Speaker 1: Water is blue, right, but maybe it's also red. Today
Speaker 1: on Parts Pavilion, why water infrastructure is a partisan issue. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome once again to Parts per Billion, your environmental
Speaker 1: policy podcast from Bloomberg BNA. I'm your host, David Schultz.
Speaker 1: You know, infrastructure is one of those things that people
Speaker 1: like to say shouldn't be a part is an issue
Speaker 1: all of us Democrats and Republicans, we all want good roads, bridges, pipes, etc. Etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: That's the usual refrain. But maybe the secret of infrastructure
Speaker 1: is that it actually is partisan. Democrats and Republicans have
Speaker 1: very different ideas about how to pay for it. That's
Speaker 1: the highlight of our conversation with Representative John Shimkiss, a
Speaker 1: Republican from Illinois and the chairman of a key environmental
Speaker 1: subcommittee in the House. Shimkiss is working on a big
Speaker 1: drinking water funding bill with his Democratic counterpart in the subcommittee,
Speaker 1: Representative Paul Tonko of New York, and you might remember
Speaker 1: we spoke with him a few weeks ago about this
Speaker 1: very time. The biggest difference between these two congressmen was
Speaker 1: in who they think should pay for the hundreds of
Speaker 1: billions of dollars in water infrastructure. Upgrades that are desperately
Speaker 1: needed across the country. Tonko wants the federal government to
Speaker 1: contribute more, while Shimkis thinks the issue is best left
Speaker 1: to local government. Would be great for the country to
Speaker 1: be able to just pay and fix every system. Well,
Speaker 1: the federal govern's still nineteen trillion dollars in debt. So
Speaker 1: when I used to teach government history, there are things
Speaker 1: that fall upon the responsibility local government, local roads, police, fire, sewer, water,
Speaker 1: trash management. And so that's the way we've evolved. That's
Speaker 1: why we're always that's the way we're going to continue
Speaker 1: to be because we can't assume that whole response. But
Speaker 1: can we be good partners and help and assist. And
Speaker 1: I think we've tried to find the fine line of
Speaker 1: when because we want local communities to come and show
Speaker 1: us their plan, right, we want it. If we're going
Speaker 1: to be help helpful, we want to be able to
Speaker 1: do leverage federal help so that we know it's managed
Speaker 1: well versus just showering entities with money. And we never
Speaker 1: Republican conservatives never believe that's a good way to manage
Speaker 1: the tax responds. So you believe, you know that upgrading
Speaker 1: water infrastructure is really sort of more of a local responsibility.
Speaker 1: The federal government plays some role, but it should be
Speaker 1: primarily the locality, either the state or the municipality or
Speaker 1: maybe a county that should be responsible for, you know,
Speaker 1: replacing the pipes and buying the new treatment facility and
Speaker 1: things like that. Oh. Absolutely. I think where there is
Speaker 1: a cause for concern in the evolution of communities is
Speaker 1: when communities have been around for a long time and
Speaker 1: have had large populations and then because of economics or problems,
Speaker 1: there's been a huge loss of population. We're talking communities
Speaker 1: like Flint. I could argue you could pick a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of communities like that. I mean, I have a community.
Speaker 1: I have a community that had fifty thousand people and
Speaker 1: now has thirty five thousand. You look close to my home.
Speaker 1: You can look at East Saint Louis as an example
Speaker 1: of it used to be a huge metropolis. Now it's
Speaker 1: a lot smaller. So how do they manage this extended
Speaker 1: system that they had built up. They have no tax
Speaker 1: base to pay for these and it keeps declining, and
Speaker 1: then the burden keeps falling on the residents of that stuff.
Speaker 1: So we can be helpful, but we can't solve their
Speaker 1: problem for him because we've got a whole national scope
Speaker 1: of trying to deliver. And when you hear cases like Flint,
Speaker 1: there's failure across the board, and the failure was at
Speaker 1: the local level. Well, I guess it actually got to
Speaker 1: the region five and you know, then the state as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the water person resigned and the state took over.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, there's problems across the board and that's unfortunate.
Speaker 1: So it's it's interesting because to sort of compare and contrast,
Speaker 1: I spoke a couple of weeks ago with your counterpart
Speaker 1: on the subcommittee, Representative Tonco. He has his own bill
Speaker 1: that you know, would allocate quite a bit of money
Speaker 1: to for this issue through the revolving fund that you
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier. And he said, you know, I asked him,
Speaker 1: you know, where would that money come from. Would it
Speaker 1: mean raising taxes? You know? And he said that the
Speaker 1: way that we can get the money for that is
Speaker 1: to reallocate money from other priorities within the federal budget.
Speaker 1: In terms of you know, he mentioned, why are we
Speaker 1: spending money on a wall, you know, across the Mexican border.
Speaker 1: Why are you giving the defense. This huge increase, why
Speaker 1: don't we spend it on issues like water? How would
Speaker 1: you respond to that? Do you think that that that's
Speaker 1: something that's a realistic thing to do. None of these
Speaker 1: issues are a surprise to me. I mean, he's he's passionate.
Speaker 1: Of of course, he's from New York. You know, if
Speaker 1: you understand the development country, of course we have communities
Speaker 1: developed in the north East New England area along before
Speaker 1: even the country was expanded. So I think he's acutely
Speaker 1: aware of challenges of keeping infrastructure up. But I believe
Speaker 1: in the adage that as a budget goes, it really
Speaker 1: tells your priorities. And you know, Republicans are always going
Speaker 1: to be about less government, lower taxes, individual responsibility, strong defense,
Speaker 1: and we understand there's a role to play to assist,
Speaker 1: but we were not going to take over local responsibilities.
Speaker 1: If communities have challenges, we want to be there to
Speaker 1: help them, and we pass legislation to make sure that
Speaker 1: they can share with science. And we passed that water
Speaker 1: kind of build last Congress. It was small, but it's
Speaker 1: very important to rule and poor systems that wanted to
Speaker 1: get assistance and help, and there was some money involved.
Speaker 1: With that for the for the states to provide that.
Speaker 1: It's just a different view of how we should be involved.
Speaker 1: And Republicans are always going to look at the founding
Speaker 1: documents and what's our real response. Familiary responsible with the
Speaker 1: national governments, protector citizen against all enemies, bign, domestic. And
Speaker 1: it's always been a local responsibility, uh to deal with
Speaker 1: roads and police and fire and water and sewer and
Speaker 1: trash and stuff like that. Uh And and I think
Speaker 1: that's the way we'll stay. So finally, though, if the
Speaker 1: the you know, this is a local responsibility, do you see,
Speaker 1: you know, any federal role in this? I mean, there
Speaker 1: obviously is some federal role because we have the Revolving Fund,
Speaker 1: we have these federal standards that are set by the
Speaker 1: e PA for drinking water. But other than that, what
Speaker 1: role do you see the federal government? What role do
Speaker 1: you think the federal government should play in, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: maintaining and improving drinking water in the country. I don't
Speaker 1: think we have a big role. I think the role
Speaker 1: is for the local communities. My my hometown of Columns, well,
Speaker 1: it's we have a city system, and you know, and
Speaker 1: it we claim that it's some of the best water
Speaker 1: in their alry right so we're very proud of it.
Speaker 1: They're expanding it right now. There's federal and state help
Speaker 1: that they have to learn to leverage. But again it's
Speaker 1: prioritizing what is our role, on what is in our role,
Speaker 1: and expanding our role on the things that we think
Speaker 1: our states and local community issues. That was Republican John
Speaker 1: Shimkiss speaking with us about who should fund water infrastructure upgrades.
Speaker 1: For more of our reporting on water, visit our website
Speaker 1: at BNA dot com. This week's episode was produced by myself,
Speaker 1: with help from Jessica Combs and Rachel Daegel, and special
Speaker 1: help this week from Marissa Horne and music for Parts
Speaker 1: per Billion is a message by Jaaar. It was used
Speaker 1: under a Creative Commons Attribution share like license. More information
Speaker 1: can be found at Better with Music dot com