Water Isn’t Infrastructure? Really?
It’s time for a new narrative around water infrastructure that’s above politics
Why do we need a comprehensive overhaul of water infrastructure in the United States? Just look at these facts:
- More than two million people in the U.S. still lack access to running water and working toilets in their homes;
- Many drinking water and wastewater treatment plants are nearing the end of their design lives, posing major health hazards and economic disruption to communities;
- The rate of water main breaks in the U.S. has now reached one break every two minutes, up 27% from ten years ago; and
- If trends continue we can expect water-reliant businesses to spend $250B in 2039 on water service disruptions alone.
Yet no U.S. administration in recent history has made water infrastructure a priority — until now.
Just over two weeks ago President Biden released The American Jobs Plan, his more than $2 trillion plan focused on rebuilding critical infrastructure. As part of the plan Biden is proposing $111 billion in water-related investments, including modernizing drinking water and wastewater systems. This could mean investments in water infrastructure America has not seen since the New Deal.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, these investments in delivering one of the most basic human rights have been caught in the crossfire of extreme partisanship, with some discussions floating the idea of actually trying to exclude water altogether from the infrastructure table. This despite the Department of Homeland Security naming water one of the 16 critical types of infrastructure that underpin American society. How can water be both essential and a political football?
We must make water infrastructure not about infrastructure at all but about things that Americans value — community, public health, private industry and the economy.
— John Sabo
One reason: We associate “lack of drinking water and adequate sanitation” with developing countries, not with the richest country on the planet. Yet the United States consistently fails to achieve passing grades when it comes to water infrastructure. In their most recent report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave U.S. drinking water and wastewater a C- and D+, respectively.
Another reason: Water infrastructure is out-of-sight-out-of-mind. It’s some of the most fundamental infrastructure we have — and it’s all hidden. Unlike roads and bridges, pipes are all underground, and nobody visits wastewater treatment and desalination plants, not even on a school field trip in grade school. And groundwater pumps are rarely marked, so they’re easily missed.
Or perhaps we’re using the wrong word altogether. “Infrastructure” isn’t a word that motivates urgency or action. And once the debate becomes political, we’ve lost.
So how do we design a completely new narrative around water infrastructure that’s above politics, gets people to understand how much we depend on it to deliver the most essential ingredient of life, and what’s at stake if we don’t act?
It’s about reframing the government’s involvement beyond simply the guarantor of safety and handyman for patching old pipes to the stimulator of innovation.
- John Sabo
First: we must make water infrastructure not about infrastructure at all but about things that Americans value — community, public health, private industry and the economy. Infrastructure is something we all take for granted and therefore does nothing to inspire, but what if we’re able to attach the necessary upgrades to our water systems to our shared values? Because failing water infrastructure poses a direct threat to these very values. Water main breaks and “boil water” advisories, for instance, impact communities far too regularly. A new report on how failing to invest in water infrastructure would impact our economy finds that annual costs to Americans as a result of failing water systems will increase sevenfold in 20 years, up to $14B per year.
Second: It’s about making the provision of water increasingly privatized and decentralized. I can’t see a future, even in light of Biden’s plan, where the federal government can foot the bill for everything. There won’t be a Newer Deal for Water. While large scale water collection and storage via dams, aqueducts and groundwater pumps will likely always be managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, and therefore always dependent on federal funding, the distribution and treatment of water at the community/city level could become increasingly privatized.
Private water utilities are already successful in rural areas with smaller populations, and if cities, for instance, had a collection of smaller systems the responsibility for upgrades could be distributed to a greater number of entities. Also, doing wear and tear maintenance piecemeal is cheaper, especially when a whole system doesn’t need fixing. We can take parts of our water systems and decouple them, redoing them under private ownership.
And third: it’s about reframing the government’s involvement beyond simply the guarantor of safety and handyman for patching old pipes to the stimulator of innovation. No matter how privatized or decentralized, the success of the private sector will always depend on government involvement. The government is crucial for de-risking projects and stimulating innovation through grants and other funding mechanisms that help companies pilot new, more effective approaches to transporting and treating our water.
I keep on coming back to “life support” as a metaphor — but it’s not the right one. It suggests infrastructure that carries you through a crisis but that you can live without once you’ve recovered — and that’s not what water infrastructure is. What are your thoughts?
For more information about ASU Future H2O’s work and research on creating opportunities for global water abundance, visit our website and subscribe to our newsletter.
