WASTEWATER [D-] |
Aging wastewater management systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each year. The EPA estimates that the nation must invest $390 billion over the next 20 years to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet increasing demands. Yet, in 2005, Congress cut funding for wastewater management for the first time in eight years. The Bush administration has proposed a further 33% reduction, to $730 million, for FY06.
The federal government has directly invested more than $72 billion in the construction of publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTWs) and their related facilities since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. Nevertheless, the physical condition of many of the nation's 16,000 wastewater treatment systems is poor, due to a lack of investment in plant, equipment and other capital improvements over the years.
Many systems have reached the end of their useful design lives. Older systems are plagued by chronic overflows during major rain storms and heavy snowmelt and, intentionally or not, are bringing about the discharge of raw sewage into U.S. surface waters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in August 2004 that the volume of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) discharged nationwide is 850 billion gallons per year. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), caused by blocked or broken pipes, result in the release of as much as 10 billion gallons of raw sewage yearly, according to the EPA.
Federal funding under the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program has remained flat for the past decade. With one exception, Congress appropriated between $1.2 billion and $1.35 billion from 1995 to 2004.[1] But in FY 2005, Congress cut wastewater SRF funding for the first time in eight years, reducing the total investment to $1.1 billion.
The Bush administration has proposed further cuts for FY 2006, with a budget submittal calling for an appropriation of only $730 million, a reduction of 33% from the FY 2005-enacted level.
Federal assistance has not kept pace with the needs, yet virtually every authority agrees that funding needs remain very high: the United States must invest an additional $181 billion for all types of sewage treatment projects eligible for funding under the Act, according to the most recent needs survey estimate by the EPA and the states, completed in August 2003.
A more recent report from the staff of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee stated the issue bluntly: "Without increased investment in wastewater infrastructure, in less than a generation, the U.S. could lose much of the gains it made thus far in improving water quality, and wind up with dirtier water than existed prior to the enactment of the 1972 Clean Water Act."
That is only part of the story. In September 2002, EPA released a detailed gap analysis, which assessed the difference between current spending for wastewater infrastructure and total funding needs. The EPA Gap Analysis estimated that, over the next two decades, the United States must spend nearly $390 billion to replace existing wastewater infrastructure systems and to build new ones (the total includes money for some projects not currently eligible for federal funds, such as system replacement, which are not reflected in the EPA State Needs Survey).
According to the Gap Analysis, if there is no increase in investment, there will be a roughly $6 billion gap between current annual capital expenditures for wastewater treatment ($13 billion annually) and projected spending needs. The study also estimated that, if wastewater spending increases by only 3% per year, the gap would shrink by nearly 90% (to about $1 billion annually).
In 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network, a consortium of water and wastewater providers, researchers, environmentalists, engineers (including the American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE]) and product manufacturers, released a study concluding that the annual investment need for all sewer treatment facilities is $12 billion.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its own gap analysis in 2002, in which it determined that the gap for wastewater ranges, from $23 billion to $37 billion annually, depending on various financial and accounting variables.[2]
Policy Options
If the nation fails to meet the investment needs of the next 20 years, it risks reversing the public health, environmental, and economic gains of the past three decades.
The case for increased federal investment is compelling. Needs are large and unprecedented; in many locations, local sources cannot be expected to meet this challenge alone and, because waters are shared across local and state boundaries, the benefits of federal help will accrue to the entire nation. Clean and safe water is no less a national priority than are national defense, an adequate system of interstate highways, and a safe and efficient aviation system. Many other highly important infrastructure programs enjoy sustainable, long-term sources of federal backing, often through the use of dedicated trust funds; under current policy, water and wastewater infrastructure do not.
The American Society of Civil Engineers supports enactment of a federal water infrastructure trust fund act that would provide a reliable source of federal assistance for the construction and repair of POTWs to reduce the enormous funding gap.
- In the interim, ASCE supports annual appropriations of $1.5 billion from the federal general fund for the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program.
- In addition, ASCE supports the establishment of a federal capital budget to create a mechanism to help reduce the constant conflict between short-term and long-term needs. The current federal budget process does not differentiate between expenditures for current consumption and long-term investment. This causes major inefficiencies in the planning, design and construction process for long-term investments. A capital budget system would help to increase public awareness of the problems and needs facing this country's physical infrastructure, and would help Congress to focus on programs devoted to long-term growth and productivity.
- ASCE supports funding research into wastewater treatment technology, which may reduce capital expenditures, as well as operation and maintenance cost. An example of technology that needs further study is membrane bioreactors.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of EPA's 2006 Budget, February 2005
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Water Infrastructure Financing Act, October 2004
U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Progress Made, Progress Lost, Minority Staff Report, October 2004
Congressional Research Service, Implementing the Clean Water Act, September 2004
Congressional Research Service, Clean Water Act Issues in the 108th Congress, September 2004
Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., All Dried up: How Clean Water is Threatened by Budget Cuts, September 2004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, August 2004
Government Accountability Office, Water Infrastructure: Comprehensive Asset Management Has Potential to Help Utilities Better Identify Needs and Plan Future Investments, March 2004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, September 2002
U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, November 2002
Water Infrastructure Network, Water Infrastructure NOW, February 2001
Water Infrastructure Network, Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century, April 2000
ASCE Policy Statement 299, "Infrastructure Improvement Policy," 2003
ASCE Policy Statement 326, "Waste Water Facilities Construction Funding," 2003
ASCE Policy Statement 395, "Control of Combined Sewer Discharges," 2003
ASCE Policy Statement 420, "Clean Water Act Reauthorization," 2004
ASCE Policy Statement 453, "Federal Capital Budgeting," 2000
ASCE Policy Statement 480, "Clean Water Infrastructure Funding," 2003
[2] None of the estimates cited includes the costs of operation and maintenance (O&M), costs that are borne entirely by the local utilities and are not eligible for federal funding. The 2002 Gap Analysis, for example, put the total O&M cost at $161 billion for the 20-year study period.
