How to direct money for infrastructure upgrades to communities that need it most

When storms like Hurricane Ian hit, many people then have to deal with the loss of water service. Power outages mean that pumps cannot process and treat potable or sewage water, and high stormwater flows can damage water pipes.

Ian’s the effects echoed a similar disaster in Jackson, Mississippi, where rising river waters overwhelmed pumps at the main water treatment plant on August 29 following record rains. The town had little or no running water for a week, and more than 180,000 inhabitants were forced to find bottled water for drinking and cooking. Even after the water pressure returned, many Jackson residents continued to boil their waterwondering if it was really safe to drink.

Jackson had already been on a boil water advisory for more than a month before the crisis, which hit the city like a slow motion bullet. infrastructure that has been deteriorating for a long time. Now Jackson and his contractors face lawsuits and a federal investigation.

We study water policy with particular attention to provide equitable access to drinking water. Our research shows that disadvantaged communities suffered disproportionately under-investment in clean and affordable water.

Honolulu also suffers from infrastructure problems. In 2015, 500,000 gallons of sewage leaked, forcing Waikiki Beach to close. Cory Lum/Civil Beat/2015

However, a historic increase in federal funding for water infrastructure is coming over the next five years, thanks to the Infrastructure Investment and Employment Act which was enacted in 2021.

If this funding is managed intelligently, we believe it can begin to right those wrongs.

A complex funding mix

The water infrastructure has two parts. Drinking water systems provide people with clean water that has been purified for drinking and other uses. Wastewater systems remove wastewater and treat it before discharging it into rivers, lakes or the ocean.

The money to build and maintain these systems comes from a mix of federal, state and local sources. Over the past 50 years, policy makers have debated how much each level of government should contributeand what fraction should come from the most valuable source: federal money that doesn’t need to be repaid.

The 1972 Clean Water Act created a federal grant program, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, to help states and municipalities build wastewater treatment plants. Under the program, federal grants initially covered 75% of project costs.

Ala Moana Kakaako Sewage Pumping Station.  August 8, 2018
The Ala Moana Sewage Pump Station in Honolulu has undergone upgrades in recent years. Cory Lum/Civil Beat/2018

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration challenged this arrangement. The Tories argued that the main purpose of the subsidy program – addressing the need for more municipal wastewater treatment – had been achieved.

In 1987, Congress replaced wastewater subsidies with a loan program called the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which still works today. The EPA uses the fund to provide seed capital to states, which provide low-interest loans to local governments to build and maintain wastewater treatment plants. The Congress created a corresponding program, the State Revolving Fund for Drinking Waterin 1996 to finance drinking water infrastructure.

As a result, US water infrastructure is now financed by a combination of loans that must be repaid, capital rebate awards and grants that do not require repayment, and royalties paid by local users. The larger the share that can be transferred to grants and principal rebates, the less local taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for long-term infrastructure investments.

What is in the infrastructure law?

The Infrastructure Investment and Employment Act allows more than $50 billion for water infrastructure over the next five years. It will not fill the gap in financing needs, whether the The EPA estimated $472.6 billion from 2015 to 2034 only for drinking water systems. But it could support tangible improvements.

When water systems that serve low-income communities borrow money from government programs, even at low interest rates, they have to repay the loans by raising rates to already struggling customers. to pay their bills. To reduce this burden, federal law authorizes state programs to provide “disadvantaged communities” with additional subsidies in the form of principal rebates and grants. However, states have wide discretion in determining who qualifies.

The Infrastructure Act requires that 49% of federal funding both drinking water and sanitation infrastructure should be provided as additional subsidies to disadvantaged communities. In other words, nearly half of the money states receive from federal funds must be given as principal rebate or outright grants to disadvantaged communities.

Who counts as “disadvantaged”?

In March, the The EPA issued a memorandum who calls the Infrastructure Act a “unique opportunity” to “invest in communities that have too often been left behind – from rural towns to struggling cities.” The agency is committed to working with states, tribes and territories to ensure that the 49% additional funding pledged reaches communities where the need is greatest.

This is a question where the devil is really in the details.

For example, under Mississippi’s definition of “disadvantaged community,” Jackson’s 2021 award for the principal’s pardon was capped at 25% of the original principal. In its March memorandum, the EPA identified these caps as obstacles for underfunded communities.

Mississippi appears to have responded by using a new standard for funds from the Infrastructure Act. Starting this year, communities with a median household income below the state’s median household income — including Jackson — will receive 100% capital rebatewhat makes the funding a grant.

In addition, the EPA discourages the use of population as a factor in defining “disadvantaged communities.” Sparsely populated communities struggle to cover the operating costs of water supply systems, so it is important to consider this challenge. But using population as a determinant penalizes large cities that might otherwise be disadvantaged.

For example, in 2021, when determining the primary rebate, Wisconsin assigned a higher financial need score to communities with populations below 10,000. This penalized Milwaukee, the state’s largest city. , with nearly a quarter of its population living in poverty.

In September 2022, Wisconsin updated its definition for consider additional factors, such as the county’s unemployment rate and percentage of family poverty. With these changes, Milwaukee now qualifies for the maximum main discount.

Mississippi and Wisconsin previously relied on factors that were too narrow to reach many disadvantaged communities. We hope that the steps they have taken to update their programs will inspire similar actions in other states.

spread the word

In our view, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is a unique opportunity to correct decades of underinvestment in disadvantaged communities, especially with the EPA pushing states to do so.

Historically underfunded communities may not be aware of these state program funds, or know how to apply for them, or make infrastructure improvements. We believe the EPA should direct states that receive federal funds to help underfunded communities apply for and use the money.

Recent events in Jackson and Florida show how natural disasters can overwhelm water supply systems, especially older networks that have been declining for years. While climate change amplifies storms and floodswe view investment in water systems as a priority for public health and environmental justice in the United StatesThe conversation

This article is republished from The conversation under Creative Commons license. Read it original article.

About Christopher Easley

Check Also

Alaska Native nonprofit puts culture at the forefront of substance abuse prevention

CITC organizes berry picking outings for youth as part of its drug prevention services. (Photo …