Why the NCLB
The status quo for funding the large number of small utilities across the country is not sustainable.
Our Nation’s economy depends on resilient and sustainable water, wastewater, stormwater, and water recycling
infrastructure. America’s aging and deteriorating water infrastructure, comprised of more than 49,000 community
water systems (drinking water) and 15,000 publicly owned treatment works (wastewater), has far-reaching
consequences that affect public health, the environment, and the economy. Approximately 91 percent of the more
than 49,000 community water systems (CWS) are classified as small systems, serving fewer than 10,000 people
and which often face unique challenges in term of funding, technical expertise, and resource constraints when
addressing water infrastructure needs.
Many water and wastewater systems and the communities they serve are faced with difficult decisions as they work to balance regulatory compliance with providing safe drinking water and clean wastewater services at affordable rates. Across the U.S., the infrastructure used by many of these same systems are reaching their end-of-life and are in serious disrepair. The estimated $1 trillion shortfall in investment for water infrastructure is well documented. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), while a tremendous step forward in closing the capital infrastructure gap, falls well short of the funding needed to close this growing financial gap. Moreover, these funds do not address operations and maintenance (O&M) and the growing management resource gaps.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) construction grants program, from 1972 to 1986, which funded nearly $61 billion in municipal wastewater infrastructure, was enormously successful and represented the largest nonmilitary public works programs since the nation’s Interstate Highway System. In 1987, Congress replaced the construction grants program with the state revolving loan program (SRF). The CWA 201 Facilities Planning Process required communities to lay out a roadmap for achieving compliance and, in many cases, spurred creation of regional authorities and other regional solutions, which helps to explain, in part, the difference in the total number of community water systems (drinking water) and publicly owned treatment works (wastewater). The Safe Drinking Water Act never included a comparable 201 planning program and, therefore, there has been less incentive historically to pursue regional solutions. However, the U.S. EPA’s impending Water System Restructuring Assessment Rule, mandated by America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 and aimed at noncompliant PWSs, could provide that additional impetus.
Although there are no cookie-cutter approaches to solving the water infrastructure crisis, many communities faced with increased O&M costs for water and wastewater due to climate change, dwindling tax base, more stringent regulations, aging infrastructure, inability to access public funds, and a shrinking workforce are faced with the need to consider regional alternatives where the operational efficiencies and cost savings can be achieved through economies of scale.