Overall, the lack of adequate funding and general apathy have led some to make a doomsday assessment of crumbling infrastructure in the U.S.  Many of the deficiencies are obvious, such as the never ending parade of pot holes, worsening traffic snarls, lengthening flight delays, and a constant reduction in flight options.  With sewers, however, problems are not as apparent.  As long as the toilet flushes and nothing backs up in the basement, the prevailing attitude is "What's the problem?" or "Why should I pay more?" 

It takes a dramatic event to draw attention to aging water/wastewater infrastructure, such as a huge sink hole in Tucson Arizona that filled rapidly with sewage and storm water (Figure 1), or the realization that every time it rains thousands of access holes like the one shown in Figure 2, are overwhelmed and discharge raw sewage into our waterways.  Our nation's sewer systems continue to function "for now," but the question is, "What will be left for the next generation?"

The exciting thing for sewer jockeys, or wastewater engineers, is that these not-so-subtle messages are making impacts at all levels.  We are experiencing hints of cooperative efforts between environmental advocates, regulatory agencies and municipalities.  Significant funding legislation is moving forward to help fix deteriorating utilities infrastructure.  It's looking like we will be part of the most significant renovation, replacement and new construction of water infrastructure the U.S. has seen since enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act  in 1974 and the Clean Water Act in 1977.

EPA Report Highlights Magnitude of Challenges

The magnitude of the challenges ahead can seem overwhelming from the perspectives of scope of work and cost.

Scope of Work.  As documented in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 2004 Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of Combined Sewer Overflow:

• Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). The majority of the 9,348 permitted CSOs are concentrated in the northeast and midwest states.  These CSOs, allowed under 828 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in 32 states, discharge approximately 850 billion gallons (3 trillion litres) of raw sewage diluted with storm water to rivers and streams each year. 
• Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs).  The estimated number of SSOs ranges from 23,000 to 75,000 each year.  They discharge approximately 10 billion gallons (38 billion litres) of raw sewage. 

The report goes on to state that approximately 59 percent of the permitted combined systems have long term control plans submitted that document a permittees' plan to comply with the 1994 EPA CSO Control Policy.  If a permittee's long term control plan proposes elimination of all CSOs in its system, compliance with the CSO Control Policy and the water quality standards mandated by the Clean Water Act are attainable. 

Unfortunately, many permittees have systems with a large number of CSOs, and total elimination of CSOs would result in costs exceeding several billion dollars.  These communities work to identify more cost-effective alternatives for their long term control plans, typically proposing to capture or treat a high percentage (usually 96 percent or more) of the overflow volume from CSOs.  The small percentage of CSO volume not captured occurs during periods of heavy rainfall and can lead to Clean Water Act water quality violations. 

The significant cost differential is illustrated by Indianapolis, Indiana, where the cost of total CSO elimination is estimated at approximately $6.0 billion compared to the estimated cost for storage and treatment ranging from approximately $1.7 billion to $2.0 billion.  This situation creates a dilemma for permitting agencies when reviewing long-term control plans that may be cost-effective and comply in principal with the CSO Control Policy but, when implemented, will likely result in systems that will still violate water quality standards mandated by the Clean Water Act.

The report offers overarching recommendations for actions to be taken to further control CSOs and SSOs including:

• Proper operations and maintenance of sewage treatment and collection systems
• Watershed approaches including integrating wet weather programs with other NPDES compliance and enforcement activities to look at the full range of pollution sources.¹ 
• Improved monitoring and reporting programs to gain better data on which decisions are based for developing and implementing long-term control plans and sanitary sewer system master plans for controlling and eliminating CSOs and SSOs.

Cost.  From 1998 through 2002, expenditures included $6 billion spent on CSO control and $4 billion on SSO control.  Yet, EPA acknowledges that significant work remains.  In its 2000 Clean Water Needs Survey, the agency estimated that $50.6 billion will be needed to achieve a minimum of 85 percent capture of all CSOs.  Most communities are being held to a higher standard of 96 to 99 percent capture, however, which represents a cost of nearly $200 billion.  For SSOs, EPA estimates $88.8 billion will be needed over the next 20 years. 

Unfortunately, the only source of funding outside of local sources has been EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program, which for Fiscal Year 2006 will fund only $1.09 billion to municipalities.  This level of funding creates a significant gap between needed and available funds.

Proposed Funding Could Fuel the Solution

The Clean Water Trust Fund Act of 2005 introduced in Congress on December 12, 2005 by Representative John J. Duncan, Jr. (Republican of Tennessee) has wide support.  The National Association of Clean Water Agencies and Clean Water America drafted the initial legislative language and worked to garner support from potential revenue sources.  The Water Infrastructure Network (WIN),² which is supported by a wide range of organizations including professional, construction and environmental groups, is monitoring the legislation's progress.

At the heart of the act is a High Priority Partnership Grant program.  Overall, the trust fund is expected to provide $36.75 billion over a 5-year period (2006 through 2010), of which $4.5 billion will be allocated each year for grants, another $1.5 billion for loans, and $1.35 billion for technology programs, assistance to states, fisheries enhancements, state wetlands programs, non-point source controls and regional programs. 

The legislation caps the federal matching level at 65 percent and prioritizes grants based on:

• The most serious water pollution problems.
• Whether the funding is for projects needed to meet requirements of the Clean Water Act
• An affordability analysis showing communities with greatest needs.

Major collection system rehabilitation, replacement and new collection system projects will be eligible, provided they address an adverse environmental condition existing on the date of enactment. 

The act stops short of identifying funding sources and requires the EPA to do so within 180 days after its passage.  The National Association of Clean Water Agencies offered the following recommendations:      

• Taxing flushables (soaps, toiletries, toilet tissues, water softeners, and cooking oils) to raise $14 billion over 5 years
• Reinstating the corporate environmental income tax rate at 0.55 percent to raise $22 billion over 5 years.

Creative Legislation and Stakeholder Cooperation

In addition to the new funding becoming available, stakeholders are moving away from an adversarial toward a more cooperative environment.  Some examples follow.

Indiana Approves Temporary Suspension of Standards.  The State of Indiana passed Senate Enrolled Act 620 during the 2005 legislative session to allow the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to establish a CSO wet weather limited use subcategory. This change allows temporary suspension of water quality standards during wet weather events for up to four days. 

This legislation was influenced by a City of Indianapolis analysis that showed the high stream flows during these events deterred human contact with the water; thus demonstrating that a recreational use designation is not appropriate during a wet weather event.  Before IDEM will consider such suspensions, a community must:

• Have an approved long-term control plan that it is implementing      
• Be practicing the Nine Minimum Controls, which consist of basic, or "minimum," activities designed to improve operation and maintenance of combined sewer systems as described in the CSO Control Policy.

Communities and regulatory agencies have struggled with the ability to meet water quality standards and maintain affordability of CSO programs.  This type of legislation is a positive step in bridging that gap.

EPA Simplifies Permitting.  Communities are faced often with competing permitting requirements that can require implementation decisions in one area that negatively impact another area.  The EPA Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division presented a paper at the 2005 Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference titled "Watershed Permitting vs. Injunctive Relief Strategies - EPA Water Supporting an Integrated Approach to Permitting."  The paper focused on an integrated wet weather NPDES permitting approach for storm water, CSO, SSO, and publicly owned treatment works discharges that would align with EPA's watershed-based permitting approach. 

Louisville, Kentucky, was sited as an example where this approach is being used.  The focus there is on overall impacts of all types of discharges and the need to prioritize based on human health and safety criteria.

Conclusion

Creation of the infrastructure needed to convey, store or treat nearly all of the 850 billion gallons of CSO being discharged into streams each year represents one of the largest public works efforts ever to be undertaken in the U.S.  Substantial funding from the proposed Clean Water Trust Fund has the potential to be a major catalyst to support planning, design and construction of this infrastructure. 

Implementation will not occur overnight, and wide support of the Trust Fund from the public, industry and environmental interest groups is needed to keep the legislation in Congress moving forward.  The State of Indiana's move to provide an opportunity for CSO communities and the state regulatory agency to potentially address the water quality standards dilemma should encourage other states to consider similar options.  The combination of a major potential funding source and more innovative regulatory thinking has the potential to move these major infrastructure improvements forward.  The good news for the engineering and construction community is that there will be significant increases in storm water and wastewater collection and treatment work for the next 10 to 30 years.