Water Infrastructure Presentation
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•2,050 views
John Honeck, GOPC Senior Policy Fellow Presentation on Water Infrastructure at the John Glenn College of Public Affairs Forum on 9/26/2016
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Water Infrastructure Presentation
Ähnlich wie Water Infrastructure Presentation (20)
Mehr von greaterohio
Mehr von greaterohio (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (15)
Water Infrastructure Presentation
- 1. OHIO’S WATER & SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS SEPTEMBER 2016 Jon Honeck, PhD Senior Policy Fellow Greater Ohio Policy Center
- 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. 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. 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. 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
- 6. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW http://capitalregionwater.com/author/crwadmin/page/3/#sthash.ZC4KIGcP.dpbs
- 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. 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. $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. 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. 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. Bio Retention Ponds Bio Swales Daylighting Streams Rain Barrels Wetlands Preservation Porous Pavement Green Roofs GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE EXAMPLES http://www.cleanwaternashville.org/green-infrastructure
- 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. $- $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. 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. 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. 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. 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. March 7th & 8th, 2017 More information is available at: www.GreaterOhio.wix.com/2017-Summit 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: www.GreaterOhio.wix.com/2017-Summit
- 24. Jon Honeck, Ph.D. Senior Policy Fellow jhoneck@greaterohio.org (614) 224-0187 www.GreaterOhio.org FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Ohio’s “smart growth” organization Promote – through research, public education and grassroots advocacy – public policy to grow Ohio’s economy and improve the quality of life through intelligent land use Non-partisan, non-profit, primarily foundation-funded Recent reports on how Ohio’s small and medium-sized cities are performing economically vs. their larger peers. Major report in 2015 on Ohio’s water and sewer infrastructure needs – Ohio’s cities and villages are collectively spending billions of dollars to comply with EPA regulations and upgrade their aging infrastructure. We will talk about: These regulatory challenges and the evolution of infrastructure planning away from “gray” toward “green” infrastructure How water infrastructure is financed and growing concerns about increasing user charges and AFFORDABILITY Flint, MI and issue of lead poisoning – implications for the rest of the country
- About 90 Ch 6119 districts in state 5,000 drinking water utilities in OH (some serve less than 500 people) MS4 permits – municipal separate sanitary sewer systems for stormwater control
- CSO project often involving large tunnels to store millions of gallons of stormwater a few times per year MS4 = municipal separate sanitary sewer system permits (phase I, 1990, large cities with popl over 100,000; phase II, 1999, smaller cities)
- Areas around state are much different situation. Older legacy cities with falling populations are struggling with aging systems that were built for larger populations. Some rural areas in SE Ohio still are trying to find ways to connect to sewers and public drinking water. CSO correction work is common across the state. Financial ability of cities varies tremendously. Columbus can continue to borrow from OWDA and issue its own bonds others are running up against limits. CSO corrections: MSD of Greater Cincinnati: Phase One, 2009 – 2018, $1.1 Billion Phase Two, after 2018, $2.1 Billion for 256 separate projects Columbus: total $3.6 Billion over about 30 years (2005 – 2035) Cleveland: $3B over 35 years Akron $1.4B from original LTCP now being brought down by integrated planning
- Source: Constructing or rehabilitating surface water intake structures, drilled wells, and spring collectors. Treatment: Construction, expansion, and rehabilitation of infrastructure to reduce contamination through filtration, disinfection, corrosion control. Usually makes up a large portion of regulatory need Storage: Construct, rehabilitate, or cover finished water storage tanks, but excludes dams and raw water reservoirs Other: Ex: system-wide telemetry, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, and water system security measures that were not assigned to another category.
- Water and sewer rates have been increasing faster than consumer price inflation Inflation adjusted averaged combined water and sewer rates increased by 31.5% increase from 1999 – 2014, from $912 to $1199; Median household income dropped by 13 percent over same time period For comparison, Median monthly housing cost for Ohio is $739 (ACS 2013) U.S. Rep. Marcia Fudge bill to help low income families to pay for costs of water and sewer; modeled after the LIHEAP program; a few of large utilities have customer assistance programs but hard to reach tenants because they are not paying bills directly. This is large portion of low income families. Compare to other utilities??
- Basic idea is to lessen need for deep tunnels and other large storage basins Philadelphia is national leader, 70% of control plan devoted to green infrastructure; degree of control is an issue Blueprint Columbus plan modified original long term control plan, allowed for $1.8B in spending over 20 years with better stormwater control, vs. $2.5B over 30 years with all “gray” plan
- WPCLF annual capacity over $700 million DWAF over $150 million OWDA started in 1968 with $100 million GO bond issuance;
- OWDA Fresh Water Fund offers market rates; the borrower’s ability to repay is primary criterion. Monthly application. EPA funds offer substantial discounts but environmental studies are required. EPA revolving loan funds would save $147,000 over the life of the loan in this scenario but come with higher compliance issues Both EPA and OWDA offer special interest for small communities or those facing economic hardship. The OWDA “Community Assistance” loan is for areas with population under 5,000 that meet hardship criteria based on User rates as % of median household income (2.6% combined water and Sewer), limit is $5M maximum
- P3s – Ohio do not have a comprehensive P3 statute Regionalization – cooperative agreements do not require AMP – age is not always the best predictor of when pipes will break; emergency repairs to water mains are major expense; water loss for drinking water systems is a major issue; survey of 42 utilities nationwide found median water loss rate of 22 percent (volume). Acceptable industry standard is 15 percent. SB 333 (Sen. Hite) is still in the Senate but may move in lame duck. It would require public water systems to have an asset management program no later than October 1, 2018. EPA can require earlier completion at its discretion. SB 333 requires the following: Inventory and evaluation of all assets; operation and maintenance programs, contingency planning, criteria and timelines for infrastructure rehab and replacement; approved capacity projections and capital improvement planning; long-term funding strategy to support AMP implementation;
- The biggest risk to children is still from lead paint. Lead is a neurotoxin particularly devastating to children’s development. The effects are irreversible. Although the EPA sets a lead action level guideline of 15 parts per billion THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL. It can cause lifetime learning disabilities and is linked to behavioral issues. Problems with Common Lead Testing Protocols: Pre-stagnation Flushing Step: Residents told to run faucet the night before testing, then not use water for at least six hours – letting it sit in the pipes – before drawing the sample. Method used by Columbus and many other municipalities around the country. February 2016 memo - EPA said the practice could ‘potentially lower the lead levels’ in test results by possibly removing lead-tainted water from the pipes the night before. - Heidi Griesmer Ohio EPA U.S. EPA recommends the removal of pre-flushing from testing protocols and the use of wide-mouth sample bottles so residents could fill them just like they’d fill a glass of water. Olsen, Erik and Kristi Pullen Fedinick, “What’s in Your Water? Flint and Beyond: Analysis of EPA data reveals widespread lead crisis potentially affecting millions of Americans. National Resources Defense Council. Report. Print. 2016. (https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/whats-in-your-water-flint-beyond-es.pdf) Sebring – water system operator did notifiy residents of lead contamination within required 30 day window. Operator faces criminal charges. 2 Ohio EPA employees fired Lansing, MI and Madison, WI went ahead and replaced all of the LSLs; Lansing raised rates and was able to bear the entire cost of a $42 million plan that replaced about 14,000 LSLs; city owned entire supply line Madison – more typical situation in which homeowner owned line starting at edge of property line, and offered $1,000 rebates to homeowners, paid for by selling space on utility water towers to cell phone companies High concentrations of lead may continue due to plumbing fixtures and pipes inside home – this is being shown in Flint
- Corrosive water also linked to outbreak of Legionnaires diseases at hospital. LATEST RESULTS SHOW THAT LEAD LEVELS CAN SPIKE IN WATER EVEN IN HOMES WITH NO LEAD SERVICE LINES TEST RESULTS TAKEN FROM THE SAME HOME ARE NOT CONSISTENT – LEAD LEVELS CAN RISE OR FALL SIGNFICANTLY WITHIN A MATTER OF DAYS
- CURRENT FEDERAL RULES CALL FOR NOTIFICATION OF HOMEOWNER WITHIN 30 DAYS OF VIOLATION, AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS IF THE SYSTEM IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE HB 512 - For test from an individual home, notification of results above lead threshold level must take place within 2 business days by direct notification such as email, phone call, or hand delivery; AND provide notice of blood level testing and health screening If system exceeds LEAD ACTION LEVEL (10% of samples are above 15 parts per billion) then notice must be provided to all consumers within 2 business days. Provide information on availability of health screening and blood level testing. Laboratory that receives sample must complete analysis within 30 days No general state commitment to replacing LSL (Michigan is pledging $27M) US EPA is revising Lead and Copper Rule but not expected to release draft until 2017. Federal policy continues to push CSO corrections. U.S. Senate passed its version of the Water Resources Development Act with $100 Million for Flint and a $300 million national grant programbut that provision is not expected to be sustained by the House version. $12M available from Ohio Facilities Construction Commission
- List subjects of panels