Testimony of
Larry Martin, Ph.D.
Clean Water Committee Chair, Sierra Club DC Chapter
Before the
Transportation & the Environment Committee
On Oversight of the DC Water Authority
February 26, 2019
I am Larry Martin, today representing the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club as chair of the Clean Water Committee. 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. The DC Chapter is also a member of the Anacostia Park and Community Collaborative, a group of organizations dedicated to improving the Anacostia River Corridor through community-led, equitable redevelopment of the Anacostia River parks and adjacent neighborhoods, and a thorough cleanup of the Anacostia River.
I am happy to begin with good news that Sierra Club and DC Water are making good progress in planning an environmental study of the sewage sludge biosolid soil amendment product produced by DC Water and provided to school and community gardens in DC. The Committee on Transportation and Environment included $25,000 for the study in the 2019 budget that has been leveraged to create a grant to plan the study. The DOEE has agreed to administer the grant and an RFP is expect later in the Spring. This is so far a terrific example of Council, the Executive and the public interest working together to ensure a healthy environment and the public safety. I want to thank the Committee Chair Cheh for putting this in motion.
I now turn my attention to an issue that is already familiar to this Committee, the Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge (CRIAC). Sierra Club recommends that this charge be reformulated. The CRIAC supports DC Water's $2.7 billion Clean Rivers Project, which as you know is a program to stop raw sewage from being released into the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. The Clean Rivers Project is installing green infrastructure to retain stormwater and building miles of underground tunnels to store the combined sewer overflow until it can be treated, thus preventing the mix from polluting our rivers. The CRIAC fee has increased substantially and is becoming financially unsustainable for some homeowners and owners of large plots of land, such as cemeteries and schools.
The Sierra Club DC Chapter has several recommendations to make the CRIAC fee more sustainable and equitable:
1. Roadways and public rights of way
All roadways, sidewalks, alleys and other public rights of way, including those owned by the DC and federal governments, should be included in the CRIAC assessment. Presently, only private roadways are charged the CRIAC fee. With public rights of way constituting nearly half of impervious surface in the District, this will shift as much as half of the fee from ratepayers to the national and local tax base. It is appropriate for both the local and federal government to assume a share of responsibility for maintenance of the District’s water infrastructure.
2. Baseline flow
Up to 20% of the cost of the CRIAC should be based on DC Water's baseline flow under dry weather conditions. DC Water estimates that 18 to 20% of the flow into its treatment facility is from regular use (e.g., sinks, toilets, showers, etc.). A commensurate percentage of the CRIAC fee should be paid based on the baseline flow. Both baseline flow and stormwater from impervious surfaces contribute to combined sewer overflows, so both should be subject to fees to support Clean Rivers. The effect will be to shift an equivalent percentage of the Clean Rivers project cost to larger buildings, institutions, and multi-family dwellings that contribute more to baseline flows and will reduce the burden on individual residential ratepayers and owners of larger plots of land, such as churches and schools.
3. Green infrastructure
The CRIAC discount for ratepayers who install green infrastructure to reduce stormwater runoff should be increased to 20% from the current 4%. The 4% discount provides little incentive. A larger discount would provide a greater incentive for new green infrastructure, which would in turn reduce stormwater runoff.
4. Stormwater retention credits for homeowners
DC should evaluate whether to allow green infrastructure development from smaller residential plots to be integrated into DC’s Stormwater Retention Credit trading program. Individual homeowners are largely excluded from the Stormwater Retention Credit program because it favors larger plots of land. With CRIAC fees continuing to increase, homeowners are paying more but have little financial incentive to expand green infrastructure, such as rain gardens and rain barrels. Integrating smaller residential plots into the Stormwater Retention Credit program would provide financial relief to homeowners facing rising CRIAC costs and encourage them to expand green infrastructure, which would reduce their stormwater runoff.
5. Accuracy of impervious surface area estimates
The estimates of impervious surface used by DC Water to set the CRIAC fee should be based on recent satellite data rather than 2014 aerial surveys. It is inaccurate and unfair to use out-of-date photos. DC has seen a tremendous amount of development in the last five years, with many new buildings resulting in increased impervious surfaces.
6. Evaluation of factors other than impervious area
To ensure that the assessment of CRIAC fees most accurately reflects factors contributing to stormwater runoff, the feasibility of incorporating other criteria (e.g. slope, vegetation, etc.) should be evaluated. Remote sensing data from satellites can determine slope, topographic contour lines, type of surface (for instance, asphalt versus water), vegetation, and other data that provide more precise information on which surfaces contribute to stormwater runoff. Using up-to-date satellite data instead of out-of-date aerial photos would allow more precise determinations of which surfaces produce the most runoff. That information could be used to develop a more equitable CRIAC structure.
7. Oversight
Oversight of DC Water should be expanded. The DC Water Board could include more ratepayer advocates, some appointed by the DC Council. The feasibility of subjecting DC Water to oversight of the Public Service Commission should be considered. The current DC Water Board, appointed by the Mayor and chaired by the Director of DOEE, provides inadequate oversight. More formal accountability to ratepayers is needed. The recently-passed DC Water Consumer Protection Act of 2018, which tasks the Office of People’s Counsel with representing ratepayers who have complaints against DC Water, implicitly acknowledges insufficient oversight of the utility, but does not sufficiently address the problem.
Thank you for your kind attention.