The problems may be hidden underground, but sooner or later they will surface. America's water and wastewater systems are crumbling, and there is not enough money to repair them. A commitment on all levels is required to fix it; however, policymakers in Washington are failing to provide much-needed support. Are local governments prepared to pick up where the federal government has left off?

In February, the Bush Administration proposed cutting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) — the nation's biggest source of funding for sanitation and watershed management systems — by 37 percent in its fiscal year (FY) 2006 budget. If approved, the cut would continue a steady decline of federal support for the program, decreasing its overall budget from $1.3 billion in FY 2004 to the proposed $730 million in FY 2006.

Although the administration plans to keep the Safe Drinking Water Act SRF, which supports the construction of drinking water purification facilities, steady at $850 million, both amounts are still far below the annual needs of water and wastewater utilities. The severe lack of federal funds reaches deep into the pockets of local communities. “To keep up with growth demands, local resources are being stretched,” says Jim Canaday, engineer-director for the Alexandria Sanitation Authority in Alexandria, Va. “A reduction in federal support does not help local municipalities deal with increasing treatment requirements, unfunded mandates and other issues.”

Professional and advocacy groups have identified the country's aging water and wastewater infrastructure as a top concern. In March, the Reston, Va.-based American Society of Civil Engineers gave water and wastewater systems D-minus grades in its “2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure.” One month later, American Rivers, an environmental group based in Washington, released “America's Most Endangered Rivers of 2005.”

Because of its high sewage content, the Susquehanna River — which flows through New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland — was listed as the most endangered and declared a public health threat. The report notes that some of the sewage in the river is untreated because aging pipes cannot deal with increased flows from residential and commercial development, let alone the sudden increases during storms. As a result, sewer overflows bypass the treatment plants and pour into the rivers.

Failure to address the condition of water and wastewater infrastructure could lead to more sewer overflows, water pollution, disease outbreaks and possibly a loss of jobs. For instance, since 1988, more than $23.5 billion in federal investment from the Clean Water SRF has been leveraged into approximately $46 billion in clean water projects, resulting in the creation of 47,000 jobs. If funding shortfalls continue, that economic benefit could be threatened.

Worse yet, given funding demands for more visible programs, such as health and education, water does not appear to be a priority for the federal government. “Unfortunately, water and the environment doesn't even make the top 10 in terms of issues that [decision-makers] are concerned about in Washington,” says Tim Williams, director of government affairs at the Alexandria, Va.-based Water Environment Federation (WEF). “They're concerned about Medicare and Medicaid costs, homeland security and [the] No Child Left Behind [Act].”

How bad is it?

In hundreds of municipalities across the United States, pipes, water treatment facilities, sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants — many built between 1900 and World War II — need maintenance, rehabilitation or repair. Water and wastewater utilities are responsible for more than 800,000 miles of water pipe and more than 600,000 miles of sewer line, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. At one-third of the utilities, one in five pipelines are nearing the end of their useful lives. At one in 10 utilities, half or more of the pipelines are in a similar state. Moreover, rapidly growing communities are placing increasing demands on water resources and risk not meeting those needs because of insufficient pipelines and treatment facilities for drinking water and wastewater.

To fix all the problems, wastewater utilities need to spend between $331 billion and $450 billion, while water utilities need to spend between $154 billion and $446 billion, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Congressional Budget Office and Water Infrastructure Network. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that rural and urban systems lose 20 percent or more of their water through leaky pipes; and nationally, the projected costs of revitalizing and expanding water systems range from $485 billion to nearly $1.2 trillion.

With growing demand and dwindling resources, city managers and plant operators find themselves in a difficult position. “There is no doubt that water and wastewater services help protect public health and the environment, but the water quality community is in an unsustainable position,” says Robert McMillon, former Fort Worth, Texas, assistant water director and a past president of WEF. “We are faced with a mandate to protect water resources with aging, capacity-limited or nonexistent infrastructure assets, and diminishing financial resources and commitments. Locally, and across the nation, we need to determine where the funding will be found.”

How did we get here?

In the early to mid-1800s, sewers were installed to take care of storm water and basic waste removal, with many sewers designed, built, owned and maintained by private individuals or companies. Adjacent cities eventually took them over, making them publicly owned.

Around the same time, people recognized that community health could be improved by discharging human waste into the storm sewers for rapid removal. Development of municipal water-supply systems and household plumbing brought about flush toilets and the beginning of modern sewer systems. By 1910, there were approximately 25,000 miles of sewer lines in the United States.

However, during the first half of the 20th century few municipalities and industries treated wastewater. Instead, untreated urban wastewater was discharged the least expensive way: directly into the closest water body, a practice known as “disposal by dilution.” Wastewater was handled that way because of virtually non-existent regulations, little scientific knowledge of negative ecological and health-related effects, and lack of construction funding.

The New Deal provided federal monies in the 1930s to bolster state efforts in occupational safety and health, with a greater focus on water quality and pollution control. And in the late 1940s, as water and wastewater treatment became a widely accepted necessity, the federal government became directly involved in water pollution control. Passed in 1948, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act — the first federal clean water law and precursor to the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) — was signed into law. The act primarily appropriated federal monies for surveys, studies and construction of publicly owned treatment works.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. government provided funds for constructing municipal waste treatment plants, water pollution research, and technical training and assistance. Despite those efforts, expanding population and industrial and economic growth caused pollution and health difficulties to increase. Because of the growth in the 1970s, huge public investments were made in roads, sewers, water lines and power grids. The environment, however, paid a price, bringing about the greatest public outcry on water quality — and corresponding legislative and executive response — in U.S. history.

The public's emphasis on the environment helped create Earth Day in April 1970, followed by the creation of EPA later that year. In October 1972, Congress enacted CWA, which committed the federal government to water quality standards, controls and funding at unprecedented levels. The federal government invested more than $72 billion to build sewage treatment works and related facilities during the 1970s and 1980s. The Clean Water SRF eventually replaced the construction grant funds.

“Even with the federal grants program, local governments still paid most of the construction costs during the ‘70s and ‘80s,” Williams says. “Unfortunately, the rate structures that many cities adopted during that time, which are still in place today, are only adequate to pay for annual operating costs and maintenance. For various reasons, local governments have not budgeted for [infrastructure] replacement. And although there is a strong argument for federal investment, most agree that local governments will end up with the biggest share of the cost.”

What can be done?

While water and wastewater utilities currently are facing an unprecedented financing challenge, history is repeating itself in the call for federal, local and individual investment. More than eight in 10 Americans believe that clean and safe water is a national issue that deserves federal investment, according to a recent poll of 900 adults, conducted jointly by Republican and Democratic polling firms Luntz Research Companies and Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates.

The water quality community agrees. There is a growing consensus to develop a strategy for overall infrastructure sustainability, including investments on local and federal levels. That would include a greater commitment first from local legislators, followed by a significant increase in federal investment. “Without a significantly enhanced federal role in financing and wastewater infrastructure, critical investments will not occur,” McMillon says. “Failure to meet these needs over the next 20 years risks the environmental, public health and economical gains achieved under the Clean Water Act.”

Before that can happen, however, the main players must be educated. “Overall, there appears to be a general understanding of the infrastructure issue,” Williams says. “However, considering the magnitude of this problem, [water quality professionals] need to be more proactive in educating public policy makers, local legislators and the general public about the implications of not making investment a priority.”

As a result, WEF is rolling out a public education campaign this fall to re-educate residents about the importance of clean drinking water and safe sanitation services. “We believe that when the facts are presented to the public, they will support spending for clean water,” Williams says.

Utilities and ratepayers already are working together to share the financial burden of repairing their water systems. Using alternative funding options such as low interest loan programs combined with gradual rate increases, cities such as Alexandria, Va., have supported capital improvements and facility upgrades.

In 1996, the Alexandria Sanitation Authority (ASA) was required to perform a $350 million treatment plant upgrade. After exploring all financing options, ASA realized that rates would have to nearly double during the first five years of its rate increase program. By the end of the fifth year, the typical residential bill for wastewater services would have risen by 85 percent. After that, residences would see a series of lesser rate increases to complete construction and address normal operations. ASA was able to generate public support, minimize opposition and lessen the impact on ratepayers through careful financial planning, educating key stakeholders and securing low-interest revolving fund loans and a Virginia state grant.

“The success of ASA's rate increase program is a real-life demonstration of the validity of and need for a robust Clean Water State Revolving Fund,” Canaday says. “The availability of the revolving fund loan program will, over the life of the loan, save ASA's ratepayers tens of millions of dollars in interest payments.”

While Alexandria's success is not an isolated example, neither are the incidents in Poughkeepsie, Des Moines or Baltimore. Without local and federal action, an increasing number of infrastructure failures will be grabbing headlines and forcing the hidden problem to the surface. Because the federal commitment is waning, the question becomes whether local government leaders will be satisfied to struggle with the symptoms of their failing systems or make water and wastewater infrastructure a top priority.

Lori Burkhammer is manager of public affairs for the Alexandria, Va.-based Water Environment Federation.