THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUE, PART 1--WHY IS THERE A WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEM?

There has been extensive media discussion about the purported need to replace aging water and wastewater infrastructure in the United States. This week, USEPA released the conclusions of a survey showing the alleged need to spend $384 billion to replace drinking water infrastructure through 2030 to enable safe water to be provided. It stated that this cost reflects the needs of some 73,000 water systems. USEPA asserts that "the nation's water systems have entered a rehabilitation and replacement era in which much of the existing infrastructure has reached or is approaching the end of the useful life."

The survey results raise an interesting question: Why is there such a need to replace water infrastructure? USEPA asserts that the need is due to the aging of water facilities: "In many cases, drinking water infrastructure was reported to be 50-100 years old".

However, it would seem that the age of infrastructure is not the only cause of a need to upgrade facilities, and it may not be the most important. Age alone does not imply inadequacy. For example, ductile iron or plastic water mains may have useful lives of 100 years or more. Older facilities may be functioning well provided that they have been properly maintained over time.

What are some possible other causes of the infrastructure issue?

** Failure To Plan For Replacements. In many cases of then growing municipalities, backbone water and wastewater plant and mains were contributed to utility systems by developers at no cost to the municipalities. If the municipal systems have not charged rates which recover depreciation or accrue reserves, there may be no funds available at the end of the useful lives of the contributed facilities to enable replacement.

** Failure To Properly Maintain. If water and wastewater utilities have not charged rates over time to recover full costs of service, including maintenance expense, it may be maintenance of facilities that is deferred. Without proper maintenance, facilities' useful lives obviously will be compromised.

** Regulation. It is perhaps ironic that much of the need to upgrade infrastructure discussed by USEPA's survey may result from the need to comply with USPEA's increasingly more strict and pervasive regulatory requirements.

** Demand. When a new subdivision or factory is proposed, a local water utility may need to expand treatment capacity or mains to satisfy increased demand for service, including fire protection.

** Security. Since 9-11, utilities have faced a need to upgrade security for water and wastewater facilities. Such measures, including electronic security measures and physical barriers, can impose substantial infrastructure costs, particularly for smaller utilities.

** Technology. Advances in technology, particularly relating to monitoring of treatment processes and flows and data processing, can impose infrastructure requirements.

** Failure of materials. Sometimes, regardless of age, such factors as corrosion and excessive breaks can create the need to replace components of systems.

There is not a sense that the need to replace or upgrade infrastructure in many systems is exaggerated or unrealistic. If the current need were satisfied today, it is likely that the whole discussion will be repeated in 50 years. For a look at resolving the infrastructure issue today, I will discuss funding of new infrastructure in Part 2--Who Should Pay The Bill?