WASTEWATER

Conditions

Although the federal government has spent more than $71 billion on wastewater treatment programs since 1973, the nation's 16,000 wastewater systems still face enormous infrastructure funding needs in the next 20 years to replace pipes and other constructed facilities that have exceeded their design life. With billions being spent yearly for wastewater infrastructure, the systems face a shortfall of at least $12 billion annually to replace aging facilities and comply with existing and future federal water regulations. The total does not account for any growth in demand from new systems.

Funding has remained flat for more than a decade. In Fiscal Year 2003, Congress appropriated $1.3 billion for wastewater infrastructure, which represents about 11% of the annual need nationally. In 2002, the Environmnetal Protection Agency (EPA) reported that capital funding needs through 2019 could total between $331 billion and $450 billion. Requirements for communities that have not yet achieved secondary treatment or must upgrade existing facilities remain very high: $126 billion nationwide is required by 2016, according to EPA. The largest need, $45 billion, is for projects to control combined sewer overflows. The second largest category of needs, at $27 billion, is for new or improved secondary treatment (the basic statutory requirement of the Clean Water Act). In addition to costs documented by EPA, states estimate an additional $34 billion in wastewater treatment needs for projects that do not meet EPA documentation criteria but, nevertheless, represent a potential demand on state resources.

Between 35% and 45% of U.S. surface waters still do not meet current water-quality standards. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, sewer overflows are a chronic and growing problem. Many of the nation's urban sewage collection systems are aging; some sewers are 100 years old. Many systems have not received the essential maintenance and repairs necessary to keep them working properly. Pending federal regulations to manage sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) would impose an additional total cost for all municipalities of $93.5 million to $126.5 million each year.

Without a significantly enhanced federal role in providing assistance to wastewater infrastructure, critical investments will not occur. Possible solutions include grants, trust funds, loans, and incentives for private investment. The question is not whether

New solutions are needed to what amounts to a nearly trillion dollars uncritical drinking water and wastewater investments over the next two decades. Not meeting the investment needs of the next 20 years risks reversing the public health, environmental, and economic gains of the last three decades.

The case for 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. These latter infrastructure programs enjoy sustainable, long-term federal grant programs; under current policy, water and wastewater infrastructure do not.

Equally compelling is the case for flexibility in the forms of federal investment including grants, loans, and other forms of assistance. Grants will be needed for many communities that simply cannot afford to meet public health, environmental, and/or service-level requirements. Loans and credit enhancements may be sufficient for other types of communities with greater economies of scale, wealthier populations, and/or fewer assets per capita to replace.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recommends that funding for water infrastructure system improvements and associated operations be provided by a comprehensive program.

Specific Recommendations Supported by ASCE:

• Congressional appropriations of $11 billion-$12 billion annually for immediate wastewater infrastrucure repairs and system upgrades.
• Creation of a water trust fund to finance the national shortfall in funding for water and wastewater infrastructure. These trust funds should not be diverted for non-water purposes.
• Issuance of revenue bonds and tax exempt financing at state and local levels, as well as public-private partnerships, state infrastructure banks, and other innovative financing mechanisms.

Sources

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, September 2002.
• Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century, April 2000.
• WIN, Water Infrastructure NOW, February 2001.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress, October 2000.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Liquid Assets 2000, June 2000.
• U.S. Senate, Water Infrastructure: Hearing Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, October 7, 1999.
• Congressional Research Service, Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background, January 1999.
• ASCE Policy Statement 480 "Clean Water Infrastructure Financing," 2000.
• ASCE Policy Paper 420 "Clean Water Act Reauthorization," 1998.
• ASCE Policy Statement 326 "Wastewater Facilities Construction Funding," 2000.
• ASCE Policy Statement 302 "Cost Sharing in Water Programs," 1999.
• ASCE Policy Statement 312 " Cooperation on Water Resource Project," 1997.
• ASCE Policy Statement 328 " Energy and Water Project Financing," 1996.
• ASCE Policy Statement 332 "Water Reuse," 1998.
• ASCE Policy Statement 337 "Water Conservation," 1998.
• ASCE Policy Statement 395 "Control of Combined Sewer Discharge," 2000.
• ASCE Policy Statement 429 "Municipal Wastewater Biosolids," 2000.
• ASCE Policy Statement 441 "Storm Water Management," 1998.
• ASCE Policy Statement 461 " Rural Nonpoint Source Water Quality," 2000.