This document provides background information and summarizes the debate over the funding of water infrastructure. The links to the left will lead you to public documents that we have found.
Since the 1970s Congress has enacted and then amended many vital laws designed
to protect and enhance the environment. Among the many programs set up during
this era was the Clean Water Act and later the Safe Water Drinking Act. This
is not the sexiest government program to protect the environment-much of this
effort goes for the replacement of pipes and other parts of a city's water infrastructure.
But it is a vitally important program as the purity of any nation's drinking
water is a critical component of public health. Beyond drinking water are problems
involving wastewater and storm drainage.
Initially the federal aid to municipalities, regional authorities, and water
companies, came in the form of grants for specific projects. In 1986 the funding
mechanism was changed to a state revolving loan fund. A municipal water authority
can apply to its state's fund for a loan to carry out a capital project (such
as installing new filtering machinery or laying new pipes) and then pay the
loan back at a below market interest rate. Over time the capitalization of these
state funds has become increasingly inadequate. Although there's little agreement
on how under-funded the program is, no one doubts that more loan money needs
to be made available. Industry trade groups began a concerted push at the end
of the Clinton years and in the 107th Congress (2001-2002) congressional committees
in both houses began to work on legislation designed to improve the nation's
water infrastructure.
The drive for enactment was severely damaged by a growing disagreement between
all the organizations that were working on the legislation. Initially there
was unity within the WIN (Water Infrastructure Network) coalition as it developed
its lobbying campaign. After endorsing the basic thrust of WIN's legislative
goals, environmental groups began to move in another direction. As a spokesperson
for one of the organizations representing the water authorities put it, the
environmentalists "were part of our coalition, they had a group representing
us. Frankly, they essentially repudiated the coalition. They thought all kinds
of additional EPA regulatory conditions on grants were necessary." Another
industry lobbyist explained, "The environmentalists are concerned that
projects will produce spread and development." A second split emerged between
private, for-profit water companies and the much more numerous nonprofit or
governmental water entities.
The collapse of unity among the concerned parties was compounded by the security
concerns that became paramount after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In one way
9/11 gave fresh urgency to work upgrading the water infrastructure since there
is some concern about terrorism through contamination of a municipality's water
supply. Yet the budgetary constraints imposed by the growing needs of homeland
security and military preparedness worked against enactment of water legislation.
In the end the legislation couldn't progress beyond committee.