Redefining Our Water Infrastructure
Michael Deane — Oct 01, 2009
Over the last year, a diverse group of experts and professionals came together from across the water spectrum to take part in the Aspen Institute Dialogue on Sustainable Water Infrastructure in the United States. I was pleased to be part of that dialogue that encouraged so many of us to set aside our entrenched positions and look at the issues anew, and I am pleased with the results of the discussion. (Read the report at www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/sustainable-water-systems-step-one-redefining-nations-infrastructure-challenge.)
The Aspen dialogue project began as an effort to step back from our all-too-familiar defined positions on funding water infrastructure and, perhaps, gain some new perspectives. Sure enough, as the discussions progressed, it became clear among the participants that the key water infrastructure questions should not just be aimed at identifying sources of funding — as they are so often — but should also be centered on what to do with our financial resources and, more importantly, our natural resources.
The result of that year-long dialogue is the Aspen Institute report, Sustainable Water Systems: Step One – Redefining the Nation’s Infrastructure Challenge.
By embracing a 21st century definition of infrastructure, this report challenges us to think innovatively about how we tackle water infrastructure replacement. In short, the answers must go beyond pipes, treatment plants and other man-made components to encompass our natural infrastructure. Put another way, the most reliable and efficient path toward providing adequate and safe water and wastewater services is to look beyond bricks and mortar infrastructure, to include rivers, lakes, aquifers, wetlands and, ultimately, a watershed oriented and more holistic approach to water resource management.
The Aspen report takes on years of conventional thinking, and seeks to reframe the often-discussed “Water Infrastructure Investment Gap.” From the report:
We submit that a crisis-driven approach, based on the “investment-gap” analysis, will be insufficient to meet the growing challenges facing the nation’s water infrastructure. Rather than looking ahead with apprehension, a new framework that looks ahead with intention, by reframing the issue from one focused solely on an “infrastructure gap” toward a more sustainable model or approach to funding water and wastewater infrastructure, is needed.
In place of the “crisis-driven approach,” the Aspen report defines a “sustainable path” with 20 elements to guide water management decisions at all levels and in all forms of policy-making, funding and implementation. The sustainable path and its constituent elements are presented as an ideal that we should strive toward and benchmark against.
The Aspen report, however, is not mere “happy talk,” lofty ideals and fuzzy goals. Contained in it, in fact, are concrete policy recommendations directed toward utilities, governments and regulators at all levels. Furthermore, each of the 20 pathway elements are discussed in detail with potential obstacles to those elements listed along with suggested remedies.
For example, the report identifies “good governance” as one of the 20 pathways to sustainability. However, it does not stop there; it also defines exactly what such governance means, and identifies the sometimes narrow focus of governing boards and other regulatory bodies as an obstacle. The report then recommends broadening charters of governing commissions and regulatory bodies, as well as increasing roles for public outreach and stakeholder involvement at all levels, to overcome the obstacles.
Similarly, the report asserts that the price of water services should “fairly impose the total cost of meeting the requirements of sustainability on ratepayers/customers.” However — and perhaps more importantly — the report discusses how the public’s understandable concerns with such increased costs could be addressed and alleviated through rate-setting transparency and improved outreach to the public.
Toward a Better Understanding
The goal of the Aspen Institute process is not necessarily to achieve absolute consensus among dialogue participants. Instead, the objective is to expand understanding of particular issues, and perhaps reveal new perspectives and areas of understanding through the dialogue process. Held against those criteria, this Aspen dialogue was a success.
The Aspen Institute’s Sustainable Water Systems: Step One – Redefining the Nation’s Infrastructure Challenge serves as an important tool for public officials at all levels to deliver long-term solutions that will allow water and wastewater providers to meet America’s needs.
It also calls upon water utilities to take the lead in building partnerships to plan and manage integrated and sustainable water resources.
If you have not already read the Aspen report, I encourage you to do so. I was proud to be a part of the dialogue process and truly believe that precedent-setting work was done there.
Michael Deane, a participant in the Aspen Institute’s Dialogue on Sustainable Water Infrastructure in the United States, formerly served as U.S. EPA associate assistant administrator for the Office of Water and is currently executive director of the National Association of Water Companies, which represents all aspects of the private water service industry.
