THE POST-ELECTION FUTURE OF WATER--PART II

Two powerful forces likely will define both the near term future as well as the longer term future of water in this country. First, an increasing awareness is probable that fresh water is a very limited resource and is becoming more so due to demand and to environmental change. This acknowledgement, in turn, will drive efforts to limit water uses to protect the resource. The second powerful force may be the federal government, which under the guise of protecting water resources, can be expected to more strictly regulate water use and quality.

Here are some of the potential future trends that may develop:

1. Water Allocation. The federal government may seek to regulate the allocation of water sources of supply as between regions of the country. Such allocation could involve ground water as well as surface water river and lake sources. Allocations could be effected by use of pipelines as well as by limits on withdrawals.

2. Cap and Trade. As one feature of allocation, the government could initiate a broad cap and trade program for all water utility sources of water supply. By analogy, there already is a water quality trading program called the "Ohio River Basin Interstate Water Quality Trading Project," designed to reduce agricultural nutrient load runoff.

3. Expanded Metering. Also related to allocation and conservation of water, the future may see universal required metering of private residential and commercial wells, with penalties for exceeding permitted withdrawals. For customers of water utilities, there could be corresponding mandatory inverse rate block structures with surcharges for excess water use.

4. Limited Fracturing. It is likely that more strict regulation of hydraulic fracturing water will be imposed--not only to protect water sources but more importantly to promote political desire for alternative sources of energy and to discourage reliance on oil.

5. New Water Sources. The federal government will continue to promote, through loans, grants and guarantees, development of alternative or non-traditional sources of water supply. Beside desalination, these could include mandatory reuse of highly treated wastewater and mandatory collection and use of rain water.

6. Regulation, Regulation, Regulation. More regulation of alleged contaminants in water, and more regulation of water use, likely will be the agenda of EPA. It can be expected to be aggressive in stretching its regulatory and enforcement programs, particularly under its National Enforcement Initiative and its notion of "environmental justice." In turn, more court challenges to agency action will result.

7. Infrastructure. Everyone has been talking about the urgent need to replace aged water and wastewater plant and to upgrade facilities to maintain regulatory compliance, but the predicted cost is huge and utilities seem to be waiting for federal government financial assistance. The more utilities will wait, the higher the price tag and urgency will become.

8. Rates. So, who will pay? Customers of water utilities can expect to pay substantially higher rates in the future, due to regulatory requirements and infrastructure replacements and upgrades. In the near term, rates could be approaching $10 or more per 1,000 gallons--or, in other words, a monthly water bill will be almost as much as the cable or telephone bill!

THE POST-ELECTION FUTURE OF WATER - PART I

It is no secret, nor surprise, that we have just experienced a very contentious and close election. Indeed, the actual vote totals in the presidential race were sufficiently close to deny a mandate for one party or the other. Rather, the actual mandate is for all parties to come together to address and resolve serious issues confronting the country, including those pertaining to water.

As John Wesley wrote in his journal in 1774 about an election to be held in England: "I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election and advised them: 1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy; 2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against; And 3. To take care that their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side."

What are some of the concerns and issues for water that likely will beg for attention from the federal and state governments now that the election has become history? I think that they could include the following:

1. Will USEPA continue to promulgate more and more regulations for monitoring and removing constituents in water and wastewater? Or will Congress react to mitigate the rising costs for utilities to comply with such regulations, and the resulting rising rates charged users?

2. Will USEPA aggressively use its perceived enforcement powers or will Congress and the courts seek to restrain such powers?

3. How will utilities address so-called climate changes which are believed to reduce sources of water supply and to increase competition for supplies across regional boundaries?

4. How will utilities construct and pay for new water and wastewater infrastructure needed to replace facilities beyond their useful lives and to meet demand created by an eventual resurgence in the housing and manufacturing industries?

5. Will the federal government, already deeply in debt by trillions of dollars, continue to fund grants and loans to states and cities for water and wastewater capital improvements, and if so, from where will the federal government get the money?

6. How high will rates for water and wastewater services have go to meet regulatory compliance costs, increased operating costs and infrastructure capital costs?

Stay tuned!

GOING WITH THE FLOW

Recently, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the U.S.EPA policy dealing with overflows from wastewater treatment plants. ("The Obama Storm Tax", October 23, 2012, p. A16)

In wet weather conditions, some wastewater treatment facilities frequently may become burdened with excess influent water flows from tributary sewer mains. Such excess flows can arise either because the sewage collection system is a combined system--designed to receive both sanitary and storm water--or because the sanitary system is subject to inflow and infiltration in rain periods.

Under such excess flow conditions, wastewater treatment plants may be forced to bypass some of the influent to a receiving stream in order to protect the integrity of the treatment biological process for the design influent flow.

Not all bypasses, however, are due to heavy rain events. For example, the Record/Herald News (northjersey.com) reported that hurricane Sandy allegedly disabled one of the nation's largest wastewater treatment plants, forcing it to release about 300 million gallons of untreated sewage into Newark Bay. This action resulted from the wide power outage and the fact that standby generators could only power the outflow. It also was reported that other plants had to take similar action.

The Journal editorial was critical of EPA Clean Water Act enforcement measures against municipal wastewater facilities which bypass excess flows. The editorial alleged that cities are forced to enter into consent decrees with EPA to upgrade their plants, which cost local taxpayers billions of dollars. Further, such systems are subject to limits on the number of permitted bypasses. The editorial complained that such upgrades actually may not be cost effective.

The editorial may have overlooked some factors involved with bypasses. First, EPA can be both the hand that feeds as well as the hand that slaps. While enforcement actions may impose upgrade costs on utilities, EPA also spends untold millions of dollars in grants and low interest loans to cities and states for upgrades of infrastructure. This money comes from taxpayers nationwide, who in effect subsidize upgrades for the beneficiaries.

Second, not all bypasses necessarily are harmful to a receiving waterbody. Traditionally, a bypassed flow may be required to receive at least primary treatment-upwards of 85%- and chlorination. One would expect EPA to consider this to be an appropriate mitigation factor given the benefit of saving the overall treatment plant function.

Third, perhaps the real issue with the excess flow issue is not plant capacity but the cause of the excess flows in the first place. If the collection system is a combined system , them maybe a more cost-effective solution is to separate the sanitary from the storm systems, at least partially. If a collection system is sanitary only, the issue may become inflow and infiltration. Inflow results from illegal connections of downspouts, sump pumps, footing drains and the like to the sanitary system and from leaking manhole covers. Infiltration can result from broken mains and manholes. Reducing excess flows from inflow and infiltration not only can reduce the necessity for treatment plant bypasses, but also may reduce sewer surcharges and resulting backups into homes.