The Great Lakes region has been plagued by an antiquated combined sewer system (CSOs) that has contributed greatly to the cost of cleaning up and restoring the Lakes. Recently, Duluth, Minn. has seen a 91 percent reduction in overflows into Lake Superior during intense storms due to pricey efforts that were made to disconnect basement drains from sewage systems, replace leaky lines across the city and adding large overflow storage basins.
“Its been expensive and its been painful, but we want people to know that it is helping,” Executive Director of Western Lake Superior Sanitation District, Marianne Bohren, told John Myers at the Duluth News Tribune.
CSO’s are prolific in the Northeast and Midwest and our sewers are also the most elderly in the nation. In fact, by the EPA’s own analysis 75 percent of the $54.8 billion needed nationally to bring the nation’s CSO’s under control belongs in our states: Illinois ($10.1 billion), New York ($6.6 billion), Ohio ($6.3 billion), Indiana ($5.4 billion), Pennsylvania ($4.6 billion), and Michigan ($4.3 billion).
It is pretty obvious that our entire region needs new, state-of-the-art water infrastructure, but that costs money – lots of money. Water infrastructure improvements make up the lion’s share of the $26 billion restoration price tag. That’s why it is alarming that at the same time a dangerous cocktail of threats are brewing – a point of no return for the lakes – a spendthrift US Congress is considering changing the formula for funding for these projects – a decision that would short change funding for at least half the Great Lakes States.
The two mechanisms for federal funding of public sewer and water infrastructure projects: The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) provide low-interest loans for water quality projects, wastewater treatment, non-point source pollution control, watershed and estuary management, and most importantly for financing infrastructure improvements.
This past May, the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) considered major changes to the SRFs in The Water Infrastructure Financing Act (S.1005 companion House bill is HR1262) that would provide $35 billion in funding for the CW ($20 billion) and DW ($14.7 billion) SRF’s through 2014. But the formula Congress is considering switching to is based on faulty information, according to the Northeast-Midwest Institute. Congress used an EPA Needs Assessment to develop the new formula – the problem – the needs survey was never meant to be used in such a way. States often leave information out of the survey, especially if they have aging systems because it is too costly to provide the proper analysis. But that is only one of the concerns with the new formula, according to a June analysis of it released by the NEMW.
The bill has already been approved of by the EPW committee and if it continues to gain support and pass with the new formula intact, the biggest losers for CW SRF funds in our region promise to be: New York (losing nearly $20 million), Michigan (losing nearly $25 million), Ohio (losing nearly 6 million) and Wisconsin (losing nearly $11 million). (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota would make small gains in CWSRF funding.)
When it comes to the DWSRF, some of the same states lose again, such as New York, Michigan and Wisconsin. Other losers include: Illinois and Minnesota while Pennsylvania would gain a bit.
The Great Lakes region cannot afford to wait to overhaul, rebuild and update our water infrastructure; instead we need to quicken the pace of the work. Great Lakes Senators need to question this formula when this bill comes to the floor of the US Senate this autumn. They need to speak in unison whether from a state that gains or loses money from the new calculations to make the point that the Great Lakes cannot be fixed without new water infrastructure and therefore all the Great Lakes states need the full benefit of the SRF funds. We will definitely be keeping an eye on this key piece of legislation as it moves forward.
Related posts:
- Forget the Alamo: Remember Love Canal
- Congress Considers Opening the Spigot for Safe Drinking Water
- US House Expected to Pass Jobs Bill Tonight: Promising News for Great Lakes Water Infrastructure
- WRDA Reauthorization Offers Opportunity for Great Lakes Restoration
- Congress Needs to Step up Funding for Sewage Crisis, Report Says
So states with less Great Lakes coastline get more monies? Seems odd to me.
Also, would passage of this formula violate our Great Lakes Compact which supercedes other laws? Our neighbors to the north have a say in this now so they cannot be left out of this legislation.
I know Cleveland/Cuyahoga Co/NeORSD has been working on major sewer projects and there is money from the stimulus that is supposedly added to getting rid of these combined sewers. Does the addition of “stimulus funds” influence the changes in allocation of these other monies?
Just need to know what the talking points need to be. Are there big projects that those states with less coastline need to address that the other states have tackled?A reduction in CW/DW SRF may be ok if there are other monies available although the whole thing does seem a bit off to me.
Thanks for this information. Keep us posted on how this fits into the big picture.
Hi Barb,
The stimulus funding was a special one-time deal – those funds won’t be affected by any changes to the formula.
As for whether they are taking coastline into consideration or not, etc, it seems not. The Northeast Midwest Institute report says that Congress used a needs assessment prepared by the EPA (but not for the purpose of determining funds – some states even ignored or did not complete the survey)because Congress wants to make sure that the funding goes where it is needed. Woops! I can’t seem to attach the PDF of the NEMW report but it really delves into all this.