CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series Number 44 December 2018
MPPS Policy Paper: Drinking Water Infrastructure
Caleb Hogeterp, University of Michigan
This paper is available online at http://closup.umich.edu Papers in the CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series are written by students at the University of Michigan. This paper was submitted as part of the Fall 2018 course PubPol 475-750 Michigan Politics and Policy, that is part of the CLOSUP in the Classroom Initiative. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy or any sponsoring agency
Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 MPPS Policy Paper: Drinking Water Infrastructure
I.
Executive Summary Michigan has access to some of the largest bodies of freshwater in the world, and is
surrounded by more than one-fifth of the world’s surface fresh water (US EPA, 2015). However, the quality of its constituents’ drinking water contradicts this sort of access. The state of Michigan’s current condition of drinking water infrastructure is lacking: as of the 2018 Report Card for Michigan’s Infrastructure by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Michigan was given a ‘D’ for drinking water infrastructure, signifying that their system is passable, yet currently suffers from multiple issues (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2018). These issues vary from contamination, such as prevalence of lead and other chemicals harmful to human health, to scarcity concerns and current infrastructure systems not meeting the needs of those who depend on them. Michigan’s drinking water systems need intense development and policy changes to adequately distribute safe drinking water. While these changes are needed, often in the form of funding, this sort of investment can often struggle to come to fruition due to the large amount of funding needed to completely fix this deficiency. As of 2016, there was an estimated $800 million per year gap between funding and need for Michigan’s infrastructure systems (ASCE, 2018). On the other hand, there are multiple possible reforms that would safeguard the health of Michigan’s people more quickly and at a lower cost. While the first policy recommendation, increasing funding through the usage of bonds, would be the optimal solution to these problems, this paper will describe two additional policy proposals to cover current gaps in Michigan’s water infrastructure and promote public health.
1
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 • Increased surveillance over and monitoring frequency of the state’s drinking water systems, especially in the case on non-community and private water systems, which serve almost 25 percent of the state’s population. This information should also be made easily accessible for the public. •
Policy inducing the review and updating of current drinking water standards given out by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to align with or exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory levels of chemicals harmful to human health. Residents in areas with violations should additionally be notified, and an online database of regulations shall be enacted.
While neither of these will eliminate the root cause of many of these issues, they will help to both increase community awareness about the safety of their drinking water supplies and implement higher regulatory standards for distributed water.
II.
Context Much of Michigan’s infrastructure is old, leading to significant quality issues. Because
of the age of many pipeline networks, breakdowns and pipe corrosion have an impact on both quality and availability of water (Blacksburg, n.d.). Many of the pipes throughout Michigan’s drinking water infrastructure between 50 and 100 years old and are either nearing the end or are past their designed service time (ASCE, 2018). Because of the time of their development, they often contain lead solder, which can leech into drinking water without proper treatment (Masten, Davies, & Mcelmurry, 2016). In certain circumstances, such as in the City of Flint, ordinances
2
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 required the usage of lead pipe (Masten et. al, 2016). This leaves many pipes in their currently neglected states as a hazard to the health of those who use them if not maintained properly.
III.
Organization and Funding
Organizationally, Michigan’s citizens receive drinking water through one of three main sources: private aquifer wells, community water supplies, and non-community or private water supplies (ASCE, 2018). The majority of Michigan’s population – 80 percent - receive their water from one of the approximately 1400 community water supplies (CWS) in the state, with the remaining 20 percent relying on non-community supplies or private wells (ASCE, 2018). Community water supplies are overseen and monitored by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) (ASCE, 2018). The MDEQ, as the main regulator for drinking water in the state, also has oversight of aquifer wells, and issues permits to non-community water supplies (NCWS). For aquifer wells and NCWS, there can often be minimal, or in few cases no water treatment done (ASCE, 2018). Treated water is often purchased from treated systems by other CWS. As of now, almost 95 percent of all drinking water, sewage, and storm water infrastructure funding is from local governments, with the majority of the remainder being made up by states (Knopman, Wachs, Miller, Davis, & Pfrommer, 2017). However, the level of state funds created have not been sustainable for drinking water projects (Knopman et. al, 2017). Previous Michigan governor Rick Snyder announced a proposal in February of 2018 that will invest an additional $110 million dollars into the state’s water infrastructure, yet this is still
3
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 almost $700 million short of a 21st Century Infrastructure Commission report’s projected annual needs (Michigan.gov, 2018).
IV.
Michigan Public Policy Survey
Michigan has continually been in the national spotlight over the last several years, due to several governmental scandals in relation to drinking water, with the Flint Water Crisis being the most famous of the bunch. However, other similar cases are widespread. In August of 2018, the Detroit Public Schools Community District shut off their drinking water in all district schools after test results with elevated levels of lead or copper in two-thirds of tested schools (“Detroit Public Schools Shut Off Drinking Water Due to Elevated Lead,” n.d.). In West Michigan, Parchment City and the surrounding area in Kalamazoo County turned off and later reconnected their water supplies to a new source in the City of Kalamazoo, due to high levels of polyfluoroalkyl substances being found in their supply (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2018). Compared to the previously discussed state of Michigan’s water infrastructure, there is a large discrepancy between the beliefs of locally elected officials and the reality of the situation. According to
Figure 1: MPPS Data on Elected Official Opinions of Water Infrastructure Conditions in Spring, 2016. Data from The Michigan Public Policy Survey. (2016). Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/michigan-public-policy-survey/spring-2016data/q21.php
4
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 the Michigan Public Policy Survey, which biannually surveys local officials about issues pertaining to their jurisdiction, the majority of officials have the opinion that their current systems are of a good or higher quality. As seen in the graph, the majority of Michigan officials have a positive view of their water infrastructure, with only 21 percent rating their current water infrastructure as fair or poor. With the amount of issues Michigan has recently had in the spotlight in relation to contamination events, and the age of the system overall, this is shocking. According to Gallup polls dating back to April of 1990 and continuing through March of 2018, percentages varying from 48 to 72 percent of all surveyed Americans had worried a great deal about pollution of drinking water in the United States (Gallup Polls, 2018). Furthermore, less than half of all Americans are confident in their tap water, with even lower confidence levels in minority groups (Swanson, 2016). From a sample of 600 likely general election voters in 2016 surveyed by the Glengariff Group, issues with drinking water systems were the second most important issue facing the state of Michigan (Glengariff Group Inc., 2016). On the other hand, 37 percent of MPPS surveyed officials from shared water systems do report problems due to aging and breaking pipes, even if they hold the quality of their systems in higher regard (MPPS, 2016). These percentages increase to 47 percent for larger jurisdictions, and 55 percent in jurisdictions with fiscal stress (MPPS, 2016). This allows an insight into the views of officials who may have to take more active looks at their water infrastructure because of the size of their jurisdiction, or because of having to view the economic implications of putting more funding into water when finances are tight. Some legislation has been introduced in order to improve upon the current drinking water systems. Introduced by The Great Waters, Great Lands Bond Authorization would put out bonds up to $2 billion, for “drinking water systems,
5
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 sewage systems, stormwater systems, and drainage systems; the cleanup of environmental contamination; and the abatement of lead hazards� (O’Brien, 2018). However, this has yet to pass out of the Michigan Legislature.
V.
Current Impacts The consequences of not addressing these issues are already visible. Due to leaking
pipes, between 10 and 50 percent of all transported water is lost (Michigan.gov, 2018). While this may not be noticeable to the public, these losses can add up to lead to larger impacts on the cost and upkeep prices of water transportation. Additionally, Michigan has had several issues with harmful contaminants impacting communities across the state. This includes commonly known incidences, such as the Flint Water Crisis with lead contamination, as well as smaller scale incidents such as polyfluoroalkyl substances in Kalamazoo, and the 1,4 dioxane plume approaching the water system used in Ann Arbor. Furthermore, a large swathe of the population has had levels of contaminants above health guidelines. Almost 6 million Michigan residents had high levels of hexavalent chromium, with 232 utilities violating guidelines (Environmental Working Group, 2018). While increasing funding would be the optimal solution to this problem, there are other solutions that may bring about similar results at a lower cost to taxpayers. For example, the conversation surrounding drinking water infrastructure as of 2018 is minimal, much of which is due to the fact that pipes are not visible, and often complaints are not brought up until the water itself has issues. Finding information about drinking water contaminations, and the state of water infrastructure in more local areas is also extremely difficult. By implementing lower cost
6
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 information programs that are available to the population, in addition to more consistent surveying assuring the quality of the information, the public can have a better understanding of what tends to be an invisible issue.
VI.
Development of Water Infrastructure Bonds
The first, and most directly effective policy proposal to combat poor water infrastructure in the state of Michigan would be the usage of bonds to fund repairs and development in water infrastructure throughout the state. As of 2018 and mentioned previously, governor Rick Snyder increased annual funding for water infrastructure by $110 million annually, for usage in 3 separate programs (Michigan.gov, 2018). However, this is still much lower than the estimated $800 million dollars needed annually in the state. Much of the current funding for drinking water infrastructure in Michigan is funded by local and city jurisdictions, which makes the space for the state to intervene larger in terms of funds (The Michigan Office of The Great Lakes, 2018). In the past, a large number of prior water replacement projects have been funded with the usage of voter approved bond funds, showing that this may be an applicable intervention to increase funding for statewide projects (The Michigan Office of the Great Lakes, 2018). Through the distribution of municipal bonds, Michigan’s state government could raise the missing ~$690 million funding gap in current drinking water infrastructure. This paper proposes that instead, the state uses municipal bonds in the form similar to that suggested in the Great Waters, Great Lands Bond Authorization Act sponsored by state senator Margaret O’Brien, to raise at minimum $700 million dollars to be put toward the development and monitoring of the state’s drinking water infrastructure (O’Brien, 2018). This shall include, but will not be limited
7
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 to, the replacement of piping, the improvement of technology and infrastructure involved in drinking water treatment facilities, and the installment of activated charcoal filters in residences at higher risk of contamination. These funds, as distributed by the state, should also be focused on providing to communities with larger amounts of financial stress in their local governments, as well as jurisdictions with poorer condition pipes. Michigan has varying levels of infrastructural wear across drinking water systems, and some populations are more vulnerable to the impact of poor water condition than others. These funds would also be applicable to the other two suggested policy proposals, as both will require funding in order to both expand current surveillance of drinking water infrastructure, and making available a publicly accessible database containing information about specific water systems throughout the state.
VII. Proposed Policy Recommendation II – Increased Surveillance of CWS, NCWS, and Aquifer Wells In order to better inform the public about the quality of their drinking water, increased surveillance of all systems of drinking water provisions should be increased in the state of Michigan. This would specifically require the surveillance of non-community water to be directly monitored by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, in the same vein as community water supplies surveillance. This would help to standardize surveillance over drinking water systems which currently serve around 2.5 million Michigan residents, almost 25 percent of the state’s population. This will most likely require additional manpower to monitor the influx of systems being brought in, but could likely be made up of connecting existing local resources used for monitoring to MDEQ officials as well as through increased funding
8
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 mechanisms due to the previously mentioned bond proposal. Standardizing drinking water oversight to have all information come back to the MDEQ would allow for state departments to have a better view of problem areas throughout Michigan’s infrastructure that may have not been visible prior. Oversight would optimally be performed on each supply annually. With oversight and data being brought back to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, it is important that the information also be disseminated to the public. One way in which this can be done is through the development of an online, publicly accessible database detailing the current state of water infrastructure, drinking water quality and contamination incidence. In order to have Michigan residents understand the true impact that poor water systems will have can only be done by making what is currently an unseen issue viewable.
VIII. Proposed Policy Recommendation III – Revision of MDEQ Drinking Water Regulatory Levels One other way in which drinking water could be improved throughout the state of Michigan is through the review and updating of drinking water contaminant standards to match or exceed regulatory levels of the Environmental Protection Agency. Many of the EPA’s regulations consist of maximum contaminant levels, in which no amount above a certain limit (in parts per billion) is allowed to be in a drinking water supply (EWG, 2018). However, it may be useful instead to move contaminant guidelines to reduce contaminants below levels that are believed to impact human health. If tightly enforced, instituting these types of regulatory limits
9
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 will force changes through the development of new infrastructure projects across the state to meet compliance with updated regulations. Michigan’s water systems currently have levels of certain contaminants in systems that are above both acceptable finding levels, and in some cases found at levels harmful to human health (Environmental Water Group, 2018). According to data from 2010 to 2015 by the Environmental Water Group’s tap water database, there have been hundreds of utilities found with levels of hexavalent chromium, different radium isotopes, total trihalomethanes, and other contaminants at levels exceeding health guidelines. Increased regulation would give recourse for the government to follow when violations are found. There is precedent for instituting this sort of proposal in Michigan as well. In July of 2018, Michigan instituted some of the nation’s strictest regulations for allowed levels of lead or copper in drinking water, dropping the action level to 12 parts per billion (ppb) as opposed to the EPA’s 15ppb (Wise, 2018). These regulations are expected to result in the replacement of almost 500,000 lead service pipes throughout the state by the year 2040, mostly at the cost of consumers (Wise, 2018). This sort of regulatory implementation could be expanded to cover exposure to other hazardous chemicals. For example, Polyfluoroalkyl substances – a type of manmade chemical commonly used in commercial processes – have been found in over 200 sites around the state (Gruber, 2018). This group of chemicals is bio-accumulative, commonly used, and harmful to human health, being linked with increases in liver damage, multiple types of cancers, and immune system deficiencies, among other impacts. With an expansion of strict chemical regulations, repairs and better drinking water infrastructure practices would be soon to follow.
10
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 This would in turn reduce Michigan residents’ exposure to the contaminants that are currently present. This expansion should also take note of drinking water regulations currently under review by the Environmental Protection Agency. As federal regulations are being constantly reviewed and updated, it may be of use to include or jumpstart programs limiting currently unregulated contaminants. Oftentimes, emerging contaminants see little to no regulation until their effects on human health are already felt. One way this can be mitigated is through this preemptive type of regulation of emerging contaminants. It is important that these updated regulations be consistently enforced, and be provided funding with which to adequately do so.
IX.
Limitations of Policy Proposals
While the net impact of these recommendations will be positive, there are sure to be limitations to the impact they will have. Policy proposals such as these will require large scale changes in the way in which governing agencies are run, and there is sure to be backlash from negatively impacted stakeholders. Because these proposals are mostly grounded in funding, regulation, and monitoring, it is likely that it will take time to see the effects that they will have. As well as this, the barrier for implementation is high: to completely rework and update regulations grounded in scientific data will take time and expertise, as well as compromise with legislators. The toxicological profile of many contaminants are constantly updating. Looking at the impact of chemicals on human health is a difficult to regulate field, and data on many current and emerging contaminants is lacking.
11
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 In terms of regulation and monitoring of a large number of additional water supplies, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is likely to need a large number of additional employees, or local professionals to relay infrastructural data.
X.
Conclusion Michigan is not in a unique position with its infrastructure in comparison to the rest of the
United States. Much of the drinking water infrastructure in place is aging towards or aged past it’s intended replacement date. Much of the public – including elected officials – tend to disregard or be uninformed of the state of drinking water infrastructure, as it is not directly visible. In order to improve and repair the state of drinking water infrastructure, this report recommends that: •
There be a municipal bond enacted to raise the needed $700 million in funding needed to repair, replace, or improve current drinking water infrastructure across the state. These funds should be particularly directed towards at-risk communities, and funding the additional proposals stated.
•
There be increased surveillance over and monitoring frequency of the state’s drinking water systems, especially in the case on non-community and private water systems. This information should also be made easily accessible for the public through the development of a publicly accessible database.
•
There be implementation of Policy inducing the review and updating of current drinking water standards given out by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to align with or exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
12
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 regulatory levels of chemicals harmful to human health. Residents in areas with violations should additionally be notified.
With these policy implementations will come multiple benefits in regards to the infrastructure of the state as a whole, and in terms of human health outcomes. Michigan has previously been a leader in lead and copper contaminant regulation in the United States, and now is the best time to expand on that type of regulation. The longer the state puts off the inevitable fixes that must be made to protect human health and the safety of drinking water supplies across Michigan, the worse outcomes that are likely to occur.
13
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018
Works Cited American Society of Civil Engineers. (2018). Michigan Infrastructure Report Card. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/michigan/ Blacksburg, T. Y. Y. is F. and P., Green Water-Infrastructure Academy, Washington, D. C. and Member of the Board of Directors for the Cabell Brand Center, Roanoke He lives in. (n.d.). Younos: U.S. drinking water problems: Flint, Michigan and beyond: Part II. Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/younos-u-s-drinking-water-problemsflint-michigan-and-beyond/article_8948cd46-a75c-5f73-a67f-b0b28a38159d.html Detroit Public Schools Shut Off Drinking Water Due to Elevated Lead. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://www.wwdmag.com/lead/detroit-public-schools-shutdrinking-water-due-elevated-leadhttps://www.wqpmag.com/lead-removal/detroitpublic-schools-shut-drinking-water-due-elevated-lead Gallup Polls. (2018). Environment. Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx Group, E. W. (n.d.). EWG’s Tap Water Database: What’s in Your Drinking Water? Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/state.php?stab=MI?stab=MI Knopman, D., Wachs, M., Miller, B. M., Davis, S. G., & Pfrommer, K. (2017). Not Everything Is Broken [Product Page]. Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1739.html
14
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 Masten, S. J., Davies, S. H., & Mcelmurry, S. P. (2016). Flint Water Crisis: What Happened and Why? Journal - American Water Works Association, 108(12), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2016.108.0195 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2018, October 1). State establishes mutual agreement with Georgia-Pacific on Parchment PFAS investigation. Retrieved November 22, 2018, from https://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3308-479762--,00.html New Drinking Water Crisis Dwarfs Flint Tragedy | RealClearPolitics. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/04/new_drinking_water_crisis_dw arfs_flint_tragedy_138249.html O’Brien, M. Great Waters, Great Lands Bond Authorization Act, Pub. L. No. 1108 (2018). Retrieved from https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/20172018/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2018-SIB-1109.htm Poll: Only half of Americans confident in tap water. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2016/03/07/apgfk-poll-about-half-of-americans-confident-in-tap-water/81426396/ Snyder - Gov. Rick Snyder announces new proposal to increase investments for rebuilding Michigan’s water infrastructure. (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2018, from https://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-80388_80397-459052--,00.html
15
Caleb Hogeterp PUBPOL 475 Debra Horner Fall 2018 US EPA, R. 05. (2015, September 18). Great Lakes Facts and Figures [Overviews and Factsheets]. Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/great-lakes-factsand-figures Wise, J. (2018, June 14). Michigan enacts nation’s strictest rules on lead in drinking water [Text]. Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://thehill.com/homenews/392325michigan-enacts-nations-strictest-rules-on-lead-in-drinking-water
16