Drinking Water
The District of Columbia and Communities Nationwide Face Serious Challenges in Their Efforts to Safeguard Water Supplies Gao ID: GAO-08-687T April 15, 2008The discovery in 2004 of lead contamination in the District of Columbia's drinking water resulted in an administrative order between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the District's Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), requiring WASA to take a number of corrective actions. WASA also took additional, longer-term measures, most notably a roughly $400 million program to replace what may be 35,000 lead service lines in public space within its service area. As in WASA's case, water utilities nationwide are under increasing pressure to make significant investments to upgrade aging and deteriorating infrastructures, improve security, serve a growing population, and meet new regulatory requirements. In this context, GAO's testimony presents observations on (1) WASA's efforts to address lead contamination in light of its other pressing water infrastructure needs, and (2) the extent to which WASA's challenges are indicative of those facing water utilities nationwide. To address these issues, GAO relied primarily on its 2005 and 2006 reports on lead contamination in drinking water, as well as other recent GAO reports examining the nation's water infrastructure needs and strategies to address these needs.
With the introduction of orthophosphate to its drinking water WASA has consistently tested below the federal action level for lead. However, WASA is reevaluating its roughly $400 million, longer-term solution for replacement of what may be 35,000 lead service lines within its jurisdiction. In addition to the program's high cost, a key problem WASA faces is that, by law, it may only replace the portion of the service line that it owns; replacing the portion on private property is at the homeowner's discretion. Accordingly, WASA has been encouraging homeowners to participate in the program by replacing their own portion of the lead lines. Despite these efforts, however, homeowner replacement of lead service lines remains limited. Of the 14,260 lead service lines WASA replaced through the first quarter of fiscal year 2008, there were only 2,128 instances in which the homeowner participated in private side replacement. Many questions remain about the benefits of partial lead service line replacement. In fact, some research to date suggests that partial service line replacement results in (1) short-term spikes in lead levels immediately after partial replacement and (2) little long-term reduction in lead levels. WASA's dilemma over this program is taking place within the context of its other staggering infrastructure needs. Most notably, WASA is undertaking a $2.2 billion effort to meet the terms of a consent decree with EPA requiring the utility to control its sewer overflow problems. WASA's challenges in addressing its lead contamination problems and other infrastructure demands are mirrored across the country, where infrastructure needs are estimated to range from $485 billion to nearly $1.2 trillion nationwide over the next 20 years. In particular, many utilities have had difficulty in raising funds to repair, replace, or upgrade aging capital assets; comply with regulatory requirements; and expand capacity to meet increased demand. For example, based on a nationwide survey of several thousand drinking water and wastewater utilities, GAO reported in 2002 that 29 percent of the drinking water utilities and 41 percent of the wastewater utilities were not generating enough revenue from user rates and other local sources to cover their full cost of service. GAO also found that about one-third of the utilities (1) deferred maintenance because of insufficient funding, (2) had 20 percent or more of their pipelines nearing the end of their useful life, and (3) lacked basic plans for managing their capital assets. Other GAO work suggests that the nation's water utilities could more effectively manage their infrastructure at a time when huge investments are needed. In 2004, for example, GAO cited "comprehensive asset management" as one approach that could help utilities better identify and manage their infrastructure needs. While by no means a panacea to their fundamental fiscal challenges, water utilities can use comprehensive asset management to minimize the total cost of designing, acquiring, operating, maintaining, replacing, and disposing of capital assets over their useful lives, while achieving desired service levels.
GAO-08-687T, Drinking Water: The District of Columbia and Communities Nationwide Face Serious Challenges in Their Efforts to Safeguard Water Supplies
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-687T
entitled 'Drinking Water: The District of Columbia and Communities
Nationwide Face Serious Challenges in Their Efforts to Safeguard Water
Supplies' which was released on April 15, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the
District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
U.S. House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Tuesday, April 15, 2008:
Drinking Water:
The District of Columbia and Communities Nationwide Face Serious
Challenges in Their Efforts to Safeguard Water Supplies:
Statement of John B. Stephenson:
Director Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-08-687T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-687T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The discovery in 2004 of lead contamination in the District of
Columbia‘s drinking water resulted in an administrative order between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the District‘s Water and
Sewer Authority (WASA), requiring WASA to take a number of corrective
actions. WASA also took additional, longer-term measures, most notably
a roughly $400 million program to replace what may be 35,000 lead
service lines in public space within its service area.
As in WASA‘s case, water utilities nationwide are under increasing
pressure to make significant investments to upgrade aging and
deteriorating infrastructures, improve security, serve a growing
population, and meet new regulatory requirements.
In this context, GAO‘s testimony presents observations on (1) WASA‘s
efforts to address lead contamination in light of its other pressing
water infrastructure needs, and (2) the extent to which WASA‘s
challenges are indicative of those facing water utilities nationwide.
To address these issues, GAO relied primarily on its 2005 and 2006
reports on lead contamination in drinking water, as well as other
recent GAO reports examining the nation‘s water infrastructure needs
and strategies to address these needs.
What GAO Found:
With the introduction of orthophosphate to its drinking water WASA has
consistently tested below the federal action level for lead. However,
WASA is reevaluating its roughly $400 million, longer-term solution for
replacement of what may be 35,000 lead service lines within its
jurisdiction. In addition to the program‘s high cost, a key problem
WASA faces is that, by law, it may only replace the portion of the
service line that it owns; replacing the portion on private property is
at the homeowner‘s discretion. Accordingly, WASA has been encouraging
homeowners to participate in the program by replacing their own portion
of the lead lines. Despite these efforts, however, homeowner
replacement of lead service lines remains limited. Of the 14,260 lead
service lines WASA replaced through the first quarter of fiscal year
2008, there were only 2,128 instances in which the homeowner
participated in private side replacement. Many questions remain about
the benefits of partial lead service line replacement. In fact, some
research to date suggests that partial service line replacement results
in (1) short-term spikes in lead levels immediately after partial
replacement and (2) little long-term reduction in lead levels. WASA‘s
dilemma over this program is taking place within the context of its
other staggering infrastructure needs. Most notably, WASA is
undertaking a $2.2 billion effort to meet the terms of a consent decree
with EPA requiring the utility to control its sewer overflow problems.
WASA‘s challenges in addressing its lead contamination problems and
other infrastructure demands are mirrored across the country, where
infrastructure needs are estimated to range from $485 billion to nearly
$1.2 trillion nationwide over the next 20 years. In particular, many
utilities have had difficulty in raising funds to repair, replace, or
upgrade aging capital assets; comply with regulatory requirements; and
expand capacity to meet increased demand. For example, based on a
nationwide survey of several thousand drinking water and wastewater
utilities, GAO reported in 2002 that 29 percent of the drinking water
utilities and 41 percent of the wastewater utilities were not
generating enough revenue from user rates and other local sources to
cover their full cost of service. GAO also found that about one-third
of the utilities (1) deferred maintenance because of insufficient
funding, (2) had 20 percent or more of their pipelines nearing the end
of their useful life, and (3) lacked basic plans for managing their
capital assets. Other GAO work suggests that the nation‘s water
utilities could more effectively manage their infrastructure at a time
when huge investments are needed. In 2004, for example, GAO cited
’comprehensive asset management“ as one approach that could help
utilities better identify and manage their infrastructure needs. While
by no means a panacea to their fundamental fiscal challenges, water
utilities can use comprehensive asset management to minimize the total
cost of designing, acquiring, operating, maintaining, replacing, and
disposing of capital assets over their useful lives, while achieving
desired service levels.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-687T]. For more
information, contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here to testify on the infrastructure challenges
facing the District of Columbia's Water and Sewer Authority (WASA),
highlighting its efforts to reduce lead exposure. In doing so, we will
also put our comments in the context of the many fiscal challenges and
competing demands facing all water utilities, including WASA.
Media reports in early 2004 about lead contamination of the District's
drinking water raised serious concerns about the health risks posed to
its residents from existing lead service lines, and about how local and
federal agencies were carrying out their responsibilities. WASA's lack
of timely disclosure of this problem, and the subsequent confused
effort by government agencies to inform the public on steps to protect
itself, led to numerous congressional hearings and a June 2004
administrative consent order between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and WASA. WASA agreed to take a number of corrective
actions, including improving its water sampling procedures and
subsequent reporting of these results to EPA; enhancing its public
education efforts; and developing a plan to identify additional lead
service lines. In addition, orthophosphate was added to WASA's water
supply in August 2004 to form a protective coating inside lead service
lines and fixtures to prevent lead from leaching into drinking water.
To address the problem in the long-term, WASA decided to undertake what
it estimates to be at least a $400 million program to replace the
public portions of all its customers' lead service lines (roughly
35,000 lines) by 2016 and to also provide various incentives to
encourage the replacement of lead service lines in private space. In
the District of Columbia, homeowners are responsible for the portion of
the service line that runs from the property line to the home.
Homeowners may replace this portion of the line if they choose, but
this replacement is not required.
The lead problem in the District of Columbia also prompted EPA to
review the adequacy of federal regulations on lead in drinking water.
In October 2007, EPA made several changes to the monitoring and public
notice provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act's Lead and Copper
Rule, the principal federal regulation protecting public water system
consumers from exposure to lead and copper in drinking water.
As important as the lead contamination problem has been to WASA and its
customers, it is not the only issue with which the utility must
grapple. Like many other large water utilities, WASA is also
responsible for wastewater collection and transmission, including
operation and maintenance of its wastewater treatment facility and
sanitary sewer system. While the utility has sought to modernize many
parts of its wastewater facilities, some components date back to the
early 19th century. Like most utilities, WASA must provide for
replacement or rehabilitation of its existing system, and construct
extensions to this system for development and growth as needed.
The federal government has had a significant impact on the nation's
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure by (1) providing financial
assistance to build new facilities or upgrade existing ones and (2)
establishing regulatory requirements that affect the technology,
operation, and maintenance of utility infrastructure. As the agency
that regulates drinking water and surface water quality, EPA provides a
significant amount of financial assistance for facilities that supply
drinking water and treat wastewater. This assistance is primarily in
the form of grants to the states to capitalize revolving loan funds,
which are used to finance improvements to drinking water and wastewater
treatment facilities. In addition to its financial investment, EPA has
promulgated regulations to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act and
Clean Water Act, which have been key factors in shaping water systems'
capital needs and management practices.
In my testimony today I will present observations on (1) WASA's efforts
to address lead contamination in light of its other pressing water
infrastructure needs, and (2) the extent to which WASA's challenges are
indicative of those facing other water utilities across the nation.
To address these questions, we are summarizing and updating reports we
issued in 2005[Footnote 1] and in 2006[Footnote 2] on the lead
contamination problem in the District of Columbia's drinking water
supplies, and on the status of WASA's effort to address this problem.
We are also highlighting some of the work we have recently completed
that addresses the magnitude of the nation's water infrastructure
needs, the problems utilities face in addressing them, and the
strategies utilities can employ to help them best meet their needs. We
prepared this testimony in April 2008, based on work performed over the
last three years, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
In summary:
* The introduction of orthophosphate to its water supply has enabled
WASA to consistently test below the federal action level for lead in
drinking water, but the Authority is reevaluating its longer-term
roughly $400 million program to replace what may be 35,000 lead service
lines in public space. Importantly, this program only addresses the
replacement of the public portion of customers' lead lines. Customers
would need to finance replacement of their private portion of the lead
lines (at a cost that could reach $2,500) on their own. Yet despite
WASA's efforts to encourage homeowner participation, private side
replacement of lead service lines remains limited. Of the 14,260 lead
service lines WASA replaced through the first quarter of fiscal year
2008, there were only 2,128 instances in which the homeowner
participated in the private side replacement. Importantly, many
questions remain about the benefits of partial lead service line
replacement. Research suggests that short-term spikes in lead levels
occur immediately after partial replacement, and little long-term
reduction in lead levels may be achieved. WASA's reevaluation of this
program is taking place within the context of its staggering
infrastructure needs, most notably a $2.2 billion effort to meet the
terms of a consent decree with EPA to address sewer overflow problems.
* WASA's difficulties in meeting myriad fiscal demands are mirrored
across the country: water infrastructure needs nationwide are estimated
to range from $485 billion to nearly $1.2 trillion over the next 20
years. In particular, many utilities have had difficulty raising funds
to repair, replace, or upgrade aging capital assets; comply with
regulatory requirements; and expand capacity to meet increased demand.
For example, based on a survey of several thousand drinking water and
wastewater utilities, we reported in 2002 that 29 percent of the
drinking water utilities, and 41 percent of the wastewater utilities,
were not generating enough revenue from user rates and other local
sources to cover their full cost of service.[Footnote 3] We also found
that about one-third of the utilities (1) deferred maintenance because
of insufficient funding, (2) had 20 percent or more of their pipelines
nearing the end of their useful life, and (3) lacked basic plans for
managing their capital assets. Other GAO work suggests that the
nation's water utilities could more effectively manage their
infrastructure at a time when huge investments are needed. In 2004, for
example, we cited "comprehensive asset management" as one approach that
can help utilities better identify and manage their infrastructure
needs.[Footnote 4] Though by no means a panacea for their profound
fiscal challenges, comprehensive asset management can help water
utilities minimize the total cost of designing, acquiring, operating,
maintaining, replacing, and disposing of capital assets over their life
cycle, and can do so in a way that achieves the level of service
customers desire.
Background:
Lead contamination of drinking water is difficult and expensive to
control. It seldom occurs naturally in source water supplies like
rivers and lakes; therefore it cannot be treated at a centralized
treatment facility. Rather, lead enters drinking water primarily from
the corrosion of materials containing lead in the water distribution
system and in household plumbing. These materials include lead service
lines that connect a house to the water main, lead-based solder used in
a house to join copper pipe, and brass faucets and other plumbing
fixtures.
The Safe Drinking Water Act is the key federal law protecting public
water supplies from harmful contaminants.[Footnote 5] EPA's 1991 Lead
and Copper Rule, promulgated pursuant to the Act, requires water
systems to protect consumers against exposure to elevated levels of
lead in drinking water by chemically treating water to reduce its
corrosiveness and by collecting water samples from consumer taps and
testing them for evidence of lead corrosion.[Footnote 6] EPA considers
lead to be elevated (known as the "action level") when lead levels are
higher than 15 parts per billion in over 10 percent of tap water
samples taken. Because lead contamination generally occurs after water
leaves the treatment plant, the Lead and Copper Rule requires testing
for lead at consumers' taps. If elevated lead levels are found and
persist after treatment to minimize the water's corrosiveness, the
water system must annually replace 7 percent of the lead service lines
that it owns.
Implementation and enforcement of the Lead and Copper Rule in the
District of Columbia is complicated because of the number and nature of
the entities involved. The Washington Aqueduct, owned and operated by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is responsible for water treatment
(including corrosion control). WASA purchases water from the Washington
Aqueduct and delivers it to District residents, and is responsible for
monitoring tap water samples for lead. EPA Region III in Philadelphia
has oversight and enforcement authority for the District's public water
systems.
Similar to many of the other approximately 400 largest drinking water
systems in the United States (i.e., serving populations greater than
100,000), WASA is also responsible for wastewater collection and
transmission, including operation and maintenance of its wastewater
treatment facility and sanitary sewer system. This water infrastructure
in the District of Columbia, like in many older cities, is aging and
will require substantial funding over the next several years for
replacement or rehabilitation.
WASA Has Reduced Lead in Drinking Water But Faces Many Other Challenges
to its Water and Wastewater Infrastructure:
A June 17, 2004, administrative order for compliance on consent between
EPA and WASA required WASA to take a number of corrective actions that,
by necessity, enhanced its coordination with EPA and the D.C.
Department of Health. Among these actions were developing a plan to
identify additional lead service lines, improving the selection of
sampling locations and reporting of water testing results to EPA,
developing a strategy to improve WASA's public education efforts, and
collaborating with the D.C. Department of Health to set priorities for
replacing lead service lines. Most importantly, with the introduction
of orthophosphate to the drinking water supply, WASA met, and has
continued to meet, federal standards for lead in drinking water.
[Footnote 7] WASA's most recent report on lead levels in D.C. drinking
water was delivered to EPA in January 2008. WASA reported that 90
percent of the samples had lead levels of 11 parts per billion (ppb) or
less, which is below EPA's lead action level of 15 ppb. This is the
sixth monitoring period in a row that WASA has met the lead action
level.
To resolve its lead problem in the long-term, however, WASA decided
that it needed to undertake a program to replace the public portions of
all its customers' lead service lines (roughly 35,000 lines) by 2016.
WASA estimates that its program to replace all the District's lead
service lines will cost at least $400 million. Importantly, this figure
reflects only the cost to replace the public portion of customers' lead
lines. Customers would need to finance replacement of their private
portion of the lead lines (at a cost that could reach $2,500) on their
own. Through the first quarter of fiscal year 2008, WASA has spent $105
million on the program, and expects to spend roughly another $300
million by 2016.
Perhaps the most important complication facing WASA's lead service line
replacement program is that ownership of lead service lines in the
District of Columbia is shared--WASA owns the portion from the water
main to the property line, and homeowners own the portion from the
property line to the home. Homeowners may pay to replace their portion
of the lead service line at the same time as WASA replaces its portion,
but are not required to do so. Figure 1 shows the configuration of a
service line from the water main to a customer's home.
Figure 1: Lead Service Line Configuration:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of a lead service Line configuration.
The following items are depicted:
* Water main, connecting to:
* Service line, connecting to:
* Water meter, connecting to:
* Water shutoff valve, connecting to:
* Water line into property.
Source: WASA.
[End of figure]
WASA established a program to encourage homeowners to replace their
portion of lead service lines. This program included:
* a low-interest loan program for low-income residents, offered through
a local bank;
* grants of up to $5,000 for low-income residents, offered by the
District of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development;
and:
* a fixed-fee structure for line replacement of $100 per linear foot
plus $500 to connect through the wall of the home, to make pricing
easier for homeowners to understand.
Despite these incentives, D.C. homeowners have been reluctant to
replace the private side of the lead service line. Through the length
of WASA's lead service line replacement program, beginning in fiscal
year 2003 and running through the first quarter of fiscal year 2008, of
the 14,260 lead service lines replaced in public space, only 2,128
homeowners replaced the private portion of their lead service line.
[Footnote 8]
These totals are particularly troublesome given the lack of information
about the benefits of partial lead service line replacement. Indeed,
experts disagree about the effectiveness of removing only part of a
lead service line. Studies that EPA cited in the Lead and Copper Rule
suggest that long-term exposure to lead from drinking water decreases
when a service line is only partially replaced. However, after partial
replacement of a lead service line, exposure to lead in drinking water
is likely to increase in the short term because cutting or moving the
pipe can dislodge lead particles and disturb any protective coating on
the inside of the pipe. Some experts believe that lead exposure can
increase after partial service line replacement because of galvanic
corrosion where the dissimilar metals of the old and new pipes meet.
A study presented at the 2006 American Water Works Annual Conference
summarizing the experience of partial lead service line replacement by
the Greater Cincinnati Water Works found that partial replacements of
lead lines resulted in much higher lead levels in the water for up to 1
month after replacement, even though the system was optimized for
corrosion control.[Footnote 9] Even after this initial period, the
sites with partial replacements had similar water lead concentrations
as the sites in which the entire lead line was left in place--
indicating there would be little, if any, benefit of partial lead line
replacement. In the study, only completely replacing the lead service
line resulted in both short-and long-term water quality improvements in
all of the sites tested. The authors also noted that the use of a
Teflon sleeve, or some other method of treating the portion of the line
remaining in service, may help to protect water quality, but that more
needs to be done in this area. Recognizing the need for more research,
EPA has partnered with the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation on a study of the relative contributions of service lines
and plumbing fixtures to lead levels at the tap. The projected
completion of the study is November 2008.
In light of these problems, WASA is now considering whether its current
lead line replacement program should be restructured, particularly
given its high cost and the competing demands on its budget. As a water
utility serving a large metropolitan area, the lead problem has posed
only one of several major infrastructure challenges for the utility and
its customers. For example, approximately one-third of the District (by
acreage) is served by combined sewers, which carry both sanitary waste
from homes and businesses and storm water drainage. During storms this
untreated sewage is discharged directly into the Anacostia and Potomac
Rivers, adversely impacting the quality of these waters. To meet
federal water quality standards, WASA will need to spend considerable
sums of money to deal with the problem. Specifically, a March 2005
consent decree between WASA and EPA requires WASA, by 2025, to
implement WASA's long-term control plan, including construction of
large underground tunnels to temporarily store excess flows until they
can be treated at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant and other
measures, to significantly reduce combined sever overflows into the
Anacostia River and other area waterways.[Footnote 10] WASA has
estimated the cost of this effort to reach $2.2 billion dollars.
WASA's Water Infrastructure Problems Mirror the Challenges Water
Utilities Face Nationwide:
WASA's challenges are mirrored across the country, where projected
needs for investment in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
range from $485 billion to nearly $1.2 trillion over 20 years. The
variation in these estimates reflects alternative assumptions about the
nature of existing capital stock, replacement rates, and financing
costs. EPA reported in its most recent Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey (issued in June 2005) that drinking water utilities alone
will need an estimated $276.8 billion for the 20-year period ending in
December 2022.[Footnote 11] EPA's new estimate exceeds those from prior
surveys by more than 60 percent, largely as a result of an increased
emphasis on capturing previously underreported needs for infrastructure
rehabilitation and replacement. According to EPA's report, current
needs increased by about 50 percent, but future needs rose by over 100
percent.[Footnote 12] EPA attributes the difference to a more complete
assessment of the longer-term needs for addressing "aging
infrastructure that is currently adequate, but will require replacement
or significant rehabilitation over the next 20 years."
Pipeline rehabilitation and replacement represents a significant
portion of the projected infrastructure needs for water utilities. EPA
estimates that underground pipelines account for about 75 percent of
the nation's existing capital investment in drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil
Engineers, U.S. drinking water and wastewater utilities are responsible
for an estimated 800,000 miles of water delivery pipelines and between
600,000 and 800,000 miles of sewer pipelines, respectively. However,
several recent studies have raised concerns about the condition of the
existing pipeline network. For example, in August 2002, based on a
nationwide survey of large drinking water and wastewater utilities, we
reported that more than one-third of the utilities had 20 percent or
more of their pipelines nearing the end of their useful life. In the
case of one in 10 utilities, 50 percent or more of the utility's
pipelines were nearing the end of their useful life. Citing a "huge
wave of aging pipe infrastructure," the American Water Works
Association in 2001 predicted a significant increase in pipe breaks and
repair costs over the next 30 years--even if utilities increase their
investment in pipe infrastructure several fold.[Footnote 13] Other
studies make similar predictions for the pipelines owned by wastewater
utilities.[Footnote 14]
Despite the looming problems facing utility pipelines, our nationwide
survey found that pipeline rehabilitation and replacement was not
occurring as desired, with over two-thirds of the utilities reporting
that they have fallen short of their desired pace of rehabilitation and
replacement. Specifically, we found that roughly half of the utilities
actually rehabilitated or replaced one percent or less of their
pipelines annually, even though an estimated 89 percent of drinking
water utilities and 76 percent of wastewater utilities believed that a
higher level of rehabilitation and replacement should be occurring.
More generally, we found that many utilities had deferred maintenance,
minor capital improvements, and/or major capital improvements due to
insufficient funding. About one-third of the utilities deferred
maintenance expenditures, and similar percentages of utilities deferred
expenditures in the other categories. According to EPA's June 2005
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey, the largest category of
need is the installation and maintenance of transmission and
distribution systems--accounting for $183.6 billion, or about 66
percent of the needs projected through 2022. For wastewater systems,
EPA's 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey projected infrastructure-
related needs for publicly-owned wastewater systems of $202.5 billion
through 2024.[Footnote 15]
Several factors have contributed to the nation's deteriorating water
infrastructure over the years. The adequacy of the available funding,
in particular, has been a key determinant of how well utility
infrastructure has been maintained. However, according to our
nationwide survey, a significant percentage of the utilities serving
populations of 10,000 or more--29 percent of the drinking water
utilities and 41 percent of the wastewater utilities--were not
generating enough revenue from user charges and other local sources to
cover their full cost of service. In addition, when asked about the
frequency of rate increases during the period from 1992 to 2001, more
than half the utilities reported raising their rates infrequently:
once, twice, or not at all over the 10-year period.
Our survey also raised questions about whether utility managers have
enough information about their capital assets to effectively plan their
future investment needs. We found that many utilities either did not
have plans for managing their assets, or had plans that may not be
adequate in scope or content. Specifically, more than one-fourth of the
utilities did not have plans for managing their existing capital
assets. Moreover, for the utilities that did have such plans, the plans
in many instances did not cover all assets or did not contain one or
more key elements, such as an inventory of assets, assessment criteria,
information on the assets' condition, and the planned and actual
expenditures to maintain the assets.
Citing communities' funding difficulties, many have looked to the
federal government for financial assistance. However, if budgetary
trends over the past few years serve as any indication, federal funding
will not close the gap. The key federal programs supporting water
infrastructure financing include the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) for wastewater facilities, and the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) for drinking water facilities. Under each of
these programs, the federal government provides seed money to states,
which the states in turn use to support revolving funds that loan money
to qualifying localities within their jurisdictions for new
construction and upgrades. However, the trends and overall funding
levels associated with these programs, suggest that they will only have
a marginal impact in closing the long-term water infrastructure funding
gap. Federal appropriations for the CWSRF in particular have decreased
by nearly 50 percent during the past five years--from $1.34 billion
enacted for fiscal year 2004 to $689 million enacted for fiscal year
2008. Funding for the DWSRF has remained virtually flat during the same
period.
Comprehensive Asset Management Can Be an Effective Tool for Managing
Infrastructure and Optimizing Investments When Resources Are
Constrained:
Growing infrastructure needs, combined with local pressure to keep user
rates low, make it imperative that utilities manage their resources as
cost effectively as possible. While hardly a "silver bullet" for the
water industry's massive shortfall in infrastructure funding,
comprehensive asset management is one approach that has shown promise
in helping utilities better identify their needs, set priorities, and
plan future investments. Basic elements of comprehensive asset
management include: collecting and organizing detailed information on
assets; analyzing data to set priorities and make better decisions
about assets; integrating data and decision making across the
organization; and linking the strategy for addressing infrastructure
needs to service goals, operating budgets, and capital improvement
plans. At its most basic level, asset management gives utility managers
the information they need to make sound decisions about maintaining,
rehabilitating, and replacing capital assets--and to make a sound case
for rate increases and proposed projects to their customers and
governing bodies.
Our 2004 report identified a number of asset management practices that
could help water utilities better manage their infrastructure and
target their investments to achieve the maximum benefit. Among other
things, we found that collecting, analyzing, and sharing data across
the organization helped utilities make informed decisions about which
assets to purchase, optimize their maintenance practices, and determine
how long to repair an asset before replacement becomes more cost-
effective. Some utility managers, for example, have used risk
assessments to determine how critical certain assets (such as
pipelines) are to their operations, considering both the likelihood and
consequences of their failure. This systematic evaluation has helped
them to target their resources accordingly, with the most critical
assets receiving preventive maintenance while other, less critical
assets received attention on an as needed basis.
Having better information on utility assets has not only allowed
managers to identify and prioritize investment needs, but has also
helped them justify periodic rate increases to their customers and
governing boards to pay for needed improvements. In one case, for
example, utility managers modeled information on pipe performance
history and replacement costs and predicted the approximate number of
pipe breaks at various levels of funding. By understanding the trade-
offs between lower rates and higher numbers of pipe breaks, the
governing board was able to make an informed decision about the level
of service that was appropriate for its community.
Whether the problem is replacing lead service lines, as is the case for
WASA, meeting new regulatory requirements, or paying the price for
years of deferred maintenance, many utilities are facing huge
investments to add new capital assets and replace others that are
reaching the end of their useful life. Comprehensive asset management
is one approach that shows real promise as a tool to help drinking
water and wastewater utilities effectively target limited resources
and, ultimately, ensure a sustainable water infrastructure for the
future. Accordingly, our report recommended that the Environmental
Protection Agency take steps to strengthen the agency's existing
initiatives on asset management and ensure that relevant information is
accessible to those that need it.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of this Subcommittee may
have at this time.
Contact and Acknowledgements:
For further information, please contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-
3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included
Elizabeth Beardsley, Ellen Crocker, Steve Elstein, Tim Minelli, Nathan
Morris, Alison O'Neill, and Lisa Turner.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, District of Columbia's Drinking Water: Agencies Have Improved
Coordination, but Key Challenges Remain in Protecting the Public from
Elevated Lead Levels, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
05-344] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005).
[2] GAO, Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to
Ensure That Consumers Are Protected from Lead Contamination,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-148] (Washington,
D.C.: Jan. 4, 2006).
[3] GAO, Water Infrastructure: Information on Financing, Capital
Planning, and Privatization, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-02-764] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 2002).
[4] GAO, Water Infrastructure: Comprehensive Asset Management Has
Potential to Help Utilities Better Identify Needs and Plan Future
Investments, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-461]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004).
[5] 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j.
[6] 40 C.F.R. pt. 141, subpart I.
[7] Orthophosphate was introduced to the WASA's drinking water supply
in August 2004 to form a protective coating inside lead service lines
and fixtures to prevent lead from leaching into drinking water.
[8] WASA has indicated that of the service lines currently replaced in
public space, 3,408 are also considered "full" replacements because it
found that the private portion of the service line was already non-
lead.
[9] Jeff Swertfeger, David J. Hartman, Cliff Shrive, Deborah H. Metz,
Jack DeMarco, et al. "Water Quality Effects of Partial Lead Line
Replacement." 2006 Annual American Water Works Association Conference,
San Antonio, Texas.
[10] WASA states that combined sewer overflows will be reduced by 96
percent overall and by 98 percent in the Anacostia River.
[11] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, Third Report to Congress,
EPA 816-R-05-001 (Washington, D.C.: June 2005).
[12] EPA defines current needs as projects that a system considers a
high priority for near-term implementation to enable a water system to
continue to deliver safe drinking water. Future needs are defined as
projects that water systems do not currently need but would expect to
address in the next 20 years as part of routine maintenance or
replacement of infrastructure because of predictable events, such as
capital assets reaching the end of their useful life.
[13] American Water Works Association Water Industry Technical Action
Fund, Dawn of the Replacement Era: Reinvesting in Drinking Water
Infrastructure (Denver, Colo.: May 2001).
[14] For example, see Water Environment Research Foundation, New Pipes
for Old: A Study of Recent Advances in Sewer Pipe Materials and
Technology (2000).
[15] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey 2004 Report to Congress, (Washington, D.C.: January 2008).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
