64 • MAY 2011 • FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES JOURNAL

March 31-April 5was a busy weekfor Florida Sec-

tion legislative initiatives. The FSAWWA’s2011 Legislative Day was held in Tallahasseeon March 31st, followed by the AWWA/WEFJoint Washington Fly-In April 4th and 5th.This month’s column will highlight bothevents and the Section leaders who made thema resounding success.

2011 Legislative Day, led by Utility Coun-cil Chair Pat Lehman, featured an information-packed agenda on regulatory issues, pendinglegislation, and budget discussions. Followinggroup introductions of the 35 attendees, Lehmanmoderated an excellent panel discussion of cur-rent key issues by a diverse stakeholder groupconsisting of panelists Eric Draper, executive di-rector for Audubon of Florida; Rich Budell, di-rector of the Office of Agricultural Water Policy;and Diane Salz, legislative affairs consultant forseveral Florida utilities. New and creative fundingsources, alternative water supply permitting, andcollaboration among Florida’s various waterstakeholders were discussed.

2011 Legislative Day Panel Discussion

A Utility Council Business Plan updatewas presented by Pat Lehman, followed by a

regulatory review presented by Utility CouncilLegislative Affairs Committee Chair Lisa Wil-son-Davis. Jennifer Fitzwater with the FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection wasalso on hand to discuss the Department’s per-spective on issues such as numeric nutrientcriteria (NNC) and sustainability permitting.

The day was closed out with a legislativeupdate by Doug Mann, who highlighted thetopics of some of the key bills currently pro-posed in the Florida House and Senate, suchas NNC (HB239), Consumptive Use Permit-ting (HB1001), and dealing with the WaterManagement Districts (HB 649).

This year’s Legislative Day events providedan in-depth discussion of the issues with a de-tailed focus on regulatory and legislative propos-als and bills. Overall, the event was a tremendoussuccess and we are excited about what the futurewill bring for our FSAWWA legislative efforts.

The AWWA/WEF Joint WashingtonFly-In was held April 4th and 5th at the Wash-ington Marriott Metro. A total of 175 atten-dees from all 50 states converged on CapitolHill to voice our concerns about water issueson a national level.

Florida provided a strong contingent with12 delegates from seven different utilities andfive different engineering, manufacturing, andconstruction firms. The Florida delegation wasorganized once again this year by SuzanneGoss, past chair of the Utility Council.

Enough can not be said about the out-standing job Suzanne did to plan and coordinateall the meetings with our senators, congressmen,and their staffs. Her hard work was evidenced

by the Florida Team’s effectiveness in deliveringour message to promote safe water.

In addition to Suzanne, we Capitol Hill“rookies” were fortunate to have the help ofEdgar Fernandez (Miami-Dade), Chip Merriam(OUC), and Paula Dye (Tampa Bay Water). Allfour did an outstanding job as our group leadersand provided invaluable advice and knowledgeabout the legislative process, as well as tips andtalking points when meeting with congressmenor their staff. The Florida Section is blessed tohave these four talented folks working diligentlyon our behalf in Tallahassee and Washington.

This year the Fly-In focused on three keylegislative issues: Chemical Facility Security,Legislating Standards for Drinking Water Con-taminants, and Water Infrastructure Financing.

Chemical Facility Security

While drinking water and wastewaterutilities currently are exempt from chemicalfacility security anti-terrorism standards,known as CFATS, there is interest in Congressin ending those exemptions. Legislation au-thorizing CFATS expires this year and reau-thorizing legislation for that program isexpected to include the water sector.

Drinking water and wastewater utilitieshave long been proactive in addressing secu-rity threats. They have been handling gaseouschlorine for more than 100 years and are wellaware of what is required to safeguard thistool, from secure storage sites to scrubbers thatneutralize leaks.

Utilities have addressed perimeter securityat treatment facilities and reservoir security foryears. Utilities that use certain chemicals are al-ready subject to risk management planningprovisions under section 112(r) of the Clean AirAct; to emergency planning and communitynotification provisions under the EmergencyPlanning and Community Right to Know Act;and to additional state and local standards forsafe storage and handling of hazardous chemi-cals. When Congress passed the Public HealthProtection and Bioterrorism Preparedness andResponse Act of 2002, which required vulnera-bility assessments and updates to existing emer-gency response plans at drinking waterproviders, the sector took those requirementsseveral steps further and developed extensivetraining programs and tools for utilities.

The AWWA urges support for chemicalsecurity legislation that applies to water and

Richard AndersonChair, FSAWWA

Legislative Affairs Take Center Stage

The 2011 Legislative Day panel discussion: From left are panelists Eric Draper, Diane Salz, and Rich Budell.

FSAWWA: SPEAKING OUT

FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES JOURNAL • MAY 2011 • 65

wastewater utilities only if it:� Excludes public water systems and publicly

owned treatment works from any federalauthority to order the use of “inherentlysafer technology.” Decisions concerningutility choice of disinfectant are complex,are based on critical local factors, and cannot be made from Washington, D.C.

� Applies to drinking water and wastewatersystems only if they have chemicals of con-cern above identified threshold quantities.Such systems should not be covered bychemical security provisions solely becausethey are near population centers or reach acertain size, if they do not have chemicalsof concern above critical threshold levels.

� Provides adequate protection of sensitiveinformation. Personnel (including collec-tive bargaining agents) who are not watersystem employees, their contractors, or gov-ernment agents, should not have access toor be involved in the development of vul-nerability assessments or site security plans.

Legislating Drinking Water Contaminants

Bills have been introduced in the Senatethat would force the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency to issue drinking water regula-tions for certain contaminants; however, the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) already has in placescientific, methodical, and largely transparentprocesses for determining the occurrence ofsubstances in question; their likely effects onhuman health; and whether or not their regula-tion in drinking water affords a meaningful op-portunity to protect public health.

Congress specifically designed these provi-sions to ensure the public is protected againstproven threats to our health and safety as deter-mined by science, not popular passion. Congressshould stand behind this scientific process andvote against sidestepping methodical regulatorydecision-making. Water providers want to makeinvestments that curb genuine threats to thehealth of the public we serve, but every dollardiverted toward speculative threats is a dollarthat should have been spent on known threatsor on upgrading our aging water infrastructure.

Although the scientific process outlined inthe SDWA can feel frustratingly slow, the Ad-ministration has endorsed these principles, asdescribed by the March 9, 2009, Memorandumfor the Heads of Executive Departments andAgencies on Scientific Integrity. These princi-ples are important to ensure that the Agencydirects water providers to address actual risksand doesn’t misdirect limited resources basedon incomplete or faulty information.

The bottom line is that Congress shouldnot legislate individual drinking water stan-

dards. We should allow the best available sci-ence, not the political process, to be the ulti-mate determinant in these importantregulatory decisions.

WIFIA

To lower the cost of infrastructure invest-ments and to increase the availability of lower-cost capital, the AWWA urges Congress tocreate a “Water Infrastructure Finance Inno-vations Authority” (WIFIA), modeled after thesuccessful Transportation Infrastructure Fi-nance and Innovations Authority (commonlycalled TIFIA). Such a mechanism could lowerthe cost of capital for water utilities while hav-ing no or little effect on the federal budgetdeficit. The WIFIA would access funds fromthe U.S. Treasury at Treasury rates and usethose funds to support loans and other creditmechanisms for water projects. Such loanswould be repaid to the Authority – and thenceto the Treasury – with interest.

The SRF Program

It is also important for the federal govern-ment to continue to directly capitalize state re-volving funds, which can be used to bothbroadly lower the costs of water infrastructure

Continued on page 66

Low-pressure sewer collection systems arean economical alternative to providingcentralized wastewater collection to areas

where the groundwater table is high and to con-verting areas which are serviced by septic tankswith drain fields to centralized sewer service.The typical low-pressure sewer system consistsof smaller-diameter force mains that can bealigned easily and constructed along easementsand right-of-ways with service laterals that pro-vide connection to a pressurized pumping unit.Usually located within private property, how-ever within deeded easements, the pressurizedpumping unit can be thought of as a mini-liftstation to service the account holder.

It is fairly simple to convert a service areawhich employs decentralized wastewater treat-ment in the form of septic tanks with a drainfield for effluent disposal to a centralized low-pressure transmission collection operation.This conversion process usually involves theabandonment of the gravity drain field and

the installation of a pump which will disposeof the effluent by pumping into the low-pres-sure transmission force main.

The conversion also includes a controlpanel, floats, and alarms to operate the pumpinside the pressurized unit. As a basis for sys-tem design, the interested reader may get ad-ditional guidance and specifications from theFlorida Department of Environmental Protec-tion publication titled “Design and Specifica-tions Guidelines for Low Pressure SewerSystems,” 1981, prepared by a technical advi-sory committee.

A low-pressure collection system has sev-eral advantages and disadvantages when com-pared to the traditional gravity collectionsystem. For example, in gravity systems gradesare extremely important, while in low-pressuresystems they are not as critical as long as airrelief facilities are provided.

In installations with a high groundwatertable, which will require extensive dewateringin order to attain gravity sewer grades, thecosts can be excessive to install a centralizedgravity collection system; however, in thesecases, a low-pressure collection system that isnot dependent on grades to attain system de-sign flows likely will not require dewateringwith a 30- to 36-inch pipe cover all along thetopography of a fairly flat terrain. Since allwastewater generated is pumped, manholes tochanges in direction and alignment are not re-quired for low-pressure collection systems.

Utilities also save in operational costs ofwastewater treatment facilities. Solid loadings

and BOD loading on the plant are significantlyless, making it easier for operators to meet per-mitted effluent disposal requirements.

The low-pressure tank provides anaero-bic treatment which decomposes most of thesolids locally on site; this operation reduces theloading on the centralized wastewater facilityand also provides savings in sludge wasting,dewatering, and handling/hauling operations.System infiltration should also be minimal.Since the system is usually designed to remainpressurized, there is less chance of infiltration.

The electricity cost to operate the on-sitepumping unit is the responsibility of thehomeowner or business owner. Most utilitiesare responsible for repairs to the pressurizedpumping units, but most of them also haveadopted policies that pass on repair costs toresidential and commercial customers at abase cost without markup. All these factorsusually save money in processing wastewaterat the treatment plant.

66 • MAY 2011 • FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES JOURNAL

investment and to address the needs ofcommunities in hardship or special cir-cumstances. The AWWA proposes severalenhancements to the State Revolving Fundprograms to allow them to better serve ourcommunities.

Private Activity Bonds

Currently municipal bonds that meetcertain private-use tests are subject to state-by-state volume caps which severely limitthe amount of private activity bonds

(PABs) issued for water facilities. To en-courage public-private partnerships andreduce financing costs, PABs for commu-nity water systems should be exemptedfrom the state volume cap, just as PABs forpublicly owned solid waste facilities arecurrently exempted.

America does not face a water infra-structure crisis at the present, but action isneeded now to avert more serious prob-lems in the years to come. The tenets out-lined in this month’s column provide apath toward truly sustainable water infra-structure for all Americans. ��

Speaking OutContinued from page 65

Operations & Maintenance Considerations when Designing a Low-Pressure Sewer Collection System

Julian Deleon, Don Gavoni, and Jonathan Delgado

Julian Deleon, P.E., is the Avon Park citymanager. At the time this article waswritten, he was director of public worksand utilities for the Sun ‘N Lake of SebringImprovement District. Don Gavoni is headof utilities for the Improvement District andJonathan Delgado is the District’ssupervisor of field operations.