Editor's note: The Following Article Is a Statement From The American Society Of Civil Engineers
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, drinking water faces 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% of the authorized total, representing less than 10 percent of the total amount needed this year.
In January 1997, EPA presented to Congress the first drinking water needs survey, which indicated the nation's 54,000 community water systems would 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. The recently released Needs Survey put the new estimate at $150 billion.
Despite the great need for replacement pipes and related infrastructure, health-based violations of federal drinking water standards are declining steadily according to data from the EPA. In 1993, 79% of Americans were served by water systems that did not experience health-based violations. By 2000, that number rose to 91%.
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.
Policy Options
New solutions are needed to fund the nearly $1 trillion required to meet uncritical drinking water and wastewater investments over the next two decades. Not meeting those investment needs could put at risk 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, 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.
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:
- Funding equal to the entire $1 billion annually authorized under the current State Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs) program in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
- 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.
- Federal appropriations from general treasury funds and issuance of revenue bonds and tax exempt financing at the state and local levels, as well as public-private partnerships, state infrastructure banks, and other innovative financing mechanisms.
