Photo: City of Lincoln, NE

The national water infrastructure gap and the local stormwater manager

By Henrietta H. P. Locklear

In Congressional debates this year over funding for water infrastructure, advocates for federal funding authorization often cited the “funding gap” or “infrastructure gap” to support increased federal spending. One press release stated that studies “estimate the funding gap for this critical infrastructure at [$300 billion to] $500 billion over 20 years, and it is clear that existing mechanisms for addressing this enormous funding gap fall far short” (Water Industry 2007). This article discusses the water infrastructure funding gap, the portion of that gap that is related to stormwater, and local approaches to managing the stormwater gap.

What Is the Funding Gap?
The terms funding gap and infrastructure gap, in this context, refer to the difference between the amount of funding that is expected to be spent on infrastructure, based on current spending, and the amount that is needed or will be needed, based on estimates of current and future project costs. The EPA’s report, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, was released in 2002. The clean-water gap, which is focused on capital needs for publicly owned treatment works and systems (but includes some stormwater costs as explained below), is analyzed separately from the drinking-water gap. The clean water gap alone for the next 20 years is estimated to be between $331 billion and $446 billion for capital needs and an additional $72 billion to $229 billion for operation and maintenance needs, for a total of $403 billion to $675 billion. If this amount were divided into equal payments, that would mean that $15 billion to $30 billion per year more than the current spending will be needed to ensure that capital and operations and maintenance needs are met for wastewater treatment, stormwater management, and nonpoint-source pollution. The ranges allow the EPA to include a variety of assumptions in its estimate, rather than calculating the gap based on one scenario.

Estimating Needs
In order to estimate how much future investment in water infrastructure is required and how much that might cost, the EPA had to determine what the needs for investment will be. The EPA’s infrastructure gap analysis used data it collects from the states as part of the “Clean Watershed Needs Survey” (CWNS).

The EPA is required by the Clean Water Act to conduct the CWNS, formerly called the “Clean Water Needs Survey,” and it is completed every four years. In 2008, the EPA will conduct the survey for the 15th time; the 2004 survey is under interagency review; and the 2000 survey has been published. The CWNS establishes the “estimated capital costs for water quality projects and other activities eligible for CWSRF [Clean Water State Revolving Fund] support as authorized by the 1987 CWA Amendments” (EPA 2003). The estimate is compiled from needs, which are defined as “water quality or public health problem[s] and … associated abatement cost[s] eligible for funding under the CWSRF,” identified by the states (ibid). It is important to remember that the focus of this data collection is project data for CWSRF-eligible projects.

What Is the Gap for Stormwater?
On a nationwide level, neither the funding gap for stormwater infrastructure (water-quantity and -quality functions) nor a comprehensive estimate of stormwater needs has been determined. However, the existing estimates for stormwater infrastructure, although they could be incomplete, show significant stormwater infrastructure needs (EPA 2003).

CWNS (Clean Water State Revolving Fund–Eligible Stormwater Projects)
In the 2000 CWNS, which is the most recent version to be published, the EPA estimated stormwater needs based on actual project data received from states (documented needs). (In earlier surveys, the EPA used modeled estimates.) Stormwater management program needs of $5.5 billion over the next 20 years were compiled from 19 states and the District of Columbia. They made up just 3% of total documented needs for clean water (wastewater treatment, combined sewer overflow control, stormwater management programs, and nonpoint-source controls). Thus, the “storm water control needs presented in [the 2000 report] underestimate the Nation’s storm water management program needs.” Nonpoint-source pollution controls made up 7.6% of documented needs ($13.88 billion). The Clean Watershed Needs Survey data on stormwater management programs are expected to improve in future reports, as states collect and submit more data on these needs.

Although the 2004 report is still under review, the EPA provided Stormwater with information about how the stormwater-related reporting has improved in the 2004 report. In 2004, participation in stormwater needs reporting increased to 28 states and the District of Columbia. Stormwater management program needs make up 4% of documented needs, and nonpoint-source pollution control needs rose to 15% of documented needs (EPA 2007a).

Finally, the 2008 survey is expected to be another leap forward in the documentation of needs overall and stormwater management and nonpoint-source needs in particular. For the first time, states will be able to submit data online and the data collection will be preceded by EPA training sessions (EPA 2007b).

Costs Not Captured by the CWNS
Because the CWNS is designed to estimate particular needs, those eligible for CWSRF support, a set of stormwater costs is not captured by the survey. While the EPA’s infrastructure gap analysis quantified operations and maintenance costs for wastewater, the CWNS excludes these costs since they are not eligible for CWSRF support. So the $5.5 billion in needs would not include the ongoing (operation and maintenance) costs for new best management practices included in the survey, only their construction costs.

Similarly, the CWNS “figure represents only the estimated CWSRF-eligible portion of the costs that municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are expected to incur to develop and implement storm water management programs in response to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 Storm Water Program regulations for Phases I and II” (EPA 2003). Non-NPDES-related stormwater infrastructure projects are not included in the $5.5 billion estimate.

Difficulties in Determining Overall Stormwater Infrastructure Needs
Two reports indicate why stormwater needs, other than in the CWNS, have not been quantified more completely. The first is a report from a North Carolina project on the state’s future water needs, Water 2030, entitled “Water 2030 Report 3: Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Capital Needs.” The report estimated that $1.47 billion (between 2005 and 2030) would be required for stormwater capital needs in North Carolina. The report cautioned that the estimate could be “more unreliable” than estimates for water and sewer needs, concluding that “stormwater control presents a major unanswered question for infrastructure planners” (North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center 2005). The report relates this unreliability to lack of knowledge about stormwater systems. Out of 465 municipal stormwater systems included in the analysis, only 16% had been mapped. A telling statistic was that only 6% of participating systems “were able to calculate their capital needs with any degree of confidence” (ibid).

Another report, the California Infrastructure Report Card, estimates the infrastructure investment needed for urban runoff control in the state at $5.5 billion. The estimate is based on several studies, one that estimates the current expenditures for urban stormwater runoff control and two others that estimate capital costs for runoff control. The study cautions that the “cost to treat urban runoff is extremely speculative.” It is interesting that the estimate of project needs for California alone, under this scenario, is equal to the total estimate for the nation in the 2000 CWNS (ASCE California Section 2006).

Photo: City of Lincoln, NE

SW managers must learn to solve problems using existing funds.

The Local Stormwater Gap
Stormwater managers in local governments experience the stormwater gap: They know that parts of their infrastructure are broken, undersized, and failing. And, in the words of Ben Higgins, senior engineer for the City of Lincoln, NE, “The need is always greater than the funding.” At the local level, as in the national arena, there must be a focus on funding sources for sustaining stormwater systems. However, stormwater managers also have to focus on how to solve problems using existing funding sources.

While some local stormwater programs are in the situation described in the North Carolina 2030 report, of not being able to estimate their capital needs, others are in planning processes or have completed planning processes and are able to quantify their stormwater needs. Two stormwater managers interviewed for this article are following a process that establishes their “stormwater gaps.” They are conducting assessments that allow them to compile infrastructure needs and define how much those needs will cost. Then, because their resources are limited, they are defining which projects will occur and when they will occur through prioritization.

Photo: City of Lincoln, NE

Lincoln, NE, prioritizes its urban drainage projects.

Town of Chapel Hill, NC
The Town of Chapel Hill, a Phase II municipality with a population of nearly 45,000, is in the midst of a master planning process (Chapel Hill Planning Department 2002). The town, which has had a stormwater utility for two years, has just completed a first needs assessment phase and has begun the second phase. The second phase encompasses a range of activities including total maximum daily load development, capital improvements identification and prioritization, and potential projects’ cost development. In addition, the plan will provide the stormwater program with data to increase the proactiveness of its operation and maintenance activities and analyze capital improvements’ impact on fees at the sub-watershed level. According to the town Web site, the master planning will take the following into consideration:

• Involve local and regional stakeholders in development of the plan.
• Meet the town’s stormwater-related regulatory requirements.
• Provide fair, effective, and efficient stormwater management services to residents and property owners in Chapel Hill.
• Provide baseline data and summaries of current stormwater-related conditions, infrastructures, and services.
• Recommend and prioritize action plans to mitigate flooding and improve water quality and stream integrity in the years ahead.

The town is also mapping its stormwater system to comply with its Phase II NPDES permit requirements. That data collection effort will tie into the identification of capital projects’ needs, says Sue Burke, stormwater engineer for the town. The planning effort is particularly important since the town has a modest capital improvements budget for stormwater. Says Burke, “We want to be sure that whatever capital projects we do are long-term solutions and are not undone by other projects.” In addition, she stressed the importance of the projects identification and prioritization process: “We definitely want to make sure that we are addressing the worst first and that we are really addressing the problem through the project.” The town will be able to take a broad view of its stormwater needs and ensure that the projects it chooses are productive and that an improvement does not, in turn, “create another downstream capital need.”

The master plan will help the town “use public dollars wisely,” says Burke. The cost estimates for the town’s stormwater needs have not been established, so the “stormwater gap” has not been stated even in rough numbers yet. However, the town knows that it has stormwater needs, is gathering information on these needs, and will prioritize projects to ensure that it makes the best use of its funds.

City of Lincoln, NE
Lincoln, NE’s Watershed Management Division has developed a prioritization method for urban drainage projects, and it has established priority projects for future developed areas through watershed plans. Urban drainage projects include, for example, pipe replacements and upgrades, while watershed plan-based projects include wetlands creation and stream stabilization. The urban drainage prioritization document, completed in 2006, can be found on the city’s Web site at http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/pworks/watrshed/priorit/pdf/urban.pdf. When asked what prompted the development of the prioritization, Ben Higgins says, “Well, I just wasn’t comfortable with what we had!” The last prioritization of projects was based on estimates created in the 1970s and 1980s, and the data about stormwater system projects were outdated.

Photo: City of Lincoln, NE

The capital improvements program in Lincoln—what’s best for the city—is funded by bond issues that are voted on by the public.

The city’s capital improvements program is funded by bond issues that are voted on by the public. Higgins did not feel comfortable with bond referenda for projects that might not be the best choices for the city. Watershed Management convened a group of engineers to assist the staff with the prioritization scheme. The prioritization is supported by projects identified through models of the urban drainage areas. “We try to model a couple of square miles each year,” says Higgins.

For both the watershed plan-based projects and urban drainage projects, Higgins explains, “We wouldn’t have the data to back up [the prioritization] if we didn’t have the watershed master plans and urban drainage studies.” Admittedly, it “costs a lot of money” to have such good data, he says. For a smaller community or a community with less money to spend on planning, Higgins has some good suggestions for a simpler, less data-driven prioritization scheme. “Talk to your maintenance staff; they know where the problems are,” he says. “Get the people [who know the system] together, hold public meetings and get participation, use a simple database—but keep records.” If he were in a smaller community, Higgins says, he would still have a prioritization form but a simpler one “with fewer data needs.”

An additional goal of the new prioritization system is to be “more responsive to community needs” in choosing capital projects. Higgins stresses the importance of public involvement in the city’s projects. “You have to be aware of what the public thinks and also let the public know what’s going on. What are the problems? What are your solutions?” Public education has helped the bonds program be successful, and the city maintains a Web site with project information, photographs, and videos (http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/pworks/watrshed/bond/index.htm).

When asked how the new urban drainage prioritization method is working, Higgins says that the projects voted on for a bond issue in May were prioritized using the new system and “we’re pleased with the way it worked.”

Policy Decisions for the Nation and for Local Programs
The EPA Gap Analysis, as well as other reports, such as two released in 2000 and 2001 by the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), highlight the importance of clean-water and drinking-water infrastructure in the success of our nation. The 2001 WIN report states that if infrastructure fails, the nation “risks reversing the public health, environmental, and economic gains of the last three decades.”

Despite the uncertainties in estimates of infrastructure costs on a grand scale (costs for the whole nation, for the next 20 years) such figures serve an important purpose. As the EPA’s Web site states, “Regardless of which estimate we accept, we all agree that it is important to develop a strategy to bridge the gap” (http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/infrastructuregap.html). At the federal and state levels, documentation of needs serves to support policies, such as increased federal funding for capitalization grants, establishment of a clean-water trust fund, and other means for ensuring financial support for water infrastructure.

For stormwater in particular, the EPA points out the benefits of more complete documentation of stormwater management program needs through the CWNS:

Photo: City of Lincoln, NE

Keeping stormwater system records is essential to Lincoln’s prioritization plan.

Increase the visibility of the need for stormwater management projects and justify continued financial support for implementing them.

Engage communities in long-term planning (needs are collected on a 20-year horizon) through the CWNS data collection and documentation process.

Provide communities’ documentation to solicit funding for stormwater management projects from Clean Water State Revolving Fund loans and other funding sources.

At the local level, stormwater programs derive the benefits of increased visibility and justification for financial support through data gathered on stormwater needs. The policy debate may not always focus on increased funding (although sometimes it will)—it may focus on how the community will stretch the available dollars. When needs are catalogued and projects are prioritized through transparent methods, local stormwater managers can be more accountable, making the best use of the resources they have to meet stormwater needs.

References
ASCE California Section. 2006. Infrastructure Report Card 2006: A Citizen’s Guide. http://www.ascecareportcard.org/. Accessed June 2007.

Chapel Hill Planning Department. 2002. Town of Chapel Hill 2002 Data Book: With Comprehensive Plan Community Indicators. Fourth Edition. June.

EPA. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis EPA-816-R-02-020. September.

EPA. 2003. Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress EPA-832-R-03-001. August.

EPA. 2007a. Clean Watershed Needs Survey: Informing Decisions about Stormwater Management (two-page fact sheet). Received June.

EPA. 2007b. Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2008 (one page fact sheet). Received June.

Keller, Brant. 2001. “Buddy Can You Spare a Dime? What’s Stormwater Funding?” Stormwater 2: 2. http://www.forester.net/sw_0103_toc.html. Accessed April 2007.

North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center. 2005. Water 2030 Report 3: Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Capital Needs. http://www.ncruralcenter.org/water2030/index.html. Accessed June 2007.

Water Industry. 2007. “US House approves water infrastructure funding measures” March 9. http://waterindustry.org/New%20Projects/infrastructure-5.htm. Accessed May 2007.

Water Infrastructure Network. 2001. Water Infrastructure Now: Recommendations for Clean and Safe Water in the 21st Century. http://www.nacwa.org/advocacy/winow.cfm. Accessed June 2007.

Henrietta H. P. Locklear is with AMEC Earth and Environmental Inc. in Raleigh, NC.

SW November/December 2007

Home + About + Subscribe + News + Calendar + Glossary
Talk + Images + Advertise + Contact Us + Search + Email + Services

Distributed Energy | Erosion Control | Grading & Excavation Contractor | MSW Management | Onsite Water Treatment | Water Efficiency | StormCon | ForesterPress | Forester Communications

© Forester Communications, Inc.