Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Challenges in the Rural United States
Stephen Gasteyer
RCAP, 1522 K St, NW #400
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 888-321-7227, ext 103; Fax: 202-408-8165
Email: sgasteyer@rcap.org
Basic Infrastructure—US:
Life is Good
 Access to water and sanitation services in the US is
among the highest in the world.
– According to most international reports on access to water and
sanitation, the US has 100 percent coverage
 Water rates have been among the lowest in the world over
the last 20 years (according to Cadmus Group and the
American Water Works Association)
 The number of impaired and badly polluted surface water
bodies have diminished by 2/3 since the mid-1970s
 Adoption of household water conservation practices has
risen dramatically over the last decade
Not Quite Paradise…
 Need
a harder look at:
– Access to water and sanitation
– The depreciation rate of infrastructure
– The cost of water and sanitation
– Efforts to maintain or improve water quality
– Implications for rural communities
Rural Communities and Water in
the US





US citizens generally have access to some of the world’s
best quality and most affordable water and sanitation
Low-income, rural communities often have greater
challenges in accessing safe and affordable water and
sanitation (the largest percentage of the 1.9 million still
without access are in rural areas)
Rural communities face issues of: financing, technical
knowledge, management capacity, and organization
These problems are likely to reoccur as conditions change
and new problems arise
Community organization around infrastructure often opens
the door to broader economic development potential (as
documented by WaterAid and others)
Access to Water and Sanitation-US
Table 1: Housing Units Lacking Water and Sewer Facilities, 1950-70 (US
Census)
Type of Facility
Year-Round Housing Units (%)
Lacking
Residential
1950
1960
1970
Area
No inside piped
Rural Farm
55
21
8
water
Rural non32
farm
Urban
4
1
0
Total
27
7
2
No flush toilet
Rural
Urban
Total
55
8
24
30
2
10
13
1
4
No bathtub or
shower
Rural
Urban
Total
56
11
17
31
4
12
14
1
4
Current US Situation
Households Lacking complete plumbing
facilities
US / State /
Territory
Total
OHU
lacking
complet
e
plumbin
g
facilities
(2000)
Percent
of OHU
lacking
complet
e
plumbin
g
facilities
(2000)
Total
OHU
lacking
complete
plumbin
g
facilities
(1990)
Percent
of OHU
lacking
complet
e
plumbin
g
facilities
(1990)
Percent change
in total OHU
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities, from
1990 to 2000
(base year =
1990)
Percent change
in total OHU
from 1990 to
2000 (base year
= 1990)
United States
670986
0.64
721693
0.78
-7.03
14.72
Distribution of those lacking
complete plumbing facilities
Population Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities, US
US Hot Spots Lacking Plumbing Facilities
States Ranked by Total OHU Lacking
Complete Plumbing Facilities (2000)
US / State /
Territory
United States
California
Puerto Rico
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Arizona
Virginia
Ohio
North
Carolina
Georgia
Percent change
in total OHU
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities, from
1990 to 2000
(base year =
1990)
Total
OHU
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
(2000)
Percent
of OHU
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
(2000)
Total
OHU
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
(1990)
Percent
of OHU
lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
(1990)
670986
85460
65640
58418
54853
30134
24450
23959
21088
19550
19407
0.64
0.74
5.20
0.83
0.74
0.48
0.51
0.52
1.11
0.72
0.44
721693
57974
NA
50428
56844
22061
26355
21572
18352
35788
24394
0.78
0.56
NA
0.76
0.94
0.43
0.59
0.51
1.34
1.56
0.60
-7.03
47.41
NA
15.84
-3.50
36.59
-7.23
11.07
14.91
-45.37
-20.44
14.72
10.80
NA
6.29
21.78
23.43
6.25
9.27
38.90
17.77
8.76
19295
17117
0.62
0.57
33192
22921
1.32
0.97
-41.87
-25.32
24.43
27.03
Percent change
in total OHU
from 1990 to
2000 (base year
= 1990)
Infrastructure Depreciation:
Gap Analysis

There have been three major investments in
water infrastructure in the US
– Turn of the 20th Century (1890s-1910)-clay
 100 year life span
– The 1930s (New Deal)-steel
 75 year life span
– The 1950s-1970s-plastic…
 30-50 year life span

The Problem: Materials Depreciation Rates
Replacement cost = real money

Estimates of capital needs for clean water from
2000 to 2019 range from:
 $331 billion to $450 billion with a point estimate
of $388 billion.
 Estimates of capital needs for drinking water […]
range from:
 $154 billion to $446 billion with a point estimate
of $274 billion.
– EPA. 2002. The Infrastructure Gap Analysis for Clean Water and
Drinking Water. http://www.epa.gov
Growth in Sewerage Expenditures and GDP 1980-1999
Add Increasing cost to address growth
The Rural Portion of this Cost

While many rural communities are dealing with
issues of failing infrastructure, calculations of
the gap for rural America are difficult—because
of the decentralized nature of rural communities.

Example--West Central Initiative, Minnesota—
found a funding gap of $813 million to upgrade
infrastructure installed in the 1930s.
Story of Donaldson, MN

Population 57
 MHI 1999 -- $15,000
 Annual operating budget – less than
$15,000…
 Sewer System and Storm Water System
combined—Need upgrade—minimum cost,
over $1 million…
 RCAP Intermediaries helped to facilitate
loan/grant package—making upgrade
possible
Household Cost of Water and
Sanitation

On Average—US citizens pay very little for water
and sanitation services (on average, around 1
percent of HH income).
 According US Census--the more rural, the higher
the percent of HH income spent on water and
sanitation.
 Many rural communities pay more than $1000 per
year for water and sanitation services.
Pressures on Water and
Sanitation Expenditure

Cost of infrastructure replacement.

Emerging costs for management of
municipalities generally.

Emerging requirements for treatment of
water and wastewater.

Municipal regulations
Smart Growth reporting requirements—Will
involve verification of growth rates and actions to
mitigate problems such as habitat destruction,
open space disappearance, farmland
disappearance, etc. Implemented most famously
in Maryland; but also in Oregon, New York, and
Washington.
 Small communities soon will have to comply with
National Accounting Standards Board GASB 34
management and accounting standards. These will
require communities to account not only for
existing infrastructure assets, but also for
depreciation of those assets
Wastewater Regulations

Increased scrutiny of decentralized wastewater
systems to capture non-point source risks.
– Communities in areas like the Chesapeake Bay basin
are increasingly asked to prove they are not
contributing to contamination to the Bay or to switch
over to centralized sewer.
– Septic or other decentralized systems are increasingly
managed

Increased oversight of wastewater facilities in
general. Emphasis on “system optimization”
Increased operator certification required.
Drinking water regulations

A new suite of regulations, standards, and rules
regarding community water system safety.
Arsenic Disinfection Byproducts, Long Term
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment, and the
Groundwater Rule.
 All of these will involve the development of
operating and monitoring regimes that may well
lead to force small communities to purchase water
services
Increased Demands on Rural
Community Managers

The Rural Community Context is Changing
 Small Towns are grappling with growing
populations in the metro-fringes
– Rural Town managers will need to develop plans and
strategies for encouraging economic growth while
ensuring it is done in a way that maintains
environmental and cultural assets

More isolated rural small towns are shrinking—
Town managers will need to build the capital and
assets (human, social, physical, natural) to attract
population and economic investment.
Capacity Development—
Moving Toward Mississippi

Rural Water Managers—Board Members
are rewarded for volunteering often by
being blind sided in realizing they have
fiduciary responsibility for the water system
 Mississippi Capacity Development
Initiative involves
– Annual water system capacity assessment
– Mandatory training for water boards
The Issue

Small Rural Communities have traditionally
managed their basic governance operations
through voluntary activities.
 Basic governance includes:
– Town management—management of municipal
budgets and accounting, planning, facilitation;
– Operation and management of water and
wastewater systems;
– Related—grant writing, fund raising, project
implementation.
The Times They Are AChangin’

Most small communities have part-time
administrative and management employees.
 Often these employees have minimal educations
past a high school diploma or GED.
 Modern laws and regulations have created a need
for a better educated employee in the small
community public sector.
 Communities often are faced with foregoing
management or services or paying outsiders to
manage local systems.
Role of the intermediary

In response to an observed problem with access to
safe drinking water in the 1970s, Congress
appropriated funds for technical assistance (TA)
services to assist rural communities with
infrastructure development
 Congress also allowed for the allocation of funds
to Non Governmental Organization (NGO) TA
providers to work with communities on organizing
community capacity for water infrastructure
development and management.
Leveraging Embedded Community
Colleges Technical Assistance Providers
Self-Determination for Rural Communities:
Capacity Building for Economic Revitalization
Empowering Communities through providing access to government, and
networks to other NGOs, government agencies, communities
Provide technical assistance to rural communities:

Facilitation for infrastructure development opportunities

Assistance in preparation of proposals, plans, and grants/loans

Assistance in selection of technology/contractors

Networking to provide political capital

Advice on water rights and responsibilities
THE RCAP NATIONAL NETWORK
MISSION
The mission of RCAP and its
affiliates is to help rural Americans to
improve the quality of life in their
communities.
Management of water resources and
ensuring access to basic water
services are the defining elements of
our work.
SelfDetermination
for Rural
Communities:
Capacity Building
for Economic
Revitalization
A Facilitating Role
Federal Government
EPA
USDA
HHS
RCAP, inc.
State
Development
Agencies
TAPs
TA Providers (TAPs)
TAPs
Community
Community interests
TA Providers
Implementing Private Sector
State
Regulatory
Authority
Intermediaries and Standards
Civil Society and Intermediary organizations are key
to the U.S. Regulatory System
Civil Society
DATA
Intermediary Organizations
Intermediary Organizations
Civil
Society
Community
Increasing Public Education and Awareness
TA Providers and its affiliates produce a diversity of
publications that are reflective of regionally specific
social and economic issues, policies, and programs.
Examples include:
Pacific Mountain Review (West)
 Community Water Bulletin (South)
 Watershed to Well (Northeast)
 Waterlog (Midwest)
 Rural Matters (National)

Utility and Community Planning

Utility planning to meet population growth, or
water problems—and how utility planning can
expand economic options
– Example—Alexandria Bay, NY.
– Resolved wastewater
problem through a
regional approach that
opened opportunities for
economic development in this
depressed part of upstate
New York.
Community Organizing and Leadership
RCAP assists low-income, rural
communities to achieve selfsufficiency. To do so, we
teach such basic skills as:
1) Community planning and team
building
2) Training small water and
wastewater systems operators and
Board members
3) Ensuring the public’s health and
environmental protection
Financing: Bartlett Village Water Precinct
- Bartlett, New Hampshire

Assisted the
community to look into
options for system
expansion and rate
increases to pay for
increased costs and loss
of businesses who paid
water rates.
Expanding and Upgrading
Infrastructure

The TA Provider works with communities
to assist them determine ways to expand
and upgrade their existing infrastructure
systems. This usually involves meetings
with utility managers, town managers, and
city councilors to assist them to understand
options and to make decisions.
Consideration of Technology Options

Matching community needs with available
options is a key role for the TA Provider
 Engineering firms often recommend that
small communities select more expensive,
large pipe options
 RCAP plays a key role in assisting
communities choose appropriate
technologies
INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY SELFDETERMINATION
In Spring Hill, MN, population
120, with a median household
income (MHI) of $11,000,
RCAP assisted the community
to utilize a wetland system for
wastewater treatment that cost
less and provided the
community with benefits that
attracted regional interest.
TA—an ongoing initiative

RCAP is committed to community capacity
development
 However, as times change, so does the meaning of
community capacity
 RCAP is still working with the community just
outside Roanoke, Virginia where we began 30
years ago
 We started assisting with access to safe water; we
have since worked with them on other water
upgrades, wastewater, solid waste, housing, and
economic development issues.
Application of the US TA System to
the International Crisis




The US TA process provides critical assistance to communities
to link them with technical and financial resources to address
ongoing issues related to water and waste services.
This is not, and should not be considered a purely technical
endeavor. TA providers spend as much time on the social
process as on the technical process.
In many countries either internal or external resources exist to
address the issues of water availability. A TA program that is
locally adapted to provide the brokering and Technical advise
functions of the US system might well allow local communities
to access the scientific, technical, political, organizational, and
financial resources to address lack of water facilities.
Build on regional/national/local success stories.
Opportunities for Leverage—RCAP
and Rural Community Colleges

Combined training for water and sanitation
operators

Combined training for water boards

Ongoing coaching assistance
Questions

Is this a new growth area that should be developed?
 a)
Do others believe that this meets a critical need
in rural America?
 If yes to the first question, what venue would best
meet the goals of RCAP, the community colleges,
and (most importantly) citizens in rural communities?
 a)
Identification and research of various
educational models
 What would be the best process to achieve goal?
 a)
A few regionalized centers, piggy-backing on
other establishments
 b)
Development of a national program
Critical Questions


What potential funding mechanisms are available?
a) Expansion of existing programs
– For instance, operator training could be funded under SRF capacity
development funding—but states and communities would have to
buy in.
– Are there other existing community technical capacity
management moneys available?
– New appropriations?
– Foundations?
What potential partnerships are available?
 a)
Land Grant University system (extension service)
 b)
Community College system
 c)
Technical College system