CWR - Reference Material

In a comprehensive report to Congress, EPA finds that further control of sewer overflows is vital to reducing risks to public health and protecting the environment from water pollution. EPA concludes that adequate funding, integrated local and regional watershed protection programs, improved water quality monitoring and reporting, and stronger partnerships among all levels of government, industry, and citizens will be needed to make further progress.

The report further states that municipalities have stated that limited resources prevent them from acquiring and implementing technologies as quickly as they and regulatory agencies would prefer.

Since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, EPA, states and local water pollution control agencies have undertaken numerous actions and initiatives to reduce CSOs and SSOs. A combination of regulations, standards, federal funding, technical guidance and policies are currently in place. Under the Clean Water Act, SSOs that reach waters of the United States are prohibited unless authorized by federal or state permitting authorities. SSOs, including those that do not reach waters of the United States, may indicate improper operation and maintenance of the sewer system, and may also violate federal or state permits.

Sewer overflows are environmental enforcement priorities for EPA. Since 1998, EPA has concluded 15 CSO enforcement cases and 25 SSO enforcement cases, including more than $14 million in civil penalties and $11 billion in injunctive relief to protect public health and the environment. CSO and SSO enforcement against seven major municipalities alone has resulted in the elimination of approximately 14 billion gallons of sewage overflows per year, more than $10.8 million in fines and more than $75 million in environmental improvement projects. Since 2002, EPA has settled sewer overflow cases with Los Angeles, Calif., Baltimore, Md., Baton Rouge, La., and Hamilton County/Cincinnati, Ohio.

CSOs and SSOs contribute to beach closures, shellfish bed closures, contamination of drinking water supplies, and other environmental and public health concerns because they discharge untreated wastewater that contains microbial pathogens, suspended solids, toxics, nutrients, trash, and pollutants that deplete dissolved oxygen. For the first time with this report, EPA used currently available data and health effects modeling methods to estimate the number of gastrointestinal illnesses linked to sewer overflows. For beaches that are regularly monitored, EPA estimates that about 3,500 to 5,500 gastrointestinal illnesses per year are caused by CSOs and SSOs. This data is available for only coastal and Great Lakes beaches. EPA cannot calculate a national estimate of the human health impacts of CSOs and SSOs because sufficient water quality and health effects data is not currently available for all recreational swimming areas in the United States.

In 31 states and the District of Columbia, 772 combined sewer systems annually discharge an estimated 850 billion gallons of untreated wastewater and storm water, according to the report. There are about 19,000 municipal sanitary sewer collection systems in the United States. These systems serve 160 million people in the United States, roughly 58 percent of the nation’s population. EPA estimates that between 23,000 and 75,000 SSOs occur annually, discharging a volume of three to 10 billion gallons. Municipal treatment facilities annually collect and discharge more than 11 trillion gallons of treated wastewater.

The EPA’S Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis

(Washington, D.C. - September, 2002) (http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/)

According to EPA’s 2000 Clean Water Needs Survey, over the next 20 years, approximately $50.6 billion will be needed to reduce CSO volume by 85 percent, and $88.8 billion will be required to control SSOs.

The EPA notes that the vast majority of the nation’s pipe network was installed after the Second World War, and the first part of this wave of pipe installation is now reaching the end of its useful life. Based on deterioration projections over the next 20 years, if the pipe system is extended to serve growth but there is no renewal or replacement of the existing systems, the amount of pipe classified as either “poor”, “very poor”, or “life elapsed” will increase from 10 percent of the total network to 44 percent of the total network.

Many of the wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. were completely renovated with major plant expansion and upgrade work beginning in the 1970s, responding to new treatment requirements of the 1972 Clean Water Act and financed to a great extent by EPA’s Construction Grants program. Although plants have shorter useful lives than sewer pipe, plant replacement needs are not projected to be a major part of the renewal and replacement requirements until after 2020. The majority of the required investment is in the collection system.

In 1998, water quality in 32 percent of the nation’s estuaries was assessed and 44 percent were found to be impaired. Wastewater treatment facilities and sewer overflows were to of the leading causes of impairment. Wastewater treatment efficiencies may be leveling off, which, when combined with population and economic growth, could have the effect of reversing hard-won water quality gains. By 2016 pollution levels could be similar to levels observed in the mid-1970s.

Some communities will have a difficult time meeting funding challenges: Some communities, particularly those which lack the economies of scale associated with a large customer base, are challenged to meeting the cost of installing and maintaining infrastructure. The financial impact of the need to address aging infrastructure will be greater for these communities.

EPA’s Guidance on the Privatization of Federally Funded Wastewater Treatment Works

(Washington, D.C. – August 2000) http://www.epa.gov/owm/pdfs/prigud.pdf

Since 1972, more than $67 billion of federal funds have been invested in wastewater treatment works through the EPA’s Construction Grant Program. However, even with continued capitalization, the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program will not address all of the water pollution infrastructure needs of local governments, which have been estimated to be about $200 billion. This estimate excludes the costs required to replace aging pipes and plants. As a result, it is important to fully explore other funding approaches at the local level to meet infrastructure needs.

One approach to consider is the use of public-private partnerships that utilize private sector resources to finance wastewater treatment needs. The private sector has historically been involved in providing wastewater treatment related services to local governments. Whether providing basic wastewater treatment supplies, maintaining a portion of the collection or treatment system or providing contract and maintenance services, the private sector has served an important role in the effort to control water pollution across the country.

Partnerships between the public and private sectors in water and wastewater industry range from providing basic services and supplies to design, construction, operation, and ownership of public utilities. The basic reasons that the public sector historically privatized services were to realize cost savings, utilize expertise, achieve efficiencies in construction and operation, access private capital, and improve the quality of wastewater services.

Privatization should be viewed as an option for providing wastewater treatment services and capital needs. The decision to privatize is the responsibility of local governments and should reflect a balanced evaluation of financial and non-financial issues with the needs of the community.

The private sector has the potential to be a significant partner in the development of wastewater infrastructure in this country. The private sector has ready access to financial markets which could be made available for wastewater infrastructure needs when a local government enters into a private partnership arrangement for its public wastewater facilities. Financial markets may find these investments attractive because the local government guarantees that it will pay its private partner a fixed service fee for services. The local government’s wastewater assets also provide a form of collateral to assure the private lenders that their loan will be repaid by the borrower.

In recent years, local governments have become more focused on the benefits of privatization at the same time that the private sector is anxious to expand markets and revenues. Some of the reasons for the increased interest in privatization by local governments include the desire to increase efficiency of local government operations, reduce costs of providing services, improve environmental protection, and access private capital for infrastructure investment. For example, some communities may find privatization attractive because they are having difficulty meeting permit requirements due to lack of skilled personnel or extremely challenging water pollution treatment conditions. Other communities may wish to evaluate privatization when undergoing major rehabilitation in hopes of achieving greater economies by attracting competitive design, construction and other bids from the private sector.

Often the opportunity to realize cost savings is the primary reason that local governments are attracted to privatization. Capital cost savings can be substantial when the private partner uses advanced technology coupled with streamlined procurement and construction practices.

Swimming in Sewage (NRDC/Environmental Integrity Project)

(Washington, D.C. – February 2004)

The nation’s million-mile network of sewage collection pipes is designed to safely carry roughly 50 trillion gallons of raw sewage daily to about 20,000 treatment plants. In 2001, however, the EPA estimated there were 40,000 sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) and 400,000 basement backups of untreated sewage in basements.

Rainwater entering the pipes through cracks and openings, or from illegal connections, can overwhelm the capacity of the system, forcing raw sewage to purge through manholes into streets and streams, back up into basements, or otherwise bypass treatment plants.

Protecting all Americans from exposure to raw and inadequately treated sewage is not a matter of waiting for the next technology breakthrough. Keeping sewage in pipes and sending it through effective treatment regimens is dependent on the continual application of a series of well-known engineering practices. What is needed is the political will to adequately implement, enforce and fund existing laws and sewage infrastructure improvement programs and fill data gaps on the occurrence of sewage overflows, their health and economic impacts, and the condition of the U.S. sewage collection and treatment infrastructure.

The gap between expenditures at the federal, state, and local levels and sewer infrastructure needs is estimated at $10 billion per year. Those estimates can be expected to continue to rise as unaddressed maintenance, rehabilitation, and repair needs accumulate. Federal funds should go only to those sewer systems that have a plan for meeting their compliance obligations. We need to stop throwing good money after bad.

The government needs to fund the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial approaches. There is a growing body of evidence that centralized treatment solutions cost more to develop and maintain in the long run than pollution-prevention approaches. Such approaches minimize the amount of sewage that needs to be treated, keeps stormwater out of the sewage treatment system and maximize the use of free storage and treatment systems provided by “Mother Nature” to filter pollution, restore the natural hydrology of stream systems, replenish groundwater, and often provide wildlife, air quality, and aesthetic benefit as well.

Public Support for Clean Water:

Water becoming more polluted is the top environmental concern of Americans
71% of Americans are extremely concerned about clean water
When deciding where to live, clean water ranked as the top priority above crime rate, health care and taxes