Lawmakers Push for Increase
In Water Infrastructure Funds
Engineers can expect to see a burgeoning market for firms that design,
build, and, in some cases, operate drinking water and wastewater treatment
facilities. Now, as never before, there is strong, bipartisan support in
Congress for spending billions of dollars on water infrastructure
projects.
Nearly 100 members of the House of Representatives have joined the
Water Infrastructure Caucus, which was formed 15 months ago to address the
need to improve the nation's water infrastructure through legislation
similar to the Transportation Efficiency Act, which commits more than $215
billion to upgrading America's highways.
"It is not unrealistic that a bill will clear at least one house of
Congress this year and that final action in both houses would occur, if
not this year, no later than next year," observed Bruce Tobey, mayor of
Gloucester, Massachusetts, who testified at a recent Senate subcommittee
hearing on water and wastewater infrastructure needs.
More Money
The federal government is "facing a rumbling of a rebellion across
the nation, as communities struggle to deal with aging water
infrastructure, growth, and increasing federal water quality
requirements," noted Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) at the Environmental
Protection Agency's budget hearing before the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee in May.
Voinovich pointedly told EPA Administrator Christine Whitman, "With the
incredible nationwide needs for water infrastructure, I would like to know
why the administration did not request more funding in order to help
address these needs and protect public health and safety."
Contending that the EPA's proposed budget for water and wastewater
grants to states is "totally inadequate," Voinovich echoed the sentiments
of such groups such as the Water Infrastructure Network, a broad-based
coalition that includes NSPE (see April Engineering Times, page 3),
and the American Society of Civil Engineers, which recently gave a "D"
rating to the nation's water and wastewater systems (see May ET,
page 3).
"You need to sit down with the groups, put a realistic number on the
need, and confront the issue," Voinovich told Whitman.
How Much More?
Indeed, no one right now seems to have a good handle on the amount
of money that will be necessary during the next 20 years, both to repair
and replace the nation's crumbling water infrastructure and to build
additional capacity to provide for economic development and population
growth.
"Even the best 20-year estimate is only an extrapolation of what would
happen under current and currently anticipated trends," Perry Beider,
principal analyst in the Congressional Budget Office's Microeconomic and
Financial Studies Division, pointed out at a House subcommittee hearing in
March.
"In the case of projecting the needs for investment in water
infrastructure, the difficulty is compounded by a shortage of data," Perry
said. For instance, although it is generally accepted by all that "the
lion's share of the investment will be used to rehabilitate or replace
water pipes," he said, "there is no national inventory of pipes' ages and
conditions, on which to base estimates of investment needs."
The EPA, which is required by the Safe Drinking Water Act to survey
drinking water infrastructure needs every four years, estimates in its
most recent survey report, which was submitted to Congress in February,
that the total drinking water infrastructure need nationwide is $150.9
billion for the next 20 years. (Visit www.epa.gov/ogwdw/needs.html to
download the report.)
However, EPA readily admits that its "stringent documentation criteria"
and use of a questionnaire to collect data very likely result in an
underestimation of the "true need" for capitalization funds. "For example,
a transmission project to extend service to an area where the construction
of new homes is expected would be considered future growth and, therefore,
omitted from the survey," the report says.
In addition, many water systems are unable to identify and document all
of their needs for the next 20 years, either because their planning
documents have only a 5- or 10-year horizon, or because they reflect only
those projects for which financial resources will be available.
Prompted in part by the incompleteness of EPA's survey, the Water
Infrastructure Network (WIN) developed more comprehensive estimates of
20-year infrastructure needs, supplementing the survey data with
assumptions based on professional judgments.
According to WIN's estimates, investment needs for drinking water will
average about $24 billion annually through 2019, for a total of about $480
billion. (To read the full report, visit www.
nspe.org/govrel/gr-home.asp.)
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the difference between
the two estimates simply illustrates the difficulty in making projections
without good, hard data. Moreover, the CBO somewhat cynically notes that
"how big the needs turn out to be will be influenced by who pays to meet
them."
In response to Voinovich's remarks, Whitman has pledged to do a funding
gap analysis with peer review. Factors to be evaluated include: population
growth, aging infrastructure, environmental and public health demands,
increasing operations and maintenance costs, and maintaining
affordability.
"We must keep affordability in mind," Whitman stressed.
