ACEC has added its voice to the water community calling upon Congress to direct the re-examination of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) cost-benefit analysis of proposed per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulation. Water utilities face numerous and highly variable threats to public health and safety. Expensive federal regulatory mandates to address risks, such as PFAS hazardous substance designation or maximum contaminant levels, can be highly disruptive to local delivery of essential services, public or private. Under proposed EPA regulations, local governments will be subject to new and wide-ranging PFAS compliance costs for contaminant testing, monitoring, and treatment.
The EPA’s cost-benefit analysis asserts annual costs of $770 million and benefits of approximately $1.2 billion. In stark contrast, an engineering study commissioned by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) estimated annual costs of the proposed regulations to be between $2.5 billion and $3.2 billion. According to the study, estimated perhousehold costs are particularly painful for those served by smaller systems, with annual costs ranging from $10,090 to $11,150 per household per year for very small systems (less than 100 people), to $525 to $545 per household per year for systems serving up to 10,000 people. Effects on disadvantaged communities could be significant.
In a letter to appropriators, ACEC asserted: “Further, such cost-benefit analysis should be assessed against a range of exposure risks. Commitments of limited resources must be considered against expected risk reductions to be achieved by measures undertaken. To justify the prioritization of limited financial resources toward regulatory action, policy must be founded in defensible human health risk assessment in which the public and industry can have high confidence. Based on our review of the record comments in the recent PFAS rulemakings, we believe that the EPA has yet to demonstrate that PFAS risks warrant extraordinary follow-on compliance expenditures.”
ACEC will continue to collaborate with the water community to meet the challenge of emerging contaminants, among others, to delivery of water infrastructure services.
ACEC, in collaboration with the water infrastructure community, has urged Congressional funding of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) to the maximum authorization in federal law, $3 billion each, for fiscal year 2024. State and local governments working with the business of engineering have long developed effective delivery of safe and reliable water infrastructure under the SRF and Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (WIFIA) programs.
Until fiscal year 2022 and fiscal year 2023, Congress routinely appropriated about $2 billion annually for both SRF programs, under which the EPA made grants to states and from which loans were provided to local governments. These state programs developed and maintained important processes for planning and prioritization. The program fostered reliable financing for affordable drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
With Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding, beginning in fiscal year 2022 and continuing into fiscal year 2023, direct Congressional grants to projects disrupted the SRF processes. ACEC does not oppose direct Congressional grants for water infrastructure, however, the current practice threatens the performance of the traditional programs and raises expectations of increased costs and risks to the health and safety of communities. IIJA funding should be additional to, i.e., supplemental, not in lieu of the long-standing funding levels and practices of the SRF and WIFIA programs.
ACEC will continue to request that Congress restore the past practice of reliable base-funding levels of drinking water and wastewater SRF and WIFIA programs.
For legislative news, visit ACEC’s Last Word blog online at www.acec.org.