Mayors Water Council

Newsletter of the Mayors Water Council of The United States Conference of Mayors

WINTER 2008

MESSAGE FROM

THE CHAIRMEN

This edition of the MWC newsletter features water and

wastewater infrastructure asset management. Along with sum-

mary results from the 2007 National City Survey we have

included commentary by experts in the field (both public and

private water managers) on the importance of asset manage-

ment, and an interesting perspective from some of our munici-

pal practitioners that is intended to advise about what every

mayor should know about asset management and public infra-

structure. Additionally, we have included articles addressing

water conservation, water quality and watershed protection.

Albuquerque (NM) Mayor

Fayetteville

Fayetteville (AR) Mayor

The "National City Water Survey 2007 ­ The Status of Asset

Martin J. Chávez

Dan Coody

Management Programs in Public Water and Sewer Infrastruc-

ture in America's Major Cities" report was released at the May-

The MWC released "Who Pays for the Water Pipes, Pumps

ors Water Summit in San Francisco in September. This report

and Treatment Works? - Local Government Expenditures on

continues our efforts to conduct city surveys on water resources

Sewer and Water ­ 1991 to 2005" in June. This report consoli-

issues. The findings, based on 330 major cities, suggest that

dates 14 years of available U.S. Census data on local govern-

integrating asset management techniques in municipal water

ment expenditures and revenues related to provision of sewer

and sewer operations around the country is gaining momen-

and water services. Three findings in the report are important

tum. Most cities are employing comprehensive or partial asset

for all mayors to recognize. First, annual local government

management programs already, and cities that currently do not

spending in FY2005 for water and sewer was $82 billion,

use them plan to do so in the near future. Other findings sug-

and is responsible for more than 95 percent of total expen-

gest that cost savings in operations and maintenance, as well

ditures for these services and infrastructure investments in the

as in capital spending, are being realized now or are expected

nation. Second, local government spent over $841 billion for

to occur from these efforts. Most cities, however, oppose a Con-

sewer and water services and infrastructure investment from

gressional mandate tying formal asset management programs

FY1991 through FY2005. This number is significant because it

to getting federal financial aid.

can be compared to the $500 to $600 billion estimated EPA

"Needs Gap". While it is not a direct comparison to the EPA's

estimate it certainly provides some perspective concerning the

robust local government spending that has been occurring all

along. The EPA's "Needs Gap" estimate leads many people to

assume that local government is not spending much money on

municipal water and sewer services- that is not the case. Third,

the MWC estimates that annual local government spending

on sewer and water services and infrastructure investment will

s

reach or exceed $110 billion. And, the MWC estimate does

ump

es, P

r Pip ? ­

ate

the W t Works ures on

not include additional expenditures that will likely result from

s for

en

it

o Pay d Treatm t Expend  2005

Wh

o

nmen r--1991 t

an

over

adapting the public infrastructure to address climate change

cal G and Wate

Lo

r

Sewe

impacts.

The two reports can be found on the website www.usmayors.

org/watercouncil.

cil

Coun

ater

ors W

May