Local government leaders’ views on drinking water and infrastructure in Michigan communities

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Michigan Public Policy Survey November 2016

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy >> University of Michigan

Local government leaders’ views on drinking water and water supply infrastructure in Michigan communities

Key Findings •

By Debra Horner, Thomas Ivacko, and Sarah Mills

Just over half (55%) of Michigan jurisdictions report that drinking water is provided either wholly or in part through one or more shared water supply systems in their communities, while 43% report that their citizens get water entirely through individual private wells. »»

Most jurisdictions (72%) with shared drinking water systems play some kind of active role in water supply or distribution (for example, supplying their own water; contracting / purchasing water from another provider; or owning / operating some portion of local drinking water infrastructure).

This report presents Michigan local government leaders’ assessments of issues related to the provision of drinking water in their communities, including threats to water safety, the condition of infrastructure, challenges regarding shared local drinking water systems, funding of these systems, and governmental oversight of them. These findings are based on statewide surveys of local government leaders in the Spring 2016 wave of the Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS).

•

Threats to water quality or safety are reported by 17% of officials in jurisdictions that play at least some role in providing drinking water, and by 14% of officials who say all drinking water in their jurisdictions is provided by individual private wells.

•

>> The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) is a census survey of all 1,856 general purpose local governments in Michigan conducted by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) at the University of Michigan in partnership with the Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Townships Association, and Michigan Association of Counties. The MPPS takes place twice each year and investigates local officials’ opinions and perspectives on a variety of important public policy issues. Respondents for the Spring 2016 wave of the MPPS include county administrators, board chairs, and clerks; city mayors, managers, and clerks; village presidents, managers, and clerks; and township supervisors, managers, and clerks from 1,378 jurisdictions across the state.

Among jurisdictions that play a role in providing drinking water, 37% of officials report that aging and breaking pipes in the shared water supply system are somewhat of a problem or a significant problem. This rises to 47% in the state’s largest jurisdictions, and to 55% among those suffering with reported high overall levels of municipal fiscal stress.

•

Statewide, 75% of officials whose jurisdictions play a role in drinking water provision believe the overall condition of their drinking water infrastructure is excellent (29%) or good (46%), while 20% say it is fair (17%) or poor (3%). »»

However, reports from local officials who currently rate their governments as under high fiscal stress are less positive, with 37% saying their water infrastructure is just fair (29%) or poor (8%).

»»

Half (50%) of local leaders in jurisdictions with shared water systems say their infrastructure has improved over the last decade, while 15% say it has deteriorated.

For more information, please contact: closup-mpps@umich.edu/ (734) 647-4091. You can also follow us on Twitter @closup

•

Looking ahead, 28% of officials in jurisdictions with shared water infrastructure believe that current funding levels are not adequate to maintain the infrastructure. This increases to 72% among jurisdictions that say the condition of their infrastructure today is poor.

•

Overall, 70% of jurisdictions that charge water user fees have increased their rates in the last few years. »»

Looking ahead, 72% of local officials say they would support raising water fees further, in order to maintain or improve drinking water infrastructure, but only 36% think the majority of their citizens would support this.

www.closup.umich.edu

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Background Although providing clean drinking water is a government service that citizens often take for granted, the Flint water crisis has thrown local drinking water infrastructure in Michigan into a bright public spotlight. Many are now looking beyond Flint to other communities across the state to assess the condition of safe drinking water provision.1 Throughout the Great Recession and even in years prior, fiscal pressures forced the state and many Michigan local governments to defer investments in maintaining and improving infrastructure of all kinds.2 In fact, from 2000 through 2012, Michigan ranked 46th among all the states in state and local government infrastructure investment per capita.3 Drinking water infrastructure is no exception. In its 2013 “report card” for America’s infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave Michigan a D grade and reported that Michigan has $13.8 billion in drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years.4 According to a recent report from Public Sector Consultants of Lansing commissioned by the Michigan Infrastructure & Transportation Association, between 2004 and 2013, while the statewide estimated investment need for drinking water infrastructure was between $731 million and $1.01 billion on an average annual basis, investments in drinking water infrastructure averaged only $447 million.5 Thus, based on their estimates, Michigan is under-investing in its drinking water infrastructure by anywhere from $284 million to $563 million each year.

Spurred by the crisis in Flint, the State of Michigan is currently taking steps to address drinking water issues. For example, earlier this year Governor Rick Snyder created the 21st Century Infrastructure Commission to “identify long-term strategies to help ensure Michigan’s infrastructure remains safe and efficient now and into the future.”6 In addition, in June 2016 the State introduced a 30-year strategy for Michigan’s stewardship of the Great Lakes and inland waters, with the first priority identified as providing reliable, safe drinking water for all state residents.7 To find out more about how local government leaders assess a range of issues related to their communities’ current and future drinking water, the Spring 2016 MPPS survey asked local officials statewide about their concerns and challenges regarding drinking water in their jurisdictions.

2

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

A majority of Michigan’s local jurisdictions get some or all of their drinking water through shared water systems When it comes to the basic question of how drinking water is supplied in Michigan communities, 55% of local officials report that at least some of their jurisdictions’ drinking water is provided through shared water supply systems, while 43% say it is provided entirely by private individual wells (see Figure 1a). The shared delivery systems may include municipal-wide systems, more limited subdivision-wide systems, or even a shared system for a single apartment complex or building. Breaking these shared systems down further, one in five (20%) jurisdictions report that drinking water in their communities is provided entirely through shared systems (e.g., municipal-wide), 14% say their water comes mostly through shared supply systems (though there are also some individual private wells present), and 21% say water is delivered mostly by private individual wells but that there is at least one shared system within the jurisdiction, too.

Unsurprisingly, larger jurisdictions are more likely than smaller ones to have drinking water provided predominantly through shared water systems. Almost all (92%) officials from Michigan communities with over 30,000 residents indicate that drinking water in their jurisdictions is provided mostly (37%) or entirely (55%) through shared water supply systems (see Figure 1b). Meanwhile, just over a third (36%) of the state’s smallest jurisdictions—those with fewer than 1,500 residents—report that at least some drinking water in their communities comes from shared systems. Statewide, 62% of these smallest communities get all of their drinking water from individual private wells.

Among those jurisdictions where there is at least one shared water system, nearly three-quarters (72%) of local leaders report their jurisdictions play some sort of active role in drinking water supply or distribution. This could include, for example, entirely running their own water supply systems, contracting for or purchasing water from another provider, or owning and/or operating just a portion of local drinking water infrastructure. By contrast, 25% say their jurisdictions play no active role in drinking water supply or distribution. Officials from larger communities are more likely to say their jurisdictions have an active role in drinking water provision, with 84% of those from the state’s largest jurisdictions indicating that their governments do so (see Figure 2).

Figure 1a How local jurisdictions’ drinking water is provided (excluding counties)

1% Entirely through shared water supply system(s)

20%

Mostly through shared water supply system(s), but some individual private wells 43%

Mostly through individual private wells, but some shared system(s)

14%

Entirely through individual private wells Don’t know

21%

Figure 1b How local jurisdictions’ drinking water is provided (excluding counties), by population size 59% 15%

16%

8%

15%

13%

Mostly through shared water supply system(s), but some individual private wells

37%

40%

Entirely through individual private wells

15%

18% < 1,500

Mostly through individual private wells, but some shared system(s)

35%

35%

2%

Entirely through shared water supply system(s)

55%

18%

28%

62%

44%

26%

Don’t know

6% 2%

1% 6%

1%

2%

1,500-5,000

5,001-10,000 10,001-30,000

> 30,000

Figure 2 Local jurisdictions’ role in drinking water supply or distribution (excluding those with no shared water supply system), by population size 59% 27%

32%

19%

8%

14%

88%

84%

80%

71%

No role

64% Some role Don’t know

2% < 1,500

4%

1%

1,500-5,000

5,001-10,000 10,001-30,000

2%

3% > 30,000

Many of the following questions on the MPPS were asked of only those officials who identified their jurisdictions as having at least some role in the provision of drinking water.

3

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Challenges local governments face in providing drinking water As noted earlier, the Flint water crisis has galvanized recent interest around the state in re-examining the safety and efficacy of local drinking water provision. Although 43% of local leaders report there are no shared water distribution systems within their jurisdictions (and instead, report that all water is provided through individual private wells), the MPPS still asked whether their communities experienced a range of water-related challenges. Out of four possible challenges presented to them, these local officials are most likely to say that threats to the quality and safety of their water sources are a concern. As shown in Figure 3a, 14% of officials in communities with water provided only by individual private wells say that threats to water source quality and safety are somewhat of a problem (12%) or a significant (2%) problem. Meanwhile, 8% cite challenges with inadequate water volume, 7% report challenges complying with federal or state regulations, and 4% say there are local problems with the presence of lead in on-premises plumbing (e.g., lead in home and business plumbing fixtures or pipes).

Figure 3a Local officials’ assessments of problems with drinking water provision in their jurisdictions (among those with water provided entirely by individual wells)

Threats to water source quality / safety

11%

Inadequate volume / low water tables

13%

35%

40%

12% 2%

31%

48%

7% 1% 6%

Compliance with state and/or federal regulations

20%

Presence of lead in on-premises plumbing (e.g., faucets, solder)

Don’t know

46%

38%

39%

Not a problem at all

1%

28%

4%

19%

Not much of a problem

A significant problem

Somewhat of a problem

Figure 3b Local officials’ assessments of problems with drinking water provision in their jurisdictions (among those with a role in a shared water supply system) Aging / breaking pipes in the shared water supply system(s)

6% 28%

29%

28%

9%

3%

The MPPS also asked local leaders in jurisdictions that play some role in providing drinking water whether they have experienced a range of problems or challenges, and found areas of concern among these jurisdictions, too. For example, 37% of these jurisdictions report they have problems with aging and breaking pipes in the delivery system (see Figure 3b). In addition, 17% report facing threats to water quality or safety.

Fewer report experiencing problems complying with federal or state regulations (10%), the presence of lead in either onpremises plumbing (9%) or in pipes connecting customers to the shared delivery system (8%)—which is a key element of the Flint water crisis—or low water volumes at their sources (5%).

While there are not necessarily consistent patterns when breaking these responses down by jurisdiction population size, there are some significant differences. For example, while 32% of the smallest jurisdictions report problems with aging and breaking water distribution pipes, this increases to 47% among the largest jurisdictions.

Another way to breakdown these responses is by the overall fiscal health of Michigan’s local jurisdictions. The MPPS asked local leaders to report their jurisdictions’ current levels of fiscal stress on a 1-10 scale, and then grouped jurisdictions into categories of low, medium, and high fiscal stress. In 2016, officials from 64% of jurisdictions reported experiencing low fiscal stress, compared with 24% reporting medium levels, 4

Threats to water source quality / safety

45%

15% 2%

35%

4% Compliance with state and/or federal regulations

31%

55%

Presence of lead in on-premises plumbing (e.g., faucets, solder)

15%

Presence of lead in pipes connecting customer to the system(s)

13%

46%

30%

8% 1% 7%

Inadequate volume / low water tables

51%

64%

Not a problem at all

Somewhat of a problem

1%

29%

27%

3%

Don’t know

8% 2%

1% 4%

Not much of a problem

A significant problem

and 8% reporting high levels of stress.8 When it comes to challenges in providing drinking water, the MPPS finds that (among jurisdictions that play some role in providing drinking water) communities under high levels of fiscal stress tend to face more challenges with their drinking water quality and the condition of their water infrastructure. For example, while 15% of jurisdictions with low fiscal stress report experiencing threats to the quality or safety of their drinking water, this increases to 30% of jurisdictions under high levels of fiscal stress. In terms of infrastructure, 30% of jurisdictions with low levels of fiscal stress say they have problems with aging and breaking pipes, while this increases to 55% of jurisdictions suffering with high levels of overall fiscal stress.

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Officials from one in five Michigan jurisdictions with shared drinking water say current condition of their infrastructure overall is only fair or poor Beyond problems with just aging or breaking distribution pipes, the MPPS asked local leaders about the condition of their water systems overall (including things like water treatment plants, pumping systems, distribution pipes, etc.)

While most local officials give positive appraisals, a significant number indicate concerns. As shown in Figure 4a, among officials whose jurisdictions play a role in shared drinking water provision, 75% rate the overall condition of their water infrastructure as excellent (29%) or good (46%). However, a fifth of jurisdictions report that their infrastructure is in only fair (17%) or poor (3%) condition overall.

Figure 4a Local officials’ assessments of the current condition of drinking water infrastructure in their jurisdictions (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system)

29%

17%

Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know

46%

Figure 4b Local officials’ assessments of the current condition of drinking water infrastructure in their jurisdictions (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system), by region

As shown in Figure 4b, officials from the West Central region of Michigan are the most likely to say their drinking water infrastructure is excellent or good (84%) while those from the Southwest are the least likely to say the same (66%). Meanwhile, 28% of Southwestern jurisdictions are likely to say their drinking water infrastructure is only fair or poor, the highest such percentage by region.

Officials from jurisdictions that report higher fiscal stress are also more likely to say the condition of their jurisdiction’s drinking water infrastructure is either fair (29%) or poor (8%), compared to better ratings among medium- and low-stress jurisdictions (see Figure 4c).

4%

3%

59% 22%

24%

53%

54%

27%

32%

43%

39%

26%

Excellent Good

47%

46%

Fair

41%

Poor 22%

19% 3% 3% Upper Peninsula

14% 4% 3% Northern Lower Peninsula

1% 10% 4%

1% 3%

West Central

18%

6% 6%

East Central

Southwest

Don’t know

19% 5%

4%

Southeast

Figure 4c Local officials’ assessments of the current condition of drinking water infrastructure in their jurisdictions (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system), by jurisdiction’s reported fiscal stress 59% 23%

35%

46%

17%

Excellent

44%

Good

46%

Fair Poor

29%

Don’t know

24% 2% 3%

14%

Low-stress

4% 4% Medium stress

8%

3%

High-stress

5

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Many local Boards and citizens are talking about water infrastructure

Figure 5a Percentage of officials who report that the current condition of drinking water infrastructure is a topic of local discussion (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system)

Given the Flint water crisis, perhaps it is no surprise that water infrastructure is a fairly common topic of discussion in communities across the state. When local officials were asked if the current condition of the drinking water infrastructure in their jurisdictions is a topic of discussion among members of the jurisdiction’s Board or Council, nearly half (49%) statewide (among those that have shared water systems) say that water has been discussed a great deal or somewhat by their Boards (see Figure 5a). While citizen discussions appear to be less common than discussions among local leaders themselves, nonetheless, still more than a third (36%) of local leaders say their citizens are discussing water infrastructure a great deal or somewhat.

Among the jurisdiction’s Board/Council: 1% 13%

16%

A great deal Somewhat Very little Not at all

36%

34%

Don’t know

Among the jurisdiction’s citizens: 6%

Local leaders indicate that conversations about water infrastructure are much more common in communities where the condition of current infrastructure is rated as just fair or poor. In fact, where the infrastructure is rated as poor, 89% of local leaders say it is a topic of conversation among the board, while 74% say it is also a topic of discussion among citizens in their communities (see Figure 5b).

8%

15%

A great deal Somewhat 28%

Very little Not at all Don’t know

44%

Figure 5b Percentage of officials who report that the current condition of drinking water infrastructure is a topic of local discussion (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system), by current infrastructure condition 59%

8%

7%

8%

27%

19%

41%

4% 12%

1%

Excellent

6

A great deal Somewhat

46% 32%

39%

31%

13% 3%

12%

Good

1%

26% 8%

6%

Fair

4%

Very little Not at all

23%

23% 3%

42%

45%

39% 28%

58%

36%

47%

36%

25%

31%

5% 6%

Don’t know

Poor

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Half of jurisdictions report improvements in their shared drinking water infrastructure over the past decade One reason why there may be less concern or discussion about water infrastructure in some communities is that many local leaders report their jurisdictions have experienced improvements in the infrastructure over the past 10 years. Among those jurisdictions with at least one shared water system, half (50%) report that the overall condition of their drinking water infrastructure has either somewhat (28%) or significantly (22%) improved over the past decade (see Figure 6a). Meanwhile, 15% of local officials say their drinking water infrastructure has somewhat (13%) or significantly (2%) deteriorated.

Jurisdictions in the Upper Peninsula (63%) and Northern Lower Peninsula (62%) are the most likely to report improvements in their shared drinking water infrastructure in the past decade (see Figure 6b). By comparison, jurisdictions in the Southwest (19%) and Southeast (21%) regions are the most likely to report experiencing deterioration in their shared water infrastructure.

Meanwhile, even among officials from jurisdictions that report currently suffering high fiscal stress, over half (53%) say their shared drinking water infrastructure has improved in the past 10 years (see Figure 6c). Yet more than a fifth (21%) of these jurisdictions that report high fiscal stress also report their water infrastructure has deteriorated, compared with 14% of jurisdictions with low fiscal stress.

Figure 6a Percentage of jurisdictions reporting that the overall condition of drinking water infrastructure in their jurisdictions has improved or deteriorated over the last decade (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system) 2%

6% Significantly improved

22%

13%

Somewhat improved Neither improved nor deteriorated Somewhat deteriorated Significantly deteriorated 29%

28%

Don’t know

Figure 6b Percentage of jurisdictions reporting that the overall condition of drinking water infrastructure in their jurisdictions has improved or deteriorated over the last decade (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system), by region 24%

34%

19% 27%

38% 29%

36%

10%

20%

23%

28%

16%

29%

27%

28%

16%

18%

6%

6%

Southwest

Southeast

36%

24%

19%

3% 5%

27%

1% 9% 4%

Upper Peninsula

1%

Northern Lower Peninsula

8% 8%

1% 9% 3%

West Central

East Central

3%

3%

Significantly improved

Somewhat improved

Neither improved nor deteriorated

Somewhat deteriorated

Significantly deteriorated

Don’t know

Figure 6c Percentage of jurisdictions reporting that the overall condition of drinking water infrastructure in their jurisdictions has improved or deteriorated over the last decade (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system), by jurisdiction’s reported fiscal stress 59% 23%

18%

22%

30%

27%

31%

Significantly improved Somewhat improved Neither improved nor deteriorated

32%

30%

1% 4%

13%

Low-stress

18% 15% 3% 5% Medium stress

13% 8% 8%

Somewhat deteriorated Significantly deteriorated Don’t know

High-stress

7

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Over a quarter (28%) say funding levels are not sufficient to maintain shared water infrastructure Among jurisdictions that play some role in providing drinking water, 28% of local leaders believe their current levels of funding are not adequate to maintain that infrastructure in the future, while 50% believe their funding is indeed adequate (see Figure 7a).

Meanwhile, 39% believe their current funding levels do not provide enough money to improve their infrastructure compared to its condition today, while 35% think they do have enough funding to realize improvements.

Officials who rate the current condition of water infrastructure as fair or poor are also much less likely to believe that their jurisdictions have adequate funding to maintain their infrastructure, even in its current state of (dis)repair. Among officials who rate their infrastructure as fair, 45% believe that they do not have adequate funding to maintain that infrastructure. This percentages rises to 72% in jurisdictions where the infrastructure is currently rated as poor (see Figure 7b).

And when it comes to improving their water infrastructure, things are even worse. A full 83% of officials in jurisdictions where the infrastructure is currently rated as poor believe that they do not have the funds needed to make improvements, compared with 68% in jurisdictions that rate their infrastructure as fair, 39% where it is rated good, and 20% where it is rated excellent (see Figure 7c).

Figure 7a Local officials’ opinions on whether the current levels of funding in the jurisdiction are adequate to maintain or improve the drinking water infrastructure (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system) Current funding can maintain infrastructure 5%

14%

8%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree

20%

Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree 36% Don’t know 18%

Current funding can improve infrastructure 6%

10%

Strongly agree

17%

Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree

25%

Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

22%

Don’t know 20%

Figure 7b Local officials’ opinions on whether the current levels of funding in the jurisdiction are adequate to maintain the drinking water infrastructure (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system), by current infrastructure condition 12%

23%

44%

8%

11%

24%

17%

19%

36%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

37%

Strongly disagree

36% 17%

16% 4% 3%

Somewhat disagree

34%

18%

18%

Neither agree nor disagree

2%

Excellent

7%

4%

Good

Don’t know

11% Fair

Poor

Figure 7c Local officials’ opinions on whether the current levels of funding in the jurisdiction are adequate to improve the drinking water infrastructure (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system), by current infrastructure condition 8% 29%

18%

31%

5% 13%

6% 12%

Strongly agree

11%

83%

Somewhat agree

38%

Neither agree nor disagree

22%

Somewhat disagree

26% 26%

Strongly disagree

30%

13% 4%

7%

Excellent

8

2%

13% Good

Don’t know 4% Fair

Poor

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Most jurisdictions with shared systems report using water user fees to help fund them, and nearly two-thirds say they have raised fees recently The MPPS asked local officials in jurisdictions with shared water systems to identify the various approaches they use to fund drinking water. The vast majority (91%) of local officials report that their jurisdictions charge water user fees to fund their drinking water systems (see Figure 8). Other funding mechanisms include bonds, government grants, loans—such as those financed through the State’s Drinking Water Revolving Fund9—and special assessments. Relatively few (15%) officials indicate that they draw from their jurisdictions’ general funds in order to support drinking water provision.

Officials were also asked whether or not each funding option has been increased by the jurisdiction in the last few years (where each option is used). Nearly three-quarters (70%) of the jurisdictions that report charging water user fees say they have increased those rates/fees within the past few years (see Figure 9). In addition, between one-fifth and one-third of jurisdictions have recently increased the other sources of water funding surveyed.

Looking further at jurisdictions that report they use water rates or user fees, as shown in Figure 10, those officials who rate their current infrastructure as only fair or poor are more likely to have recently raised water rates (77% and 78%, respectively) compared with those who rate their infrastructure’s current condition as good (72%) or excellent (65%). This may make it more difficult to raise even more funding from citizens in these communities in the future.

Figure 8 Percentage of jurisdictions reporting use of various funding options for drinking water in their jurisdictions (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system) 59% 32%

36%

46%

59%

91%

15% 80% Use

60%

55%

Do not use

42%

Don’t know

33%

5%

9%

Water rates / user fees

Bonds

4%

12%

9%

8%

5%

Federal / state Low-interest Special General fund grants loans assessments contributions

Figure 9 Percentage of jurisdictions reporting recent increases in funding options for drinking water in their jurisdictions, among those who use the funding source 70%

27%

29%

32%

32% 21%

Water rates / user fees

Bonds

Federal / state Low-interest Special General fund grants loans assessments contributions

Figure 10 Percentage of jurisdictions reporting recent increases in water rates or fees for drinking water in their jurisdictions, among those who use water rates or fees, by current infrastructure condition

72%

77%

78%

Fair

Poor

65%

Excellent

Good

9

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Water costs are a concern in jurisdictions with high fiscal stress and in those with poor water infrastructure

Figure 11a Local officials’ assessments of a problem with drinking water affordability and/or delinquency on water bills in their jurisdictions (among those with any shared water supply system) 3% 12%

While local leaders report recent water fee increases, many also note that affordability of local water may be a problem. As shown in Figure 11a, among those communities with shared drinking water systems, just over a quarter (26%) of officials report that drinking water affordability or delinquency on water bills is somewhat of a problem (23%) or a significant problem (3%). Another quarter (25%) of officials say that affordability or delinquency on water bills are not a problem at all in their jurisdictions, while 37% say these issues are not much of a problem.

However, when looking at concerns about water affordability in communities where officials report the government is suffering high fiscal stress, half (50%) say that the cost of water is a problem, including 11% who say it is a significant problem (see Figure 11b).

By comparison, 37% of those in jurisdictions with medium-levels of fiscal stress and 21% of officials in jurisdictions with low fiscal stress say affordability or delinquency on water bills is a problem.

23%

A significant problem Somewhat of a problem Not much of a problem

25%

Not a problem at all Don’t know 37%

Figure 11b Local officials’ assessments of a problem with drinking water affordability and/or delinquency on water bills in their jurisdictions (among those with any shared water supply system), by jurisdiction’s reported fiscal stress 3%

2%

18%

35%

11% A significant problem

39% 38%

Even more pronounced, local officials who rate their current water infrastructure as only fair or poor are significantly more likely to report problems with affordability or delinquency on water bills.

Among officials in jurisdictions that rate their water infrastructure as poor today, 62% say affordability or delinquency in payments is a problem, compared with just 15% of officials who rate their infrastructure conditions as excellent (see Figure 11c).

Somewhat of a problem 36%

Not much of a problem 16%

29%

Not a problem at all

27%

Don’t know

20% 12%

7%

Low-stress

7%

Medium stress

High-stress

Figure 11c Local officials’ assessments of a problem with drinking water affordability and/or delinquency on water bills in their jurisdictions (among those with any shared water supply system), by current infrastructure condition 1%

3%

14%

27%

7%

26%

48%

A significant problem

44% 36%

46%

Somewhat of a problem Not much of a problem Not a problem at all

38%

40%

33% 20%

2% Excellent

10

4%

7% Good

Fair

Don’t know

5% Poor

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Most officials say they and their local Boards would support increased water fees for improving infrastructure, but only 36% believe citizens would support as well Given that 70% of local officials report that their jurisdictions have recently increased water user fees, it would be unsurprising if they also predict there would be widespread citizen opposition to even more fee increases. However, local leaders’ opinions on this are mixed, with 36% of those in jurisdictions that play some role in water provision saying their citizens would support new increases, while 39% say their citizens would oppose increases that would specifically go to maintaining or improving drinking water infrastructure (see Figure 12). When asked about opinions among the jurisdiction’s Board or Council, local leaders believe there would be much more support (67%) than opposition (16%) to a proposal for increased water fees. Finally, local officials themselves express the greatest support for fee increases for maintaining or improving drinking water infrastructure in the jurisdiction, with 72% of local officials saying they would support increased rates, including 29% saying they would strongly support them.

There are no significant differences in local leaders’ own willingness to raise water fees when breaking jurisdictions down by their current levels of fiscal stress. However, there is significantly more support among local leaders for increasing water fees in jurisdictions where the drinking water infrastructure is currently believed to be in poor condition, compared to places with better infrastructure. As shown in Figure 13, in communities where local officials believe the water infrastructure is excellent, 71% support increasing fees, while 14% would oppose that. By contrast, when it comes to officials where the infrastructure is considered poor, nearly all (94%) would support fee increases, including 62% who would strongly support them. Unfortunately, among these same local leaders, only 31% think their citizens would support fee increases, while 63% believe they would oppose higher fees.

Figure 12 Support for and opposition to increasing water rates or fees to maintain or improve drinking water infrastructure in their jurisdictions (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system)

4% 7%

You as a local official Majority of your jurisdiction's board/council

5%

Majority of your jurisdiction's citizens

Strongly oppose

11%

11%

28%

Somewhat oppose

43%

29%

49%

18%

5%

31%

Somewhat support

Strongly support

Note: responses for “neither support nor oppose” and “don’t know” not shown Figure 13 Local officials’ support for and opposition to increasing water rates or fees to maintain or improve drinking water infrastructure in their jurisdictions (excluding those with no role in a shared water supply system), by current infrastructure condition

Excellent

7%7%

39%

32%

6% Good

Fair

Poor

Strongly oppose

3%

3% 9%

48%

47%

32%

Somewhat oppose

26%

27%

62%

Somewhat support

Strongly support

Note: responses for “neither support nor oppose” and “don’t know” not shown

11

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Local officials give mixed ratings on the performance of federal, state, and local governments in ensuring safe drinking water in their communities Responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water is shared among many actors, including both public and private entities in many cases. As spelled out sharply in the final report released by the Flint Water Advisory Task Force in March 2016, numerous actors at all levels failed in their roles for ensuring safe drinking water in the City of Flint.10 The MPPS asked Michigan local officials to rate the performance specifically of federal, state, and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to ensure safe drinking water in the local official’s jurisdiction. As shown in Figure 14, local leaders in jurisdictions that provide shared drinking water are much more likely to say they don’t know how well the federal government is doing in ensuring local safe drinking water, compared to the State, and their own local government. They are also least likely to give positive ratings to the federal government’s performance (25%), compared to the State (40%) or their own local government (90%).

At the same time, these local leaders are also more likely to give generally negative ratings to the State (48%) when compared to the federal government (43%). Only 7% of local leaders believe their own local government is doing only a fair, or even a poor job, at ensuring safe drinking water in their communities.

12

Figure 14 Local officials’ assessments of federal, state, and local government performance in carrying out their responsibilities to ensure safe drinking water in the local jurisdiction (among those with a role in a shared water supply system) 4% 21%

5% 35%

47% Excellent Good

26% 29% 17% 32%

Federal government performance

Fair

43%

Poor 19%

Don’t know 1% 3%

12%

6%

Michigan's state government performance

Local government performance

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Conclusion The Flint water crisis raised numerous issues regarding drinking water, including the role of government in providing safe drinking water for citizens. Perhaps of most immediate concern, the MPPS finds that 17% of local leaders in communities with shared water systems believe there are threats to the water quality or safety in their communities.

This is also the case in 14% of jurisdictions where all drinking water is provided through individual private wells.

One major challenge reported by local officials is that of aging infrastructure resulting in broken pipes in the water distribution system. This is reported by 37% of officials in communities with at least some role in a shared water system, and by 55% of officials in jurisdictions under high fiscal stress.

At the same time, in jurisdictions that play some role in providing drinking water, 75% of local leaders say the overall condition of that infrastructure is either good or excellent, while 20% say it is just fair or poor. Unfortunately, in places where the local government is suffering from high levels of overall fiscal stress, 37% of local leaders say their water infrastructure is only fair, or is poor.

And of particular concern, in jurisdictions where the condition of water infrastructure is rated as poor today, 72% of local leaders say their current levels of funding are not adequate to allow them to maintain that infrastructure into the future.

13

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Notes 1. Ellison, G. (2016, January 28). Michigan cities beyond Flint have concerning lead water levels, data shows. Ann Arbor, MI: MLIVE Media Group. Retrieved from: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/lead_in_michigan_cities_water.html 2. Horner, D. & Ivacko, T. (2016, August). Michigan local governments report first declines in fiscal health trend since 2010.

Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan.

Retrieved from: http://closup.umich.edu/files/mpps-fiscal-health-2016.pdf 3. Fisher, R. and Wassmer, R. (2015, April 27). A (Baker’s) Dozen Years of State and Local Government Capital Investment.

Falls Church, VA: State Tax Notes. Retrieved from: http://www.csus.edu/ppa/about/in_the_community/2015/wassmerfisherntjtaxnotes4_27_2015.pdf 4. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2016). 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.

Retrieved from: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/state-facts/michigan 5. Public Sector Consultants Inc. (2016, April). Michigan’s Water Infrastructure Investment Needs. Okemos, MI: Michigan Infrastructure & Transportation Association. Retrieved from: http://www.pscinc.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=x_ZkcheIkgs%3D&tabid=65 6. 21st Century Infrastructure Commission (2016). Lansing: MI, State of Michigan. Retrieved from: http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57738_57679_57726-381081--,00.html 7. The Michigan Office of the Great Lakes. (2016). Sustaining Michigan’s Water Heritage. Lansing, MI: State of Michigan.

Retrieved from: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ogl-WaterStrategy-PartOne_526490_7.pdf 8. Horner, D. & Ivacko, T. (2016, August).

9. Drinking Water Revolving Fund (2016). Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Retrieved from: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307_3515_3517---,00.html 10. Flint Water Advisory Task Force. (2016, March). Flint Water Advisory Task Force Final Report. Lansing, MI: Office of Governor Rick Snyder. Retrieved from: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/FWATF_FINAL_REPORT_21March2016_517805_7.pdf

Survey Background and Methodology The MPPS is a biannual survey of each of Michigan’s 1,856 units of general purpose local government, conducted once each spring and fall. While the spring surveys consist of multiple batteries of the same “core” fiscal, budgetary and operational policy questions and are designed to build-up a multi-year timeseries of data, the fall surveys focus on various other topics.

In the Spring 2016 iteration, surveys were sent by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) via the internet and hardcopy to top elected and appointed officials (including county administrators and board chairs; city mayors and managers; village presidents, clerks, and managers; and township supervisors, clerks, and managers) from all 83 counties, 278 cities, 255 villages, and 1,240 townships in the state of Michigan.

The Spring 2016 wave was conducted from April 4 – June 6, 2016. A total of 1,378 jurisdictions in the Spring 2016 wave returned valid surveys (63 counties, 222 cities, 190 villages, and 903 townships), resulting in a 74% response rate by unit. The margin of error for the survey for the survey as a whole is +/- 1.34%.

The key relationships discussed in the above report are statistically significant at the p<.05 level or below, unless otherwise specified. Missing responses are not included in the tabulations, unless otherwise specified. Some report figures may not add to 100% due to rounding within response categories. Quantitative data are weighted to account for non-response. “Voices Across Michigan” verbatim responses, when included, may have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Contact CLOSUP staff for more information.

Detailed tables of the data analyzed in this report broken down three ways—by jurisdiction type (county, city, township, or village); by population size of the respondent’s community, and by the region of the respondent’s jurisdiction—are available online at the MPPS homepage: http://closup.umich.edu/mpps.php.

The survey responses presented here are those of local Michigan officials, while further analysis represents the views of the authors. Neither necessarily reflects the views of the University of Michigan, or of other partners in the MPPS.

14

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Previous MPPS reports Michigan local leaders say property tax appeals are common, disagree with “dark stores” assessing (October 2016) Local officials say Michigan’s system of funding local government is broken, and seek State action to fix it (September 2016) Michigan local governments report first declines in fiscal health trend since 2010 (August 2016) Michigan local leaders’ doubts continue regarding the state’s direction (July 2016) Hospital access primary emergency medical concern among many Michigan local officials (July 2016) Firefighting services in Michigan: challenges and approaches among local governments (June 2016) Most local officials are satisfied with law enforcement services, but almost half from largest jurisdictions say their funding is insufficient (April 2016) Local leaders say police-community relations are good throughout Michigan, but those in large cities are concerned about potential civil unrest over police use-of-force (February 2016) Responding to budget surplus vs. deficit: the preferences of Michigan’s local leaders and citizens (December 2015) Michigan’s local leaders concerned about retiree health care costs and their governments’ ability to meet future obligations (October 2015) Fiscal health rated relatively good for most jurisdictions, but improvement slows and decline continues for many (September 2015) Confidence in Michigan’s direction declines among state’s local leaders (August 2015) Michigan local government leaders’ views on private roads (July 2015) Few Michigan jurisdictions have adopted Complete Streets policies, though many see potential benefits (June 2015) Michigan local leaders have positive views on relationships with county road agencies, despite some concerns (May 2015) Michigan local government leaders say transit services are important, but lack of funding discourages their development (April 2015) Michigan local leaders see need for state and local ethics reform (March 2015) Local leaders say Michigan road funding needs major increase, but lack consensus on options that would raise the most revenue (February 2015) Michigan local government leaders’ views on employee pay and benefits (January 2015) Despite increasingly formal financial management, relatively few Michigan local governments have adopted recommended policies (December 2014) Most Michigan local officials are satisfied with their privatized services, but few seek to expand further (November 2014) Michigan local governments finally pass fiscal health tipping point overall, but one in four still report decline (October 2014) Beyond the coast, a tenuous relationship between Michigan local governments and the Great Lakes (September 2014) Confidence in Michigan’s direction holds steady among state’s local leaders (August 2014) Wind power as a community issue in Michigan (July 2014) Fracking as a community issue in Michigan (June 2014) The impact of tax-exempt properties on Michigan local governments (March 2014) Michigan’s local leaders generally support Detroit bankruptcy filing despite some concerns (February 2014) Michigan local governments increasingly pursue placemaking for economic development (January 2014)

15

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Views on right-to-work legislation among Michigan’s local government leaders (December 2013) Michigan local governments continue seeking, and receiving, union concessions (October 2013) Michigan local government fiscal health continues gradual improvement, but smallest jurisdictions lagging (September 2013) Local leaders evaluate state policymaker performance and whether Michigan is on the right track (August 2013) Trust in government among Michigan’s local leaders and citizens (July 2013) Citizen engagement in the view of Michigan’s local government leaders (May 2013) Beyond trust in government: government trust in citizens? (March 2013) Local leaders support reforming Michigan’s system of funding local government (January 2013) Local leaders support eliminating Michigan’s Personal Property Tax if funds are replaced, but distrust state follow-through (November 2012) Michigan’s local leaders satisfied with union negotiations (October 2012) Michigan’s local leaders are divided over the state’s emergency manager law (September 2012) Fiscal stress continues for hundreds of Michigan jurisdictions, but conditions trend in positive direction overall (September 2012) Michigan’s local leaders more positive about Governor Snyder’s performance, more optimistic about the state’s direction (July 2012) Data-driven decision-making in Michigan local government (June 2012) State funding incentives increase local collaboration, but also raise concerns (March 2012) Local officials react to state policy innovation tying revenue sharing to dashboards and incentive funding (January 2012) MPPS finds fiscal health continues to decline across the state, though some negative trends eased in 2011 (October 2011) Public sector unions in Michigan: their presence and impact according to local government leaders (August 2011) Despite increased approval of state government performance, Michigan’s local leaders are concerned about the state’s direction (August 2011) Local government and environmental leadership: views of Michigan’s local leaders (July 2011) Local leaders are mostly positive about intergovernmental cooperation and look to expand efforts (March 2011) Local government leaders say most employees are not overpaid, though some benefits may be too generous (February 2011) Local government leaders say economic gardening can help grow their economies (November 2010) Local governments struggle to cope with fiscal, service, and staffing pressures (August 2010) Michigan local governments actively promote U.S. Census participation (August 2010) Fiscal stimulus package mostly ineffective for local economies (May 2010) Fall 2009 key findings report: educational, economic, and workforce development issues at the local level (April 2010) Local government officials give low marks to the performance of state officials and report low trust in Lansing (March 2010) Local government fiscal and economic development issues (October 2009)

All MPPS reports are available online at: http://closup.umich.edu/mpps.php

16

www.closup.umich.edu

University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy Joan and Sanford Weill Hall 735 S. State Street, Suite 5310 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-3091

Regents of the University of Michigan The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), housed at the University of Michiganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, conducts and supports applied policy research designed to inform state, local, and urban policy issues. Through integrated research, teaching, and outreach involving academic researchers, students, policymakers and practitioners, CLOSUP seeks to foster understanding of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s state and local policy problems, and to find effective solutions to those problems. web: www.closup.umich.edu email: closup@umich.edu twitter: @closup phone: 734-647-4091

Michael J. Behm

Grand Blanc

Mark J. Bernstein

Ann Arbor

Laurence B. Deitch

Bloomfield Hills

Shauna Ryder Diggs

Grosse Pointe Denise Ilitch

Bingham Farms Andrea Fischer Newman

Ann Arbor

Andrew C. Richner

Grosse Pointe Park

Katherine E. White

Ann Arbor

Mark S. Schlissel

(ex officio)