‘. ..,»- .z,._, . » I-; Vs,/a,~r . , R I-¢¢~v 25 C: ~-» My 3 Ci/Lr%€6-893 ENR Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20540 THE NATION'S WATER SUPPLY: AN OVERVIEW OF CONDITIONS AND PROSPECTS ($0-;errn%mieiri'E Piiibvii-caifizons Unfi John L. Moore, Coordinator , Claudia Copeland, Specialist Jim» 2§3§9§§ Donald V. Feliciano, Analyst H. S teven Hughes , Analyst Washington Uni\Iei'sity Libraries Malcolm M. Simmons, Specialist Shlfima MD EHBG Jeffrey Zinn, Specialist Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division September l5, l986 iiiiii“iiiiiiii“°i"iiiiiiii“iii“ ii O10-103941193 CRS-iii SUMMARY On average, the United States is richly endowed with water resources. However, cyclical drought and incidents of extreme contamination have raised public concern over both sufficiency and quality of our water supplies. The intensity of such concerns varies regionally depending on physical abundance and on known or suspected contamination. Whether water supply is an emerging national crisis, however, is widely debated in various places and sources. Recent studies and forecasts offer differing views on current and future prospects for the Nation's water supply. This report attempts an integration of these recent studies in order to provide perspective on current trends. Topics‘covered include: 0 current policy considerations; 0 status of water supply and use; 0 effects of quality deterioration on supply; 0 funding and intergovernmental roles in local water systems; and o needs for infrastructure. ISSUES AND BASIC CONSIDERATIONS A topic such as national water supply conditions and outlook lends itself uneasily to many general observations. However, most experts concur that long-run physical supply is not our major challenge, but rather that the systems that deliver water to various users may pose major problems. It is increasingly clear that the era of cheap water is passing for most parts of CRS-iv the country, and many water systems are facing the need for operational and policy changes. Rather than focusing on expanding supplies, resolution of emerging regional shortages and water quality deterioration is more likely to be found in greater supply coordination and planning, revised pricing and cost recovery policies and intensified efforts to prevent contamination. A consistent theme in much of the professional literature is on demand management rather than supply expansion. This will likely involve new or revised institutions for exchanging or selling water.l Even in the water-short regions of the West, small shifts of water away from agriculture can meet projected demand in municipal and industrial uses. Such shifts do not necessarily mean displacement of agriculture if exchanges are accompanied by increased efficiency in agricultural water use. In looking at water supply status, several considerations based on long- term trends must be kept in mind. First, the incremental costs of adding new supplies--either through new reservoirs, interbasin transfers or expanded groundwater use--are much higher in real terms today than in earlier years. This is because the more productive reservoir sites have mostly been developed, sources are more distant (or deeper), land assemblage and access costs are higher with denser populations and (until recently) relative energy prices were up sharply. Second, society through its representative governments and political processes places a growing value on instream uses such as recreation, fish and wildlife and aesthetics.2 The allocation of waters to meet such values 1 Frederick, Kenneth D., ed. Scarce Water and Institutional Change. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future, l986. 2 Trelease, Frank J. III. Meeting Streamflow Requirements. Journal of the American Water Works Association, v. 77, September l985. p. 48-52. CRS-v puts additional constraints on the options available for water supply. Other uses of water resources such as transportation and hydroelectric production may also conflict with withdrawals for water supply. Third, public water supply is delivered under traditional utility pricing and regulatory structures. Many argue that these regulatory systems rare in need of reform to more adequately reflect actual long-run costs and to 3 Despite steadily rising municipal promote greater efficiency in water use. rates, the real price of water in many cases is less today than it was in the 1960s, low costs achieved in some cases by deferral in maintenance and facilities upgrading. Finally, data and supporting studies show that where delivered water costs are higher, average per capita consumption is lower for comparable categories of use. Thus, pricing of water to more closely reflect actual long-run and peak capacity costs can help balance use with regional supply, reducing the need for expensive capacity additions.4,5,6 3 Mann, Patrick C., and Paul R. LeFrancois. Price of Water. Journal of the American Water Works Association, v. 75, September l983. p. 44l-443. 4 While municipal water supply developed under the pressures of providing central cities with fire protection and residents with non-contaminated drinking water, today vastly expanded per capita use has transformed water supply from a social good to an economic good. Emer- gence of a strong market for bottled water is an example of this trans- formation.. Water is a commodity whose rate of use is now determined by willingness to pay and costs of delivery. Metering of water accompanied by a consumption charge has been shown to affect consumption rates. For example, see: Grima, A.P. Municipal Water Demand Management. Water Spectrum, Summer 1979. p. 27-35. 5 Renshaw, Edward F. Conserving Water Through Pricing. Journal of the American Water Works Association, v. 76, January 1984. p. 2-5. 6 Mann, Patrick C., and Donald L. Schienger. Marginal Cost Pricing and Seasonal Water Service. Journal of the American Water Works Association, v. 74, January 1982. p. 6-11. CRS-vi FINDINGS The report is divided into five chapters, each providing an overview of various aspects of national and regional water supply and quality conditions. As with any overview, national and regional data mask many important local conditions, trends and problems. Despite this type of limitation, the overview material helps put in context current concerns over adequacy and future trends in the Nation's water supply situation. Introduction and Policy Considerations The introductory chapter briefly reviews recent perspectives on national water policy. A consistent theme is the perceived gap between estimated needs and present programs. Critics point to the current hiatus in Federal direction and financing for water resource projects compared to estimates of needs for infrastructure and preventative actions to maintain water quality. In an era of domestic fiscal austerity, efforts to increase State and local cost share and reduce Federal involvement imply an increased role for local and State planning and financing if national goals are to be achieved. Proponents of new directions in national water policy in fact stress the role of expanded local and state planning along watershed lines. They see such changes as a necessary component of more cost-effective management of water supply and quality. Congress has responded by enacting legislation this year that provides financial assistance for State groundwater planning, and there are proposals for further groundwater legislation as well as a Federal loan program for rehabilitating local water supply systems. The condition of water supply and wastewater treatment facilities remain as major problems for many areas. Public policy challenges in the CRS-vii future, however, will most likely deal with finding cost-effective solutions to non-point source and toxic contamination of water supplies. tatus of Water Supply and Use The second chapter reviews available forecasts of water use and supply sources by water supply regions. Part of the "crisis" label surrounding water supply-is based on projections of rapidly growing use, which in many ways is an independent concern from the threats to the quality of ground and surface water supplies. Recent assessments show growing shortages in many southwestern areas with groundwater depletion currently making up deficits in surface supplies. Virtually all projections of future use rely on assumptions about efficiency of water use and usually assume that prices charged for water will remain constant. Such "requirements" approaches typically ignore the long; run effect of chronic shortages on modification of institutions and pricing policies that will raise costs and bring use rates in line with sustainable supplies. Water Quality Effects on Current and Future Supply The third chapter explores national and regional trends in water quality. It reviews estimates of the current condition and quality of surface and groundwater and the progress that has been made during the last fifteen years in improving water quality. While considerable investment has been made in reducing municipal and industrial waste water pollution, other water quality concerns have emerged that will require different approaches. Nonpoint source pollution (agricultural and urban runoff) is a serious source of contamination in CRS-viii many areas. Concern over toxic contamination of water supplies has risen sharply in recent years. Toxic contamination is particularly difficult to correct when groundwater has been affected, for example, from hazardous waste disposal sites. Although the United States is abundantly supplied with high quality groundwater, evidence is mounting that many drinking water sources derived from groundwater are threatened by numerous anh dispersed industrial and agricultural sources of toxic and hazardous pollutants. How severe the problem may be is uncertain because of lack of comprehensive data. State and Federal programs are being expanded to rectify this information gap. Federal Role in Water Supply_and Water Quality The fourth chapter provides a review of the Federal role in water supply and waste water management. The legislative basis for current programs is briefly discussed, followed by a comparison of resource expenditures for water supply and waste water treatment by both Federal and local governments and the private sector. The Federal Government plays three direct roles in local water systems: funding projects that will augment supplies, setting safe drinking water standards, and providing financial assistance for waste water treatment. In both the East and the West, federally constructed reservoirs often include municipal and industrial water supply for localities on a cost- reimbursable basis. The vast majority of water supply expenditures, however, are made by state and local governments, investor-owned water supply utili- ties and private individuals. In real terms, expenditure rates peaked in the mid-l970s and have declined in the early l980s (according to nationally available data through l982) for both Federal and the other major funding CRS-ix sources. Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, however, will very likely result in increased water system investments in the next several years. The Environmental Protection Agency establishes drinking water standards under provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. States have primary responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the Federal drinking water standards and have developed financial assistance programs. Federal waste water treatment grants have provided a large share of total funding for local municipal sewage treatment facilities since the early l970s. In real terms, however, total public sector funding levels declined in the 19805 when EPA's authorized grant levels were reduced by 50 percent. Eater System Infrastructure: Policy Conditions and Outlook The fifth chapter discusses water supply and waste water treatment infrastructure needs on a national and regional basis. Although a systematic national assessment of water facility needs has never been conducted, recent assessments and State plans do indicate the types of problems facing specific segments of the water supply industry. In older, larger urban systems, a growing backlog of rehabilitation work exists with water rates often inadequate to finance major improvement programs. The upgrading of distribution lines will account for most of the reinvestment requirements.7 For the numerous smaller systems, undercapitalization and the inability to capture economies of scale often mean high rates and inadequate or unreliable service.8 Alleviating perceived shortfalls in both large urban 7 Humphrey, Nancy, and Christopher Walker. Innovative State Approaches to Community Water Supply Problems. Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute, December 1985. p. 17-18. 8 Ibid. CRS-X systems and in smaller rural systems probably can be achieved through rate adjustments and outside financial assistance, presumably at the state level. Estimates of waste water infrastructure needs depend in part on assumptions concerning projected growth and economic development in different regions. For example, EPA projects funding needs of $108 billion by the year 2000, whereas the Joint Economic Committee estimates a requirement of $168 billion. CRS-xi CONTENTS SUMMARY . INTRODUCTION AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS. STATUS OF WATER SUPPLY AND USE. Overview . Water Supply Water Use. . . . . . . . Projected Regional Shortages WATER QUALITY EFFECTS ON CURRENT AND FUTURE SUPPLY. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface Water Quality: Current Trends Groundwater Quality: Current Trends . . . . . . . . Special Issues Affecting Future Water Quality Trends FEDERAL ROLE IN WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY. Overview . . Water Supply Legislation . . . . . . . . Water Supply Contribution . Water Supply Expenditures Water Quality. Legislation . . . . . . . . Water Quality Expenditures. WATER SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE: POLICY, CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Supply and Distribution Systems. Replacement and Rehabilitation. New Growth. . . . . . New Water Source Development. Wastewater Collection and Treatment. Infiltration/Inflow . . . . . . Major Rehabilitation and Repair Combined Sewer Overflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluating Current Conditions and Projecting Future Needs. Water Supply. Wastewater Treatment. APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES, IN BILLION GALLONS PER DAY AT 5-YEAR INTERVALS, l950-80 APPENDIX B. ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING PROJECTED WATER WITHDRAWALS TO 2000. 37 '3 J 39 Al 42 44 48 48 50 55 55 58 59 60 60 61 63 63 63 66 67 69 73 75 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. CRS-xiii LIST OF TABLES Federal Water-Data Collection Agencies. Water Supply: By Water Resource Region . Summary of Water Withdrawals and Consumption in the United States, 1980 (millions of gallons per day). Total Withdrawals and Consumption, by Functional Use, for the 21 Water Resources Regions--"1975," 1985, 2000 Simplified Water-Resources Budget for 1980, by Water-Resources Region . Summary of Surface Water Quality Status Regional Surface Water Problems Comparison of Regional Surface Water Conditions Federal Water Supply Contribution . Federal, Local and Private Expenditures on Water Supply. Federal Irrigation Expenditures Federal, Local and Private Water Quality Expenditures. Infiltration/Inflow, Sewer Rehabilitation and Combined Sewer Overflow Needs Projected Municipal Water Supply Needs. JEC Study Per Capita Water Supply Needs (1983-2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per Capita Needs for Wastewater Treatment In JEC and EPA Studies (1983-2000). 10 16 18 22 28 31 43 45 47 51 65 68 68 FIGURE 1. FIGURE 2. FIGURE 3. FIGURE 4. CRS-xv LIST OF FIGURES Water Supply and Use in the United States Trends in Withdrawals, Consumptive Use, and Population, 1950-80 Historic and Projected Water Withdrawals, 1955-2000 Water Shortage Projections. 14 19 23 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Recurring droughts, groundwater depletion in some areas, and widespread incidents of contamination are raising concerns about the adequacy of the Nation's water supply. Congress has responded to public concern by reauthorizing and tightening the Safe Drinking Water Act. It has also proposed new legislation dealing with ground water,l legislation2 that would establish an $800 million annual loan program for rehabilitating public and private water systems, and authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to build single purpose water supply reservoirs, and legislation that would reauthoriae and strengthen the Clean Water Act.3 Indirectly (but importantly) related to water supply are current efforts to reauthorize and strengthen the Superfund law and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Legislative efforts to deal with water supply and quality problems have focused on several long standing issues. How "safe" should water supplies be, how should acceptable quality be achieved, what levels of government 1 H.R. 3906 titled, The National Ground Water Contamination Act and H.R. 3808, The Ground Water Protection Act of l98S. The first Act would upgrade existing information on surface and groundwater trends while the second Act would require that EPA establish criteria for groundwater quality. 2 House version of the omnibus water bill titled, H.R. 6, The Water Resources Conservation, Development, and Infrastructure Improvement and Rehabilitation Act of l985, passed on November l3, l985; passed Senate amended, March 26, l986. 3 H.R. 8, passed by the House July 23, I985, and S. ll28, passed by the Senate June l3, l985. CRS-2 should be responsible and how should the costs be shared? These issues underlie the basic questions addressed in this report: 0 What is the status of our water supply? 0 How is contamination affecting basic supplies? 0 What are the intergovernmental responsibilities and funding roles? o What are the future infrastructure, pricing and cost recovery needs? In an era of domestic fiscal austerity, these questions appear to bear even more heavily in deliberations on improvement of water systems. For example, estimated investment requirements for water supply range from $5.5 to $9.4 billion (in 1985 dollars) annually between l983 and the year 2000 in contrast to expenditures of about $4 billion in 1982 for public systems plus a rough estimate of less than $2 billion expended in 1982 for investor-owned systems. If in fact there is a major investment gap as indicated by these rough comparisons, this would support points in this paper concerning a decline in the real rates charged by many water utilities. Investment needs will have to come from rate increases or outside financial assistance (or both) if water system upgrading is to be accomplished. The House passed version of the omnibus water bill (H.R. 6) envisioned such assistance being provided in part through Federal loans at a rate of $0.8 billion per year. Loan assistance for water treatment and distribution systems would be a new role for the Federal Government. Local water supply is currently almost entirely financed by State, local and private sources. In the Senate version of the omnibus water bill, for fiscal and policy reasons, the loan provisions, as well as the expanded role of the Army Corps of Engineers in building water supply reservoirs, were removed. Others argue for an expanded State role in water resource projects including water supply. For example, the Western Governors’ Association CRS-3 in July l986 called for a realignment of Federal, State, and local laws to encourage water conservation and reallocation of existing supplies. In the late l970s, the National Governors‘ Association called for a major reorientation of national water policy. They proposed a national system based on State planning and management. If recent assessments are accurate, many States are increasing their roles in the upgrading and rehabilitation of water systems. Actions include broader roles for State water authorities, intra-State allocation strategies, State financial and planning involvement in local system interconnections, establishment of critical area programs (such as protection of groundwater aquifers) and long range preventive measures.4 The wellhead protection provisions in the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act are an example of how the Federal Government is attempting to aid States in the process of developing preventative and critical area programs.5 In contrast to water supply, the Federal Government's role in water quality is much larger. As with water supply, there are a wide range of estimates of future infrastructure needs. Compared to capital expenditures of $6.9 billion (in 1985 dollars) in FY l982, a range of $6.3 to $9.9 billion annually to the year 2000 may be needed to meet national water quality objectives. With the reduction in authorized Federal aid levels for municipal wastewater treatment construction from $5 billion to $2.4 billion annually since FY 82, current total annual public water quality expenditures may be closer to $5 billion assuming that States have not picked up the reduced 4 Humphrey, Nancy, and Christopher Walker. Innovative State Approaches to Community Water Supply Problems. p. 55-70. 5 U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Wellhead Protection: The New Federal Role in Groundwater Protection. Report No. 86-687 ENR, by Donald V. Feliciano. Washington, 1986. 20 p. CRS-4 Federal share. The issues of whether mandated standards can be met and how costs will be shared among various levels of government remain critical given the apparent discrepancy between future needs and current resource expenditures. The effect of agricultural and urban non-point source pollution as well as toxic contamination on water sources is perhaps the bigger challenge to public policy in the coming years. Although efforts to prevent contamination are likely to be less expensive in the long run, they also may require important modifications in consumer, industrial and agricultural practices and technology. Water supply and water quality issues, of course, cannot be easily separated from broader water resource management policy including questions of related land use, conflicting water uses and jurisdictional responsibilities and authorities. Some critics point to the multiplicity of bureaucratic and congressional jurisdictions as one part of the broader problem. For example, at least l2 congressional committees and 23 subcommittees deal with water resource issues.6 The current Administration's efforts to deemphasize the Federal role in water programs has left the initiative increasingly with State and local governments. Examples of "bottom-up" planning using watershed rather than political boundaries are often cited as a model for new directions in a 7 In the current fiscal federally supported national water policy. environment, attaining dependable and safe drinking water and protecting instream water quality seems to require important institutional changes if publicly supported goals are to be achieved in a cost-effective way. 6 Mosher, Lawerance. Localities Begin to Challenge Government's Water Policy ‘Vacuum.’ National Journal, January 28, l984. p. l67. 7 Ibid. CRS-5 Perhaps more than any other vital resource, U.S. water supplies are characterized by multiple and competing uses and are governed by a diverse set of public and private sector institutions and authorities. Because of this complexity, information available on the status and outlook for U.S. water supplies is fragmented, often highly variable and inconsistent among sources. Given these circumstances, the second chapter of this report looks at the estimated physical adequacy of our basic water sources (surface and groundwater) and at the projected demands on these basic sources. Even with adequate sources, contamination can render local supplies unusable or increasingly expensive to treat. These quality issues are discussed in chapter three. The legislative and funding role the Federal Government has played in augmenting supplies and improving drinking and surface water quality are covered in chapter four. The report concludes with a look at varying perspectives on future investment and infrastructure needs for drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. CRS-7 CHAPTER II. STATUS OF WATER SUPPLY AND USE OVERVIEW A starting point for any assessment of water supply conditions is the long run adequacy of the basic resource. With growing national concern over water issues, questions about the relation between water supply and use are receiving increased attention. Data on supply show that, nationally, the United States has adequate water sources to meet all foreseeable uses. In fact, however, most water uses are.time, quality and site specific, and do not always coincide with patterns of readily available supply. This chapter presents the basic estimates that summarize the Nation's current and projected water supply-demand situation. Inconsistencies between patterns of supply and use create many of today's water policy issues. Most water policy issues also have well- defined regional dimensions because the East is generally water-rich, while the West is predominantly water-poor. Consequently, a different legal and institutional environment for managing water has evolved in the two regions. As part of these regional differences, western States have sought a major Federal presence to assist in providing adequate agricultural and domestic supplies. In the East, water supply has largely been a State and local responsibility. Major regional differences and cyclical variation in supplies underlie the complexity of water supply and use issues. For example, because of irrigation, per capita water consumption in the arid western United States CRS-8 is more than l0 times greater than in the humid eastern United States. Long-term water supply problems in some areas of the arid West may be currently masked by record snow packs and run-off, as, for example, has been occurring around the Great Salt Lake in recent years. Similarly, in the upper midwest, water elevations in the Great Lakes have risen to record levels, causing extensive erosion and property damage. Major drought conditions in the normaPly wet southeast are receiving widespread attention. Data on water supply and use are collected by many Federal agencies and States for a variety of purposes. The data are often inconsistent. At the Federal level, these activities have not been formally coordinated since the Water Resources Council (WRC) was terminated in 1981. In the 1960s and 1970s, the WRC and River Basin Commissions coordinated the compilation of all types of water resource data.8 The WRC assessments of water supply and use (1968 and 1975) are perhaps the most extensive integration of data collected by various Federal agencies.9 "But, even after these assessments, a number of data inconsistencies remain. Data complexity is illustrated in table l, which lists types of information collected by various Federal agencies. WATER SUPPLY Water supply is typically described using the hydrologic cycle. The hydrologic cycle illustrates the movement of water between the air, land 8 River Basin Commissions were created to serve water data and interagency coordinating functions in several river basins, from the Columbia on the West Coast to New England on the East. These commissions published basin or sub-basin assessments of water supply and use. 9 U.S. Water Resources Council. The Nation's Water Resources, 1975-2000, v. l-4. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 0ff., l978. CRS-9 Table 1.-Federal Water-Data Collection Agencies‘ Government agencies Independent agencies ln-house data programs USDA DOC DOD DOE DOI DOT EPA IBWC NRC TVA Surface water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X X X X X - X Ground water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X — X X X X X X — x Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X X X X x — x Water use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X X X — — _ _ _. Environmental impact . . . . . . . X — X X X X X - ._ x Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -— X X X X X — _ x Management etlects . . . . . . . . X - X X X X X -— _ x Basin studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X -— — — X X X — - x Real-time sensing . . . . . . . . . . . X X X — - X X — .. x Remote sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X — — X X — _ x Data sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X — X X X - X — .. x lnstream use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X —- — - X —- -— _ _ _ Water rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X - — — X — — _. _ _. Floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — X — — X X — _ _ X Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - — - X X - X — x _ Nuclear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — X X — X — x _ Precipitation quality . . . . . . . . . — — — — X — X ._ _ x KEY USDA—-U S Department at Agriculture; DOC-Depanment ol Commerce; DOD-—Department oi Delense. DOE—Depanment or Energy, DOI-—Department ol iii. interior; DOT—-Department ol Transponatton, independent agencies EPA-Environmental Protection Agency. l8WC—lnternationai Boundary a water Commission NRC—Nuclear Regulatory Commission; TVA--Tennessee vaiiey Autnority ' ' ‘For the tfil-82 fiscal year. 26 Federal agencies, representing 30! departments and tour independent agencies. collected water resource data SOUFCE. U 5. DOOIHMOM 0' "00 W000‘. GO0|00'C8 50"”. Dtiice or water Data Collection. Frans for water Dara Acquisition by Fedord Agencies rnrougn Fiscy Year IQJ (fleston, Va. I962). p I areas and water bodies. Figure 1 illustrates the basic elements of the cycle and the volumes of water in the United States. It shows that less than 3 percent (106 billion gallons per day) of the 4,200 billion gallons per day that falls as precipitation on an average day is consumed. FIGURE l. Water Supply and Use in the United States (billions of gallons per day). (Redrawn from the U.S. Water Resources Council, Second National flgter Assessment. 1975-2000 Washington, D.C.). Atmospheric moisture- : 40,(Il0 bgd ‘~./ // / / / /// // // / / Strearnllovv to //‘K/“‘/‘/~-_/__,._/_ / / ,/ , / Canada—6bgd ’ / / /*- --/.- ax‘ / ‘In’ S‘’°3"m°‘‘' "3 Evaporation from wet surface - 2,750 bgd Pacific & Streamllovv to Ocean— r fl Atlantic Ocean 3(1) bgd ’ Reservoir net evaporation — and Q, ” '5 D90 lmeasufedl Cult of Mexico- 'S'::Uf'fa38 r L 1 bw 25 bgd , W ‘A Subsurface llovv - 75 09¢ Consumptive use — 1% bgd .~~-r—~. X '\.J\‘ \ \ \ I \‘ (‘—‘ \l , I \ \ \ K | \ - ~_ ‘ CRS-10 Basic water supply is typically viewed using water resource regions (which largely follow major river basin boundaries, as shown in table 2). The Mississippi, Pacific Northwest and South Atlantic-Gulf account for a large majority of the stream outflow and renewable supplies. Renewable supplies include annually replenished groundwater along with stream flow. TABLE 2. Water Supply: By Water Resource Region Water-resource region 5Stream outflow Renewable supply New England - - - - - - - — - - - — - - - - - - - -— 77.8 78.4 Mid-Atlantic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -— 78.9 80.7 South Atlantic-Gulf - - - - — - - - - - - -- 227.9 233.5 Great Lakes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 72.7 74.3 Ohio (exclusive of Tennessee Region) - - - - — - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - -4 137.5 139.6 Tennessee - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - -s--— 40.8 41.2 Upper Mississippi (exclusive of Missouri Region) - - - - - - = --r- 75.1 77.2 Mississippi (entire basin) - - - - -- 428.3 464.8 Souris-Red-Rainy - - - - - — - - - — - - - - -- 6.0 6.5 Missouri - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — -- 45.8 62.9 Arkansas-White-Red - - — - - - - - - - — - -- 61.3 68.7 Texas-Gulf - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 27.9 33.1 Rio Grande — - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - -- 2.2 5.4 Upper Colorado - — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 9.9 13.9 Colorado (entire basin) - - - — - - - -- 1.6 10.3 Great Basin - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 5.9 10.0 Pacific Northwest - - - - - — - — - - — - - -- 263.6 276.2 California - — - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - — - - -- 50.5 74.6 Source: U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. National Water Summary, 1983. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2250. 1984. p. 26. Elements in the hydrologic cycle vary significantly from the average in some locations each year, causing either drought or floods. Selected variations from normal water supply patterns have been identified each of CRS-ll the past two years in the U.S. Geological Survey's Nation§13Water Summaries.lO For example, the 1983 national summary listed 46 selected significant hydrologic events (major variations) between January 1982 and September 1983. Many of these large variations occur in arid areas, where water supplies are normally limited. ln the Rio Grande region, for example, a wet year stream flow is more than 3 times greater than average, while in the more humid Pacific Northwest, a wet year is only 1.35 times greater 11 Storage than average. The same relationships are true for dry years. reservoirs and groundwater help offset these annual fluctuations, but even with this capacity, normal variation can cause supply dislocations in some water resource basins. In years and in locations where surface supplies are inadequate, groundwater resources are often used as a water reserve that provides supplemental supply. Although this resource seems tremendous, with an estimated 15,000 trillion gallons available nationa1ly,l2 only a portion (an estimated 400 trillion gallons) is available on a renewable basis; that is, water on the surface will refill groundwater reservoirs. The 10 U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. National Water Summary, 1983--Hydrologic Events and Issues. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2250. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off , 1984; and National Water Summary, 1984--Hydrologic Events, Selected Water-Quality Trends and Ground-Water Resources. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2275. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. 11 From data in: The Nation's Water Resources, 1975-2000, v. 3, appendix II. p. 106-107. 12 Summary of a discussion in: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality, 1983. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1984. p. 86-88. CRS-l2 remainder, more than 95 percent of the total, is available on a one-time basis only. In many areas, this reserve is already being depleted.l3 Groundwater use has grown more rapidly than surface use during recent decades, and is an increasingly important water source. Between 1950 and 1980, groundwater withdrawals almost tripled to 90 billion gallons per day. Groundwater now supplies about 20 percent of the 450 billion gallons of water withdrawn each day.14 Groundwater provides drinking water to about half the Nation's population, and supplies a rapidly growing portion of irrigated acres. Groundwater use is concentrated in a few areas. About one-fourth of all withdrawals occur in California. Seven other States (Texas, Nebraska, Idaho, Kansas, Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida) account for 50 percent of all withdrawals. Not surprisingly, these eight States are also the areas where groundwater resources are being over-drafted; that is, groundwater tables are falling.15 Scientists and engineers have frequently proclaimed the promise of "new" water supplies to augment surface and ground resources. New supplies could become available as a result of three areas of change—-new technology, changing costs of production, and the economics of water. First, in earlier decades, desalinization, cloud seeding and other new technologies were widely publicized as ways to expand the supply of water. However, these technologies have not proved to be economically feasible on any large scale 13 U.S. Geological Survey. National Water Summary, 1984. p. 120. 14 Ibid., p. 118-121. 15 U.S. Geological Survey. National Water Summary, l983. p. 36-45. CRS-l3 because of unforeseen technological problems. Second, the costs of producing water and the demand for water can shift with cyclic changes in the economy and in public policy. Two recent examples are the rapid decline in energy prices during the spring of 1986, which has temporarily lowered the cost of pumping water from groundwater reservoirs in some parts of the country, thereby increasing demand, and provisions in the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198) which reduced price supports for program crops, potentially reducing demand for irrigation water. Finally, the economics of water has traditionally been characterized by large Federal assistance to maintain low prices in arid areas, primarily to support agricultural development. During the past decade, Federal irrigation policies have begun to shift toward a water pricing system that more closely reflects the cost of supplying it.l6 In terms of other federally assisted water resource projects, the omnibus water bill currently being considered by the 99th Congress (H.R. 6, S. l567) calls for shifting more of the costs of Federal projects to State and local beneficiaries. WATER USE When water is removed from a source, it is either withdrawn or consumed. Withdrawals include all waters removed or diverted from ground or surface 16 Economists have long advocated using the marketplace to price water. They believe that the current system of large public subsidies has led to inefficient uses which the country is presently paying for through large Federal outlays, widespread production of surplus crops on irrigated lands, and inappropriate urban development in arid areas. Users counter that these subsidies have been necessary to encourage development in an inhospitable area, and to remove them would place arid areas at an unwarranted economic disadvantage. CRS-14 sources for any use. The Federal agency currently responsible for collecting water use data, the U.S. Geological Survey in the Department of the Interior, classifies all withdrawals into one of four purposes: public supply, irrigation, industry, and rural use. Figure 2 shows how the country uses these resources. FIGURE 2. Trends in Withdrawals, Consumptive Use, and Population, 1950-80 45° I F I r 1 45° LU ~99 0; 400 - bx” - 400 2 4* . $\ LU >' F gfis g 350 - 65¢ - 350 8 ox‘? 2: ’* . 9 8 Q 300 — — 300 9 mfg j Eci 2 3 j .0°..... f f 5 < < 0'... 4 f f .. .: I (D ‘:°’a’ g 2 200 1- pcpumiq,’ ’ - 200 E2 § 3 T°‘°L » ’ ’ o a: E; ”’ 6°96?" . Q Lu 150 1-” \<‘,.--" _..— 150 2‘ F- E 100 1100 Lu E 03 it 50 O 50 """""""""""""""" "Rural supplies 0 :g3joob“oéoooj—I «jun noco+ooocj. O 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 YEAR Source: U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1980. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1001. p. 50. CRS-l5 A portion of the water that is withdrawn eventually returns to the water system, while the remainder does not. If water does not return, it has been consumed. (A large portion is consumed through evaporation and transpiration by plants.) About 23 percent of the withdrawn water was consumed in 1980, according to the Survey's analysis.l7 Trends in consumption and use are also shown in figure 2. Water that is not consumed may be used again, depending on quality, location and need. Water policy issues arise when use is limited by supply or quality, especially when those limitations are created by other users. Table 3 lists withdrawals and consumption of water for the four general categories of water use, as collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1980.18 Most of the water withdrawn is used in industry, and more than three quarters of this is used in generating electricity. Irrigation, the second largest withdrawal use, accounts for 80 percent of all consumption. Public supplies are less than 10 percent of total withdrawals and total consumption. Appendix A summarizes trends in use over the past 30 years. In addition to withdrawals, a number of important uses are instream and depend on certain volumes or quality levels being available. These uses include hydroelectric power, recreation, navigation and wildlife habitat. 17 U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in l980. Prepared by Wayne Solley, Edith Chase and William Mann TV. U.S. Geological Survey Circular lOOl. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., l983. 18 U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in l980. U.S. Geological Survey Circular lOOl. Washington, l983. CRS-16 TABLE 3. Summary of Water Withdrawals and Consumption in the United States, 1980 (millions of gallons per day) Withdrawals Consumption Consumption Use - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - -- as a % of Amount % of Total Amount % of Total Withdrawals Public Supply - — - - - -- 34,000 1 8% 7,100 7% 21% Rural Domestic and Livestock----- 5,600 1 3,900 3 70 Irrigation - - - - - - - — -- 150,000 33 83,000 80 55 Self-supplied tlndustries - - — - — - -- 260,000 58 10,000 10 4 Electric Utilities - - - - - -— 210,000 47 4,500 4 2 Other Industries-- 50,000 11 5,900 6 12 Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 450,000 100% 104,000 100% 23% Source: U.S. Geological Survey. These uses are affected if supplies are inadequate or quality is unacceptable. The Conservation Foundation has estimated that instream annual damages (navigation, recreation, water supply, etc.) from soil erosion alone average 34.2 billion; and this value does not include an estimate for biological impacts.l9 Values for instream uses are very difficult to estimate because of their largely nonmonetary nature. But it is clear that agricultural, municipal and industrial uses can severely diminish the quality of instream values in many areas. 19 Clark, Edwin, Jennifer Haverkamp, and William Chapman. Eroding Soils, The Off-Farm Impacts. Washington, The Conservation Foundation, 1985. CRS-l7 Future water use has been forecast by a number of agencies. Many of these projections are summarized in a 1980 congressional report.2O Perhaps the most widely used projection continues to be the 1975 National Water Assessment prepared by the former Water Resources Council. Table 4 presents the WRC summary of projections for 1985 and 2000. These data predict that total withdrawals will increase by only 7 percent between 1975 and 2000, but consumption will increase by more than 20 percent, mostly in steam electric generation and manufacturing. Projections rely on many variables. For example, one variable, the change in population, will have a significant effect on the demand pattern.2l Other variables are also important, such as municipal, industrial, agricultural and recreational needs, water quality controls, energy resource-related needs, environmental enhancements, and the goals of water resources institutions. Projections have often been wide of the mark in the past, leading to inaccurate forecasts. Figure 3 illustrates a variety of water withdrawal projections made in recent years. The difference in trends between higher and lower forecasts is significant. (See appendix 2 for assumptions underlying these forecasts.) Also, straight-line projections grow increasingly diverse as they are extended into the future. Projections for the year 2000 range from a decline in water use after 1975 to a fourfold increase. In the past, these projections have 20 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. State and National Water Use Trends to the Year 2000. Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 21 For example, in the 1950s, most analysts predicted that the high rates of population growth would continue in the future. These predictions led to high projections for water demand, ones in which the inaccuracies are compounded as the predictions are extended into the future. Now, however, since the rate of population growth has declined markedly, those projections have little relevance to the current situation. usually proved inaccurate because of unforeseen changes. projections should be viewed cautiously. TABLE 4. CRS-18 Thus, these Total Withdrawals and Consumption, by Functional Use, for the 21 Water Resources Regions--"1975," 1985, 2000 (million gallons per day) Total withdrawals Total consumption Functional - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- use "1975" 1985 2000 "1975" 1985 2000 Fresh water: Domestic: Central (municipal) 21,164 23,983 27,918 4,976 5,665 6,638 Noncentral (rural) 2,092 2,320 2,400 1,292 1,408 1,436 Commercial 5,530 6,048 6,732 1,109 1,216 1,369 Manufacturing 51,222 23,687 19,669 6,059 8,903 14,699 Agriculture: Irrigation 158,743 166,252 153,846 86,391 92,820 92,506 Livestock 1,912 2,233 2,551 1,912 2,233 2,551 Steamlelectric generation 88,916 94,858 79,492 1,419 4,062 10,541 Minerals industry 7,055 8,832 11,328 2,196 2,777 3,609 Public lands and others a/ 1,866 2,162 2,461 1,236 1,461 1.731 Total fresh water 338,500 330,375 306,397 106,590 120,545 135,080 Saline water, b/ total 59,737 91,236 118,815 Total withdrawals 398,237 421,611 425,212 a/ Includes water for fish hatcheries and miscellaneous uses. b/ Saline water is used mainly in manufacturing and steam electric generation. Source: WRC, 1978. CRS-l9 FIGURE 3. Historic and Projected Water Withdrawals, 1955-2000 1200 1100 "’ 1000- 700'- Illllom ol Gallon: pot Day ibodl ' Historic U.S.G.S. Estimated Freshwater Uses in the U.S. 400 i.. 1955 - 1975 "RC (1975; 2m>- ‘ I I 1 I 1 1955 1960 1955 1970 1375 1980 1985 2000 CI! Source: U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. State and National Water Use Trends to the Year 2000. Serial No. 96-12. p. 236. Specifically, the largest changes in future use, which were not foreseen in l975, are likely to occur in irrigation both because economic CRS-20 forces are beginning to pressure irrigators either to use water more efficiently or to transfer water to other users who are willing to pay more for it, and because agriculture consumes so much more water than any other use. The Office of Technology Assessment, for example, explored the potential of the agricultural sector to use water more efficiently in a recent study.22 Only a small portion of potential water saving technologies identified in the study are being adopted at present. Other major changes currently receiving attention that could not have been foreseen include changing energy prices and the shift in manufacturing away from heavy industry. The economics of water use may be undergoing a basic changejif water is priced closer to the true costs of providing it. Higher prices would alter the current patterns of withdrawal and consumption, as lower value uses are replaced by higher value ones. This transition is behind a number of instances of water trading and sales of water rights in the West. If water prices rise in the arid West, lower value uses, generally irrigated crops, will give way to higher value uses able to pay the costs. Greater efficiency in water application will, however, allow higher value agricultural uses to continue. Impacts of these changes which started less than a decade ago, and are only gradually spreading, are not yet appearing in national use statistics. PROJECTED REGIONAL SHORTAGES Overall shortages are projected in the arid southwest given current withdrawal and consumption trends. Some shortages are already occurring, 22 U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in U.S. Arid/Semi-Arid Lands. OTA—F-212. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1983. CRS-2l and these are likely to grow as sunbelt residential, commercial and industrial development competes with older users, especially agriculture, for a finite supply of surface and groundwater. Table 5 and figure 4 illustrate the concentration of this problem. In l3 of the 21 regions that the U.S. Geological Survey identifies, consumptive use is less than 10 percent of supply. At the other extreme, consumptive use is more than lOO percent of supply in the Colorado basin. The difference must be made up by drawing down groundwater resources. However, adequate supplies are a problem in some portions of most regions. For example, in the southern High Plains States including Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas, a combination of higher energy costs and a declining water table have increased groundwater extraction costs, and a number of irrigated farms have converted to dryland farming. This transition has a number of economic ramifications, as farmers produce less per acre, and the local economy contracts. In Florida, rapid population growth has increased the demand for water, which is largely supplied through groundwater sources. Although the area has high rainfall, large rates of groundwater withdrawals have led to intrusion of saline waters replacing the removed fresh water. In addition, there are a growing number of serious quality problems in the area's groundwater, limiting their low cost use for domestic supplies. In many other areas of the humid East, cyclical shortages are common. As use increases and the capacity of supply systems are approached, cyclical shortages cause more severe impacts requiring use restrictions and rationing. Although these shortages do not appear to have led to any long-term change toward less water consumption by domestic users, States are playing an increased role in surface and groundwater management to use existing supplies more efficiently. CRS-22 As the next chapter illustrates, physical supply limitations may be significantly worsened when local supplies are contaminated by agricultural, municipal and industrial waste discharges as well as urban runoff. TABLE 5. Simplified Water-Resources Budget for 1980, by Water-Resources Region [Units are in billion gallons per day except where indicated] Consumptive use as a percentage of Consumptive Renewable renewable Water-resources region use supply supply New England - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 0.6 78.4 1 Mid-Atlantic - - - - - - — - - - - -- 1.8 80.7 2 South At1antic-Gu1f--§--- 5.6 233.5 2 Great Lakes - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 1.6 74.3 2 Ohio (exclusive of Tennessee Region)------ 2.1 139.6 2 Tennessee - - - — - - - - - - - - - - -- .4 41.2 1 Upper Mississippi (exclusive of Missouri Region) - — - - - -- 2.1 77.2 3 Mississippi (entire basin) - — - — - - - — - - - - - - - -- 42.3 464.8 9 Souris-Red-Rainy - - - - - - - -- .5 6.5 81 Missouri - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - -- 19.3 62.9 31 Arkansas-White-Red - - - - - -- 11.0 68.7 16 Texas-Gulf - — - - - - - - - - - - - -- 8.3 33.1 25 Rio Grande - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 3.2 5.4 59 Upper Colorado - - - - - - - - - —- 4.0 13.9 29 Colorado (entire basin) - - - — — - - - - - - — - - - -- 10.8 10.3 105 Great Basin — - - - - - - - - - - - —- 4.1 10.0 41 Pacific Northwest - - - - - - —- 12.6 276.2 5 California - - - - - - - - - - - - - —- 25.5 74.6 34 Alaska - - - — - - - - - - - - - - — — - -- 04 975.5 0 Hawaii - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- .7 7.4 9 Caribbean - - - - - - - - — - - - - - -- .3 5.1 6 Source: U.S. Geological Survey. National Water Summary 1983-- Hydrologic Events and Issues, Water Supply Paper 2250. p. 26. CRS-23 FIGURE 4. Water Shortage Projections 9".“ -4 (‘J o Represents entire Colorado River oasan u Represents entire Mississippi River oasm EXPLANATION Bilhon gauons oer day lg Consunuun uu 68.7 Randi: was xuouy Consumouve use as a oercentage of renewable suomy :0-10 E 10-40 E 40-200 Source: U.S. Geological Survey. National Water Summary 1983-- Hydrologic Events and Issues, Water Supply Paper 2250. p. 27. CRS-25 III. WATER QUALITY EFFECTS ON CURRENT AND FUTURE SUPPLY OVERVIEW Although water is abundant in the United States, contamination of water supplies is affecting the usefulness and cost of water supplies in some areas of the country. Long-term safety for public health and environmental acceptability of water supplies are becoming high priority public concerns. The enormity of the resource, its ubiquitous nature (freshwater, saltwater, surface water, groundwater, and gaseous, liquid, and solid forms), its many uses (drinking water, irrigation, industrial, protection of aquatic life, etc.), and the relative ease in which it may become contaminated by natural and man—made pollutants make it difficult to protect; Federal laws such as the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended in 1977) and the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (as amended in 1986) have set in motion improvements in the Nation's water quality. Summary data on trends from these programs presented in this chapter indicate both the nature of progress in reducing water supply contamination as well as the challenges still remaining. (Details of Federal programs and expenditures on water quality are presented in the next chapter.) CRS-26 SURFACE WATER QUALITY: CURRENT TRENDS In the drinking water area, improvements have been seen since the passage of the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act: 0 In 1984, 26 waterborne disease outbreaks involving 1,755 persons were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and EPA. This repre- sents the smallest number of cases reported since 1972, and the second smallest number of cases reported since surveillance of outbreaks began in 1971.23 0 During FY80, EPA reported 147,530 violations of Safe Drinking Water Act regulations nationwide by public water systems. During FY85, the number of violations had been reduced to 94,897, a 55 percent decrease. 0 From a compliance point of view, in FY80, 63.3 percent of the public water systems were in compliance with their microbiological standards (microbes represent the greatest cause of disease outbreaks), 22.4 percent were intermittent (3 months or less) violators, and 14.3 percent were persistent violators. In FY85, 89.2 percent of systems were in compliance with their microbiological standards, 9.5 percent were intermittent violators, and only 1.3 percent were persistent violators.25 In terms of surface water quality, a 1984 EPA report indicated that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act has generally been effective in reducing the volume of pollutants entering the Nation's waters:26 0 Industrial pollution was reduced significantly since 1972. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), a measure of organic materials that deplete the dissolved oxygen in water, decreased 71 percent. Total 23 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Water-Related Disease Outbreaks; Annual Summary 1984. Centers for Disease Control, November 1985. Atlanta, 1985. p. 2. 24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. FY85 Status Report: The National Public Water System Program. Office of Drinking Water, June 1986 [Draft]. Washington, 1986. p. 8. 25 Ibid. 26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Progress and Challenges: An EPA Perspective. Office of Management Systems and Evaluation, June 1984. Washington, 1984. p. 45-46. CRS-27 suspended solids dropped 80 percent; dissolved solids, 52 percent; oil and grease, 71 percent; phosphate, 74 percent; and heavy metals, 78 percent. 0 Municipal wastewater treatment plants removed 13,600 tons a day of suspended solids and BOD, an increase of 65 percent from 1973 to 1984. Municipal treatment plants are required to meet "secondary treatment" levels, i.e., removal of 85 percent of BOD and suspended solids or more stringent if necessary to meet local water quality standards. In July 1977, 37 percent of the plants projected to be needed in 1972 to meet this treatment level had been built; by June 1983, the figure almost doubled, to 69 percent. 0 In 1982, 142 million people in the United States were served by at least secondary treatment; this reflected an increase of 57 million people since 1972. o In the last decade, the population served by sewers grew by 18 million and the average water flow increased by almost 7 billion gallons a day. Because of better treatment methods, the amount of pollution discharged into the water from wastewater treatment plants has stayed the same in spite of this increased load. 0 From a compliance point of view, in 1972 only 33 percent of significant municipal dischargers and only 35 percent of significant industrial dischargers were in compliance with the Federal Water Pollution _Control Act; in 1982, 78 percent of significant municipal dischargers and 78 percent of industrial dischargers were in compliance. Another measure of progress is how well the water quality goals ("fishable and swimmable waters") of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act have been achieved. EPA in 1982 requested that States provide information on the extent that these goals had been achieved in rivers and streams for which they had data from 1972 to 1982. Of 354,000 miles of rivers and streams for which such data existed, 49 States reported that 47,000 miles improved, 11,000 degraded, and 296,000 maintained the same water quality.27 Another assessment by the States examined to what extent their waterways supported the intended uses for which they had been designated 27 Ibid., p. 10. CRS-28 (such as swimming, sport fishing, or drinking water source).28 The rivers, lakes, and estuaries assessed in 1984 were only a small percen- tage of the Nation's total waters; however, the States viewed that remaining unassessed waters are most likely to be of equal or better quality. The results of the survey assessing whether designated uses were achieved are summarized in table 6. TABLE 6. Summary of Surface Water Quality Status Waterbody Assessed Fully Partially Do Not Type Waters Support Support Support U§es Uses Uses Unknown Rivers & 325,619 73% 14% q 6% 7% Streams mi1es* Lakes & 9,577,270 78% 16% 5% 1% Reservoirs acres** Estuaries & ’ 12,968 82% 13% 4% 1% Coastal Waters sq. miles*** * Based on data from 40 States with an estimated 1,200,000 stream miles. ** Based on data from 30 States with an estimated 16,000,000 lake acres. ***Based on data from 12 States with an estimated 13,825 square miles of estuaries and coastal waters. Despite many improvements in the Nation's surface water quality, a variety of pollutants continue to be found in U.S. waters at levels that exceed State water quality standards or U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels.29 For example: 28 Ibid., p. 2. 29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory: 1984 Report to Congress. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, August 1985. Washington, 1985. p. 2. CRS-29 o Fecal coliform bacteria continue to be the most widely reported statewide pollutant (42 of 47 reporting States), followed by nutrients (36 States), BOD/dissolved oxygen problems (33 States), and turbidity/ total suspended solids problems (29 States). 0 Elevated levels of toxic pollutants were reported by 37 States. Of these toxic pollutants, the most frequently reported groups are metals (especially mercury, copper, zinc, and lead), reported by 33 States; organic chemicals other than pesticides (especially PCBS), reported by 28 States; and pesticides (especially chlordane), reported by 25 States. 0 Detectable levels of toxic pollutants (especially PCBS) in fish tissue were reported by 33 States. 21 States reported concentrations ‘ exceeding FDA action levels (which commonly establish limits on consump- tion or bans). ' States developing their surface water quality inventories for EPA in 1984 were asked whether several common water pollutants, or categories of water pollutants, were widely reported.3O These parameters included bacteria, ammonia, BOD, metals, nutrients, other toxics, pH, salinity/total dissolved solids, turbidity/total dissolved solids, and non-point sources. For the sake of discussion on regional conditions in this report, 47 reporting States (excluding Indiana, Nevada, and West Virginia) were divided into five regions, each comprising 9 or lO States: Northeast North Central Southeast Southwest Northwest Connecticut Illinois Alabama Arizona Alaska Delaware Iowa Arkansas California Idaho Maine Kentucky Florida Colorado Montana Maryland Michigan Georgia Hawaii Nebraska Massachusetts Minnesota Louisiana Kansas North Dakota New Hampshire Missouri Mississippi New Mexico Oregon New Jersey Ohio N. Carolina Oklahoma South Dakota New York Pennsylvania S. Carolina Texas Washington Rhode Island Wisconsin Tennessee Utah Wyoming Vermont Virginia For the lO parameters, the number of States widely reporting pollution problems in each region is shown in table 7. 30 Ibid., p. 12-13. CRS-30 TABLE 7. Regional Surface Water Problems Number of States.Widelv Reporting Pollution Parameter Northeast North Central Southeast Southwest Northwest (10 States) (9 States) (10 States) (9 States) (9 States) Bacteria 10 7 9 8 6 Ammonia l 5 2 3 l BOD 10 6 9 6 l Metals 4 5 4 6 4 Nutrients 9 7 8 6 6 Other Toxicsp 8 6 6 4 3 1 pH 3 4 4 6 6 4 3 Salinity/TDS 0 1 3 3 5 3 Turbidity/TSS 6 8 5 3 6 Non-point sources - major problem 3 5 4 S 7 Based on the number of States in each region reporting water pollu- tion problems for these parameters, it is possible to make interregional comparisons as shown in table 8. CRS~3l TABLE 8. Comparison of Regional Surface Water Conditions Ranking for Regions Widelv Reporting Pollution Parameter Northeast North Central Southeast Southwest Northwest (10 States) (9 States) (10 States) (9 States) (9 States) Bacteria 1 4 2 3 5 Ammonia 2 5 1 3 2 4 BOD 1 3* 2 3* 5 Metals 3* 2 3* l 5 Nutrients 1 3 2 4* 4* Other Toxics 1 2 3 4 5 pH 5 2* l 2* 4 Salinity/TDS 5 4 3 l 2 Turbidity/TSS 3 p 1 4 5 2 Non-point sources - major problem 5 2* 4 2* l * indicates a tie. As highlighted below (i.e., #1 rankings), the pollution parameters reported most often in each region, compared with the other regions, indicate regional priority problems: Northeast — bacteria, BOD, nutrients, and other toxics. North Central - ammonia, turbidity/total suspended solids (metals, pH, other toxics, and non-point sources are secondary problems). Southeast - pH (bacteria, BOD, and nutrients are secondary problems). Southwest - metals, salinity/total dissolved solids (ammonia and pH are secondary problems). Northwest - non-point sources (salinity/total dissolved solids and turbidity/total suspended solids are secondary problems). CRS-32 GROUNDWATER QUALITY: CURRENT TRENDS One of the newest challenges to environmental protection is ground- water contamination. A vast resource (groundwater volume in the United States is 50 times that of surface water), over 89 billion gallons a day are withdrawn nationally for a variety of public drinking water, irrigation, industrial, and rural uses. A major reason for protecting its quality is that it is the primary source of drinking water for 117 million people. A consequence of the enormity of the resource is that no practical method exists to measure groundwater quality on a national scale. Worst-case estimates of groundwater contamination indicate that only about 1-2 percent of the Nation's available groundwater is contaminated,3l though contamination tends to be near population centers. Generally high quality may well be a result of the efforts of the States to protect groundwater. A 1985 EPA report showed that 12 States have enacted specific groundwater protection statutes, 27 States and territories have established policies for protecting groundwater quality, and 28 others are either formulating or revising such po1icies.32 Nevertheless, while no comprehensive national surveys of groundwater quality exist, there are studies indicating that groundwater quality may not be quite as high as some project. For example: 31 U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Protecting the Nation's Groundwater from Contamination; Volume 1. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1984. p. 21. 32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Ground-Water Program Summaries. Office of Ground—Water Protection, March 1985. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. p. 11-12. CRS-33 o In 1981, EPA conducted a study, the Ground Water Supply Survey, to determine the occurrence of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in 945 public water systems drawing on groundwater. Of the small systems sampled (serving fewer than 10,000 people), 16.5 percent contained at least one VOC, whereas 28.7 percent of the systems serving more than 10,000 persons contained measurable levels of VOCs. About 3 percent of the systems sampled had total concentrations greater than 0.005 milli- grams per liter (mg/l), and one-half of 1 percent of the systems had total concentrations greater than 0.05 mg/l. EPA's pending drinking water standards for the VOCs range from 0.001 to 0.75 mg/l; as suché at least 3 percent of the sampled systems might be considered unsafe. 0 As of 1982, EPA located over 180,000 waste impoundments (ponds and lagoons) at some 80,000 sites in the United States. Of 1,100 indus- trial sites evaluated in the Surface Impoundment Assessment, 70 percent were found to be unlined, 50 percent were located over groundwater supplies that were sources of drinking water, and 98 percent were within one mile of a water supply well.34 0 In 1984, the Office of Technology Assessment documented that over 200 substances are known to occur in the Nation's groundwater. These substances include about 175 organic chemicals, over 50 inorganic chemicals (metals, non-metals, and inorganic acids), and radionuclides. As of June 1986, EPA had promulgated drinking water standards for only 22 contaminants. o In 1984, the U.S. Geological Survey examined nationwide ground- water levels of nitrate nitrogen--the only contaminant the Survey has data on over a period of 25 years. Examining groundwater quality statistics for nearly 124,000 wells for which nitrate nitrogen values were available, the Survey found that more than 24,000 (20 percent) had nitrate nitrogen concentrations higher than 3 mg/l. However, only about 8,200 of the wells (6 percent) had nitrate nitrogen concentrations exceeding 10 mg/1, the Federal drinking water standard for nitrates. 33 U.S. Environmental Protection A enc . The Groundwater Su 1* 8 Y PP ] Survey: Summary of Volatile Organic Contaminant Occurrence Data. Office of Drinking Water, January 1983., Washington, 1983. 34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Surface Impoundment Assessment: National Report. Office of Drinking Water, December 1982. Washington, 1983. 35 Office of Technology Assessment. Protecting the Nation's Groundwater from Contamination. p. 22-34. 36 U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey.‘ National Water Summary 1984. Water Supply Paper 2275. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. p. 95. CRS-34 0 Of 42 States reporting on groundwater quality in l984, 35 reported some problems with groundwater contamination. About 4,400 well contamination incidents were identified in l984 by only 21 States, which provides an indication of the possible magnitude of groundwater con- tamination nationwide. SPECIAL ISSUES AFFECTING FUTURE WATER QUALITY TRENDS (a) Toxic Pollutants Nearly all pollutants in surface waters or groundwater may be harmful to human health and animal life--in concentrations ranging from low to excessive. For example, untreated human wastes carry bacteria and viruses that may make people ill, and sediments may smother aquatic animals or their habitats. It is generally recognized that water quality programs have achieved considerable success in controlling these conventional pollutants since the early 1970s, although more progress is still needed. However, a particular challenge for water quality protection now and in future years is the control of toxic pollutants (particularly synthetic organic chemicals and heavy metals), which may have severe, possibly irreversible impacts on public health and the environment at relatively low concentrations. Toxic substances are often expensive to properly use, control, and dispose of—-in terms of technology and treatment costs to the consumer. The health effects of toxic pollutants (especially chronic effects) are also difficult to ascertain and are often undocumented. Furthermore, studies on the adverse health effects that are pivotal for regulatory purposes--carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity--are many times controversial. 37 EPA, 1984 National Water Quality Inventory, p. 42. -wetland losses. CRS-35 The 1984 EPA Water Quality Inventory reported that 37 States indi- cated the occurrence of toxic pollutants in their waters at elevated levels, 19 viewed toxic pollution as a special concern, l9 indicated nearly 6,500 stream miles were adversely affected by toxic pollutants, and 12 found toxic contamination of 269,000 acres of lakes.38 (b) Acid Deposition Fourteen States reported to EPA in l984 that acid deposition (caused when emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxide gases combine with water vapor and fall to the earth as rain or snow) was a special concern in their efforts to protect water quality. Acid deposition contributes to acidification of land and water areas and lowers the ability of these resources to buffer against acids.39 (c) Wetlands Wetlands have several critical environmental functions: wildlife habitat, nurseries for fish and shellfish, nutrient retention, regula- tion of water flow, groundwater recharge/discharge, and recreation. Despite their importance, wetlands are being lost at an estimated national rate of about 300,000 acres per year because of development, roadway construction, mining operations, agricultural practices, and dredging/ filling. In their 1984 assessments, l4 States reported concerns about 40 38 Ibid., p. 46-47. 39 Ibid., p. 52-53. 40 Ibid., p. 54. CRS-36 (d) Non-point Source Pollution Virtually every State reported to EPA in 1984 that it experienced water quality problems from non-point source pollutants. Half indicated that non-point sources were major contributors to their water quality problems, and about one-fifth identified non-point sources as their primary cause of surface water and groundwater pollution.4l In terms of volume, non-point sources of water pollution are the largest sources of contamination of the Nation's waterways. Not only does non-point pollution contribute millions of tons of sediment to water bodies, it conveys many chemicals (such as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, road salts, and acidic mining wastes) that may be toxic to people and aquatic life. 41 Ibid., p. 66. CRS-37 CHAPTER IV. FEDERAL ROLE IN WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY OVERVIEW Historically, the Federal Government has played a limited role in providing local water sources. On the other hand, since the early 1970s, the Federal Government has been increasingly active in establishing local drinking water standards and in providing financial assistance for municipal wastewater treatment plants. This chapter reviews the legislative background and relative financial contributions of the Federal Government in supporting local water supply systems. Water supply development has traditionally been a local responsibility. The Federal Government helps States and localities by including water supply storage (but not distribution or treatment) in multi-purpose projects under Federal water resource development programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. Assistance is provided for construction, as well as operation and maintenance of systems. The Soil Conservation Service and Tennessee Valley Authority also participate in such projects. The Federal role in constructing water supply distribution and treatment works is restricted to grant and loan programs of the Farmers Home Admin- istration (for public entities below the State level with populations of 10,000 or less); Economic Development Administration (for economically depressed areas); Community Development Block Grant funds from the Department CRS-38 of Housing and Urban Development (historically, approximately 2 percent of these funds have been used for water supply and wastewater facilities in urban areas); and the Appalachian Regional Commission. Federal aid for system operation and maintenance is not available. The Federal Government has contributed significantly to wastewater treatment facility construction, largely through a grant-in-aid program administered by EPA under the Clean Water Act. As detailed below, EPA grant funds have provided over 50 percent of total government spending for capital construction since l972. Federal aid since 1972, when the grant program was expanded into close to its current form, has totaled over $50 billion. EPA assistance is limited to certain project categories (treat- ment plants, interceptor sewers, and infiltration/inflow), with the Federal Government currently providing a 55 percent share of eligible project costs.42 State and local governments are responsible for the non-Federal share of project costs, as well as total funding for projects not cur- rently eligible for EPA assistance. These_non-eligible categories include major sewer rehabilitation and combined sewer overflow projects and others more related to serving population growth, such as construc- tion of new collector sewers in areas of residential development. In addition to EPA aid, lesser Federal assistance is provided through several other programs. These include some discussed above in connection 42 From 1972 to 1984 the allowable Federal share was 75 percent. In l98l amendments to the Act (P.L. 97-217), Congress reduced the Federal share in order to spread available Federal resources more widely. At the same time Congress reduced authorized funding levels for the grant program from $5 billion annually, in FY l980, to $2.4 billion annually, since FY l982. Reauthorization and further revision of the aid program is being debated in the 99th Congress. CRS-39 with water supply development: the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) grant and loan programs for water and waste disposal, Economic Development Administration grants, and Community Development Block Grants of the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development. In FY 1985, these three additional programs provided approximately $550 million for water supply and waste disposal projects, with FmHA providing $450 million of that total. Federal aid for routine system operation and maintenance is not available through EPA or these smaller programs. WATER SUPPLY Federal involvement in water supply is of relatively recent origin. Other water project purposes, however, have been almost exclusively a Federal responsibility since the early days of the Republic, most notably _ the development of navigation for interstate commerce. Subsequently, Congress authorized several enlarged Federal roles for various flood control and related hydropower facilities. Much of the Nation's initial water supply was developed for local use under prevailing systems of State water laws--namely the "riparian" system in the eastern States and the "appropriation" doctrine in the West. Current Federal projects supply about one—fourth of total "commercial" water sup- plies on a cost recovery basis. An exception to this general picture is the Federal reclamation program, which has provided subsidized water supplies directly to arid lands in western States for settlement and irrigated agriculture since 1902. In essence, the Federal role has been both defined and delimited by interpretations of the Congress‘ Constitutional powers to regulate interstate commerce, and to control or develop the public lands. CRS-40 The evolution of the Federal water planning and construction process has resulted in the modern concept of multiple-purpose and regionally- integrated projects and programs-—some developed pursuant to comprehensive river basin plans. They typically provide a combination of benefits such as navigation, flood control, hydroelectric power, water supply, recreation, fish and wildlife management, or water quality features. Each of these purposes is authorized by various provisions in separate and distinct statutes, and each purpose must be justified in the planning process by elaborate cost/benefit methodologies employed by the two major Federal water project construction agencies--the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation. Nonetheless, the primary, Federal-level jurisdiction of these agencies remains limited (vis-a-vis other levels of government) essentially to the navigation and flood control functions of the Corps, and to the land reclamation function of the Bureau. Other project purposes usually have been "piggybacked" on the three primary Federal responsibilities; and typically they have been reimburs- able expenditures which project beneficiaries repay fully or partially to the U.S. Government under various terms. Although, historically, non-Federal cost sharing has been the exception, for commercial water use facilities it has been the rule (with limited subsidy effect). Thus, for water supply features that are to provide for "municipal and industrial” users, it has only been since the Water Supply Act of l958 that most Federal dam and reservoir construction could incorporate this purpose--and only if other primary project purposes justified the initial project feasibility. (For irrigation reservoirs, the Secretary of the Interior was given authority to provide municipalities with surplus water supplies by the Reclamation CRS-41 Projects Act of l939, although that agency's municipal supply function dates back to the early years of its existence after the turn of the century.) Legislation Specifically, the pertinent provisions of the Water Supply Act of l958 include a declaration of policy that recognizes the auxiliary Fed- eral role in water supply: It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the primary responsibilities of the States and local interests in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other purposes and that the Federal Government should participate and cooperate with States and local interests in developing such water supplies in connection with the construction, maintenance, and operation of Federal navigation flood control, irrigation, or multiple 9 purpose nro ects. i r’ J --43 USC 390(b) The following provisions authorize that Federal role subject to require- ments for (l) equitable cost allocations for water supply benefits; (2) repayment agreements by State or local interests prior to construc- tion; (3) limiting "anticipated future demands" for water to no more than 30 percent of the total project costs; and (4) the terms43 for p 43 "Provided further, that the entire amount of the construction costs, including interest during construction, allocated to water supply shall be repaid within the life of the project but in no event to exceed fifty years after the project is first used for the storage of water for water supply purposes, except that (1) no payment need be made with respect to storage for future water supply until such supply is first used, and (2) no interest shall be charged on such cost until such supply is first used, but in no case shall the interest-free period exceed ten years. The interest rate used for purposes of computing interest during construction and interest on the unpaid balance shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which construction is initiated, on the basis of [fifteen-year treasury bonds]." CRS-42 construction costs and interest to be repaid over a period up to 50 years: .storage may be included in any reservoir project surveyed, planned, constructed or to be planned, surveyed and/or constructed by the Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation to impound water for present or anticipated future demand or need for municipal or industrial water, and the reasonable value thereof may be taken into account in estimating the economic value of the entire project: --43 USC 390(b) The Reclamation Projects Act of 1939,44 which sets a maximum interest rate of 3 1/2 percent for the water supply features of reclama- tion projects, was not repealed by the Water Supply Act of 1958, but remains an alternative basis of authority for the Secretary of the Interior to supply water to municipal and industrial (M&I) users. However, since the 1958 Act, Interior's Bureau of Reclamation has used the Treasury bond rate for its contracts to supply municipalities. These "marketable bond" interest rates were actually below 3.5 percent until after 1970, when they began to climb steadily to 7.2 percent in 1980, and are now approximately 11.0 percent, according to the Bureau's Contracts Office. Water Supply Contribution When last reported, more than 112 Corps reservoir projects stored 9.2 mi11ion—acre—feet of water supply for municipal and industrial uses with 60 percent presently being used (1984 data).45 44 43 USC 485(h)(c). 45 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. FY 1984 Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activities, v. 1. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 0ff., p. [In press] CRS-43 Using the statutory criteria for providing municipal and industrial uses--i.e., those authorized by the Reclamation Project Act of l939 and the Water Supply Act of 1958--the Bureau of Reclamation's comparable figures from its annual reports indicate that from a total of 220 completed projects designed primarily to deliver more than 40 million acre-feet of reclamation water, approximately 2.7 million acre-feet was for M&I water supply (1984 data).46 The relationship of these two Federal agencies’ direct contribution to total levels of publicly supplied water are highlighted by converting the acre-feet to billion-gallons-per-day-equivalents and displaying them relative to volumes of usage in 1980 for the Nation as a whole: TABLE 9. Federal Water Supply Contribution Billion Gallons Per Day (BGD) Total Withdrawals (25% groundwater) 450 Total Public Supplied (Defined by USGS as "industrial and commercial" and "domestic and public") 34 Bureau of Reclamation/Municipal and Industrial (2.7 million acre-feet) 2.4 Corps of Engineers/Municipal and Industrial (9.2 million acre-feet) 8.2 a/ Self-Supplied Industrial used for electric power plant steam and cooling (210 BGD) 260 Irrigation l5O Other 6 a/ Sixty percent of Corps capacity is currently in use. Source: U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1980. Circular lOOl (Reprinted 1983). p. 47. 46 U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. I984 Summary Statistics: Water, Land, and Related Data. Denver, Bureau of Reclamation, 1986. p. l. CRS-44 Water Supply Expenditures Although Federal multiple purpose projects and other Federal assistance are often an important component of some localities‘ basic water supply, by far the bulk of water supply expenditures are made by local public author~ ities, investor-owned water utilities and private individuals. In terms of water service, an estimated 40 million people depend on wells, 50 million on privately owned water systems, and 150 million on publicly owned systems.47 Of the estimated 60,000 water supply systems in the United States, over 40,000 have service populations of less than 500 people.48 Of these 40,000 small companies, 76 percent are investor-owned. Of the larger companies, private ownership does not exceed 20 percent for any size category. Table 10 presents available data showing water supply expenditures in constant 1985 dollars by the private and public sector since the mid-sixties. Complete annual data are not available for private sector investment, but estimates for annual gross investment for larger companies serving one-third of private customers (15 million) can be 49 approximated from available data. These statistics suggest some obvious trends. 47 Estimates based on information from the National Association of Water Companies, Washington, D.C. 48 Ibid. 49 These approximations cannot easily be extrapolated to the full population served by private companies, since little is known about the investment behavior of the 30,000 small private water systems. Thus, total private investment may be closer to $2 billion than a $3 billion figure derived from extrapolating partial data (e g., $1 billion x 50 million l5 million). CRS-45 TABLE 10. Federal, Local and Private Expenditures on Water Supply (Billions of 1985 Dollars) a/ Fiscal State and Local Captial Federal Reimbursable Projects Large Investor Owned Private Year 0utlays(Includes Corps of Engineers Bureau of Reclamation Water Utilities c/ Wells Federal Projects) M&I b/ M81 b/ (partial e/ estimate) d/ 1963-64 4.0 n.a. 1964-65 4.8 n.a. 1965-66 4.9 Average Annual Expenditures 1960-64 n.a. 1966-67 4.1 0.049 0.092 n.a. 1967-68 4.0 n.a. Annual Rate 1968-69 4.2 Average Annual Expenditures 1965-69 n.a. 1970 1969-70 3.9 0.119 0.106 n.a. 1.1 1970-71 3.7 n.a. 1971-72 3.8 n.a- 1972-73 3.8 1.0 1973-74 4.3 Average Annual Expenditures 1970-74 1.2_ 1974-75 4.7 0.080 0.101 1.0 1975-76 4.4 0.8 1976-77 3.9 1.0 1977-78 3.8 1.0 Annual Rate 1978-79 4.4 Average Annual Expenditures 1975-79 n.a. 1980 1979-80 5.0 0.045 0.126 n.a. 0.829 1980-81 5.1 1.1 1981-82 4.6 1.0 1982-83 n.a. Average Annual Expenditures 1980-85 0.7 1983-84 n.a. 0.098 .155(1980 only) 1.0 1984-85 n.a. 1.2 a/ Constant year dollars calculated using the Federal, state and local and the producers durable equipment components of the GNP implicit price deflators. b/ Municipal and Industrial c/ Calendar year data. d/ Estimates are for large companies covering about 302 of privately served population e/ Calendar year data. Estimates in 1985 dollars.for earlier years are: 1940,$0.7 billion;1950,$0.9 billion; and 1960, $1.1 billion. Sources: 1) State and local expenditures: U.S. Department of Comerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics on Government Finances and Employment,1982 Census of Governments,Volume 6: Topical Studies. Number 4(Gov’t Print. Off. 1984).pp. 40-41 and 1977 Census of Governments. Volume 6: Topical Studies. Number 4 (Gov't Print. Off.1979). p.65 2) Corps M and I: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, financial information on municipal and industrial water expenditures, by project and’ year, in nominal dollars. Dated 1986. Aggregated by year, and converted to constant dollars, per footnote 1/. 3) Bureau of Reclamation: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, computer program on water resources expenditures, developed in 1983 from data tapes from Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, TVA, and Environmental Protection Agency. 4) Investor Owned Water Utilities: Annual reports from the National Association of Water Companies, Washington, D.C. 5) Private expenditures: National Water Well Association U.S. Water Well Marketplace (1986) Data provided were for expenditures every tenth year, at the beginning of the decade (i.e. 1940, 1950, etc.). These data do not include expenditures for irrigation wells. CRS-46 In real terms, annual national expenditures on basic water supply have increased only slightly in recent years and have been roughly constant for the past two decades. These national data, of course, mask regional differences. Expenditures in growing areas such as suburbs of major cities and rapid growth cities primarily in the South and West would be above national trends. On the other hand, mature areas may show a decline in real terms. Whether such differences reflect underinvestment in water facilities, as some argue, cannot be determined from these type of data. This issue is discussed in detail in the section on infrastructure outlook (page 55). Overall the data suggest that water supply had been receiving a declining share of national investment in real terms, at least through the early l980s. Whether more recent data will reveal a change in this trend is uncertain. In addition to providing some cost-reimbursable municipal and industrial water, the Federal Government has also provided below-cost water to western irrigators since 1902. Based on data in table ll, close to $10 billion has been spent on irrigation capital expenditures since 1940 and a slightly higher amount on operation and maintenance. Private individuals also account for significant expenditures on irrigation. No comparable time series data were found on non—Federal expenditures, but estimates by the. National Water Commission staff indicated that private expenditures have been as much as half of total irrigation capital expenditures, with the Federal share at 38 percent and State and local governments at 12 per- cent . 50 National Water Commission. CRS-47 TABLE ll. Federal Irrigation Expenditures a/ b/ (Billions of 1985 dollars) Year Capital Operation and Total Maintenance 1940-49 Annual Average 0.13 0.28 0.41 1950-59 Annual Average 0.21 0.37 0.58 1960 0.25 0.31 0.56 1961 0.28 0.31 0.59 1962 0.20 0.29 0.49 1963 0.19 0.38 0.57 1964 0.18 0.37 0.55 1965 0.10 0.40 0.50 1966 0.35 0.15 0.50 1967 0.37 0.19 0.56 1968 K.28 0.19 0.47 1969 0.24 0.13 0.37 1970 0.19 , 0.15 0.34 1971 0.22 0.13 0.35 1972 0.27 0.18 0.45 1973 0.39 0.27 0.66 1974 0.23 0.25 0.48 1975 0.21 0.24 7 0.45 1976 0.16 0.51 0.67 1977 0.27 0.35 0.62 1978 0.33 0.20 0.53 1979 0.17 0.19 0.36 1980 0.12 0.19 0.31 a/ Constant year dollars calculated using the Federal purchases component of the GNP implicit price deflators. b/ Historically, partially reimbursable Federal expenditures have accounted for about 38% of total irrigation spending with private sources accounting for about 50% and state and local about 12%. Source: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, computer data base on water resource expenditures developed from data tapes from the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, TVA and Environmental Protection Agency. CRS-48 WATER QUALITY In the United States, the protection of water quality has been an evolving process, beginning in the late 1800s, and has focused on two areas--reducing the volume of pollutants entering the Nation's waters and providing safe drinking water. Legislation The primary Federal laws protecting water quality are the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), amended in 1977 (P.L. 95-217) and 1981 (P.L. 97-117), and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.Lj 93-523), principally amended in 1977 (P.L. 95-190) and in 1986 (P.L. 99-339). Other acts that protect water quality include the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (P.L. 92-532), which focuses on ocean disposal of wastes, and the laws which focus on preventing toxic substances from entering surface waters and groundwaters: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 94-580), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (P.L. 92-516), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-589). The focus of U.S. water quality laws implemented by EPA has evolved over time. For example, a major impetus for the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (referred to as the Clean Water Act)5l was to concentrate on establishing regulatory programs to limit municipal and industrial "point" discharges (i.e., from a pipe) to surface waters in urban areas, and to focus on controllin "conventional" ollutants (such as or anic wastes, sediment, 8 P 8 51 Substantial amendments to P.L. 92-500 in 1977 (P.L. 95-190) are referred to as the Clean Water Act. CRS-49 bacteria and viruses, nutrients, and oil and grease) that could harm water quality or public health. The concern for protecting public health was reflected in the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act, which required the establish- ment of drinking water standards and the removal of contaminants (such as bacteria and turbidity) from water supplies. Later in the decade and into the l980s, the focus shifted to controlling "toxic" pollutants (such as heavy metals, organic chemicals, and pesticides) and "non-point" discharges (such as agricultural runoff and mining wastes) and to examining pollution problems in rural areas. The potential threat of toxic pollutants also expanded the scope of drinking water protection to synthetic organic chemicals in water supplies and particularly to groundwater, which supplies drinking water to over half the Nation's population and to nearly lOO percent of the rural population. Looking toward the 1990s, the threat of toxic pollutants will likely persist and require increasingly specialized control measures, particu- larly for groundwater supplies (such as the underground storage tank program), wetlands and special areas (such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Puget Sound). Accompanying the thrust toward better toxic con- trols may be an effort to revise water quality standards, particularly for drinking water. Non—point sources, by volume the largest source of pollution, will undoubtedly receive increased attention. The enforcement of environmental statutes is expected to have increased emphasis in future years. Municipal dischargers, which have the poorest record of compliance with the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, are likely to receive specific attention. An increased CRS-50 emphasis on enforcement may create a "Catch-22" situation for municipalities. Major compliance deadlines in the Clean Water Act are approaching in mid-l987 for municipalities to build wastewater treatment plants. Meanwhile, Congress is currently reexamining the Federal role in constructing municipal waste treatment facilities, and considering whether to phase the program out after 1990. EPA, having had to "play catch up" on existing water pollution problems for nearly two decades, seems to be moving toward preventive controls for water pollutants, focusing on pesticides, waste management, and increased enforcement of now in-place programs. Also, the States, which Congress envisioned as managing the bulk of the water quality program, have accepted increased delegation of several programs formerly administered by EPA. Eater Quality Expenditures The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of l972 provided for a major increase in grants to State and local governments for construction of waste water treatment facilities. Localities operating largely under their own resources in response to the earlier Federal laws and State abatement programs decreased expenditures on wastewater treatment with the advent of a doubling of Federal grants in FY l973 as shown in table l2. With the Federal grant increases, total public sector spending in constant l985 dollars increased throughout the l970s. As shown in table 12, industry expenditures on water treatment also peaked in real terms in the mid—seventies as a result of requirements of the l972 law. Industrial progress on abating conventional pollutants has been CRS-Sl TABLE 12. Federal, Local and Private Water Quality Expenditures (Billions of 1985 dollars) a/ Public Sector Capital Outlays Industry c/ Fiscal Year Total Federal State and Local Grants Expenditures b/ 1963-64 4.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1964-65 4.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1965-66 4.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1966-67 4.1 0.3 3.8 n.a. 1967-68 4.0 0.4 3.6 n.a. 1968-69 4.2 0.4 3.8 n.a. 1969-70 4.5 0.5 4.0 n.a. 1970-71 5.2 1.3 3.9 n.a. 1971-72 6.1 1.1 5.0 n.a. 1972-73 6.4 1.6 4.8 n.a. 1973-74 6.5 3.4 3.1 3.7 1974-75 7.9 3.7 4.2 3.8 1975-76 8.0 6.0 2.0 4.2 1976-77 8.8 5.9 2.9 4.5 1977-78 7.7 4.6 3.1 4.3 1978-79 9.2 5.4 3.8 4.3 1979-80 9.4 5.7 3.7 4.1 1980-81 9.4 4.6 4.8 3.8 1981-82 7.4 4.2 3.2 3.3 1982-83 n.a. 3.2 n.a. 3.1 1983-84 n.a. 2.7 n.a. 2.9 1984-85 n.a. 2.9 n.a. 3.1 a/ Constant year dollars calculated using the state and local and the producers durable equipment components of the GNP implicit price deflators. b/ Difference between total public sector expenditures and Federal grants c/ Calendar year data Sources: 1)Total public sector expenditures: U.S. Department of Comerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics on Government Finances and Employment,1982 Census of Governments,Volume 6: Topical Studies. Number 4(Gov’t Print. Off. 1984).pp. 40-41 and 1977 Census of Governments. Volume 6: Topical Studies. Number 4 (Gov’t Print. 0ff.1979). p.65 2)Federal grants: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administration and Resources Management, Activities of EPA Assistance Programs and Interagency/Intergovernmental Agreements. Washington, D.C. April, 1986. p.15 3)lndustry expenditures: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business. Plant and ’ Equipment Expenditures by Business for Pollution Abatement. Vol.66, number 2. February, 1986. p.39 CRS-52 one of the successful efforts to improve stream water quality. From the peak in the mid-l970s, industrial expenditures have declined by a third as of 1985. This reflects in part the decline of some basic industrial sectors as well as a leveling out of investment after completion of major upgrading programs. Industry expenditures are likely to stay level or increase in future years. With a sharp reduction in Federal grants in l982 total public sector spending on waste water treatment decreased in the early eighties. Spending by local and State governments has probably not increased to offset the decline in Federal share. The investments that have been made seem to be paying off: 34 States told EPA in 1984 that the municipal construction grants program was effective in improving their water quality.52 On the other hand, ll other States cited the need for Federal and State funding for construction grants as an issue of special concern to future water quality. Indeed, EPA estimated in 1984 that $85 billion was needed in capital investments during that year to meet the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; for the year 2000, the needs might be as much as $109 billion (as discussed in the next chapter).53 Limited Federal funds are provided for rehabilitation/replacement of systems (such as deteriorating sewers) or for reserve capacity (to accommodate future community growth). The owners of the Nation's municipal wastewater treatment plants face additional costs beyond that of constructione—operation and 52 EPA, 1984 National Water Quality Inventory, p. 60. 53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l984 Needs Survey; Report to Congress; Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the United States. Office of Municipal Pollution Control, February l985. Springfield, Nat. Tech. Infor. Serv., 1985. p. l0. CRS-53 maintenance of their facilities. Many facilities, especially in small rural communities, are experiencing funding shortages. As a result, sometimes operators are inadequately trained, and proper maintenance such as replacement of machinery parts is postponed. Oftentimes this leads to inadequate plant performance and in turn poor water quality.54 Congress and the Administration currently are evaluating the future Federal role, if any, in constructing wastewater treatment plants, which was originally envisioned as a short-term program. Options under con- sideration at this time include phasing out the program or providing States with other forms of direct Federal financial aid. Whatever revision of the construction grants program occurs, it is likely to put an increased financial burden on States and localities, especially small facilities. An additional potential strain on municipal treatment plants is the renewed EPA and State effort toward municipal enforcement, begun in 1984.55 Should municipalities have insufficient funds to build or upgrade their treatment plants and, in turn, improve their plants’ performance, their problems are likely to be compounded by more stringent enforcement. In spite of considerable investment in water quality facilities, many reports in recent years have pointed to growing infrastructure needs for water supply and wastewater treatment facilities; This topic is the subject of the next chapter. 54 GAO, 1980 GAO report, CEI-81-9. 55 Ibid., p. 64. CRS-55 CHAPTER V. WATER SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE: POLICY, CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK OVERVIEW Previous sections of this report have discussed past expenditures by public and private entities for the Nation's infrastructure of water supply and wastewater treatment facilities. Spending trends over time and changes in Federal versus State and local government outlays have been detailed. Yet, measured in real terms (1985 dollars), capital spending for water infrastructure facilities has declined slightly since the mid-1970s, while gross private domestic investment in non-public works increased by more than 20 percent.56 Similarly, as a percentage of gross national product, public sector capital spending for sewer systems and water supply has declined slightly from .42 percent in 1965 to an estimated .38 percent in 1982. (For infrastructure as a whole, also including highways, bridges, public transit, airports, and other water resources, public works expenditures by government represented 4.1 percent of GNP in its peak year--1965--compared with 2.2 percent of GNP in 1985.) Public attention has focused on anecdotal and survey information describing deterioration of the Nation's inventory of water facilities. 56 Webley, Simon. Stiffening the Sinews of the Nations: Economic Infrastructure in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. London, British-North American Committee, 1985. p. 31. CRS-56 To evaluate such data, analysts are addressing reasons for the decline in investment, the costs to repair or replace such systems, and estimated costs of new construction in areas where that is a pressing need today.’ In total, this has come to be called the "infrastructure problem." Whether or not there is an infrastructure "crisis," as some assert, has and is being debated. Analysts concur, however, that there are real physical and finan- cial dimensions to the issue. The most pervasive and apparent problem is physical deterioration resulting from continued use of aging systems, which is compounded by the effects of inadequate maintenance and repair. A second physical aspect is insufficient capacity to serve growth. Deferred spending or underinvestment (both new construction and ongoing maintenance), while perhaps providing short-term budgetary savings, is likely to have long-term consequences that are not immediately apparent. These include higher long-term construction and repair costs, higher costs borne by users of inadequate facilities, and potential constraints on economic development. For water systems in particular, there may be public health consequences, as well. A related financial dimension is inadequate revenues to fund operation, maintenance, replacement, and capital improvements. This is reflected in water utility rate structures that are insufficient to pay these costs and in revenue systems that allow diversion to other governmental purposes.57 To the extent revenues are not dedicated, they may support other valid 57 See Proceedings of the National Water Symposium, Changing Directions in Water Management, An Infrastructure Financing Policy Symposium. Washing- ton, American Public Works Association, l983. 134 p. CRS-57 municipal finance requirements at the longer-term expense of public works systems. The Federal Government currently owns and operates relatively little of the Nation's infrastructure. Much of its influence on infrastructure development is exercised through financial support and through regulations on standards and requirements for infrastructure systems. Both types of influence occur with water infrastructure systems: the Federal Government provides support for capital construction and prescribes quality standards that establish performance targets to be achieved through these capital programs. Moreover, as a number of analysts point out, the budgetary and policy underpinnings of Federal programs strongly influence non-Federal infrastructure decisions. Categorical aid programs often bias project choices in favor of new construction and early retirement over preserving and repairing existing facilities, and many of these aid programs with a high Federal percentage share are criticized as discouraging cost-effective solutions and failing to emphasize long-term operation and maintenance needs.58 Federal financial support occurs through a variety of mechanisms, including categorical or block grants, credit (loan and loan guarantee) programs, and policies that facilitate public and private spending through special exclusions or exemptions to the Federal income tax code. Each area 58 See, for example: Choate, Pat, and Susan Walter. America in Ruins, Beyond the Public Works Pork Barrel. Washington, The Council of State Planning Agencies, 1981; U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Public Works Infrastructure: Policy Considerations for the 19805. Washington, 1983; and U.S. General Accounting Office. Effective Planning and Budgeting Practices Can Help Arrest the Nation's Deteriorating Public Infrastructure. GAO/PAD-83-2. Washington, 1982. CRS-58 has been and is now changing, in response to general budgetary constraints and efforts to devolve authority and responsibility from the Federal Govern- ment level. For example, the total Federal amount and percentage share of municipal wastewater and water supply aid is declining through recent statutory changes and would decline under other proposals now pending in Congress, placing greater cost—sharing responsibility on project users and non-Federal participants. A similar result may follow from enactment of tax reform legislation (H.R. 3838); new limits on tax—exempt financing used for public facilities such as sewer systems are being considered. In both cases, changes are expected to correct perceived inefficiencies stemming from current Federal policies.59 WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS6O Water supply and distribution systems consist of several elements. 0 Source (well site or surface water development and watershed protec- tion). 0 Storage (impoundments, reservoirs, standpipes, or elevated tanks). 0 Treatment (chemical addition, flocculation, filtration, softening, etc., to achieve standards of quality). 59 Such policy redirection has been advocated by many analysts. See, for example: U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Efficient Investments in Wastewater Treatment Plants. Washington, U.S. Gov. Print. Off., 1985. 80 p. In this report CBO estimates that policy reducing the Federal share of wastewater treatment construction grants from 75 percent to 55 percent would lead to more efficient local investment decisions and, on average, reduce capital costs by about 30 percent. 60 In this section of the report, discussion of water supply focuses on systems and facilities providing water supplies for municipal and industrial purposes. It does not include water developed for irrigation purposes or associated with multi-purpose water resource projects including power generation, recreation, etc. CR3-59 0 Transmission and Distribution (systems of aqueducts, pipes, valves, pumping stations, meters and hydrants designed to bring water from the initial surface or groundwater source of supply to the storage and/or treatment facility and then to the final user). With each of these elements, current infrastructure issues encompass rehabilitation and repair of existing facilities, servicing new growth, and developing new sources. Analysts agree that all geographic areas face some types of water infrastructure problems, yet some are more prevalent in one part of the country than another. Moreover, variations occur within broad geographic regions, as do differences within States. Replacement and Rehabilitation Identified mainly as a problem in urban areas of the Northeast, this aspect of the issue concerns need for major repair of aging treatment and distribution components of systems that have reached or exceeded the end of their original design life. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), leakage losses of up to 40 percent are common in several large northeastern cities, where water mains have been in service for over a century. But such problems can occur regardless of age, due to corrosive action of soil chemistry, harsh weather, ground vibration, and the limited lifespan of materials.6l Nor are such concerns confined to the Northeast: existing dams in some western States are believed to be structurally unsound and thus needing rehabilitation of impoundment facilities to assure public safety. Deferred spending by States and localities (both ongoing maintenance and new construction) in some cases has resulted in continued use of facilities 61 U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Public Works Infrastructure: Policy Considerations for the l980s. Washington, l983. p. l3l. CRS-60 exceeding their design life and in the failure to build the infrastructure needed for the future. One example frequently cited is that of New York City, with water mains far older than their 60-year life expectancy and sewers built during two peak periods: the 1830s and the period from I870 to 1900.52 New Growth Along with maintenance and renewal, the water supply network requires additional facilities to accommodate a growing population and an expanding economy. The Southeast and Southwest are generally viewed as having the greatest needs for new growth, to meet demands from developing suburbs or increased population density accompanying center-city redevelopment with increases in municipal and industrial water use. A l98O study concluded that about 23 percent of all U.S. cities with populations above 50,000 will require new sources of water supply by 1990.63 New Water Source Development Frequently a concern in the Southeast, Southwest, and West, this aspect of the issue is related to new growth. Additionally it includes development 62 Grossman, David A. The Future of New York City's Capital Plant. Washington, The Urban Institute, l979. p. 60, 63. 63 SMC-Martin Consulting Engineers and Temple, Barker, & Sloane, Inc. An Analysis of the Nation's Urban Water Systems: Characteristics, Investment Requirements and Policy Options. Report prepared for the Institute for Water Resources, Department of the Army. 1980. Cited in Congressional Budget Office, Public Works Infrastructure: Policy Considerations for the l980s. CBO points out that this estimate does not take into account rehabilitation or replacement of water mains and new conservation efforts that can obviate or at least forestall the need for new supplies. CRS-61 of underground water supplies in areas where aquifers are being "mined," or withdrawn, at a faster rate than they can be replenished (such as the Ogallala Aquifer that underlies parts of several High Plains States); development to replace ground or surface water supplies contaminated by man-made chemicals or salts; and development necessitated by multi-user competition for readily available sources. A final aspect of this issue that occurs nationally concerns the appropriate response to inadequate water supply treatment facilities, both for non-complying systems to meet current quality requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act and for all systems to achieve newly-issued standards of quality, particularly for chemical contaminants (see previous chapter). WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT This second major aspect of water infrastructure consists of several components. 0 Sewage collection (collector sewers which convey wastewater from residences or industry and interceptor sewers which convey it to a treat- ment facility). 0 Wastewater treatment facilities and disposal (sewage treatment plants, including outfall sewers). 0 Storm sewers and drains (sewer systems which collect and convey stormwater; in many areas such systems are connected to sanitary sewer systems, so that sanitary waste and stormwater are delivered to a treat- ment plant, while in other areas the two systems are separate and stormwater is conveyed directly to a stream or lake for disposal). As with the Nation's water supply network, physical problems are pervasive. They range from leaking, blocked, or undersized sewer pipes; to undersized or inoperative treatment facilities; and to facilities that cannot handle stormwater. In addition, treatment facilities do not exist CRS-62 in many places, where residences use on-site septic or other disposal systems.64 Assessment of wastewater treatment problems and corrective needs havel been driven largely by the water quality requirements mandated by the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500), which directs all municipalities to achieve treat- ment plant performance equivalent to 85 percent removal of wastes, termed secondary treatment, (or more stringent treatment, where required by indivi- dual State water quality standards). That level of treatment is expected to achieve the Act's goals of attaining waters that are fishable, swimmable, and capable of propagating fish and wildlife. Under that mandate, the Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 8,530 treatment facilities, or 55 percent of all plants operational in 1984, will require enlargement, upgrading, or replacement to achieve the Act's goals by the year 2000 and that another 6,303 new plants will be built to meet water quality needs.65 Estimated municipal funding needs to construct facilities intended to achieve the goals are reported semiannually by EPA, in studies based on State data. These total water quality objectives encompass several types or cate- gories of wastewater treatment projects, including construction of treatment plants and associated collection systems. Beyond new or upgraded plants needed to meet water quality requirements per se, three categories address physical integrity of existing wastewater systems and thus relate to per- ceived infrastructure problems concerning deterioration. Analysts generally concur that a major cause of such problems is failure to maintain sewer 64 Congressional Budget Office. Public Works Infrastructure: Policy Considerations for the l980s. p. 55. 65 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l984 Needs Survey Report to Congress. Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facili- ties in the United States. Washington, 1985. p. C-23. CRS-63 systems and treatment plants routinely, due to insufficient spending and inefficient spending that emphasizes new construction. 1. Infiltration/Inflow. High treatment costs can result when water seeps into sewer pipes through cracks and loose joints under normal groundwater movement or as a result of heavy rainfall; this is called infiltration/inflow (I/I). EPA estimates that 2,800 collection systems (14.5 percent of all) are experiencing I/I problems and that, as a result, treatment plants are being required to treat approximately 8 percent excess flow. This category of problem occurs in nearly every State but is most significant in New Jersey, New York, Texas, Illinois, and Tennessee.66 2. Major Rehabilitation and Repair. EPA estimates that 451 collection systems require correction of structural deficiencies by major rehabilita- tion, that is, repair or replacement beyond normal maintenance. New York, California, Missouri, and Ohio report the greatest funding needs for major rehabilitation projects. Added together, funds needed for the 1/1 and major rehabilitation project categories represent 7.1 percent of total funding needs identified by EPA and States to bring facilities serving current population into compliance with requirements of the Clean Water Act. On a per capita basis (1984 population), States with the highest funding needs for these cate- gories are New York, Missouri, Washington, and Rhode Island. 3. Combined Sewer Overflow. Communities in 39 States have combined sewers to collect storm runoff as well as wastewater; cities in l7 of these States have combined sewer discharges that potentially affect 55 Ibid., p. c-31, B-5. CRS-64 tidally-influenced coastal bays and estuaries. During heavy rains these sewers can back up, causing basement flooding. They also can overload treatment plants, causing raw or partially treated waste to overflow the sewer system and be discharged directly to rivers, streams and lakes. According to EPA, more than 73 percent of the dollar need to control com- bined sewer overflow (CSO) (totaling $23.5 billion in 1985 dollars) is found in urbanized areas of the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West, with the highest urban area needs found in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana, and Ohio. Significant CSO needs in nonurban areas are identified in a number of other States, including New York, Illinois, and Washington.67 Added together, funds needed for the I/I, major sewer rehabilitation, and combined sewer overflow project categories represent 35 percent of total funding needs identified by EPA and States to bring facilities serving current population into compliance with requirements of the Clean Water Act. On a per capita basis (1984 population), States with the highest reported funding needs for these three combined categories are New York, Maine, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Delaware. Eighteen States have a higher per capita need for funding projects in these three cate- gories than the national per capita need. Table 13 presents State level estimates for the waste water system needs. 57 Ibid., p. 11, A-25. CRS-65 Infiltration/Inflow, Sewer Rehabilitation and 'IABLE 13. Combined Sewer Overflow Needs (1985 Dollars) "TOTAL 1/1 and I/I and I/I, CSO I/I, CSO WWT REHAB REHAB AND REHAB AND REHAB CURRENT PER AS 2 OF PER AS 2 OF PER NEEDS CAPITA CURRENT CAPITA CURRENT CAPITA STATE (mil. S) NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS Alabama $822 $206 11.222 $23.13 11.222 $23.13 Alaska 168 337 3.012 10.14 6.632 22.31 Arizona 540 177 2.062 3.65 2.062 3.65 Arkansas 350 149 9.282 13.81 9.282 13.81 California 4,198 164 19.382 31.75 31.802 52.09 Colorado 149 47 4.082 1.91 14.292 6.70 Connecticut 1,733 549 2.172 11.90 27.972 153.68 Delaware 278 453 3.652 16.54 70.072 317.60 Dist. of C01. 303 487 0.002 0.00 10.372 50.46 Florida 2,925 267 4.682 12.47 4.782 12.75 Georgia 1,003 172 8.292 14.24 25.382 43.60 Hawaii 374 360 5.152 18.54 5.152 18.54 Idaho 221 221 4.132 9.12 7.802 17.22 Illinois 3,961 344 5.162 17.77 69.732 239.93 Indiana 2,006 365 1.212 4.43 62.642 228.51 Iowa 963 331 6.842 22.65 24.322 80.49 Kansas 663 272 6.422 17.47 44.952 122.28 Kentucky 1,335 359 6.532 23.42 21.792 78.17 Louisiana _ 994 223 10.392 23.14 10.392 23.14 Maine 896‘ 775 3.622 28.07 47.402 367.53 Maryland 1,124 258 9.392 24.25 11.642 30.08 Massachusetts 4,603 794 1.212 9.62 33.222 263.73 Michigan 3,175 350 4.332 15.14 27.642 96.70 Minnesota 1,292 310 3.062 9.50 43.412 134.73 Mississippi 516 199 11.792 23.42 11.792 23.42 Missouri 2,823 564 11.512 64.86 48.322 272.40 Montana 62 75 3.282 2.46 4.922 3.69 Nebraska 176 110 1.152 1.26 10.342 11.36 Nevada 95 105 6.382 6.68 6.382 6.68 New Hampshire 1,017 1041 1.402 14.53 23.732 247.01 New Jersey 4,626 616 5.662 34.81 31.432 193.49 New Mexico 100 70 1.012 0.71 1.012 0.71 New York 14,907 841 11.502 96.65 53.182 446.96 North Carolina 1,052 171 9.452 16.12 9.552 16.28 North Dakota 23 34 0.002 0.00 34.782 11.83 Ohio 4,462 415 7.512 31.18 35.672 148.03 Oklahoma 401 121 /6.082 7.38 6.082 7.38 Oregon 988 369 9.752 36.00 55.332 204.36 Pennsylvania 4,379 368 0.392 1.45 33.502 123.29 Rhode Island 765 795 5.312 42.16 47.212 375.24 South Carolina 742 225 10.252 23.05 10.252 23.05 South Dakota 97 138 2.082 2.87 27.082 37.34 Tennessee 1,712 363 10.012 36.33 46.152 167.46 Texas 2,771 173 8.742 15.15 8.742 15.15 Utah 382 231 11.412 26.39 11.412 26.39 Vermont 275 518 4.062 21.05 35.792 185.58 Virginia 1,323 235 1.532 3.60 14.562 34.18 Washington 2,928 673 7.252 48.80 30.032 202.21 West Virginia 1,930 989 0.422 4.16 32.742 323.63 Wisconsin 1,662 349 3.602 12.55 14.772 51.49 Wyoming 37 71 2.782 1.98 2.782 1.98 TOTAL $85,508 $362 7.022 $25.42 35.392 $126.37 CRS-66 EVALUATING CURRENT CONDITIONS AND PROJECTING FUTURE NEEDS Policymakers often find it useful to develop estimates of the extent and severity of a national problem and estimates of the costs to correct the problem. Concerning infrastructure systems, such estimates are imprecise and bear careful examination, particularly when attempting to compare projections from separate sources. Available estimates come from disparate sources, public and private, that have been developed in an ad hoc way, based on differing system definitions, time periods, and changes in current policy. For example, it is widely reported that between $75 and $100 billion (in 1979 dollars) will be needed to maintain urban water supply systems (756 systems serving 50,000 or more persons) through l990. The source is a Presidential Intergovernmental Task Force which investigated a number of water policy issues and programs in 1980.68 That estimate has subsequently been accepted by such a large number of analysts that it is assumed by many to be analytically correct. Whether it is valid, in fact, has not been established. Skeptics say that some estimates are "wish lists" of industry, contrac- tors, or trade associations, plus State and local governments, who may have incentive to exaggerate totals on which Federal policy is based.69 The Congressional Budget Office also finds qualitative shortcomings of many needs estimates. The large role that new construction plays in the apparent demand 68 Subcommittee on Urban Water Supply. The President's Intergovernmen- tal Water Policy Task Force. Urban Water Systems: Problems and Alternative Approaches to Solutions. Washington, l980. p. II-ll. 69 For example, a 1983 estimate presented by the Associated General Contractors of America called for $3 trillion in public works spending through the year 2002, including $508 billion for wastewater treatment construction--an estimate three times larger than similar projections from any other public or private source. CRS-67 for infrastructure spending reflects the orientation of current policies, according to CBO, rather than true priority of need. Similarly, while needs I surveys describe physical condition, they perpetuate policy bias in favor of capital projects, rather than "nonstructural" alternatives such as use or pricing policies.7O Despite concerns such as these, estimates of need (physical and financial) are possible and do play a role in Federal and non-Federal policy decisions. The remainder of this section of the report reviews needs projections for water supply and wastewater treatment. Water Supply Two sets of estimates concerning municipal water supply can be com- pared, one being CBO projections based on the l98O Presidential Inter- governmental Task Force, 71 and the other from a study prepared for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) in l984.72 Table l4 shows the CBO and JEC projections of total funding needs for municipal water supply. 70 U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Federal Policies for Infrastruc- ture Management. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1986. p. 8-9. 71 Congressional Budget Office, Public Works Infrastructure: Policy Considerations for the l980s. p. 125-137. From the Task Force estimates for 756 urban systems, CBO made population-based extrapolations to all 58,000 community water supply systems, which serve 85 percent of the population. Another l5 percent of the population have their own water wells or have no piped water supply. 72 U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Hard Choices, A Report on the Increasing Gap Between America's Infrastructure Needs and Our Ability To Pay for Them. Committee Print, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print Off., l984. S. Prt. 98-164. 230 p. plus 23 appendixes. The JEC study included detailed examination of infrastructure needs (highway, other transportation, water, and sewerage) in 23 States and then derived certain projections for four geographic regions and the Nation as a whole. Of recent reports on this subject, the JEC study offers the greatest amount of State- by-State and regional detail concerning needs, anticipated revenues, and projected spending gaps. CRS-68 TABLE 14. Projected Municipal Water Supply Needs (Billions of 1985 dollars) JEC CBO Projected Projected Total Needs Total Needs (1983-2000) (By l9901i U.S. Total $98.9 $101.4-152.1 Annual invest- ment needs $5.5 $6.5—9.4 Projected revenues $56.1 -— a/ Projected revenues gap $42.8 $9-12 a/ CBO separate estimate not presented. Table 15 shows the JEC's assessment of per capita needs on a U.S. and regional basis. The JEC study estimated that the $5.5 billion needed in annual investment by the year 2000 (see table 11) exceeds projected annual revenues by 76 percent ($2.4 billion per year) and exceeds recent historic spending trends by 41 percent ($1.6 billion per year). TABLE 15. JEC Study Per Capita Water Supply Needs (1983-2000) Projected Average Annual Per Capita Per Capita 3 Needs S Needs U.S. Total $419 $24 Northeast 361 20 South 1046 57 Midwest 361 20 West 590 32 On a per capita basis, the JEC study projected an average annual capital "shortfall" of $10 through the year 2000 (1984 population), with CRS-69 greatest per capita "shortfall" in the South-Central region (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc.)--having a projected average annual gap of $41. In that region investment needs are projected to be the greatest and revenues are projected to be the lowest. It is assumed that, if CBO had presented per capita estimates in this area, the projections would be considerably less than the JEC's, considering differences in the two studies’ estimates of projected revenue gaps. CBO ,.based its "shortfall" estimates on a water system's inability to finance its needs even after a doubling of water rates, recognized as an arbitrary cut-off point chosen to illustrate the possible magnitude of needed invest- ment. CBO noted that the category of new source development in the North- east, Southwest, and West together could generate the highest shortfall-- between $400 million and $500 million annually. CBO also observed that. privately owned systems, supplying water to about 20 percent of the U.S. population, on average charge 71 percent more for water than do publicly owned systems and, consequently, are four times less likely as municipal systems to experience investment shortfalls.73 Wastewater Treatment Two sets of estimates also can be compared for wastewater treatment and disposal needs, the JEC study and the most recent EPA needs survey. EPA's study has been conducted semi-annually since l974 and has a high degree of reliability, particularly for so-called "core" project categories such as treatment plants and related sewers. As noted previously, EPA reports funding needed to achieve the quality goals of the Clean Water Act--an 73 Congressional Budget Office. Public Works Infrastructure: Policy Considerations for the l980s. p. 133. 0 may not be uniformly cost-beneficial, according to some analysts, CRS-70 objective based on a fixed national standard (secondary treatment) which 74 yet the statutory goals have not been altered since 1972. EPA projects total U.S. funding needs of $107.8 billion (in 1985 dollars) by the year 2000. Covering the same time period, the JEC study projects funding needs 55 percent larger than EPA: $167.5 billion. ‘The difference, according to the JEC, reflects that study's view of projects needed for growth and economic development which are not as fully addressed by EPA. Table 16 compares total and average annual per capita needs in the JEC and EPA studies for the U.S. and four regions. Both studies report that the greatest capital investment needs are in the most populous States. TABLE 16. Per Capita Needs for Wastewater Treatment In JEC and EPA Studies (l983:2000) (1985 dollars) JEC EPA JEC EPA Projected Projected Aver. Ann. Aver. Ann. Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita S Needs’ S Needs $ Needs $_Needs U.S. Total $ 709 $463 $40 $26 Northeast 1236 735 67 41 South 685 385 37 22 Midwest 1122 432 61 24 West 647 337 35 19 The JEC study estimates that $9.4 billion in annual investment would be required by the year 2000 to meet total needs, an amount which exceeds recent historic spending (by all.sources) by 32 percent ($2.3 billion annually). The EPA study includes no projections of investment needs. However, the CBO 74 See, for example: U.S. General Accounting Office. Secondary Treatment of Municipal Wastewater in the St. Louis Area-—Minimal Impact Expected. CED-78-76, May 12, 1978; and Many Water Quality Standard Violations May Not Be Significant Enough to Justify Costly Preventive Actions CED-80-86, July 2, 1980. CRS-7l report discussed above estimates that, based on EPA's projections, meeting total needs as defined in current policies by the year l99O would require 31 percent more Federal and lOO percent more State investment than provided in recent history.75 75 Congressional Budget Office. Public Works Infrastructure: Policy Considerations for the 19805. p. 61. CRS-73 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES, IN BILLION GALLONS PER DAY. AT 5-YEAR INTERVALS, 1950-80 CRS-74 .>.:o gmumz smug; xx .m.nm._m>m yo: mums xm .uLoQmL Umzm__n:Q Eog» Umuumggou xm .mUcm.m_ :_m;_> Ucm .ou_m ougmza ::EH:ou we uo_;um_o .mmumum om xm .ou_¢ ougmnm ucm .m_QE:.ou +0 uo_.um_o .mmumum om xm .m_aa:.ou %o uu_Lum_o use mmumum on \m .m_n::_ou +0 uu_.um_o Ucm magnum w¢ \— N- _~+ oom.m com.m oom.~ oan.~ ooo.~ oom._ oo_.. ................ --.m;oa o_;uuo.mo;uS: I "mm: Emmgumc_ ~+ c_+ xx co. \M co \M Na xx .0 .\mV A\m. .................... --mm: m>_uQE:mcou -9- ~+ m. m. m. N. \w 0. m. .\m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --ommxmm UoE_m.um¢ ~+ —m+ -5 00 mm mq _m m. o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --m:__mm c_+ m+ com oo~ cmm % c_~ co. on. \w o¢. .......................... --;mm._ “Loam: momwgnm m- 0- o. — — m. e. o. .\m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --mc_.mm 5+ -+ on ma co co om Ne qm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-;mm;m ugmumz Ucaogo "m.m:m;U:u_: we ougaom 7. 9 3 3 3 3 an 2.. S .......... :38 .2,_§B._ .550 0+ c.+ c.~ com as. on. go. mu oq . . . . . . . -.mm: Luzon o_Luum.moE;m:~ ".m_Lum:uc_ um_.aa:m-._mm n+ -—+ om— oe— om. om. o_. o__ \w on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --:o_umm_;g_ c—+ o—+ o.m o.¢ m.« o.¢ o.n o.n o.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-xuoumm>_. Ucm u_ummEoU .m;:m m_+ 9+ em on km «N —m up we . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . -->.QQ:m u__n:m a+ ~_+ one o~« o~m c.n o- o¢~ \W cm. .................. --m_m;m.n;._: .auo_ . "mm: smo;umw»o o+ m+ o.o- xw ¢.o.~ o.mo~ o.mo_ n.o~_ a.«o. ~.cm_ .............. --mco_.._e :_ .co_um.:aoa om.m~o. m~.o~o_ xm coo. \« m~o_ %\m o~o_ \m moo. \m coo. \m awe. \m omo_ ~-v ommmguot go NNU ;wm.mco_.mm :o_.__n Cg OWE gmumz UmumE_umm A+v mmmmgu:_ mmmucougom nmgmnszc voncaogca Eogw nmum.:u.mu mum mmmcmzu ommucougoa ogu .gm>o3o; umm;:m_» u:mu_m_cm_m ozu cu uonczog mum >..mgmcmm mumn asp ..-o. .-o_. mo>oo¢ can >m..=z new .Anoo_. >a..=z ...oo_. .o.ueemg new :m;u_xum= ..~mo_ ._mo_. cm;o_xom= so;* uouamum m~-omo. Lo‘ m.mo. oe-omo. .m4<>¢u_z_ ¢