Water Efficiency May 2012 : Page 8
Editor’s Comments Elizabeth Cutright Confronting Crisis WHAT COULD YOU do with a chunk of $1.8 bil-lion in grant funding for infrastructure upgrades? If the backers of HR1189 ( www.govtrack.us/congress/ bill.xpd?bill=h112-1189 ) finally succeed, the Clean Water Affordability Act will open up the congressional checkbook and funnel some much-needed funds to financially stressed communities burdened with leaky pipes, inefficient pumps, and all manner of convey-ance system meltdowns. HR1189 is an ongoing attempt to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( www.fws.gov/ laws/lawsdigest/fwatrpo.html ) so that “municipalities that would experience a signifi cant hardship raising the revenue necessary to fi nance projects and activities for the construction of wastewater works” fi nally get the fi nancial backing they need ( www.govtrack.us/congress/ bill.xpd?bill=h112-1189 ). Although the Federal Water Pollution Act itself has been modifi ed many times — ei-ther to “authorize additional water quality programs, standards, and procedures” or to create funding for neces-sary projects and improvements — for many communities the changes are too costly to implement, and the fi nes for noncompliance are fi nancially devastating. Th e Clean Water Aff ordability Act is aimed at reducing or mitigat-ing this fi nancial hardship. Unfortunately, HR1189 has been stalled in the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment since March 18, 2011, and, as GovTrack.us warns, most bills never make it out of committee ( www.govtrack.us/about.xpd ). But stalled funding is nothing new. Neither are the dire — but scarily routine — warnings about the state of our infrastructure. In February, a report by Standard and Poor (S&P), once again raised the clarion call. Th e S&P report warned — again — that US public water systems are in dire need of repair and rehabilitation. And as we all already know, those repairs won’t come cheap. Th e S&P report cautions, “water systems will need to spend about $335 billion over the next two decades to comply with regulations” ( www.sddt.com/News/article. cfm?SourceCode=20120227fat&_t=US+Water+Systems+ Face+Stress+on+Repair+Needs+Supply+SP+Says ). Th e S&P analysts seem to place the responsibility of fi nancing and funding squarely on the shoulders of the municipalities that own a majority of public water utili-ties (85% according to Bloomberg ). In a statement, New York-based S&P analysts Aneesh Prabhu and Manish Consul are quoted as saying, “Many municipalities have not initiated fi nancing for the upkeep of their facilities because of deteriorating balance sheets and burgeoning defi cits. Given the currently low interest rates, we think deferring such spending is a lost opportunity.” Th e S&P analysts go on to conclude that a failure to capitalize on current credit opportunities positions municipalities at a risk of higher costs in the future as infrastructure begins 8 WATER EFFICIENCY WWW.WATEREFFICIENCY.NET EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD to systematically fail amidst increasing demand and decreasing resources. But — pardon the pun — the S&P report is really only the tip of the infrastructure iceberg. In February, the American Waterworks Association (AWWA) released a groundbreaking study that puts the cost of repairing and expanding US drinking water infrastructure to over $1 trillion in the next 25 years ( www.waterefficiency.net/ WE/Articles/Water_Infrastructure_Bill_to_Top_1_Tril-lion_16254.aspx ). And where will the money come to fund these expenses? Higher water bills and local fees. Th e report, entitled “Buried No Longer: Confront-ing America’s Infrastructure Challenge”, analyzed a variety of elements — from water main installation timing and life expectancy, to materials, to replacement costs and shift ing demographics — to determine national infrastruc-ture needs. Available at www.awwa.org/infrastructure , it reveals that our current conveyance systems are torn evenly between the need for replacement and the pres-sure to expand to meet demand. And as HR1189 already anticipates, the AWWA report concludes that it’s the small communities that “will face the greatest challenges.” “Because pipe assets last a long time, water systems that were built in the latter part of the 19th century and throughout much of the 20th century have, for the most part, never experienced the need for pipe replacement on a large scale,” the report says. “Th e dawn of an era in which the assets will need to be replaced puts a growing stress on communities that will continue to increase for decades to come.” We’ve known for some time that our water infra-structure is in crisis, but it seems as the evidence piles up, everyone’s willing to point out the dangers but unwilling (or unable) to come up with feasible — or at least econom-ical — solutions. Adding complexity to the issue is the fact that water scarcity and increased demand forces many utilities themselves to pay a premium on the water they deliver, including tapping desalination and wastewater reuse. And paying more per gallon directly impacts the amount utilities can set aside to invest in infrastructure. No one is more aware of the looming infra-structure funding crisis than municipalities staring down the barrel of the gun. But all hope is not lost. As AWWA Executive Director David LaFrance points out, “Th e needs uncovered in ‘Buried No Longer’ are large, but they are not insurmountable.” And AWWA President Jerry Stevens agrees, “Water utilities are committed to fi nding fair and equitable rate designs that address aff ordability issues as they face the increased cost of infrastructure replacement. Th e good news is that there is still time to act. ‘Buried No Longer’ helps us recognize the challenge ahead. Together, we can take the necessary steps to meet that challenge.” WE F or more on “ Buried No Longer ” , see The Buzz on page 56. RYAN J. ALSOP Director of Government & Public Affairs Long Beach Water Department Long Beach, CA MARIE CEFALO Water Conservation Coordinator Department of Public Works and Utilities Cary, NC SCOTT N. DUFF, MCIP RPP Manager, Program Coordination Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Ontario, Canada CHRIS EARLEY Principal, Greening Urban, LLC Richmond, VA LEONARD FLECKENSTEIN Senior Program Specialist Santa Barbara County Water Agency Santa Barbara, CA LUIS S. GENEROSO Water Resources Manager City of San Diego Water Department San Diego, CA NEIL S. GRIGG Professor of Civil Engineering Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO GARY KLEIN Affiliated International Management LLC. Newport Beach, CA GEORGE KUNKEL JR., P.E. Water Efficiency Program Manager Philadelphia Water Department Philadelphia, PA JEFFREY J. MOSHER Executive Director National Water Research Institute Fountain Valley, CA JIM PINGATORE Water Conservation Planner Valparaiso City Utilities Valparaiso, IN DANIEL RANSOM Water Conservation Manager City of Santa Fe, NM PETER P. ROGERS Professor of City Planning Gordon McKay Professor of Environmental Engineering, Harvard University Cambridge, MA DAN STRUB Conservation Program Coordinator Water Conservation Program City of Austin, TX BRIAN VINCHESI President Irrigation Consulting Inc. Pepperell, MA DAVID ZOLDOSKE, EDD Director Center for Irrigation Technology California State University–Fresno Fresno, CA
Editor's Comments
Publication List
Using a screen reader? Click Here