FSAWWA Speaking Out—Fred Bloetscher

Want Water Sustainability and Economic Growth? Invest in Infrastructure!

Fred Bloetscher, P.E., Ph.D.

Chair, FSAWWA

Water is the basis for the growth and development of civilization. Without water, society would not exist. Water engineers were arguably the first engineers, so they therefore rank as one of the oldest professions.

Water Tells the Story

Early in our history, people located near water for food and transportation. As they discovered agriculture, water became more important. If you did not have water, there was no agriculture, and no ability to create a community. Once your group started to grow, water needed to be consistent because disruptions in water supply could be catastrophic.

We figured out that water played a vital role in protecting public health back during the Roman Empire (if not before). Ancient Roman aqueducts are well known to us, and some are still used today. The concept was to bring clean water from the mountains to Rome and then wash away the debris (early sewers). It improved the health of the Romans and allowed maybe a million people to live there, which was huge in the ancient world. Romans’ taxes paid for these systems.

When the United States got started, we followed the same model as the ancient world—we first located on the coast for transportation access, started farming farther inland, build canals for irrigation (and then for transportation), discovered the Great Lakes, and built the industrial Midwest based on the lakes and their resources. America became an industrial power, and because of proximal water supplies, a great agricultural center developed as well.

Local entities invested heavily in these water and sewer systems as a means to compete with other communities. As weather patterns have changed, however, the sustainability of water sources has changed in some jurisdictions.

The water resources of the South are far more limited than the Northeast and Midwest, and more episodic. As a result, the ability to create the large industrial complexes of the Rust Belt was always a challenge. A lack of water and sewer in many small southern communities was a barrier to their growth and development until the Works Progress Administration program was created during the Great Depression and built the systems many still rely on.

The water supply challenges have increase with time. Even in what should be water-rich Florida, with an average of 50 to 60 inches of annual rainfall, we have ongoing challenges in some parts for water supply, which is why potable reuse is being tested in many areas across the state. New sources and added capacity will, however, cost money.

Water supplies in the West have always been scarce. As identified by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) in 2008, the water supplies do not meet the current demands west of the Mississippi River (Figure 1). Surface waters are limited, so groundwater is tapped, but as Figure 2 shows, there is not enough rainfall or recharge to sustain current usage, which puts communities at risk.

In the 13 years since that USGS report was published, climate impacts pose added

challenges to long-term water supplies across the country, with no solutions. Clearly, we need to develop sustainable water supply solutions.

Water Comes With a Cost

Ten years ago, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) published a water sustainability compendium as a part of its sustainable water sources conference. The compendium involved 24 papers with different perspectives, with the goal of trying to identify what sustainability meant to people competing for water supplies. The answer was that there was no agreement—all views tended to focus on what was good for their own situation, as opposed to that of a holistic view of sustainability. This was the result of water industry-related people commenting, but there was still no consensus on a definition of a means to sort out solutions. You can imagine what would happen when other users were added.

Fast forward 10 years and we are not really much closer to a useful definition, but we are 10 years closer to needing one.

An recent article in Journal AWWA included a survey of water customers and found that more than half of them think floods and droughts both imperil water supplies and more than a quarter are concerned about the sustainability of the infrastructure supplying the water. The relationship between climate and water was poorly understood by the respondents, but the interest in environmental protection as a part of water supply sustainability was noted by 40 percent of participants. Clearly, we need a means to improve sustainability, as well as a framework to prioritize water use in water-limited areas.

In that same AWWA article, half of the respondents do not think water rates should be higher, which means they do not understand the linkage between sustainability and ongoing infrastructure needs, nor that infrastructure investments are needed for the economy to grow. The resistance to increases mimics the results published by the federal government, which show that the amount spent by the federal government for water and sewer infrastructure has continually decreased since the mid-1970s (Figure 3). State and local investments topped out around $120 billion eight years ago, before dropping to $109 billion in 2016 (Figure 3).

The recent report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers gave a C- grade for drinking water, so there is an obvious connection—we need to spend money to build the infrastructure.

There is a clear disconnect between the concept of rates and water use, which suggests that there is a lack of understanding on the costs of utility operations. The customers think we lack sustainability solutions, but at the same time, do not want to spend money. That is a big challenge, one where we need to overcome consumer concerns with utility costs, sustainability, and supplies by educating them on what these investments will accomplish.

Sustainability = infrastructure = jobs = economic growth. You have to invest to grow. We need to spread the word. S

Figure 2. Areas where the precipitation minus the potential evaporation (PET) yields negative recharge across the U.S. (source: Reilly, et al. 2008)

Figure 3. Water infrastructure spending trends in the U.S. (dark line) and by state and local governments (light line). (source: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-10/54539-Infrastructure.pdf)