“Water Challenges in the 21^st Century”

 Keynote Address

 to the

 American Society of Civil Engineers

 2003 World Congress

 Philadelphia, PA

 June 23, 2003

 Delivered by G. Tracy Mehan, III
Assistant Administrator for Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Introduction

            Thank you for this opportunity to address the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2003 World Congress.  It is indeed a pleasure to be here. I congratulate you on your focus this year on “World Water and Environmental Resources.”  You have selected a topic that is near and dear to my heart; and I hope to use our time here this morning to sketch for you some of the coming challenges  in providing clean and safe water that might jointly occupy professionals like you and government officials like me.   

Engineering Achievements from the 20^th to the 21^st Century

           The history of every successful society depends, in large part, on its infrastructure and engineering accomplishments.  The words "engine" and "ingenious" are derived from the same Latin root “ingenerare”, meaning "to create."  Engineers are very creative, and civil engineering has historically been about creating the large structures:  the dams, bridges, highway systems, etc. that underpin our lifestyle today.   Three years ago, the National Academy of Engineering published a list of the top 20 engineering achievements of the 20^th century.  These achievements were chosen on the basis on how much they improved the quality of life in the 20^th century.  In a list that began with electrification in 1^st place, automobiles in 2^nd place and airplanes in 3^rd place, water supply and distribution took 4^th place.¹   For those of us who enjoyed a hot shower and clean drinking water this morning, it only takes a minute to realize how much the availability of clean water and the disposal of wastewater has improved our quality of life. 

             Water challenges of the 21^st century may require an engineering much different from the days of the Hoover Dam and the Erie Canal.  Because our finite sources of freshwater are in greater demand, 21^st century engineering will be more about managing demand than expanding supply, more micro than macro, more oriented toward a particular watershed than a multi-state region, more about soils and trees than steel and concrete.  Your conference program actually tells the story best.  Engineers attending this conference are modeling runoff,  measuring salinity,  removing or preventing contaminated sediments, managing stormwater, or integrating surface water and groundwater modeling. A 1996 book from the National Academy of Engineering entitled Engineering Within Ecological Constraints called for a paradigm shift so that engineering and ecology could be reconciled.²  Looking at the technical tracks in your program, I believe that within your group this transformation is well underway.  Just as Latin etymology would suggest, today’s civil engineers are in the forefront of creating solutions to today’s water challenges. 

 Addressing ASCE’s Infrastructure Report Card

            Your organization has highlighted infrastructure issues for a number of years with your Report Card³.  I’m aware of the “D” given our wastewater systems and the “D+” given our drinking water systems in your 2001 Report Card.  I understand the reasons for these grades, namely:  the need to replace pipes and other facilities that have passed their useful life; the underinvestment and underpricing of water and wastewater; the nationwide tendency to neglect operations and maintenance (O&M) spending, etc.  In fact, your report is very similar to our  “gap analysis” issued  last September.⁴  In that analysis, we looked at the dates when most of our water pipes and plants were constructed and estimated the coming wave of financial obligation to replace these facilities in the coming decades. Without significant new investment, we predicted  “a gap between projected clean water and drinking water investment needs over the twenty-year period from 2000 - 2019 and current levels of spending.”   Under the flat investment scenario, we estimated a wastewater treatment capital payment gap of $122 billion (the mid-range estimate) over the 20 year time period.  Our mid-range estimate for the drinking water capital payment gap is $102 billion for the “no revenue growth” scenario.   We pointed out if investment in water and wastewater systems remains flat and does not increase, water quality will likely deteriorate.   But if instead, revenue and spending grow at 3%/year over and above inflation, our “gap” estimates drop dramatically and water quality is maintained.     

            On January 31 of this year, Administrator Whitman and I convened a forum to talk about the future of infrastructure.  Over 250 people from the water industry, public and investor-owned utilities, academic and environmental institutions and government attended our public discussion and offered their thoughts on “Closing the Gap: Innovative Solutions for America's Water Infrastructure.”  In one sense, ASCE’s Report Card is part of the input to this continuing conversation.       

Sustainable Financing of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

            ASCE’s Report Card called on the federal government to do more to protect our water and wastewater assets.  I’m happy to report that your call has been heard.  President Bush’s FY 2004 Budget Proposal reaffirms the federal government’s commitment to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) with an additional appropriation of $850 million a year during 2004 - 2011.   In so doing, the President is lengthening the federal commitment to the loan program so that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund can provide average annual assistance of $2.8 billion per year, a 40% increase.   For the CWSRF, this proposal extends the funding well beyond the previous commitment, which would have ended in FY 2005.  In total, the Bush Administration is proposing to invest $4.4 billion above what would have been invested in the CWSRF from FY 2004 to 2011 based on previous commitments.  

            The President’s FY 2004 Budget also extends the federal commitment to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) with annual grants of $850 million for FY 2004 to FY 2018.  This brings the revolving level of the DWSRF to $1.2 billion per year, a 140% increase.   

            Clearly, the federal government is doing its fair share to meet infrastructure needs, but the “user pays” principle of economic efficiency suggest that consumers should have the primary financial role.  Unfortunately, price signals in the water sector, usually a publicly-owned natural monopoly managed by a local government (and elected officials), are barely audible. Even when water is metered and priced, other revenue sources are often mixed in with the water department so that rates do not reflect the full cost of providing service.

         Our household expenditures reflect this underpricing problem. We calculated that households spend an average of $707 per year on soft drinks (carbonated) and other (non-carbonated) refreshment beverages⁵ compared to an average of $474 per year per household on water and wastewater charges.⁶  To address the underpricing of water, we, in the Office of Water, are encouraging utilities and municipalities to charge more of the full cost of providing and treating water and wastewater.    A cost-based rate structure that incorporates all of the costs of building, maintaining and operating a system into the price is essential for sustainable infrastructure.   When full cost pricing is supplemented with incentives for consumers to conserve, we move into conservation pricing, on which we provide some information on our website⁰.    Full cost pricing is always a fiscal necessity.  In arid or drought-ridden areas, conservation pricing is often an environmental necessity.  Either way, stronger price signals are needed to alert consumers to the actual costs of infrastructure, to provide greater revenues for repair and replacement, and to communicate the true value of water.   

            Advocating for full cost pricing and for loans (instead of grants) should not preclude our considering the affordability problems that low-income households may face.  To alleviate these hardships, communities can offer rate structures that mitigate impacts on low-income customers.  The most prominent example is “lifeline rates” where the charge for an amount of service considered non-discretionary (the minimum sanitary requirement) is kept low, but then higher unit charges are levied on water consumption beyond that amount.  Affordability programs are offered by only 14% of water utilities.⁸  There is still much to learn from the gas and electric utilities in their many years' experience in offering low-income assistance. 

Water Challenges of 21^st Century 

            Money isn’t the only thing we’ll need to ensure clean and safe water.  New technical approaches and new thinking are also needed to manage demand, sustain infrastructure, restore impaired waters and minimize the impacts of development.  I’ll highlight four water challenges that we expect to occupy both engineers and policymakers in the 21^st century:

• Efficiency

• Watershed Protection and Restoration;

• Low Impact Development;

• Infrastructure Vulnerability.

Efficiency

            The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Drought Monitor continues to show a considerable portion of the western U.S. in a state of extreme drought.⁹   While the rain and snow of the past winter improved conditions somewhat, snowpack and reservoir conditions are still below normal in every western state.   Moreover, the New York Times, over the past year,  has repeatedly profiled water conflicts in our eastern states;¹⁰ so it is clear that on both coasts, our cup no longer runneth over.   

            Wastewater reuse and desalination offer potential supply options, but, even with these new sources, we’re facing very steep marginal cost curves for developing “new” water supplies.  In this era, more efficient management of water that’s already captured in our infrastructure becomes the new growth field.                                        

            Regional coordination in the use of multiple water sources offers some protection for growth and drought at lower cost than new supplies.  Neighboring water utilities typically draw water from different water bodies, including ground and surface water with different hydrologic characteristics that respond differently to droughts.   There’s a clear and important role for engineers to play here, whether you’re talking about connecting separate infrastructures or implementing “real time” management of supplies in coordinated systems. 

            Other approaches can help us manage municipal demand: plumbing fixture retrofits to enhance water efficiency, water-efficient landscaping, gray water systems, water-saving appliances, high efficiency cooling systems and so on. Using these measures, a number of American cities have reduced their water use by as much as 20% and still haven’t exhausted all their conservation options.  Many of these cities are featured in our publication, Cases in Water Conservation. ¹¹  We also have a number of resources available to assist water efficiency efforts.  We published the Water Conservation Plan Guidelines in 1998 for public water systems and we sponsor a voluntary partnership program for businesses and institutions called WAVE (Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency).   On our website¹² you can also find a number of other publications and links to WaterWiser, the water conservation clearinghouse that we started in conjunction with the American Water Works Association¹³ and to H2OUSE, the Water Saver Home website developed in conjunction with the California Urban Water Conservation Council.¹⁴  The Water Saver Home website offers a graphic-based virtual tour of a home to learn about water saving opportunities.    

            I’d be interested in hearing from you during our Q & A on any current projects and  innovations that might offer improvements in water efficiency.   

Watershed Protection and Restoration

            The modern era has not been kind to our rivers and streams.  The U.S. has 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams, 19% of which were assessed for the 2000 National Water Quality Inventory.  Of those assessed miles, 61 percent fully supported multiple uses, including drinking water supply, fish and wildlife habitat,  recreation, and agriculture, as well as flood prevention and erosion control.¹⁵  But for the remaining 39 percent of miles inventoried, some form of pollution or habitat degradation is impairing its designated use(s).   

            These numbers make it easy to understand why watershed restoration projects are happening in increasing numbers across the country. To provide a common reference for those efforts, in 1998 the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, an unprecedented cooperative effort of 15 agencies, published  Stream Corridor Restoration; Principles, Processes and Practices¹⁶, a 637 page document that has become the common reference on stream corridor restoration. 

            Restoration got another boost on May 2, 2003 when Administrator Whitman announced the selection of 20 watershed organizations selected under the Administration’s Watershed Initiative¹⁷. This year, Congress appropriated $15 million of the President’s original $20 million dollar funding request.  Regional and national experts selected the winners from a highly competitive field of more than 176 nominations.  The winning watersheds cover more than 90,000 square miles of the nation’s lakes, rivers and streams.  Grants ranging from $300,000 to $1 million will go toward restoration and protection projects, such as stream stabilization and habitat enhancement, implementing agricultural best management practices, and working with local governments and homeowners to promote sustainable practices.  

            Virtually every stream, lake, river and aquifer in this country is used as a drinking water source.  In recognition of the need to protect these source waters, Congress, in the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, established the Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs (SWAP), placing the onus on states to assess the source water susceptibility of each public water system and provide the public a summary of its findings.  With these Amendments, Congress initiated a new era of source water protection using a flexible, state-driven program.  More than half the states (or 62% of community water systems) have completed this assessment phase, the precursor to source water protection activities. 

            The real challenge ahead for the states is to move beyond assessments to develop and implement source water protection (SWP) – the  management measures and contingency plans to protect these sources waters in the event of man-made or catastrophic events.  Our role in the Office of Water is to assist states with public education and provide tools, guidance, data and technical assistance, and we encourage states to fund source water protection activities through both the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving  Fund.

Low Impact Development

            Land use and water quality are inextricably linked.  Development almost always creates impervious surfaces – the roofs, streets, parking lots and sidewalks – that increase the volume of runoff and pollutants entering our watershed.    These problems have contributed to a wave of new efforts to minimize the impacts of development, efforts variously known as: low impact development; conservation design, mixed used development, neo-traditional neighborhood design, Main Street revitalization, transit-oriented development or smart growth.  In communities around the country, there has been a growing concern that low-density development – also known as sprawl – has not only created longer commutes and car rides but left us with stormwater and other drainage problems that overload our watersheds.  The Center for Watershed Protection, a nonprofit supported by the Office of Water over the years, recently published a report that identifies over 225 studies which link the construction of impervious surfaces to increased flooding, degraded stream channels and aquatic life and reduced water quality.¹⁸     

            In the Office of Water, we have formed partnerships to support the development of a number of technical tools to assist communities with conserving hydrologic function on site.  These tools include national guidance manuals, brochures, fact sheets and design manuals, most all available on our website.¹⁹    In addition to the Center for Watershed Protection, our partners have included the Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of Environmental Resources, the Low Impact Development Center, the National Association of Homebuilders,  the National Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Network and ASCE’s Urban Water Resources Research Council.   

            Our technical tools and manuals take an ecologically friendly approach to site development, demonstrating runoff systems that mimic the natural hydrologic pattern of the site so that runoff is either slowed, filtered or allowed to percolate back into groundwater, thus conserving it as a resource. Typical practices include: disconnection of impervious surfaces, green roofs, rainbarrels, engineered soils, biofiltration cells, narrower streets, vegetated swales, and so forth.  Many of these systems can serve a dual purpose: treating runoff while doubling as a green spaces, field or park.  Taking this local approach to controlling stormwater onsite not only saves money for municipalities, it can also reduce construction costs for developers by as much as 20%.  

            An excellent compendium of all structural and non-structural stormwater management practices (BMP) was produced by ASCE’s Urban Water Resources Research Council under cooperative agreement with the Office of Water.²⁰   This database provides access to BMP performance data in a standardized format for over 190 BMP studies conducted over the past fifteen years.   

            In addition to stormwater, wastewater treatment decisions are a primary drivers of environmental impacts.  Some 25% of U.S. homes use wastewater systems either located on their own lot (usually a septic system) or as part of a small system serving a handful of homes (cluster treatment).  More than half are in suburban areas just outside of major cities.  Unfortunately, some 10 -20% of onsite systems are improperly managed and do not provide the level of treatment needed to adequately protect public health and surface and ground water quality.   We have found that properly managed onsite treatment can be one way to minimize development impacts.  In the Office of Water, we are working to raise awareness of the need for proper management of onsite systems.  To assist communities with correcting onsite management problems, we have just released Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Systems that address siting, performance, design, operation and maintenance needs and requirements.²¹  Five incremental levels of management are presented in a progressive series of "model programs," beginning with basic information collection and maintenance awareness  and moving up to the highest level of management, in which onsite systems are owned and managed by a responsible management entity. We offer these guidelines as a template for states, counties, tribes, cities, towns, and other areas where onsite/decentralized systems may threaten public health or water resources.  

            Again, I am anxious to hear from you on projects and innovations you’re working on in the fields of low impact development or decentralized wastewater treatment.      

Water Infrastructure Security

            The vulnerability of our infrastructure following the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 has received a lot of attention, culminating in the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.  In Title IV of this Act, Congress directed community drinking water systems (serving a population greater than 3,300) to submit to EPA a “vulnerability assessment,” i.e. a review of the vulnerability of pipes and constructed conveyances, physical barriers, water collection, pretreatment, treatment, storage and distribution facilities, electronic  systems, and so on.  EPA is the lead federal agency for the drinking water and wastewater sectors, and I can report that 95% of the vulnerability assessments from the largest drinking water utilities covered by the Act have been submitted to EPA, with still more to be logged into our tracking systems. 

            In an effort to enhance the efforts of our largest drinking water utilities, Congress also  appropriated $51 million in grant assistance for the 449 large (regularly serving over 100,000 people) publicly owned and privately-owned systems to develop a vulnerability assessment (VA), emergency response/operating plan (EOP), and security enhancement plans and designs. Our Water Protection Task Force completed distribution of these grants across the nation.  In addition to administering this financial assistance, our Task Force has provided water utilities with software tools, training and technical assistance.

            We are currently offering a competitive Request for Proposal that will select nonprofit organizations to train community drinking water systems on security planning.  This training will target the 480 community water systems that serve 50,000 to 100,000 people.   All RFP’s, training information and vulnerability assessment tools are available on our water security webpage. ²²

Conclusion