7913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A community will experience somewhat of an uproar if the average home water bill increases $6 per month - at the same time that many fumilies spend $8- 10 or more per month for special entertainment options on television. Implicit in this behavior is the perception that water is not "worth it." A commitment to providing and maintaining water infrastructure will require a major evolution in the public's attitude toward and perception of the value of wate~ the cost of wate~ and the price that must ultimately be paid for it. 48 Water Pricing and Public Perceptions Because of the massive federal expenditures in the past, the price of water has generally been disproportionately low in comparison to the true cost of developing and maintaining the facilities, A community will experience somewhat of an uproar if the average home water bill increases $6 per month - at the same time that many families spend $8-lO or more per month for special entertainment options on television. Implicit in this behavior is the perception that water is not "worth it." This is a sad statement on our populace's awareness of the implicit value of water and of the critical role that water plays in our ability to sustain life itself, let alone our economy and standard of living. A commitment to providing and maintaining water infrastructure will require a major evolution in the public's attitude toward and perception of the val ue of water, the cost of water and the price that must ultimately be paid for it. Public education and awareness programs must be a key ingredient in meeting the water challenge. This is the true water problem of the 1980s. Identifying the Problem The process of problem identification and solution development is just beginning. Over the past few years the print and broadcast media have covered the issue of the nation's crumbling infrastructure. These publications have tended to group all construction needs together, regardless of their purpose. Implicitly, highways, water and public buildings are presented as having equal priority. Since 1982, however, there have been several successive efforts by the business, professional and political communities to address the issue of financing water infrastructure. One of the most important of these efforts is a congressionally-led forum which was created in 1983. Under the direction of Chairman Senator Dennis DeConcini (AZ) and Co-Chairmen Senator Dave Durenberger (MN) and Congressman Robert Roe (N]), the National Water Alliance brings together a bi- cameral and bi-partisan committee of congressional leaders. Its board of directors is comprised of key leaders in the business, professional, academic and environmental communities. The Alliance recognizes that Congress has been a microcosm of the nation's conflicting regional needs for water financing - with the water quality problems of the Northeast and Midwest often pitted for funding directly against the water quantity problems of the West and Southwest. The net result has often been a bitter stalemate. The Alliance's goals are to develop a coherent national water policy and to create and implement a national public education program on the cost, value and importance of water. The National Water Alliance provides a long-awaited policy- making and education forum for all members of the public, which may lead the way to a breakthrough on water financing. GFOwing Federal Awareness Legislatively, Capitol Hill has reflected the awareness of the new water problem of the 1980s, In the last Congress no fewer than eight different bills were introduced which would provide for inventories of water and sewer systems, the development of lO-year capital investment plans, the creation of a national capital budget, and various mechanisms for matching grants or loans to states for the establishment of infrastructure financing banks. While these bills focused on the overall water problem, the controversy has continued on water resources legislation, The main issue, unchanged since 1976, is cost-sharing. Administration proposals emphasize vastly increased non-federal cost-sharing and, most significantly, up- front cash contributions by local and state governments instead of the pay-as-you- go, low-interest mode of the past.