Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Challenges in the Rural United States Challenges in the Rural United States

Stephen Gasteyer

RCAP, 1522 K St, NW #400

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 888-321-7227, ext 103; Fax: 202-408-8165

Email: sgasteyer@rcap.org

Basic Infrastructure—US: Basic Infrastructure—US: Life is Good Life is Good

Access to water and sanitation services in the US is among the highest in the world. – According to most international reports on access to water and

sanitation, the US has 100 percent coverage Water rates have been among the lowest in the world over

the last 20 years (according to Cadmus Group and the American Water Works Association)

The number of impaired and badly polluted surface water bodies have diminished by 2/3 since the mid-1970s

Adoption of household water conservation practices has risen dramatically over the last decade

Not Quite Paradise…Not Quite Paradise…

Need a harder look at:– Access to water and sanitation– The depreciation rate of infrastructure – The cost of water and sanitation– Efforts to maintain or improve water quality – Implications for rural communities

Rural Communities and Water in Rural Communities and Water in the USthe US

US citizens generally have access to some of the world’s best quality and most affordable water and sanitation

Low-income, rural communities often have greater challenges in accessing safe and affordable water and sanitation (the largest percentage of the 1.9 million still without access are in rural areas)

Rural communities face issues of: financing, technical knowledge, management capacity, and organization

These problems are likely to reoccur as conditions change and new problems arise

Community organization around infrastructure often opens the door to broader economic development potential (as documented by WaterAid and others)

Access to Water and Sanitation-USAccess to Water and Sanitation-USTable 1: Housing Units Lacking Water and Sewer Facilities, 1950-70 (US Census)

Year-Round Housing Units (%) Type of Facility Lacking

Residential Area

1950 1960 1970

Rural Farm 55 21 8 Rural non-farm

32

Urban 4 1 0

No inside piped water

Total 27 7 2

Rural 55 30 13 Urban 8 2 1

No flush toilet

Total 24 10 4

Rural 56 31 14 Urban 11 4 1

No bathtub or shower

Total 17 12 4

Current US SituationCurrent US SituationHouseholds Households Lacking complete plumbing Lacking complete plumbing

facilitiesfacilities

US / State / Territory

Total OHU

lacking complet

e plumbin

g facilities (2000)

Percent of OHU lacking complet

e plumbin

g facilities (2000)

Total OHU

lacking complete plumbin

g facilities (1990)

Percent of OHU lacking complet

e plumbin

g facilities (1990)

Percent change in total OHU

lacking complete plumbing

facilities, from 1990 to 2000 (base year =

1990)

Percent change in total OHU from 1990 to

2000 (base year = 1990)

United States 670986 0.64 721693 0.78 -7.03 14.72

Distribution of those lacking Distribution of those lacking complete plumbing facilitiescomplete plumbing facilities

Population Lacking Complete Population Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, USPlumbing Facilities, US

US Hot Spots Lacking Plumbing FacilitiesUS Hot Spots Lacking Plumbing Facilities

States Ranked by Total OHU Lacking States Ranked by Total OHU Lacking

Complete Plumbing Facilities (2000)Complete Plumbing Facilities (2000)

US / State / Territory

Total OHU

lacking complete plumbing facilities (2000)

Percent of OHU lacking

complete plumbing facilities (2000)

Total OHU

lacking complete plumbing facilities (1990)

Percent of OHU lacking

complete plumbing facilities (1990)

Percent change in total OHU

lacking complete plumbing

facilities, from 1990 to 2000 (base year =

1990)

Percent change in total OHU from 1990 to

2000 (base year = 1990)

United States 670986 0.64 721693 0.78 -7.03 14.72 California 85460 0.74 57974 0.56 47.41 10.80 Puerto Rico 65640 5.20 NA NA NA NA New York 58418 0.83 50428 0.76 15.84 6.29 Texas 54853 0.74 56844 0.94 -3.50 21.78 Florida 30134 0.48 22061 0.43 36.59 23.43 Pennsylvania 24450 0.51 26355 0.59 -7.23 6.25 Illinois 23959 0.52 21572 0.51 11.07 9.27 Arizona 21088 1.11 18352 1.34 14.91 38.90 Virginia 19550 0.72 35788 1.56 -45.37 17.77 Ohio 19407 0.44 24394 0.60 -20.44 8.76 North Carolina 19295 0.62 33192 1.32 -41.87 24.43 Georgia 17117 0.57 22921 0.97 -25.32 27.03

Infrastructure Depreciation: Infrastructure Depreciation: Gap AnalysisGap Analysis

There have been three major investments in water infrastructure in the US– Turn of the 20th Century (1890s-1910)-clay

100 year life span

– The 1930s (New Deal)-steel 75 year life span

– The 1950s-1970s-plastic… 30-50 year life span

The Problem: Materials Depreciation Rates

Replacement cost = real moneyReplacement cost = real money

Estimates of capital needs for clean water from 2000 to 2019 range from:

$331 billion to $450 billion with a point estimate of $388 billion.

Estimates of capital needs for drinking water […] range from:

$154 billion to $446 billion with a point estimate of $274 billion.

– EPA. 2002. The Infrastructure Gap Analysis for Clean Water and Drinking Water. http://www.epa.gov

Growth in Sewerage Expenditures and GDP 1980-1999

Add Increasing cost to address growthAdd Increasing cost to address growth

The Rural Portion of this CostThe Rural Portion of this Cost

While many rural communities are dealing with issues of failing infrastructure, calculations of the gap for rural America are difficult—because of the decentralized nature of rural communities.

Example--West Central Initiative, Minnesota—

found a funding gap of $813 million to upgrade infrastructure installed in the 1930s.

Story of Donaldson, MNStory of Donaldson, MNPopulation 57MHI 1999 -- $15,000Annual operating budget – less than

$15,000…Sewer System and Storm Water System

combined—Need upgrade—minimum cost, over $1 million…

RCAP Intermediaries helped to facilitate loan/grant package—making upgrade possible

Household Cost of Water and Household Cost of Water and SanitationSanitation

On Average—US citizens pay very little for water and sanitation services (on average, around 1 percent of HH income).

According US Census--the more rural, the higher the percent of HH income spent on water and sanitation.

Many rural communities pay more than $1000 per year for water and sanitation services.

Pressures on Water and Pressures on Water and Sanitation ExpenditureSanitation Expenditure

Cost of infrastructure replacement.

Emerging costs for management of municipalities generally.

Emerging requirements for treatment of water and wastewater.

Municipal regulationsMunicipal regulations Smart Growth reporting requirements—Will

involve verification of growth rates and actions to mitigate problems such as habitat destruction, open space disappearance, farmland disappearance, etc. Implemented most famously in Maryland; but also in Oregon, New York, and Washington.

Small communities soon will have to comply with National Accounting Standards Board GASB 34 management and accounting standards. These will require communities to account not only for existing infrastructure assets, but also for depreciation of those assets

Wastewater RegulationsWastewater Regulations Increased scrutiny of decentralized wastewater

systems to capture non-point source risks.– Communities in areas like the Chesapeake Bay basin

are increasingly asked to prove they are not contributing to contamination to the Bay or to switch over to centralized sewer.

– Septic or other decentralized systems are increasingly managed

Increased oversight of wastewater facilities in general. Emphasis on “system optimization” Increased operator certification required.

Drinking water regulationsDrinking water regulations

A new suite of regulations, standards, and rules regarding community water system safety. Arsenic Disinfection Byproducts, Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment, and the Groundwater Rule.

All of these will involve the development of operating and monitoring regimes that may well lead to force small communities to purchase water services

Increased Demands on Rural Increased Demands on Rural Community ManagersCommunity Managers

The Rural Community Context is Changing Small Towns are grappling with growing

populations in the metro-fringes– Rural Town managers will need to develop plans and

strategies for encouraging economic growth while ensuring it is done in a way that maintains environmental and cultural assets

More isolated rural small towns are shrinking—Town managers will need to build the capital and assets (human, social, physical, natural) to attract population and economic investment.

Capacity Development—Capacity Development—Moving Toward MississippiMoving Toward Mississippi

Rural Water Managers—Board Members are rewarded for volunteering often by being blind sided in realizing they have fiduciary responsibility for the water system

Mississippi Capacity Development Initiative involves– Annual water system capacity assessment– Mandatory training for water boards

The IssueThe Issue Small Rural Communities have traditionally

managed their basic governance operations through voluntary activities.

Basic governance includes:– Town management—management of municipal

budgets and accounting, planning, facilitation;– Operation and management of water and

wastewater systems;– Related—grant writing, fund raising, project

implementation.

The Times They Are A-The Times They Are A-Changin’Changin’

Most small communities have part-time administrative and management employees.

Often these employees have minimal educations past a high school diploma or GED.

Modern laws and regulations have created a need for a better educated employee in the small community public sector.

Communities often are faced with foregoing management or services or paying outsiders to manage local systems.

Role of the intermediaryRole of the intermediary In response to an observed problem with access to

safe drinking water in the 1970s, Congress appropriated funds for technical assistance (TA) services to assist rural communities with infrastructure development

Congress also allowed for the allocation of funds to Non Governmental Organization (NGO) TA providers to work with communities on organizing community capacity for water infrastructure development and management.

Leveraging Embedded Community Leveraging Embedded Community Colleges Technical Assistance ProvidersColleges Technical Assistance Providers

Self-Determination for Rural Communities:

Capacity Building for Economic Revitalization

Empowering Communities through providing access to government, and networks to other NGOs, government agencies, communities

Provide technical assistance to rural communities:

Facilitation for infrastructure development opportunities

Assistance in preparation of proposals, plans, and grants/loans

Assistance in selection of technology/contractors

Networking to provide political capital

Advice on water rights and responsibilities

THE RCAP NATIONAL THE RCAP NATIONAL NETWORKNETWORK

Self-Determination for Rural

Communities:Capacity

Building for Economic

Revitalization

MISSION MISSION

The mission of RCAP and its The mission of RCAP and its affiliates is to help rural affiliates is to help rural Americans to improve the Americans to improve the quality of life in their quality of life in their communities. communities.

Management of water Management of water resources and ensuring resources and ensuring access to basic water access to basic water services are the defining services are the defining

elements of our work.elements of our work.

A Facilitating RoleA Facilitating Role

Community

Federal Government

Implementing Private Sector

TA Providers (TAPs)

TA Providers

State Development

Agencies TAPs

StateRegulatoryAuthorityTAPs

EPA USDA HHS

Community interests

RCAP, inc.

Intermediaries and StandardsIntermediaries and Standards

Intermediary OrganizationsIntermediary Organizations

DATA

Civil Society

Civil Society and Intermediary organizations are key to the U.S. Regulatory System

CivilSociety

Community

Increasing Public Education and Increasing Public Education and AwarenessAwareness

TA Providers and its affiliates produce a TA Providers and its affiliates produce a diversity of publications that are reflective of diversity of publications that are reflective of regionally specific social and economic issues, regionally specific social and economic issues, policies, and programs. Examples include:policies, and programs. Examples include:

Pacific Mountain Review (West)Pacific Mountain Review (West) Community Water Bulletin (South)Community Water Bulletin (South) Watershed to Well (Northeast)Watershed to Well (Northeast) Waterlog (Midwest)Waterlog (Midwest) Rural Matters (National)Rural Matters (National)

   

Utility and Community PlanningUtility and Community Planning

Utility planning to meet population growth, or water problems—and how utility planning can expand economic options– Example—Alexandria Bay, NY.– Resolved wastewater

problem through a regional approach thatopened opportunities for economic development in this depressed part of upstateNew York.

Community Organizing and Community Organizing and

Leadership Leadership RCAP assists low-income, RCAP assists low-income,

rural communities to rural communities to achieve self-sufficiency. achieve self-sufficiency. To do so, we teach To do so, we teach such basic skills as:such basic skills as:

1)1) Community planning and Community planning and team buildingteam building

2)2) Training small water and Training small water and wastewater systems wastewater systems operators and Board operators and Board membersmembers

3)3) Ensuring the public’s health Ensuring the public’s health and environmental protectionand environmental protection

Financing:Financing: Bartlett Village Water Bartlett Village Water Precinct - Bartlett, New Precinct - Bartlett, New

HampshireHampshire Assisted the

community to look into options for system expansion and rate increases to pay for increased costs and loss of businesses who paid water rates.

Expanding and Upgrading Expanding and Upgrading InfrastructureInfrastructure

The TA Provider works with communities to assist them determine ways to expand and upgrade their existing infrastructure systems. This usually involves meetings with utility managers, town managers, and city councilors to assist them to understand options and to make decisions.

Consideration of Technology OptionsConsideration of Technology Options

Matching community needs with available options is a key role for the TA Provider

Engineering firms often recommend that small communities select more expensive, large pipe options

RCAP plays a key role in assisting communities choose appropriate technologies

INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION SELF-DETERMINATION

In Spring Hill, MN, population 120, with a median household income (MHI) of $11,000, RCAP assisted the community to utilize a wetland system for wastewater treatment that cost less and provided the community with benefits that attracted regional interest.

 

 

TA—an ongoing initiativeTA—an ongoing initiative RCAP is committed to community capacity

development However, as times change, so does the meaning of

community capacity RCAP is still working with the community just

outside Roanoke, Virginia where we began 30 years ago

We started assisting with access to safe water; we have since worked with them on other water upgrades, wastewater, solid waste, housing, and economic development issues.

Application of the US TA System to Application of the US TA System to the International Crisisthe International Crisis

The US TA process provides critical assistance to communities to link them with technical and financial resources to address ongoing issues related to water and waste services.

This is not, and should not be considered a purely technical endeavor. TA providers spend as much time on the social process as on the technical process.

In many countries either internal or external resources exist to address the issues of water availability. A TA program that is locally adapted to provide the brokering and Technical advise functions of the US system might well allow local communities to access the scientific, technical, political, organizational, and financial resources to address lack of water facilities.

Build on regional/national/local success stories.

Opportunities for Leverage—RCAP Opportunities for Leverage—RCAP and Rural Community Collegesand Rural Community Colleges

Combined training for water and sanitation operators

Combined training for water boards

Ongoing coaching assistance

QuestionsQuestions Is this a new growth area that should be developed? a)      Do others believe that this meets a critical need

in rural America? If yes to the first question, what venue would best

meet the goals of RCAP, the community colleges, and (most importantly) citizens in rural communities?

a)      Identification and research of various educational models

What would be the best process to achieve goal? a)      A few regionalized centers, piggy-backing on

other establishments b)      Development of a national program

Critical QuestionsCritical Questions What potential funding mechanisms are available? a)      Expansion of existing programs

– For instance, operator training could be funded under SRF capacity development funding—but states and communities would have to buy in.

– Are there other existing community technical capacity management moneys available?

– New appropriations?– Foundations?

    What potential partnerships are available? a)      Land Grant University system (extension service) b)      Community College system c)      Technical College system