Click here to get the PDF

What’s wrong with our pipes?

Some of our water treatment and distribution systems date back to the early 20th century. About 72,000 miles of our main distribution pipes are more than 80 years old. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s water/wastewater infrastructure a D- rating.

As our pipes and treatment systems age, more and more sewage spills into our streams, rivers, lakes and oceans, which creates serious public health hazards. For example, sewage overflows and malfunctioning treatment plants cause most beach closings. The year 2005 saw 20,000 beach closings and swim advisories. The National Research Council recently warned that we should expect more water-borne disease outbreaks without “substantial investments” to improve America’s water pipes and systems.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns that we are $22 billion per year short of the money needed to keep water safe for human and environmental health.

What is the President doing?

President Bush has responded to this need by steadily cutting federal spending on water. The federal government’s State Revolving Funds provide the bulk of federal money for crucial water projects. Unfortunately, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund has decreased from $1.35 billion in 2004 to less than $700 million proposed for 2008. And the president’s 2008 budget also proposes cuts to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

Instead of providing needed funding for water, a resource vital to everyone and everything, the president would have public utilities look to private equity markets to raise money for water system improvements. This plan encourages utilities to enter into public-private partnerships and promotes privatization of water.

Does privatization work?

There is no evidence that private investment in the water sector will result in needed infrastructure investment. This sector has one of the longest capital recovery periods of any industry – not an attractive investment for private equity firms that favor a short horizon for profit making. Moreover, private investors face costs that public utilities do not, including profits, contract, auditing, and taxes.

Finally, communities around the country that have experimented with privatization realize it has not solved their infrastructure needs. Instead, bribery, corruption, increased prices, poor service and environmental problems plague privatization efforts. Congress should support public water and reject the President’s misguided proposal.

What is Congress doing?

Congress has taken steps to expand water funding in the form of The Water Quality Financing Act of 2007, which authorized $14 billion over the next four years. This authorization represents a critical first step in closing the funding gap.

However, Congress must also recognize that an annual political battle over money for something as basic to life as water makes no sense. National priorities that transcend state and local boundaries should receive perpetual funding streams immune from shifting political currents.

What should we do?

According to a recent poll, nine out of ten Americans believe that clean and safe water is a national priority that deserves federal investment. Congress agreed when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972: “It is the national policy that Federal financial assistance be provided to construct publicly owned treatment work.” And in amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, “The Federal Government needs to provide assistance to communities to help the communities meet Federal drinking water requirements.”

It’s time for a water trust fund - a dedicated funding source and sustained commitment to clean and safe public
water.

Federal funding is an equitable solution. Growing,wealthy communities may be able to afford needed infrastructure
upgrades. But there is a much higher burden on small, rural communities and cities with large service areas and relatively poor populations.

Making funding available at the federal level will improve water quality in all of our communities. Poor wastewater treatment upstream means higher costs for safe drinking water downstream - and we’re all downstream from someone.

We need a trust fund for water systems that is based on the following principles:

• Environmentally sound use of our water resources;
• Pollution prevention and drinking water source protection for human and environmental health;
• Water conservation by the largest water users, including agriculture and industry;
• Public participation and accountability for public officials;
• Access to affordable water for low-income households;
• Public funds for public utilities;
• Appropriate user fees for industries that degrade our water resources.
  
  

There’s a National Botanic Garden Trust Fund, an Architect of the Capitol Trust Fund, and a South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund. So while dedicated funding sources ensure that the Butterfly Weed and Texas Prickly Pear are blooming, the frescoes inside the Capitol Rotunda remain presentable for tourists, and a seven-inch-long wading bird called the piping plover has a place to roost, the federal government has yet to establish a trust fund to protect something all people need to survive: water. Congress must take steps to establish a trust fund for clean and safe water today.