Search

The Cost of Clean. . .
Meeting Water Quality Challenges in the New Millennium

Massive funding gaps are jeopardizing America's hard-won water quality gains.
Despite a significant national commitment to curb water pollution, America finds itself challenged by a disturbing dilemma: local governments, our front-line defense against water pollution, are being forced to choose between maintaining their basic wastewater treatment programs and meeting a new generation of water quality requirements. While some communities are holding their own as they face this dilemma, others are losing ground. Unless we, as a nation, act now, we risk losing the battle against water pollution.

Simply put, the job is vastly more complex and expensive today than it was in early days of the Clean Water Act. A significant gap exists between the money we have adn the money we need to do the job. Funding needed to meet stringent national requirements to address urban wet weather challenges are compounded by exisiting wastewater treatment plants' increasing operations and maintanence expenses. The situation is stretching local budgets beyond their breaking point.

To aid local governments in solving this funding crunch, we must convene a dialogue among America's clean water partners to ensure that we meet the water quality challenges of the new millinnium. Most Americans agree that clean water is an investment that is essential to our quality of life, an investment we need to protect for the future.

There have always been challenges to clean water funding, and federal, state and local champions have always met these challenges head on to help achieve the Clean Water Act's goals. But these heroic efforts can no longer keep pace with the skyrocketing cost of clean. We must go further, and we must act now.

Since the 1972 passage of the Clean Water Act, hundreds of billions of federal, state and local dollars have been invested to achieve our national clean water goals. Our investment in wastewater treatment has revived America's rivers and streams, and the nation has experienced a dramatic resurgence in water quality. In cities across the country, restored harbors, riverfronts, and waterways are hubs for culture, commerce and recreation. The investment spurred by the Clean Water Act and the efforts of federal, state and local governments have, indeed, reaped enormous economic and environmental benefits.

From the outset, all levels of government recognized that the cost of clean would be high. With the passage of the Clean Water Act, Congress demonstrated true leadership by matching federal funding with the ambitious scope of the law's mandates and goals. From 1974-1994 the Federal Construction Grants Program invested $96 billion in new construction and upgrades of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Local governments followed suit with an investment of $117 billion. The federal, state and local funding strategy worked, and we made remarkable environmental progress.

But today, as the nation nears the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, we face a different situation. In the first decade of our national clean water program, federal and state governments contributed more than 80 percent of the funds need to build the facilities necessary to assist local communities in their efforts to clean their rivers and streams. By contrast, local governments are now shouldering at least 90 percent of the capital investment burden — not to mention rising operations and maintenance costs. And although the federal government continues to contribute to clean water infrastructure, rising costs and more stringent standards have rendered this contribution woefully inadequate.

The cost of clean is a daunting figure — no matter who adds it up. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that $139.5 billion will be required to fund municipal treatment works and other related needs over teh next 20 years (In March 1999, EPA revised its 1996 needs estimate for sanitary sewer overflows from $10.3 to $81.9 billion, increasing total needs to nearly $200 billion.). America's cities have a different perspective. They must finance — and their citizens must pay for — new facilities plus the costs to replace aging treatment plants and collection systems. From this perspective, future wastewater investment costs are more than twice as high as EPA's estimate — at least $330 billion over the next 20 eyars. This $330 billion needs estimate does not include rising operation and maintenance costs, which could increase by an average of 3.8 percent per year over the next 20 years, putting more pressure on the ability of local governments — and ratepayers — to fund capital requirements along with other vital city services.

Regardless of which numbers are used, we clearly need more federal funding, not less, to address these needs. The funding gap is huge and growing, and local governments alone can't pay the cost of clean. The capital needs associated with combined and sanitary sewer overflows, stormwater and polluted runoff have taken a back seat since 1972, but now they command — and deserve — our attention. We must explore how best to ensure funding for these essential components of our nation's clean water program. Maintaining the status quo will not be enough. An increase in federal funding will allow us to protect our valuable infrastructure investment, target high priority water pollution problems, and continue to realize real progress.

Leaders at all levels of government — the White House, governors, mayors, members of Congress and EPA officials — have recognized the gravity of the dilemma facing local governments.

A dialogue on how to solve the dilemma is beginning to take shape among the nation's clean water partners. It promises better definition of the issues. It promises innovative solutions. It promises nothing less than a revitalization of America's clean water program in preparation to meet the water quality challenges in the new millennium. We must demonstrate our commitment today. If we work together, nothing is beyond our reach. The cost of clean is worth every penny.