Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Water Infrastructure Presentation


Published on

John Honeck, GOPC Senior Policy Fellow Presentation on Water Infrastructure at the John Glenn College of Public Affairs Forum on 9/26/2016

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Water Infrastructure Presentation

  1. 1. OHIO’S WATER & SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS SEPTEMBER 2016 Jon Honeck, PhD Senior Policy Fellow Greater Ohio Policy Center
  2. 2. ABOUT US: GREATER OHIO POLICY CENTER (GOPC) An outcome-oriented statewide non-profit organization that champions revitalization and sustainable redevelopment in Ohio: Neighborhood Revitalization Regional Growth Transportation & Infrastructure Modernization Urban Regeneration
  3. 3. Drinking water and wastewater usually separate utilities Can be organized as municipal, county, or regional (RC Ch 6119) entities Largely supported by customer charges (enterprise funds) New concept of “Stormwater utility” fees (MS4) EPA regulation and permit process is large driver of capital spending Aging infrastructure, some still dates from late 19th or early 20th Century Ohio has est. 650,000 homes or businesses served by lead water supply lines (6.1 million nationally)¹ OVERVIEW OF WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER UTILITIES ¹AWWA National Survey (2016).
  4. 4. Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – state EPA permits for municipal, stormwater, industrial discharges Combined sewer overflow (CSO) correction  87 Ohio cities are under EPA consent decrees, over 100 others under EPA findings and orders  Created need for large capital projects taking decades to complete MS4 – municipal stormwater discharges EPA REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
  5. 5. Primary Drinking Water Regulations  Enforceable standards for Inorganic Chemicals, Organic Chemicals, Radionuclides, Microorganisms  “Lead and Copper Rule” is being revised Secondary Nonenforceable standards for cosmetic or aesthetic purposes (taste and smell) SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
  8. 8. Wastewater Treatment, 11.3% Conveyance System Repair, 22.6% New Conveyance Systems, 8.7% Combined Sewer Overflow Correction, 51.2% Stormwater Management Program, 6.1% OHIO NEEDS $14.1 BILLION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT, 2012 - 2032 U.S. EPA Office of Water. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2012 Report to Congress – State Fact Sheets. Ohio CWNS 2012.
  9. 9. OHIO NEEDS $12.1 BILLION FOR DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, 2011-2030 U.S. EPA Office of Water. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. Fifth Report to Congress. EPA 816-R-13-006. April 2013. Transmission and Distribution 66% Source 4% Treatment 18% Storage 10% Other 2%
  10. 10. $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 Average Annual Ohio Water and Sewer Rates (2014 Dollars) INCREASES IN RATES LEAD TO AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS 31.5% Real Increase
  11. 11. 2014 33% 2016 28% FULL COST PRICING IS DIFFICULT Percentage of Large/Medium U.S. Water and Sewer Utilities with revenues sufficient to cover maintenance, debt service, capital investment, and reserves Source: Black & Veatch, 2016 Strategic Directions.
  12. 12. Cost of Consent Decrees Led to Search for Alternatives US EPA encouraging “green infrastructure” and “integrated planning process” that allows modification of plans Columbus original WWMP $3.5 Billion over 40 years  “Blueprint Columbus” avoided deep tunnel and saved $700 million, achieve better stormwater control results  NEORSD – providing grants for green infrastructure Cincinnati MSD – stream “daylighting” and other green infrastructure in Lower Mill Creek Valley oGreen Infrastructure is new, hard to evaluate long-term impact o Maintenance issues – responsibility and cost o Stormwater installations on private property GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE: A NEW SOLUTION?
  13. 13. Bio Retention Ponds Bio Swales Daylighting Streams Rain Barrels Wetlands Preservation Porous Pavement Green Roofs GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE EXAMPLES
  14. 14. STORMWATER RETENTION GARDEN infrastructure/bioswales
  15. 15. GREEN ROOF
  17. 17.  Federal funding switched from grants to loans in late 1980s, partnering with states to create revolving loans funds (SRFs)  Ohio EPA and OWDA Revolving Loan Funds:  Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (subsidized)  Drinking Water Assistance Fund (subsidized)  OWDA Fresh Water Fund (market rate)  Combined loan volume over $1 Billion from these three funds  Ohio Public Works Commission -- Grants and Loans for water and sewer disbursed through 19 district integrating committees  Other federal sources, ARC, USDA, CDBG for small systems  Navigating through various sources is a challenge! FINANCING SOURCES
  18. 18. $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 OWDA Market Rate, 2.56% EPA DWAF/WPCLF, 1.31% OWDA Community Assistance, 0.06% INTEREST PAYMENTS ON 20 YEAR $1M LOAN August 2016 interest rates; level amortization
  19. 19. Asset Management Programs (AMP) tied to capital planning and rate structures Predictive maintenance and prioritization Senate Bill 333 would tie AMP to wastewater permits (Oct. 2018) Regionalization for small systems Cooperative agreements do not require Ch. 6119 regional govt. Property-assessed stormwater infrastructure for private parcels concept similar to PACE, but water not included in Ohio PACE law Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) Ohio has limited P3 statute for ODOT, not for water NEW FINANCING AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
  20. 20.  No safe level of lead exposure in children  Lead service lines mostly installed before Second World War;  Ohio estimated to have about 10% of the 6.1 million total lead service lines nationally (AWWA National Survey)  Corrosion can controlled through chemical treatment but risk still remains  Work on main supply line or construction work can disturb LSL  Risk from lead fixtures and pipes within building itself  EPA requires testing under “lead and copper rule” but protocols criticized as weak and not enforced (e.g., pre- flushing techniques and failure to target test sites)  Customers usually own service line from street to the home, leading to disputes about who pays for replacement FLINT, SEBRING AND LEAD POISONING: INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
  21. 21.  The water system did not know the location of lead service lines  The water utility and state regulators employed dubious lead sampling techniques  Customers had little or no awareness of the potential for lead in their drinking water  Utility construction was taking place without notifying customers of the potential for lead contamination  Lead service line replacement is often looked at as unnecessary, costly, and complex -- Eric Rothstein, Member of Michigan Governor’s Flint Water Advisory Task Force (Journal AWWA 2016) WHAT IS NOT UNUSUAL ABOUT FLINT?
  22. 22. Holds public water systems more accountable for recording and reporting lead and copper levels. Imposes stricter monitoring of public water systems’ compliance with lead and copper rules and imposes penalties for not complying with reporting and recording requirements. Requires mapping of possible lead pipe lines by water systems every five years Requires of notice to resident within two days of receiving contaminated results from tests. HB 390 - $12 million for grants to schools to replace lead fixtures ($15,000 per school, OFCC) OHIO HOUSE BILL 512 (2016)
  23. 23. March 7th & 8th, 2017 More information is available at: The Westin Columbus 310 South High Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Investing in Ohio's Future: Maximizing Growth in our Cities and Regions More information is available at:
  24. 24. Jon Honeck, Ph.D. Senior Policy Fellow (614) 224-0187 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION