of water pollution facilities. We asked our taxpayers and our ratepayers to pay for a clean environment, and they are will to do so.

I'd also ask you to read this bill again for an attitude check. I firmly believe that clean water will be achieved with a partnership between Federal, State, and local government. Partnership means that we treat each other as equals, not as children, and as I look through that, I think that we are being treated as children or as, in many cases, defendants rather than partners.

I think that legislating perfection may make people feel good, but when we try and implement that at the local level, it can be impossible. I don't mind-in fact, I welcome your pushing us as hard as you can push us. The pressure, I'll tell you, politically is very helpful as I say it isn't just me, the Mayor, saying that we have to build this plant or we have to raise these sewer fees; it is the State government and the Federal Government saying that. That pressure is very helpful for the cause of clean water, but every day I have to assess "Are they pushing us over a line beyond which we cannot go?" As soon as you ask us to do the impossible, then we fail. We fail on the local level, and you fail on the Federal level to achieve your goals.

And so I would ask you to push us and continue to push us, but to please be cognizant of what is possible and differentiate from what is impossible. And I would also ask you one other thing. As hard as you push us, push yourselves. You're asking us to go raise money, and we're willing to do it, and as I said before, the people are willing to do it. But sometimes when I come to Washington, I think that people say, "Well, there's no money here in Washington because of the deficit, et cetera," and the assumption is we have money. Well, you know in the Commonwealth we have a deficit of a billion dollars. In the City of New Bedford, we don't have any money either. We have to go out and get it just the way anyone else does.

So push us, but push yourselves as well. We will fight. We are willing to fight for clean water, although we suffer political wounds and lose blood. We'll continue that, but I just ask you in closing, don't ask us to fall on our swords. We can't do that.

Thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much for that forceful statement.

Mr. Appleton.