What do wastewater treatment plants do?
Wastewater treatment plants, or publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs), treat domestic and industrial
sewage to levels that ensure public health and the
biological integrity of the waters that receive discharges
from these facilities. The end product is highly treated
water discharged to water bodies and biosolids, both of
which must meet stringent federal standards.
What are the most common water quality
problems or impairments, and where do they come from? Water quality impairments come in the form of
pollution discharged to streams or the destruction of
aquatic life habitat. Sedimentation, excess nutrients, and
bacteria most commonly impair rivers and streams, according
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) national
survey of water quality, which was reported to Congress last
year. Before the Clean Water Act (CWA), pollution problems
were most often associated with "point sources," discharges
from heavy industrial facilities and sewage treatment
plants. But after almost 30 years of CWA implementation,
pollution from these sources is under control. Now, new
water quality challenges confront the country. For instance,
municipal and industrial stormwater runoff and concentrated
animal feeding operations must now meet tough new standards.
And in the future, federal, state, and local governments
will be turning their attention to difficult-to-control
"nonpoint source" water pollution in urban and rural areas
caused by runoff from city streets, agricultural fields,
timber harvests, road building, pastures or runoff from
other rural lands.
What is the federal Clean Water
Act? The federal CWA, enacted in 1972 as the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, establishes a national
program to restore and maintain the quality of the nation's
waters. Point sources of pollution are regulated under the
Act while state programs for nonpoint sources are subject to
federal funding and technical assistance. The CWA authorized
states to establish water quality standards, subject to
federal review and approval, to protect public health or
welfare and improve the quality of the water. These
standards are translated into permit limits, which are
issued to municipal and industrial dischargers. Under the
CWA, discharges to waters of the United States are illegal
without these permits, which ensure that the wastewater
discharges present no risk to human health and the
environment.
What role does the CWA play with respect to
POTWs? POTWs are considered point sources and,
therefore, must meet federally approved state water quality
standards in their CWA discharge permits, which are issued
by EPA or delegated states under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). When it was first
enacted and for 15 years thereafter, the CWA established and
maintained the Wastewater Construction Grants program to
help fund the construction of POTWs to comply with federal
requirements. The 1987 amendments replaced the grants with
the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program.
What was the Wastewater Construction Grants
Program? The Wastewater Construction Grants
Program was established in title II of the 1972 CWA as one
of two methods - the other, federal regulation - for
improving sewage treatment and water quality in the United
States. Grant funding was available to local governments for
the construction of POTWs with the water treatment
technology to meet federal requirements.
What is the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF)
program? The SRF program was established by
Congress to replace the Construction Grants Program in the
1987 Amendments to the CWA. States must match the federal
capitalization grant with 20 percent in state funds. While
it remains a federal grant program, funds are granted to
states to provide loans at reduced interest to local
government construction of clean water facilities to meet
federal CWA requirements. A source of local funds must be
available to repay SRF loans which are then added to state
funds for making subsequent loans.
What is the Administration's policy for
future capitalization of SRFs? The
Administration's stated policy is to capitalize the clean
water SRFs through federal grants and repayments so that the
funds collectively revolve at $2.0 billion in FY1996
dollars. The Administration also seeks to capitalize state
safe drinking water SRFs so that they revolve at $500
million annually. EPA management has stated that this goal
has been essentially reached but that the Administration
will continue to request capitalization appropriations while
in office. EPA and other important clean water partners have
recognized the importance of beginning a dialogue on future
funding.
What does the term "publicly owned
treatment works" include? Under the federal Clean
Water Act, POTWs are not just the wastewater treatment
plants themselves. They include a wide array of other
infrastructure necessary for collecting, transporting and
treating wastewater containing domestic or sanitary sewage
and sludge or biosolids resulting from the wastewater
treatment process. While the term "clean water
infrastructure" includes facilities to control combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) from combined sanitary and storm
sewer systems and separate sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs),
these facilities are not considered as parts of POTWs. Both
CSOs and SSOs result from storm events, which cause high
volumes of water that overflows from older sewage
collections systems.
What are municipal separate storm sewer
systems? Municipal separate storm sewer systems
collect, treat and discharge stormwater generated by rain
events. Stormwater control systems are located primarily in
urban and urbanizing areas to control flooding and prevent
property damage.
What are nonpoint sources of water
pollution? Nonpoint sources of water pollution,
also called polluted runoff, result from rainfall that runs
off the land and into waterbodies. This runoff can carry
with it sediments, nutrients, bacteria, chemicals or metals.
Nonpoint sources are not conveyed by a pipe and, therefore,
are not strictly regulated by CWA discharge permits. Rather,
they are diffuse, difficult to control sources of water
pollution that run off farmland, pastures, construction
sites, parking lots or timberland. Nonpoint source pollution
can be diminished by land management practices such as
wetlands preservation and construction; careful application
of fertilizer and manure to crops; street sweeping; and soil
erosion controls.
Does EPA regulate nonpoint
sources? The Clean Water Act does not authorize
EPA to directly regulate nonpoint sources of pollution in
rural or urban areas through the use of discharge permits.
The regulation of nonpoint source pollution is left to state
and local governments under state law. The primary federal
approaches to nonpoint sources are cost sharing and
technical assistance through the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and through EPA-funded state nonpoint programs
under section 319 of the CWA. The present Administration's
1995 CWA reauthorization proposals sought legislation for
EPA to have backup authority to regulate nonpoint sources
where states fail to act.
Does EPA regulate animal feed
lots? EPA regulates large feedlots or animal
feeding operations (AFOs) as point sources of pollution
under the NPDES permit program. The Agency is developing a
technology based federal effluent standard for AFOs which
would include a set of best management practices based on
the number of animals or environmental impacts of the
facilities. Small animal feeding operations will be
regulated by states as nonpoint sources. Many state
legislatures have enacted legislation to bring AFOs under
some level of regulation because of widespread concern over
the water quality problems associated with large volumes of
untreated animal waste from "factory farms."
What are wet weather
sources? Generally, wet weather sources such as
CSOs, SSOs, stormwater systems and nonpoint sources are
episodic, short-term discharges generated by rainstorm
events. CSOs, SSOs and stormwater can be controlled by
transport or treatment facilities, best management practices
(BMPs) or a combination of both. Nonpoint sources in rural
areas can be controlled by the implementation of BMPs such
as improved, "no-tillage" practices on agriculture land;
buffer strips to prevent polluted runoff and erosion; or
wetlands construction.
What makes clean water infrastructure so
expensive? A variety of factors contribute to the
high cost of clean water infrastructure. First, construction
of wastewater treatment and transport facilities is heavy
construction requiring site preparation, poured concrete and
steel structures, and major piping, pump and other hydraulic
machinery. Second, treatment facilities particularly require
significant technology to use biological, chemical and
hydraulic control aspects of sewage treatment based on
site-specific characterizations of wastewater and in order
to meet water quality standards. Third, wastewater treatment
includes treatment and handling of sewage sludge known as
biosolids. Fourth, these highly sophisticated facilities
require electronic and other related control systems to
ensure cost-effective operation and some redundancy of
operation to ensure reliability and to protect public health
and the environment.
"Is clean water infrastructure a good
investment? Clean water infrastructure is a
necessary public health and environmental investment, and a
sound economic investment. Construction of wastewater
facilities is among the highest generators of jobs for all
infrastructure categories. Each $1 billion in sewer
improvements generates over 57,000 direct and indirect jobs.
By comparison, total job creation by highway and road
construction is estimated to be approximately 34,000, for
each $1 billion. In addition to public health and
environmental benefits, wastewater facilities provide major
contributions to public and private productivity. Research
indicates that public investments in these facilities
improve: competitiveness for American industry; private
profitability; and wages, which in turn yield higher tax
revenues to governments.
What sewage treatment and collection
facilities are required by the CWA? The Clean
Water Act requires POTWs, CSOs, and storm water discharge
facilities to meet state water quality standards in order to
protect designated uses of water bodies for human health,
aquatic life or other beneficial uses. POTWs must at a
minimum meet technology requirements defined by EPA
regulations as "secondary treatment." Secondary treatment
removes organic matter in wastewater that, if discharged,
might lower oxygen levels in receiving waters. CSO's must
comply with NPDES permits issued using the guidelines in the
EPA CSO Control Policy. These guidelines provide for
compliance with nine minimum controls and best professional
judgement reviews for best available technology or best
control technology. CSOs must also comply with the
presumptive approach to meeting water quality standards,
defined as the equivalent of primary clarification, or the
demonstration approach, plus disinfection. To meet these
requirements, local governments owning POTWs or CSOs must
construct these facilities.
How have federal clean water requirements
for local governments changed? Initially, EPA
required local governments with POTWs to construct and
implement "secondary treatment," which is defined as the
best available control technology. This step was costly, but
with significant levels of federal grant funding, it
resulted in a major nationwide improvement in wastewater
treatment and water quality. Over the past decade,
regulatory requirements expanded from secondary sewage
treatment, to compliance with water quality based treatment
requirements at sewage treatment plants; control of CSOs and
then SSOs; implementation of BMPs and other controls for
stormwater systems to comply with NPDES permits established
for stormwater facilities under the 1987 CWA amendments.
What are the currently estimated clean
water infrastructure costs? Clean water
infrastructure costs reported by WEF and AMSA in the 1999
Cost of Clean total at least $330 billion for new facilities
including those required to meeting the enforceable
requirements of the federal CWA. In addition to this
staggering need, local governments must continue to pay for
the operations and maintenance of their facilities, which is
predicted to rise at an average of 3.8 percent per year over
the next 20 years.
What clean water infrastructure needs did
EPA last report? EPA's 1996 Needs Survey
reported $139.5 billion in wastewater infrastructure needs
based on eligible costs under the CWA. On March 18, 1999,
however, EPA released preliminary, revised estimates that
indicate $199.6 billion in wastewater needs over 20 years.
This recent revision substituted $81.9 billion in SSOs
reported by the EPA Sewer System Overflow Study for $10.3
billion in previously reported sewer infiltration and inflow
correction estimated needs. The Agency currently reports on
the following needs: $44.0 billion for remaining secondary
treatment and advanced treatment for attainment of water
quality standards; $21.6 billion for new collector and
interceptor sewers; $44.7 billion for CSOs; and $7.4 billion
for stormwater.
How were the needs in The Cost of Clean
determined? Total needs were the sum if three
components: (1) EPA's needs estimates from their 1996 Needs
Survey, (2) operations and maintenance costs projected over
the next 20 years based on historical actual municipal
expenditures, and (3) costs to replace aging wastewater
infrastructure, which are not counted in EPA's Needs
estimates.
Is The Cost of Clean different from EPA'
Needs Survey? How? Yes, the AMSA/WEF Needs Survey
is different from EPA's Needs Survey because EPA's Needs
Survey counts only municipal wastewater expenditures that
are needed to comply with the Clean Water Act and are
eligible for funding under Title VI of that Act. Under this
definition of needs, which is mandated by language in the
Clean Water Act, EPA does not count most needs to replace
infrastructure - particularly collection systems - or needs
to operate and maintain wastewater infrastructure. These are
real costs that municipalities must pay for.
How are replacement costs
calculated? Wastewater assets were assumed to be
replaced once they exceeded their useful lives. Historical
data on municipal expenditures for wastewater capital
facilities like treatment plants, collection systems, and
pumping stations and other fixed assets like vehicles,
machinery, and equipment were accumulated into annual values
of total capital stock - essentially the value of the
nation's wastewater infrastructure. These estimates of
capital stocks or capital "assets" were then depreciated by
asset class, according to average lives within each class -
50 years for sewers and collection systems, 25 years for
treatment facilities, and 10 years for other assets (one
27-year depreciation period averaged across the mix of
assets "in the ground" over the past several decades).
Annual costs of replacement, then, is equal to annual values
of depreciation.
How are SRF's counted in The Cost of
Clean? Why? The Cost of Clean estimates
investment needs over the next 20 years, independent of the
way that any investment might be financed. So, the needs
estimate, per se, does not deal with SRF funding, just as it
does not deal with any other type of financing like
municipal bonds, state grants or pay-as-you go financing of
operation costs or capital facilities. However, the AMSA/WEF
analysis does examine the historical role that SRF financing
has played in helping to meet the overall financing needs of
the nation's municipal wastewater systems and has included
federal SRF capitalization grants to states in charts that
depict the relative role of federal and local financing of
wastewater treatment facilities over time.
Is EPA conducting a study on the funding
gap? EPA is conducting a Needs Gap Study which
will identify the difference between wastewater facility
needs and present expenditures. Recently released
preliminary figures suggest that EPA will substantially
revise its 1996 needs estimate of $139.5 billion. Most
expect EPA's revised figures to approximate the estimates in
AMSA and WEF's The Cost of Clean.
What information should future needs
surveys obtain? EPA's Needs Gap Survey should
report on all clean water infrastructure needs from the
local government perspective, not just those eligible under
the original grants program because local governments and
their sewer ratepayers must meet all needs to ensure
reliable service as well as compliance with the CWA. The
survey should also quantify the funding necessary to reduce
nonpoint source pollution, the country's major contributor
to water pollution.
Are there other estimates of CSO control
costs available? The 1996 EPA estimate of CSO
needs for 1100 CSO communities is $44.7 billion was based on
needs identified in NPDES permits plus needs modeled by EPA.
Actual municipal costs to meet the EPA CSO Control Policy
may be significantly higher. Moreover, additional costs to
meet best available treatment requirements based on best
professional judgement reviews, could further expand
technology requirements and costs for CSO correction. Some
would put total CSO needs at over $100 billion subject to a
range of water quality and engineering judgements.
What are the estimated costs to control
sanitary sewer overflows? The EPA 1996 Needs
Survey puts infiltration and inflow correction costs, to
avoid SSOs at $10.3 billion. The 1999 EPA Sewer System
Overflow Study revealed that $80.1 billion is needed
nationwide to correct SSOs.
What other public health related water
infrastructure costs are confronting local governments?
The EPA 1998 Needs Survey was conducted on costs
to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act. The First Report to
Congress for that survey, dated January 1997, reported total
20-year needs of $138.4 billion for transmission and
distribution, treatment, storage, source and other costs.
The American Water Works Association reported in1998
estimated drinking water facility needs of $325 billion.
Moreover, communities must be able to fund other critical
infrastructure needs such as schools, roads, parks and
transit.
If the current funding situation
continues, how will the average person be
affected? Sewer bills will rise. Currently, local
governments pay 90 percent of the costs for clean water
infrastructure. But soon, if the current federal funding
policy continues, 95 percent of the costs to meet clean
water infrastructure needs for wet weather control and for
water quality standards compliance will fall to local
communities. These costs will be passed along to citizens in
the form of higher bills, which will support the debt
incurred by local governments from bonds or SRF loans. The
actual federal contribution will be limited to 5 percent in
the form of reduced interest on SRF-financed loans and a
limited number of targeted grants provided by
Congress.
What types of federal funding should be
provided? A combination of SRF loans and federal
grants for wet weather and other municipal water
quality-related infrastructure should be enacted by Congress
for the construction of wastewater collection and treatment
facilities. The grants program achieved remarkable results.
But local utilities have reached the point where they cannot
pay more without significantly increasing local wastewater
service fees. In light of the enormous needs to meet
federally enforceable requirements and high sewer bills
across the country, grant funding is necessary. To move the
national clean water program forward, grants are not only
critical, but they would underscore the nation's commitment
to clean water.
What is the current federal funding
commitment for rural nonpoint sources? Federal
funding for implementation of rural nonpoint source control
programs best management practices is concentrated in the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection
Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). For the present 1999 fiscal year, the
Congress funded these programs at the following levels:
Department of Agriculture - the Conservation Reserve Program
for BMP implementation by farmers, $1.76 billion and the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, $174 million; EPA
- CWA section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program Grants,
$200 million; and NOAA Coastal Nonpoint Program, $17
million. The Administration has requested additional funding
for these programs and for Better America Bonds which
include nonpoint source funding in the FY 2000 Budget. The
2000 Budget also includes suggested statutory language
authorizing states to reserve 20 percent of their clean
water SRF programs for 60 percent grants under the CWA
section 319 nonpoint program.
Is more money a complete solution to
achieving appropriate water quality standards? In
addition to more federal funding, three actions are needed
to achieve appropriately protective water quality standards:
(1) increased action to control nonpoint sources of
pollution including stronger enforceable controls at the
state level; (2) increased site-specific biological,
chemical and physical data to strengthen scientific
appropriateness of water quality standards; and (3)
improvements in the cost-effectiveness of treatment and
transport technologies and best management practices.
How would increased federal funding for
clean water infrastructure improve quality of life in
America? Increased federal funding for clean
water infrastructure would move the national clean water
program forward and allow local governments to address the
next phase of water quality challenges. The funding
commitment authorized in the 1972 Clean Water Act allowed
POTWs to install secondary treatment, significantly
advancing their environmental performance. A return to
significant levels of grant funding for local governments'
wastewater needs would accelerate implementation of CSO and
SSO controls and achieve unprecedentedly high levels of
water quality for Americans to enjoy. The resulting benefits
to environmental quality, recreation, drinking water
sources, and fish and other aquatic life would be felt in
communities across the country.
Does the American public support more
money for clean water? National polls over the
years have indicated strong support for more funding for
clean water infrastructure. This was most recently reported
in the national poll conducted by the Rebuild America
Coalition which found that 66 percent of those surveyed
favored federal spending on infrastructure as a strong
investment in America's future.