OHIO’S WATER & SEWER

INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

SEPTEMBER 2016

Jon Honeck, PhDSenior Policy Fellow

Greater Ohio Policy Center

ABOUT US: GREATER OHIO POLICY CENTER (GOPC)

An outcome-oriented statewide non-profit organization that champions revitalization and sustainable redevelopment in Ohio :

Neighborhood Revitalization

Regional Growth

Transportation & Infrastructure Modernization

Urban Regeneration

Drinking water and wastewater usually separate utilities

Can be organized as municipal, county, or regional (RC Ch 6119) entities

Largely supported by customer charges (enterprise funds)

New concept of “Stormwater utility” fees (MS4)EPA regulation and permit process is large driver of

capital spendingAging infrastructure, some still dates from late 19 th

or early 20 th CenturyOhio has est. 650,000 homes or businesses served

by lead water supply lines (6.1 million nationally)¹

OVERVIEW OF WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER

UTILITIES

¹AWWA National Survey (2016).

Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – state EPA permits for municipal, stormwater, industrial discharges

Combined sewer overflow (CSO) correction 87 Ohio cities are under EPA consent decrees, over 100 others under EPA findings and orders

Created need for large capital projects taking decades to complete

MS4 – municipal stormwater discharges

EPA REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT

Primary Drinking Water Regulations Enforceable standards for Inorganic Chemicals, Organic Chemicals, Radionuclides, Microorganisms

“Lead and Copper Rule” is being revisedSecondary Nonenforceable standards for cosmetic or aesthetic purposes (taste and smell)

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW

http://capitalregionwater.com/author/crwadmin/page/3/#sthash.ZC4KIGcP.dpbs

SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEM

http://www.winnipeg.ca/waterandwaste/sewage/systemOperation.stm

Wastewater Treatment, 11.3%

Conveyance System Repair;

22.6%

New Con-veyance Sys-tems; 8.7%

Combined Sewer Overflow

Correction; 51.2%

Stormwater Man-agement Program;

6.1%

OHIO NEEDS $14.1 BILLION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT, 2012 - 2032

U.S. EPA Office of Water. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2012 Report to Congress – State Fact Sheets. Ohio CWNS 2012.

OHIO NEEDS $12.1 BILLION FOR DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, 2011-2030

U.S. EPA Office of Water. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. Fifth Report to Congress. EPA 816-R-13-006. April 2013.

Transmis-sion and Dis-

tribution66%

Source4%

Treatment18%

Storage10%

Other 2%

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400 Average Annual Ohio Water and Sewer Rates (2014 Dollars)

INCREASES IN RATES LEAD TO AFFORDABILITY CONCERNS

31.5% Real Increase

2014

33%2016

28%

FULL COST PRICING IS DIFFICULT

Percentage of Large/Medium U.S. Water and Sewer Utilities with revenues sufficient to cover

maintenance, debt service, capital investment, and reserves

Source: Black & Veatch, 2016 Strategic Directions.

Cost of Consent Decrees Led to Search for Alternatives

US EPA encouraging “green infrastructure” and “integrated planning process” that allows modification of plans

Columbus original WWMP $3.5 Billion over 40 years “Blueprint Columbus” avoided deep tunnel and saved $700

million, achieve better stormwater control results NEORSD – providing grants for green infrastructureCincinnati MSD – stream “daylighting” and other green

infrastructure in Lower Mill Creek Valley oGreen Infrastructure is new, hard to evaluate long-term

impacto Maintenance issues – responsibility and costo Stormwater installations on private property

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE: A NEW SOLUTION?

Bio Retention PondsBio SwalesDaylighting StreamsRain BarrelsWetlands PreservationPorous PavementGreen Roofs

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE EXAMPLES

http://www.cleanwaternashville.org/green-infrastructure

STORMWATER RETENTION GARDEN

http://www.mmsd.com/gi/green-infrastructure/bioswales

GREEN ROOF

http://greencitygrowers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/france-green-roof.jpg

POROUS PAVEMENT

http://www.taschifsky.com/taschifsky.com/Eco_Paving.html

Federal funding switched from grants to loans in late 1980s, partnering with states to create revolving loans funds (SRFs)

Ohio EPA and OWDA Revolving Loan Funds: Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (subsidized) Drinking Water Assistance Fund (subsidized)

OWDA Fresh Water Fund (market rate) Combined loan volume over $1 Billion from these three

funds Ohio Public Works Commission -- Grants and Loans for water

and sewer disbursed through 19 district integrating committees

Other federal sources, ARC, USDA, CDBG for small systems Navigating through various sources is a challenge!

FINANCING SOURCES

OWDA Market Rate, 2.56%

EPA DWAF/WPCLF, 1.31%

OWDA Community Assistance, 0.06%

$- $50,000

$100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000

INTEREST PAYMENTS ON 20 YEAR $1M LOAN

August 2016 interest rates; level amortization

Asset Management Programs (AMP) tied to capital planning and rate structures Predictive maintenance and prioritization Senate Bill 333 would tie AMP to wastewater permits (Oct.

2018)Regionalization for small systems

Cooperative agreements do not require Ch. 6119 regional govt.

Property-assessed stormwater infrastructure for private parcels concept similar to PACE, but water not included in Ohio

PACE law Public-Private Partnerships (P3s)

Ohio has limited P3 statute for ODOT, not for water

NEW FINANCING AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

No safe level of lead exposure in children Lead service lines mostly installed before Second World

War; Ohio estimated to have about 10% of the 6.1 million total

lead service lines nationally (AWWA National Survey)Corrosion can controlled through chemical treatment but

risk stil l remains Work on main supply line or construction work can disturb LSL Risk from lead fixtures and pipes within building itself

EPA requires testing under “lead and copper rule” but protocols criticized as weak and not enforced (e.g., pre-flushing techniques and failure to target test sites)

Customers usually own service line from street to the home, leading to disputes about who pays for replacement

FLINT, SEBRING AND LEAD POISONING:

INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH

The water system did not know the location of lead service lines

The water utility and state regulators employed dubious lead sampling techniques

Customers had little or no awareness of the potential for lead in their drinking water

Utility construction was taking place without notifying customers of the potential for lead contamination

Lead service line replacement is often looked at as unnecessary, costly, and complex

-- Eric Rothstein, Member of Michigan Governor’s Flint Water Advisory Task Force (Journal AWWA 2016)

WHAT IS NOT UNUSUAL ABOUT FLINT?

Holds public water systems more accountable for recording and reporting lead and copper levels.

Imposes stricter monitoring of public water systems’ compliance with lead and copper rules and imposes penalties for not complying with reporting and recording requirements.

Requires mapping of possible lead pipe lines by water systems every five years

Requires of notice to resident within two days of receiving contaminated results from tests.

HB 390 - $12 million for grants to schools to replace lead fixtures ($15,000 per school, OFCC)

OHIO HOUSE BILL 512 (2016)

 March 7th & 8th, 2017

More information is available at: www.GreaterOhio.wix.com/2017-Summit

The Westin Columbus310 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215

Investing in Ohio's Future: Maximizing Growth in our Cities and Regions

More information is available at: www.GreaterOhio.wix.com/2017-Summit

Jon Honeck, Ph.D.Senior Policy Fellow

jhoneck@greaterohio.org(614) 224-0187

www.GreaterOhio.org

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION