Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - NACWA in the News
Sewer Work is Drain on Many Cities
May 21, 2006 Omaha World Herald
Omaha taxpayers will have to dig deep into their pocketbooks to modernize the
city's sewer system, based on the experience of some other communities.
More than 700 communities in 32 states - cities with about 40
million residents in all - have the same problem as Omaha. Raw sewage discharges
into their creeks and rivers because their sewer systems combine storm water and
sanitary sewage. Communities must fix this problem to comply with the Clean
Water Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that fixing the bulk of the
problem will cost $50. 6 billion. Those who operate the nation's sewer systems
predict the costs will be much higher.
For the most part, local governments will have to come up with the money.
Most cities have yet to figure out how they'll pay for the upgrades. Sewer use
fees are the most likely target in Omaha and elsewhere. Some cities are raising
property taxes or sales taxes.
For its part, Omaha is a couple of years away from deciding what it will do. But
the city anticipates it may need to raise sewer revenue by 10 percent just to
fund a $24. 7 million study of the problem. Residents whose homes are connected
to the city sewer system now pay an average of $11 per month.
Indianapolis and Marion County, Ind. , serve as a good example of how costly
sewer system modernization can be. That city and county face a $1. 8 billion
bill, and monthly sewer fees are expected to increase fivefold.
Over 20 years, the current fee of almost $10 a month is expected to increase to
the equivalent, in 2005 dollars, of about $50 a month, said Margie
Smith-Simmons, a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Works in Indianapolis.
While nothing is certain about Omaha's price tag or how it would be paid, City
Finance Director Carol Ebdon has acknowledged that sewer fees would have to rise
exponentially if they are how the city decides to foot the bill.
Years ago, municipal taxpayers didn't have to shoulder the bulk of significant
sewer upgrades. The burden was spread to all U. S. taxpayers by the federal
government. In the 1970s, the federal government picked up 60 percent of the
cost; by 2000, that share was down to 15 percent.
"It is frustrating," said Fred Andes, an attorney who helps cities across the
country deal with the Clean Water Act. "Back in the 1970s, sewage treatment was
a national priority. Now it's really looked upon as a local issue. "
Inadequate sewer lines, such as those in Omaha, have been targeted as one of the
next big steps in reducing water pollution. In 1994, the Environmental
Protection Agency wrote a policy addressing inadequate sewer lines. In 2000,
Congress added that policy to the Clean Water Act.
Andes and Susan Bruninga, spokeswoman for the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, said Congress should create a national clean water trust fund.
The association estimated that the nation's communities are about $535 billion
to $1 trillion short of the money needed to keep their systems up to date. The
problem, though, comes down to taxes.
"The situation is a little different than it was in the 1970s," Andes said.
"When you start talking about major new programs, nobody wants to fund them,
nobody wants to create new taxes. "
Raw sewage sends viruses, bacteria, parasites, industrial toxins and
biologically active chemicals, such as hormones, steroids and antibiotics, into
the nation's waterways.
In Omaha, the biggest problem is bacterial pollution from human waste, said
Marty Grate, environmental services manager.
The Papillion Creek system, which runs along the metro area's trail system, is
not considered safe to play in because of high levels of E. coli. The Missouri
River cycles on and off the watch lists for recreational activity, depending on
the level of bacteria when water samples are taken.
Modernizing Omaha's sewers is expected to cost at least $500 million, Grate
said, though it also could go much higher. A study getting under way will nail
down those costs.
In the meantime, the city has contracted with the University of Nebraska at
Omaha to determine what Omahans can afford to pay, Grate said.
Answers from that study will help the city figure out whether it needs to lobby
the state and federal government for more time to spread out the work.
Currently, the state is estimating that Omaha should be able to accomplish the
sewer modernization over a 15-year period.
Grate said at least one other city is contending that it should be given at
least 30 years to spread out its costs.
Paul Landow, chief of staff to Mayor Mike Fahey, said city officials are hoping
to avoid property tax or sales tax hikes and instead primarily use sewer fees.
Landow said Fahey is not pleased about the relative lack of federal money.
"He views this as little more than an unfunded federal mandate that is being
placed on the backs of the citizens of Omaha," Landow said. "He is, to say the
least, not happy about the situation. "
Sewer use fees now bring in about $33 million annually - less than 7 percent of
the minimum cost estimate of $500 million.
The federal government and state are likely to provide some help to Omaha
through what is known as a clean water revolving loan fund.
About 80 percent of the money in the fund comes from the federal government.
Over the past 15 years, Omaha has borrowed about $60 million from the fund for
sewer upgrades.
The problem with the fund is that the federal government's contributions are
declining just as needs are increasing.
In Nebraska, federal contributions are about half of what they were a couple of
years ago. Within several years, federal aid to the fund will end completely
unless Congress takes action.
Rick Bay, financial assistance supervisor for the Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality, said any money Omaha gets is subtracted from money
available to other communities.
Bay said 250 Nebraska communities have submitted $300 million in work that could
be funded through the loan program. The fund distributes about $15 million to
$18 million a year.
"When you look at our bucket and the need," he said, "there is quite a
difference.