Testimony of
Larry Martin
on behalf of
Sierra Club DC Chapter
Concerning Oversight of the DC Water
Before the
Committee on Transportation and Environment
I am Larry Martin, today representing the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club is the nation’s oldest and largest environmental advocacy group. We have more than 3,000 active, dues-paying members here in the District of Columbia and more than 10,000 supporters.
I currently chair the Chapter’s Water Quality Committee. March 22 is World Water day, and if I don’t see you again before then, Happy World Water Day – a day when we should reflect on what it takes for the sustainable management of our freshwater resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to present comment on the operations of DC Water. I think it is important to highlight that the DC Council’s Transportation and Environment Committee is the only substantive oversight of DC Water’s operations that permits public participation in any meaningful or equitable way that allows for community input. There is not operational oversight like exists with other utilities in DC through the Public Service Commission. This is no small thing – oversight is important to install the checks and balances that we know to be important in a transparent and democratic system. One likely outcome of this absence of routine public oversight is the burden of very high impervious area charges on some ratepayers in DC. Madam Chair, you’ve held a hearing on this and you know there is a problem. You may also know that the DC RIVER Coalition had its inaugural public meeting last night at Union Temple Baptist Church – and this problem is not going away until it’s resolved equitably.
The Sierra Club fully and unequivocally supports the essential function of DC Water’s Clean Rivers program to meet the requirements of the District’s MS4 and Long Term Control Plan to manage stormwater overflow leading to raw sewage discharge into our surface waters. We advocated for strong standards that led to the construction of the long tunnels that capture combined sewer overflow, and supported the consent modification that resulted in replacing one planned tunnel with alternative green infrastructure. We are proud that the District has a commitment to clean water and the protection of our environment.
However, we recognize that the heavy cost of this program is an unmanageable burden to some churches, cemeteries and low-income citizens. There is a need for a more equitable distribution of the impervious area charge, which is the primary means through with the Clean Rivers program is funded. You may know that a whopping large percentage of impervious surface in the District is our roads. Presently, there is no impervious area charge placed on roads. Consequently, all that runoff to combined sewers must be paid for by ratepayers. That is an unfair allocation of cost that needs to be fixed. One approach we recommend is that DC government help fund the capital improvements, such as the tunnels under construction, with tax revenue.
Next, I want to address a closely related issue – DC Water’s response to a DOEE proposal to tighten E. coli standards for DC. The E. coli standard is an indicator of sewage pollution in surface waters, like what occurs when there is stormwater overflow of DC’s combined sewers. It’s not good to have E. coli in our surface water, and less is better. It is almost always associated with major storms. The Sierra Club is concerned that DC Water’s response to the DOEE proposal to strengthen this standard was to propose that a use attainment assessment (UAA) be conducted. UAAs are almost always associated with weakening water quality standards – not strengthening them. So, this is an odd response from DC Water, and a red flag. We’d would like to see a more thorough analysis conducted on the proposal to strengthen the E. coli standard as it could result in even higher costs to ratepayers – as DC Water has warned – but without commensurate benefits. Experience has borne out that removing the last percentage of pollutants from water, air or soil generally has a far greater per unit cost than getting the first 90 to 99% out – but that sometimes it’s just necessary. We won’t know if no study is conducted, however, we believe that a risk assessment would be better than a UAA for determining E. coli levels. There is a need for careful Council Committee oversight of this issue.
Finally, the Sierra Club recommends that DC Water conduct a more thorough examination of their biosolid product, Bloom, to demonstrate its safety for school and citizens gardening before they promote its widespread use in food contact gardens. We recognize that Bloom is a Class A biosolid safe from a microbial perspective. Our concern is that EPA’s requirements for testing of biosolids prior to application in gardens may not be adequately safe to protect vulnerable populations, such as children. EPA only requires testing for a limited number of elements, and there is no consideration of the additive effects from exposure to all these elements. Moreover, there are quite a few other compounds such as endocrine disrupting compounds, per fluorinated substances and other priority pollutants that are not tested for, and also may have some cumulative effect on human health. The Sierra Club has been in discussion with DC Water on this concern, and we believe that a well-designed study can put the question to rest. The Sierra Club’s national policy on the issue is skeptical of using biosolids for fertilizing gardens.
The Sierra Club would like to see an analysis prove that DC’s Bloom is as good as DC Water claims, and poses no concerns. If they are as sure as they claim, they have nothing to fear from a more thorough analysis – and much to gain.
Thank you.