The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) has just reviewed the EPA and Congress’s budget proposals, and the organization is not happy with what it sees. In a statement released this week, the NACWA comes out strongly against budget cuts to the Clean Water Act (CWA) that “ignore the very real financial constraints of states and municipalities to implement a growing array of increasingly costly CWA requirements.” In other words, while trying to work within the confines of its own budgetary crisis, the federal government should not transfer the cost of CWA compliance onto the backs of municipalities who are, themselves, struggling to meet costs, and who will most likely have to tap rate-paying households to make up the gap.
We have talked often of our infrastructure crisis, and the numbers are not getting any better. According to the EPA, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), we can look forward to a $500-billion gap over the next 20 years between the repairs and upgrades needed and the monies available for the government agencies tasked with undertaking those activities. And that gap will not be bridged by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s (ARRA) goal of funding 5% of total infrastructure investment.
The NACWA membership includes 300 public agencies and organizations involved with water reclamation and “the majority of the sewered population in the United States.” The NACWA estimates that its members “collectively treat and reclaim more than 18 billion gallons of wastewater daily,” which is why compliance with the CWA is one of their primary concerns.
In a statement released by the NACWA, Executive Director of NACWA Ken Kirk said, “I couldn’t agree with EPA more that now is the time for innovation and creative approaches, and I call on EPA to work closely with NACWA on developing a more flexible and cost-effective approach to Clean Water Act compliance. NACWA looks forward to working with the President and Congress in developing a long-term federal commitment to clean water that will provide a sustainable source of funding to help our communities meet their water quality objectives.”
So what so you think? Should we give up on a last-minute “save” from the feds and, instead, cultivate an “every man for himself” stance on infrastructure improvements? And if we do decide—as many communities already have—to hunker down and find our own financing, how can that independence help us deal with compliance issues? How do we bridge not just the gap between need and resources, but the apparent disconnect between the demands of DC and the realities on the home front?