Earlier this year when the Water Infrastructure Network called for increased federal funding for drinking water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure, my first thought was, "Don't hold your breath."
Even though the Environmental Protection Agency had just completed its Drinking Water Needs Survey showing $150 billion in needs over the next 20 years for drinking water infrastructure alone, it was clear to me that the Bush Administration and Congress would not be opening the purse strings for water infrastructure any time soon.
If the industry is lucky, it might see the State Revolving Loan Funds hold at the same level as last year.
The Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) called for a five-year, $57 billion federal investment in water infrastructure to replace aging pipes, upgrade treatment systems and continue to protect public health and the environment. The group also asked Congress to create a long-term, sustainable source of federal funding for water.
It's a nice idea. Although I didn't agree with all of the Network's conclusions, there are times when some utilities need help from outside sources. Having a pot of federal money to draw from in times of emergency would be very helpful. But I don't think it's something utilities should depend on or even expect.
Federal funding is somewhat like robbing from the rich to give to the poor - actually it's more like robbing from the rich and the poor alike, filtering the money through several layers of inefficient bureaucracy and then giving it to the truly needy, the lazy and sloppy, and those who know how to work the system.
There are more than a few utilities out there that have a real problem making ends meet. They're spread out over a large area, have an impoverished customer base or face truly insurmountable obstacles to maintaining quality water and wastewater networks. While there are systems in place to help those utilities, more help is needed.
But the vast majority of water and wastewater utilities are viable and do not need federal assistance to operate. Many have wisely established rates that cover the cost of service, maintenance, and on-going infrastructure replacement. For those who haven't, I feel no sympathy. Life can be hard. Budgeting wisely and setting rates at the cost of service can be politically tough, but it's something that must be done.
Low interest loans designed to help utilities get over the occasional bump in the road are a great idea. Not having to borrow money from the SRF, it's easy for me to say that the program seems ideal. A modest amount of money goes into the pot each year, where it's put to work in a revolving fund that grows over time. It's a worthwhile program that should be expanded.
When you ask the federal government for money, who pays? We all do. That money doesn't come out of thin air, it comes out of your pocket and mine. Utilities should be funded by their customer base. If that customer base is unable to afford the cost of service, then perhaps a billing assistance program could be developed to help the customers, not the utility.
"Pay as you go" is my philosophy. I may borrow to make a large capital acquisition, like a house or car, but I pay my bills and live within my means. Sometimes that means saying no to my "wants" and only funding my "needs." That seems like an out-dated concept in today's world, but I think we would all be better off if it applied to people, business and governments as well.
James Laughlin, Editor
