►
From YouTube: Q and A With John Covington
Description
This video is an interview with John Covington of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who spoke at the 2016 NCSl Legislative Summit issue session on State Efforts to Improve Water Planning. The NCSL Legislative Summit was held in Chicago on Aug. 8-11, 2016.
A
I'm
John
Covington
I'm
with
the
US
EPA
water
infrastructure,
resiliency
and
Finance
Center
I've
been
there
since
May
of
this
year.
The
water
center
is
a
new
agency
created
in
January
of
2015
prior
to
that,
I
was
for
seven
and
a
half
years
executive
director
of
the
Kentucky
infrastructure
Authority
and
in
total,
at
over
20
years
with
the
Kentucky
infrastructure
Authority.
During
that
time,
I
worked
with
the
EPA
clean
water
and
drinking
water
state
revolving
fund
ki
was
the
grantee
for
both
of
those
programs
and
administered
them
within
the
state
of
Kentucky.
A
Really,
the
only
to
the
only
program
that
EPA
has
to
fund
water
and
sewer
infrastructure
are
the
state
revolving
fund
programs,
the
clean
water
and
the
drinking
water.
What
most
people
do
not
realize
is
that
those
two
programs
constitute
over
twenty
five
percent
of
EPA's
budget
and
is
a
single
largest
line
item
in
their
budget.
A
These
programs
are
designed
as
loan
programs
they
fund
give
capitalization
grants
to
each
state
to
operate
the
program
and
those
states
have
run
the
programs
on
the
state
level
and
have
flexibility
to
design
those
programs
to
address
the
needs
of
the
each
individual
states
needs
the
other
program
that
EPA
anticipates
having
it
has
been
authorized,
but
it's
not
been
funded.
Is
the
water
infrastructure.
A
Innovation
act,
financing,
innovation
act,
oh
it's
with
Ian,
everybody
asks
what's
acronym,
it's
really
key
forget
what
the
acronym
ends,
because
everybody
refers
to.
It
is
with
you
and
this
program
is
being
ramped
up.
It
has
not
received
an
opera
zation,
but
it
has
received
funding
to
create
the
administrative
side
and
get
prepared.
Everybody
is
fairly
confident
that
it
will
receive
author
funding,
and
one
of
the
things
that
make
it
attractive
is
that
Congress
can
provide
a
lot
of
funds
for
loans
with
very
little
budget
authorization.
A
If
you
look
at
srf
programs
that
have
a
long
history
up
to
25
years
of
making
loans
to
water
and
sewer
utilities,
any
of
those
that
have
issued
bonds
to
help
fund
that
all
they're
all
highly
rated.
Most
of
them,
if
not
all
our
triple-a
rated
credits
and
that
has
paid
dividends
in
the
amount
of
leverage
that
the
federal
government
can
generate
with
and
with
you
program
could.
B
A
I
said
before
this
is
somewhat
unique
programs
with
the
federal
government
in
that
it
is
an
EPA
program.
It
is
government
boat,
they
are
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
and
the
Clean
Water
Act
provide
the
general
guidelines
for
how
the
program
works,
but
each
state
administers
the
program
inside
the
state.
They
are
responsible
for
the
program.
How
they
set
up.
A
The
programs
is
different
across
states
who
actually
gets
the
grants
in
the
state
in
some
states
in
Kentucky,
where
I
came
from,
for
example,
the
Kentucky
infrastructure
Authority
received
the
grant,
not
the
Natural,
Resources
Kevin
other
states.
Natural
Resources
administers
the
program,
some
states,
particularly
on
the
drinking
water
side,
the
Health
Department
state
health
department
and
ministers,
the
drinking
water,
so
each
state
has
various
combinations
of
how
they
administered
the
program.
One
of
the
great
things
about
the
srf
program
is
every
state
has
different
needs
if
they,
you
have
to
follow.
A
The
general
guidelines
of
the
authorizing
legislation
which
for
drinking
water
is
public
health
and
for
clean
water
is
the
environment.
But
if
you
follow
those
general
guidelines
in
there,
you
can
pretty
much
identify.
What
is
important
in
your
state?
Do
you
have
to
rank
the
projects
every
year
and
you
fund
off
your
priority
lists?
Every
project
that
is
funded
has
to
be
on
a
state
priority
list,
but
states
can
customize
those
priorities
on
the
needs
in
their
state.
A
A
Think
in
our
session
today
and
anything
you
if
you
follow
water
very
closely,
obviously
there's
a
funding
gap
and,
at
some
point
in
time
everybody
in
a
decision-making
position
that
has
the
authority
to
address
the
problem
is
going
to
have
to
this
make
a
very
clear-cut
choice.
Are
we
going
to
address
the
problem
and
fix
the
issue,
or
are
we
going
to
let
it
go
and
basically
people
are
making
have
made
the
decision
that
we
can't
afford
to
do
this
so
we're
going
to
let
it
go?
A
What
we're
going
to
see
is
more
issues
like
flint
we're
going
to
see
on
the
clean
water
side,
the
problem
of
algae
blooms
of
clothes,
swimming
areas,
even
the
problems
with
clean
water,
you
don't
think
of
them
affecting
drinking
water,
but
they
do
because
drinking
water
source
is
that
same
water
that
outflows
and
wastewater
treatment
plants
come
from
our
agricultural
runoff.
So
you
have
to
address
those
issues
to
protect
your
source,
water
for
drinking
water.
A
We
have
to
make
a
decision
of
how
we're
going
to
pay
for
that,
and
eventually
it's
either
movie
the
rate
payers
are
the
taxpayers.
It's
going
to
be
grants
or
loans,
and
grants
are
very
difficult
to
find.
We
are
going
to
have
to
make
a
decision.
Are
we
going
to
raise
rates
enough
to
pay
for
addressing
the
environmental
needs
and
the
public
health
needs
that
we
have
in
this
country
and
people?