The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to provide this statement for the record on the drinking-water and wastewater infrastructure needs in the United States today.
ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil engineering organization. It represents more than 125,000 civil engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and professional society.
A. The Issue
Earlier this month, ASCE released its 2001 Report Card for America's Infrastructure in which the nation's life-sustaining foundation received a cumulative grade of "D+" in 12 critical areas. The reasons for such a dismal grade include the growing obsolescence of an aging system; local political opposition and red tape that stymie the development of effective solutions; and an explosive population growth in the past decade that has outpaced the rate and impact of current investment and maintenance efforts.
The 2001 Report Card follows one released in 1998, at which time the 10 infrastructure categories rated were given an average grade of "D." This year wastewater declined from a "D+" to a "D," while drinking water remained a "D." Wastewater and drinking water systems are both quintessential examples of aged systems that need to be updated.
B. Drinking-Water Infrastructure Needs
The nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face staggering infrastructure funding needs over the next 20 years. Although America spends billions on infrastructure each year, we estimate that drinking-water systems face an annual shortfall of at least $11 billion to replace aging facilities that are near the end of their useful life and to comply with existing and future federal water regulations. The shortfall does not account for any growth in the demand for drinking-water over the next 20 years.
Although the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (SDWA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to spend $1 billion annually to construct and repair drinking water facilities, Congress has failed to appropriate the full amount. In FY 2001, the appropriated amount is $825 million, 82.5 percent of the authorized total, representing less than ten percent of the total amount needed this year.
In January 1997, EPA presented to Congress the first drinking water needs survey, that indicated the nation's 54,000 community water systems will need to invest $138.4 billion over the next 20 years to install, upgrade, or replace infrastructure to ensure the provision of safe drinking-water to these systems' 243 million customers.
But the most recent study by the EPA reveals that the need is even greater. In 1999, the Agency conducted the second Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. The purpose of the survey is to document the 20-year capital investment needs of public water systems that are eligible to receive Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) monies.
The survey found that the total drinking-water infrastructure need nationwide is $150.9 billion for the 20-year period from January 1999 through December 2018.
Of course, notwithstanding the great need for further investment in replacement pipes and related infrastructure, we as a nation are making great strides in improving the quality of our drinking-water.
Health-based violations of federal drinking-water standards are declining steadily, according to data from the EPA. In 1993, 79 percent of Americans were served by water systems that did not experience health-based violations. By 2000, that number rose to 91 percent.
Nevertheless, without a significantly enhanced federal role in providing assistance to drinking water infrastructure, critical investments will not occur. Possible solutions include grants, trust funds, loans, and incentives for private investment. The question is not whether the federal government should take more responsibility for drinking water improvements, but how.
C. Wastewater Infrastructure Needs
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. As with drinking-water needs, this total does not account for any growth in demand from new systems.
Funding for wastewater infrastructure has remained essentially flat for a decade. In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated $1.35 billion for wastewater infrastructure, which represents about 11 percent of the annual need nationally. 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 the most recent estimate by the 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 percent and 45 percent of U.S. surface waters do not meet current water-quality standards. According to the EPA, 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.
D. Policy Options
New solutions are needed to what amounts to a nearly trillion dollars in critical drinking-water and wastewater infrastructure 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 financial aid; 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, or fewer assets per capita to replace.
ASCE recommends that funding for water infrastructure system improvements and associated operations be provided through a comprehensive program that addresses the infrastructure needs of drinking-water and wastewater systems. Congress must create a federal water trust fund to finance the national shortfall in funding for water and wastewater infrastructure. Money in the trust fund should not be diverted for non-water purposes.
Moreover, we support the use of federal appropriations from general treasury funds and the issuance of revenue bonds and tax-exempt financing mechanisms at the state and local levels, as well as public-private partnerships, state infrastructure banks, and other innovative financing procedures.
Finally, some have argued that federal regulatory programs under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are too restrictive; others argue that the current regulations may not be protective enough of human health and the environment. Without taking a position either way, ASCE does not believe that legislation designed to provide indispensable financing for our aging infrastructure should be the forum to address controversial regulatory changes about which there is little consensus at the moment.
# # #