Mayors Water Council Page 1 THE UniTEd STaTES COnFEREnCE OF MaYORS

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

SUMMER/Fall 2010

Mayoral interest in public water and wastewater issues is growing. Eight water-related resolutions were considered and adopted this June at the 78th Annual Meeting of The U.S. Conference of Mayors. The single most pronounced theme common to all of these new water policies is the desire of Mayors to impose cost-efficiencies in an area that has burgeoned with pub-lic investment over the last five decades. Not surprising since required spending in this area far exceeds infla-tion, and expected future cost requirements are daunt-ing at a time when Main Street is still reeling from the Great Recession. Still, cities are committed to the goals of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The newly adopted policies call for smarter service and infrastructure management at the local level; and they call for more sophisticated planning and partner-ing with federal agencies. Congress, however, remains silent in this debate, apparently comfortable with expanding clean water goals that will be paid for by local governments, or happy to authorize new federal financial assistance that they likely suspect will never be appropriated.

A critical, and glaringly absent, element necessary to achieve clean water goals is a national coordinated strategy on water that involves local, state and federal government working together, and a dialogue between local elected officials and Congress. Rather than con-tinuing to struggle with top-down federal mandates that are increasingly unaffordable, Congressional consulta-tion could provide the needed leadership to prioritize goals and better match mandates to the reality of local financing burdens. The end-game goals enjoy a gen-eral consensus among federal and local government - fishable and swimmable waters, safe drinking water, floodplain management to protect people, property and natural resources, etc. But the urgency driving the federal appetite to push through rules and regulations to cure all water problems in the short-run has pain-ful affordability implications for: local government who must take on significant long-term debt to finance the necessary infrastructure; ever-increasing operations

and maintenance costs that burden annual budgets; and multiple rate increases borne by fixed income, low income and unemployed citizens. Are we entering a period where the federally imposed requirements are creating a social justice dilemma for financially strug-gling cities and their citizens? Is it time to start ques-tioning whether the marginal public benefits of social resources devoted to water and wastewater improve-ment yield lower public benefits than could be achieved by investing in other services and infrastructure? There are no easy answers to these questions but they deserve to be addressed. The days of just throwing money at the problem are over for now.

Mayors are, however, still optimistic about what can be accomplished. New attitudes on implementing cur-rent enforcement policy regarding Combined Sewer Overflows (a costly federal mandate) can provide local financial relief without sacrificing clean water goals. The Conference of Mayors is pursuing an expanded dialogue with the US EPA to find cost-efficient solutions to achieve compliance. The current federal enforcement attitude in the EPA Regional Offices tends to favor dictating solutions that require cities to step up local investment according to what is calculated to be affordable. This attitude should yield to requiring local investment in long term control plans that achieve compliance with the law. The differ-ence between calculated affordability and actual compli-ance costs is clearly ripe for the discussion of marginal public benefits. The current policy guidance on this matter does not necessarily require that cities spend up to what

Message fromthe Co-Chairs

Schenectady (NY) Mayor Brian U. Stratton

Pleasanton (CA) Mayor Jennifer Hosterman

See MeSSage on page 2

Mayors Water Council Page 2

THE UniTEd STaTESCOnFEREnCE OF MaYORS

Elizabeth B. KautzMayor of BurnsvillePresident

antonio R. VillaraigosaMayor of Los AngelesVice President

Michael a. nutterMayor of PhiladelphiaSecond Vice President

Tom CochranCEO and Executive Director

By Pleasanton (CA) Mayor Jennifer Hosterman

Soon after our appointment as Co-Chairs of the Mayors Water Council it became clear that Mayors across America are urgently concerned about US EPA enforcement efforts regarding Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). In a series of Water Council meet-ings Mayors repeatedly emphasized that their num-ber one issue is the unfunded mandate by the federal EPA to structurally improve water/wastewater/storm water systems to address wet weather overflows and the potentially serious public health concerns arising from such events. They expressed the fundamental, and foremost, concern in their cities is maintaining the highest level possible of health and safety for our citi-zens. They also recognized that digging up streets to replace old pipe and add new is very expensive and can be cost prohibitive.

Over the past 53 years (1956 – 2008) local gov-ernment spent $1.65 trillion dollars on services and improvements to water infrastructure. Not surprising, the federal government contributed a paltry 7 percent of those expenditures. In contrast, it is forecast that over the next 20 years (2009 to 2028) the price tag for needed water service and infrastructure upgrades will range from $2.5 trillion (in a low growth scenario) to $4.8 trillion (in a high growth scenario). If the federal government continues to contribute a small percentage of that amount, it is clear that local government will never be able to afford much-needed improvements in water infrastructure. How will the diminishing level of federal financial assistance affect the public health of Americans? How will this failure to provide meaning-ful financial assistance to local government retard our environmental stewardship efforts to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act? The Mayors Water Council has been tasked with addressing this issue on behalf of the Conference of Mayors. We have, with a num-ber of participating Mayors, embarked on a series of discussions with the EPA and the DOJ (Department of Justice) to engage them in a serious dialogue to bring the local government perspective to CSO enforcement, the development of long-term control plans based on knowledge of local conditions, and a better under-standing of compliance and the ‘good-government’ principles of cost-efficiency.

Our first discussion was held in December of 2009. Mayors were encouraged by EPA to air their concerns over the consent agreement negotiation process. One

See OverflOw on page 3

Status of Combined Sewer Overflow Dialogue with US EPa

is calculated to be affordable. That policy is designed to identify CSO controls that exceed a city’s ability to afford controls to achieve compliance, and that triggers other policy elements that provide flexibility.

EPA has recently exhibited remarkable receptivity to a dialogue with the cities to achieve compliance with clean water goals with cost-efficiency as a guiding prin-ciple. The Mayors we have been working with in this dialogue have also reported EPA receptivity to the idea that incorporating green infrastructure with gray infra-structure can yield cost benefits as well as reduce car-bon footprint and still achieve compliance with existing law. Additionally, some cities are reporting that EPA is open to discussing longer than usual compliance sched-ules to ease local financial burdens.

Local government, cities and Mayors, have the responsibility to comply with all laws, and they also have a responsibility to articulate reasonable ‘means’ to achieve the ‘goals’ of the water laws. One of the main purposes of the USCM is to “strengthen federal-city relationships”, and the Mayors Water Council pro-vides a national platform for cities to develop policy and working intergovernmental partnerships to provide safe, affordable and adequate water and wastewater services and infrastructure for cities in the 21st century.

MeSSagefrom page 1

Mayors Water Council Page 3

by one Mayors expressed their frustration with a con-sent decree negotiation process where the federal agencies involved cast the local government as vil-lains, if not engaging in near-criminal behavior. Their accounts of negotiations across the nation indicated that the EPA Regions (there are 10 EPA Regional Offic-es) lacked consistency in their negotiation processes and attitudes. The consent agreement negotiation process has become so adversarial that local govern-ment perceived EPA and DOJ demands to far exceed what was necessary to achieve compliance with clean water goals. In short, the Mayoral consensus was that the federal government was acting with too heavy a hand in this process, and that success was being mea-sured by asserting command and control approaches that had little to do with compliance and more to do with punitive mandates that no longer balanced envi-ronmental benefits with local government expendi-tures. Throughout this conversation the EPA and DOJ were attentive and open to criticism without presenting a defensive posture.

Our second meeting was held in February of 2010. In that meeting, EPA and DOJ took the initiative and extended an offer to explore ways in which more flex-ibility could be incorporated into the consent nego-tiation process to ensure compliance but provide some financial and other types of relief to local government. In recognition of the frustrations expressed by Mayors in the previous meeting, EPA and DOJ identified four areas of concern that they are willing to focus the dia-logue on for flexibility options: affordability; incorpo-rating green infrastructure; front-end loading benefits to extend compliance schedules; and, addressing car-bon footprint issues. EPA made it clear that the dia-logue could not, as a legal matter, touch on any current enforcement actions, but could suggest policy options in general. It was during that meeting that we agreed to a format for discussion – a technical advisory group made up of staff from Conference of Mayors member cities and the Mayors Water Council staff, and repre-

sentatives from the EPA and DOJ would review options related to increased flexibility related to compliance. Following the technical group meeting, the Mayors plan to engage in another meeting with the EPA and DOJ to try to come to closure. The Mayors are suggesting that EPA provide direction to the Regions on how to apply flexibility that already exists in the current CSO Control Policy, they are not asking for the development of new guidance or new policy.

On July 14, 2010 the Conference of Mayors techni-cal working group held a meeting to discuss these issues and formulate options for consideration by the partici-pating Mayors. We anticipate that the policy options and an issues background document will be presented to the Mayors for discussion. This will inform our review of what options avail us of the best outcomes, resulting in maintaining the health and safety of our citizens, in a way which is fiscally responsible. Thereafter, the May-ors want to engage the EPA and DOJ directly, in this current calendar year. We are hopeful that the result will be a true partnership between the federal govern-ment and cities to address this critical issue, and move to compliance expeditiously while recognizing the need to balance environmental goals and the fiscal limita-tions of local government.

The Mayors Water Council will continue to work on your behalf to achieve an outcome which is best for all. The reason we ran for office was because we saw ways in which we could improve our communities – and we envisioned ways in which we could effectu-ate change that would better the lives of our citizens. We are all about creating caring communities within which people can work, play, attend school, raise families – and be an integral part of their community. It is our job to create and pass sound policy which allows us to deliver quality services to the residents and businesses of our cities. But, first we must main-tain the health and safety of our communities which is why providing proper water/wastewater/storm water conveyance systems is so important. Mayors are not criminals, we are the principal environmental stewards who care deeply for those we serve, and we must adhere to our fiduciary responsibility to govern prop-erly. We get it.

The Mayors water Summit will be held December 8-9, 2010 in washington, DC.

Information will be sent out in the next two weeks.

OverflOwfrom page 2

Mayors Water Council Page 4

By Bruce Hollands

Our country’s underground infrastructure is at a crossroads. It’s corroding at an alarming rate and mayors have the opportunity to take an active role in reforming procurement practices to ensure adoption of sustainable and cost-effective materials and solutions.

Over the next twenty years, municipalities will spend $3 to $5 trillion to upgrade water and waste-water systems, according to Schenectady (NY) Mayor Brian Stratton. Renewing water and wastewater lines alone, according to other estimates, will require between $660 billion and $1.1 trillion over the same period. Speaking at a recent conference on under-ground infrastructure, Mayor Stratton pointed to the results of a Mayors Water Council report on the nature and extent of the problem. U.S. water and wastewater infrastructure, the study noted, lacks “a coordinated and integrated national strategy.”

Accordingly, any comprehensive action plan must urge the reform of municipal procurement practices that limit competition, shackle innovation and increase costs. A major impediment is the stubborn local attitude that traditional bidding methods should not be challenged.

Changing Outdated ProcurementEvery mayor and local elected official has the abil-

ity, and perhaps the obligation, to review the local procurement practices of their utility staff. This pro-vides an excellent opportunity to ensure that bidding is aligned with modern asset management standards, and considers life-cycle costs and performance of materials in all public projects. Current procurement methods, however, are costly and prevent informed decisions from being made because bids are often closed to qualified products. Opening them, accord-ing to experts, will save municipalities between 10 to 20 percent on all goods and services purchased.

The water and wastewater sector is a case in point. Pipe is the largest component of a water utility’s assets and seriously impacts operations and maintenance costs, which are spiralling out of control, increasing by 6 per cent above inflation yearly. So, the performance of a utility’s pipe materials is critical to holding the line on costs. “The traditional habit of using one or two pipe materials exclusively, “says Mayor Stratton, “is no longer satisfactory. Local officials need to compare all proven pipe materials.”

Unfortunately, utility operators will often exclude widely used materials, saying they need to further “study” them, or relying on myths to avoid breaking old habits. The corrosion eating away at our nation’s underground infrastructure demands that all munici-palities renew their practices in this area. And begin-ning this process will require fair bidding and open-ness to alternative and proven pipe materials.

The Corrosion Crisis: Old Technology versus Sustainable Options

Corrosion is the leading cause of the water-main break epidemic in North America, estimated at some 255,000 breaks annually. Moreover, according to a 2002 congressional study, it’s a drag on the economy, costing U.S. drinking water and wastewater systems over $50.7 billion annually, or more than $1 trillion dollars over the next twenty years. Despite these huge expenses, however, municipal utility operators have largely failed to consider the cost-benefits of using non-corroding pipe materials.

Today’s corrosion crisis is due to the materials used in America’s underground pipe networks over the last 100 years. At first, cast iron was used, with ductile iron gradually replacing it as the material of choice. Both now suffer from the ravages of corrosion. Moreover, the burden of old technology materials is not limited to the cost of repairing and replacing failed pipelines. It includes the cost of losing treated water from leaking systems. All told, leaking pipes lose some 2.6 trillion gallons of drinking water every year, or 17 percent of all water pumped in the United States. This represents $4.1 billion in wasted electricity annually.

Sustainable and Corrosion-ProofThe solution to these problems begins with sustain-

ability, durability and corrosion resistance, and this is why municipalities must actively consider including alternative materials such as PVC in their bidding pro-cesses. Increased durability means fewer leaks, better water conservation and lower costs.

With over two million miles in service, PVC has been celebrated by Engineering News Record as one of the top 20 engineering advancements of the last 125 years. A study by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation recently quantified

Procurement Practices that Impede Rehabilitation of Underground Water Infrastructure

See PrOCureMenT on page 5

OPInIOn

Mayors Water Council Page 5

the life expectancy of PVC pipe at more than 110 years – making it excellent for long-term asset management and sustainability. Furthermore, PVC pipe is more effi-cient to manufacture, taking four times less energy to make than concrete pressure pipe, and half that used for iron pipe. PVC’s light weight reduces transportation and installation costs, yielding additional greenhouse gas reductions. It is also totally recyclable, though most of it has yet to enter the recycling stream given its great durability.

For municipal officials, PVC’s most attractive fea-ture is perhaps its cost-effectiveness. Annual savings derived from PVC pipe now used in sanitary systems throughout the U.S. are estimated at $270 million. Converting the entire sanitary sewer system to PVC could save upwards of $800 million a year.

a Municipal Success StoryWhile many localities have yet to take full advan-

tage of PVC pipe it is, nevertheless, a success story retold countless times in municipalities throughout the U.S. Myrtle Beach, SC, for instance, has used PVC in its water system since the 1980s. Today, over 50 per-cent of its pipe network is PVC – and it’s increasing annually as cast iron and galvanized pipe are being replaced. Similar water infrastructure renewal pro-grams, where iron pipe is being replaced with PVC pipe, are also taking place in cities like San Diego, CA, Fargo, ND, and San Antonio, TX, to name a few.

Solving our nation’s underground corrosion crisis will require openness to alternative and more resilient pipe materials such as PVC. And mayors should take the lead from Myrtle Beach and other communities by insisting their utility officials make it part of a competi-tive bidding process.

Bruce Hollands is Executive Director of the Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association, a non-profit organization which serves the engineering, regulatory, public health and standardization communities. He can be reached at bhollands@uni-bell.org

By Lake Oswego (OR) Mayor Jack Hoffman

When I talk with other mayors, a reoccurring con-cern is our infrastructure. Safe and reliable infrastruc-ture is one of many components of a great community. Our city, like all the cities in our region and like tens of thousands of cities across our nation, has aging infra-structure. If we don’t responsibly invest and maintain it, we risk potential loss of property or life that could finan-cially burden our citizens. Clean water, safe sewerage systems and good roads are just part of our paramount responsibilities. This year, Lake Oswego celebrates its centennial. For me, this has not only been a time to contemplate how far we’ve come with our infrastruc-ture, but just how much attention we need to continue to give to it in order to ensure that our investments last.

The City of Lake Oswego is located in northwest Ore-gon just eight miles south of Portland with some 35,000 residents and a very attractive 405-acre lake. One of the biggest modern day challenges we have tackled in Lake Oswego is the replacement of our sewer intercep-tor system. It’s old, failing and undersized. More than 90 percent of the interceptor pipe lies within Oswego Lake, its bays, and canals. Originally designed to serve 4,500 acres, the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer sys-tem (LOIS) today serves an area of 5,500 acres. When too much rainwater enters the sewer during periods of

sustained, heavy rains, the interceptor system becomes surcharged and backs up, spilling untreated waste-water through manholes at various locations adjacent to and within Oswego Lake. Additionally, the system’s steel and timber pile sup-ports are corroding and are at risk of collapse in a mod-erate seismic event. If this were to occur, millions of gallons of untreated waste-water would enter the lake and millions of gallons of lake water would drain downstream to the treatment plant, overwhelming its capacity.

A series of public hearings and community brief-ings were held in 2007 on replacement alternatives. As a result, the City Council accepted the City Engi-neer’s recommendation to replace the system with a combination of pile-supported pipe and a submerged, buoyant, gravity-flow pipeline.

When construction of this project began in Octo-

Plan Now for Water Infrastructure Future

Lake Oswego (OR) Mayor Jack Hoffman

See lake OSwegO on page 8

PrOCureMenTfrom page 4

Mayors Water Council Page 6

By Jill Techel, Mayor, City of Napa (CA)

The City of Napa is the major city in America’s pre-mier wine country, about an hour north of San Fran-cisco, on 17.8 square miles of land with a population of 72,585. Napa has a Mediterranean-like climate, and like most western US cities has low precipitation levels and is subject to drought cycles that make it dif-ficult to plan for the provision of water supplies.

Agriculture is the key to the success of Napa Valley and the Cities in Napa County. We created county wide princi-ples that we could all agree on and fore-most is the Preservation of Agriculture. We understand that water resources are important to agriculture, so much so that the cities in the Valley do not use ground water for municipal water supplies.

I recently participated in a ground-breaking ceremony at the Robert Mon-davi Winery where a new water tech-nology was introduced that provides water out of thin air. This new technology moves us toward city sustainability in a new way. It’s called the ‘Groasis Water-boxx’. Invented by Pieter Hoff of the Netherlands, it is being used for multiple purposes all over the globe.

It is a simple, yet elegant, technology that is very inexpensive. The Waterboxx is about the size and shape of a tire. It has a concave cylinder cover that is situ-ated over a container, (roughly 20 inches in diameter and 10 inches in height). There is a hole in the middle, and the Waterboxx is placed over a sapling. The top cover gathers rain and condensation from the atmosphere and stores it in the lower container. The container slowly drips the con-tained water under the sapling to supply moisture for root development.

The container holds four gallons of water that is made up of rain water or condensation collected at night when the cover cools more rapidly than the container. The concave design of the cover allows the condensate to run into the container. During the day time the cover prevents evaporation, and the cover and container protect the sapling from intense heat, creating a conducive growing environment. A trickling wick is inserted in the bottom of the container to allow water to drip into the soil under the sapling to promote root growth. As a result, other than filling the container at planting, the Waterboxx is self sufficient and relies solely on atmospheric water in the form of condensa-tion and rain. And because no external energy supply

is required this approach breaks the chain of provid-ing water supply by using carbon producing energy. (The technology and how it operates can be found on http://groasis.com).

This new approach to water supply is important for the Napa Valley. The Robert Mondavi vineyard is dry farmed, and does not employ an irrigation system. Dry farming works well for the older vines, but new vine plantings do need an external water source to

start. Using the Waterboxx, Mondavi is planting three acres of new vines. Each new vine will be covered by the Waterboxx, and it will get the water it needs from either rain or condensation. After one year the plants will be strong enough to grow on their own and the Groasis Waterboxx can be easily removed at any time and reused for the other plantings. . This technol-ogy can work for cities in areas where new plantings are desired but irrigation is not available to get the new plants started.

This is a shining example of low impact develop-ment for sustainable cities. Groasis, the manufacturer of the Waterboxx, is involved with many demonstra-tions and experiments world-wide. The technology has applications that address reforestation, water conser-vation and food production. In the Napa Valley, the technology promises to provide multiple public ben-efits to our water supply, local economic activity, and low impact development.

Getting Water Supplies from Thin air

Left to right, Napa Mayor Jill Techel, Bart van Boluis Consulate General of the Netherlands and, Margit Mondavi, Vice President of Cultural Affairs at the Robert Mondavi Winery. Matt Ashby Director of Vineyard Operations at Robert Mondavi Winery and Pieter Hoff, the Inventor of the WaterBoxx, install the Waterboxx around the vine.

Mayors Water Council Page 7

By Rich Anderson

Jennifer Hosterman, Pleasanton (CFA) Mayor and Brian Stratton, Schenectady (NY) Mayor, and Co-Chairs of the Mayors Water Council convened a Council meet-ing in Oklahoma City on June 11. Mayor Hosterman presided over review of several policy resolutions. The Mayors Water Council reviews resolutions and makes recommendations to the Environment Committee. Reso-lutions adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors can be accessed at www.usmayors.org.

USCM Staff member, Brett Rosenberg, commented on the preliminary results of a city bottled water survey conducted by the Conference of Mayors in May/June of this year. Rosenberg emphasized that the majority of the cities responding to the survey do not currently have city departmental bottled water purchase bans in place, but they actively encourage city departments to use and promote municipal tap water in lieu of bottled water. Rosenberg plans to complete his analysis of the survey and post a final report on the USCM website later this summer.

Mayor Hosterman then turned to the subject of municipal water and wastewater finance. Referencing the Trends in Public Expenditures report published by the USCM in February, she commented on the pro-jected city spending range of $3 to $5 trillion over the next 20 years, and expressed concern over whether or not this is a sustainable financial model.

David Gadis, Executive Vice President of Veolia

Water North America presented a logic-based case for long-term sustainability of water and wastewater services. Recognizing the current revenue crises most cities are facing, Gadis made a strong case for may-ors to seek sustainable financing rather than short-term solutions. For example, many cities are now deliberating over cost-cutting measures such as fur-loughs and layoffs, rate increases, service reductions, etc.; they are not giving due consideration to different business models that offer long-term solutions such as public-private partnerships and design-build-operate alternatives. Rather than relying on the uncertainty of increased federal aid, cities currently have the power to recast their relationship with their water utilities. Indianapolis, he stated, has had two decades or more of experience with partnerships. In that time they have provided quality service to city customers, and are envied at having the third lowest overall combined water and wastewater rates of all major US cities. Moreover, Gadis made a persuasive argument for the ability of a public-private partnership to develop cus-tomized solutions in any given city. Partnerships can establish programs tailored for a city’s operating, cap-ital and asset management needs. Large water com-panies with a demonstrated history of experience and successful performance can bring to bear resources and expertise that would not normally be within the reach of city utility departments.

Mayors Convene in Oklahoma City to Discuss Strategy on CSOs and Infrastructure Financing

See OklahOMa CITy on page 8

David Gadis, Executive Vice President, Veolia Water North America; Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, Pleasanton (CA); Mayor Brian U. Stratton, Schenectady (NY)

Sheik Mohammed Bin Essa Al Khalifa, Chief Executive, Bahrain Economic Development Board, Kingdom of Bahrain; Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, Pleasanton (CA); Mayor Brian U. Stratton, Schenectady (NY)

Mayors Water Council Page 8

Schenectady Mayor Brian Stratton led the discus-sion on the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) initia-tive the USCM is engaged in with the US EPA. Mayor Stratton described the initiative whereby several meet-ings with the US EPA and the US DOJ have resulted in an agreement to review the CSO compliance negotia-tion process, and consider local government proposals to achieve compliance and simultaneously reduce the cost to do so. Stratton said that EPA reports indicate over 800 cities have CSO events that endanger pub-lic health, sensitive habitats and critical ecosystems. He stated that the nation’s mayors share EPA’s goal of reducing these threats, but that it can be done in a more cost-efficient manner.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard commented that when he took office in 2008 the city had already entered into a consent agreement to control CSOs with a price tag of $3.9 billion. He was concerned about human exposures to raw sewage and worked to develop an alternative and sustainable engineer-ing solution to reduce flows to the Combined Sewer System using green infrastructure methods. In 2009

the city’s consent decree was modified with a plan to remove over 1 billion gallons of sewer overflows ahead of the EPA approved schedule. Still, Mayor Bal-lard stated, the then-current consent decree was over-ly prescriptive, and the city developed a new plan that had greater environmental benefits at a lower cost. The net result was that EPA agreed to work with the city on the new plan, and the city was able to save hundreds of millions of dollars with a new long term control plan.

Mayors Hosterman and Stratton introduced Shaik Mohammed Bin Essa Al Khalifa, Chief Executive of the Bahrain Economic Development Board of the King-dom of Bahrain. The Shaik discussed the water devel-opment needs of Bahrain. He stated that Bahrain is the most open and friendly society within the United Arab Emirates for foreign investment. He welcomed American water companies and water equipment and engineering companies to contact the Economic Development Board to pursue business development and investment opportunities.

In closing, Mayor Stratton announced that the May-ors Water Summit will be held in DC on December 1 and 2. Also, Mayor Hosterman will be hosting a Region-al Meeting of the Mayors Water Council in Pleasanton, CA the last week of October (tentative date).

ber 2009 the City promised residents that it would complete the project on time and within budget. I am proud to say that this complex and innovative $100 million project is on schedule for completion in late 2011 and under budget.

The new sewer interceptor line is the first of its kind to use a submerged pipeline in a gravity flow design. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe was selected for the project to enable creation of a pipeline with a life cycle expected to exceed 100 years, according to the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI), because it won’t rust, and can withstand seismic activity and still perform under drought and flood conditions that would lower and raise the level of water in the lake. The new interceptor system will be held under the lake’s surface by ground anchors. Custom fabricated stainless steel wire rope tethers connect the ground anchors to tether brackets that hold the main pipe and additional buoyancy ‘bas-kets’ in place at specified grades to allow wastewater to

flow by gravity to the wastewater treatment plant.Another favorable attribute of this design is that

using HDPE pipe to construct a shorter, less disruptive gravity-flow pipeline is a ‘low-impact-development’ approach. It will consume fewer natural resources during construction, limit digging up our land and it will take less energy to operate, all of which produces a smaller carbon footprint.

The cost of the in-lake portions of the new system is estimated at $65 million. The City is financing this project through revenue bonds and residents will see user rates increase by 30 percent for three years to pay for the new system. Nonetheless, the price tag for the in-lake system was about $20 million less in life-cycle costs than an around-the-lake, pumped system.

The City of Lake Oswego is fortunate for the good decisions of the past 100 years that have created, pro-tected and enhanced our property values and the qual-ity of life we continue to enjoy today. Our generation of mayors will be judged on how well we protect and enhance that quality of life and provide sustainable and secure infrastructure solutions for the next generation.

lake OSwegOfrom page 5

OklahOMa CITyfrom page 7

Mayors Water Council Page 9

By Guerry Waters, Oracle Utilities

Today, it seems, there’s no end to “smartness.” We have smart grids, smart phones, smart buildings, and smart cards.

But what you really need is smarter workers.To some extent, of course, municipal workers are

getting smarter. In the office, they’re using computers that correct obvious errors, check for conflicts in infor-mation, and automate routine tasks. Computers take information out of dusty basement filing cabinets and put it at everyone’s fingertips. They expedite problem solving.

Outside the office, though, computers don’t seem to be doing much to help your mobile workers per-form routine maintenance tasks and respond to emergencies.

Granted, many municipal departments use comput-ers to maintain technician credentials, track equipment location, and schedule tasks. But every department seems to have a different application. There’s no cen-tral scheduler; the Public Schools Department repaves a parking lot two days before Water & Sewer tears it up to replace a main. And departments can’t share staff or equipment. Tom, from Parks & Recreation, mows grass on a playing field but not on the medial strip just 20 feet away. Instead, Mary from Transpor-tation mows it, even though it takes her an hour just to load her equipment and drive to the site.

It’s tempting to blame the bureaucrats—or maybe the previous administration. But the problem isn’t really their fault. Up to now, a single field service computer application typically wasn’t strong or fast enough to juggle all your mobile workers simultaneously.

Field service applications of the past could produce schedules only if workers stayed within one section of the city and performed just one type of work. Appli-cations could route workers to the next job, but not well, because they couldn’t avoid construction sites or accommodate rush-hour restrictions. Even worse, these older applications couldn’t schedule changes through-out the day. If workers had to handle emergencies like a water main break, dispatchers had to monitor the repair’s progress and make subsequent task changes without computer help.

Fortunately, today’s mobile workforce applications are getting smarter. They’re incorporating new tech-nologies that let all your departments coordinate field tasks and share equipment and staff. Here are some of the new concepts you’ll increasingly hear about:

Computational grids divide huge volumes of data among multiple servers and then coordinate the tasks assigned, no matter how large or unwieldy. As a result, your mobile workers can perform any task for which

they’re qualified, anywhere they’re needed.

Mobile communications platforms treat all commu-nications devices equally. Dispatchers use a single interface to link to the bookmobile’s cell phone and the utility truck’s rug-gedized laptop. A mobile communications platform can maintain devices in the field; there’s no more “time out” as workers drive across the city to get their laptops updated. Platforms cut travel time even more when they let workers transmit pictures of a situation back to experts in the office who can help them diag-nose and fix that air conditioner problem at the ani-mal shelter.

Context-oriented dispatching lets IT put your spe-cific rules into scheduling and dispatching programs. The mobile workforce application can then make routine decisions without human intervention. When exceptions arise, the application lays out the situation for the dispatcher and suggests options to resolve it. As a result, fewer dispatchers can handle many more workers. And your dispatchers have the time to focus on your most urgent citizen complaints.

Spatial viewers let dispatchers see what’s going on in the vicinity of an emergency. When traffic backs up, dispatchers can easily spot and call a halt to the routine streetlight testing going on two blocks away.

Training dialogues and checklists lead inexperi-enced workers step by step through new tasks. Work-ers spend less time in classrooms. There’s no time-con-suming trolling through bulky paper manuals. Remote supervisors are always available, but they don’t have to hang around worksites just in case they’re needed.

Better, faster, cheaper training takes a lot of the pain out of the retiring baby-boomer phenomenon. And supervisors can handle far more crews than they previously could.

The bottom line is: new mobile workforce appli-cations save money. They reduce the number of dis-patchers and supervisors and help you get more workers performing tasks. Mobile workforce applica-tions reduce travel time, fuel use, and vehicular wear and tear. They increase workers’ on-site hours with-out overtime. They make sure inexperienced workers perform complex tasks without a hitch, the first time

Getting More from Your Mobile Workforce

See MObIle wOrkfOrCe on page 10

Guerry Waters, Oracle Utilities

Mayors Water Council Page 10

By Clinton O. Robinson, Associate Vice President Black & Veatch

More than ever, new programs come with greater need for resources and funds to support your visions. Consider this: you have the power to bring energy and water utilities together for the common good of your constituents and actually save money. Using this non-traditional approach can deliver promising results.

In Unquenchable, Robert Glennon notes that 39 percent of the country’s total use of fresh water is being used to cool and fuel power plants, while the delivery of water and the treatment of wastewater consume 4 percent of all electricity. Therein lies an opportunity to examine synergy among utilities that has been over-looked, and some thought-starters are suggested for mayors to consider.

educate for empowermentAs your community’s leader, you have an unusual

opportunity, perhaps even an obligation, to initiate a dialogue with your constituents about the price and value of the public water supply and service. A recent U.S. Conference of Mayors study showed that bottled water is more than 2,000 times more expensive than municipal tap water – yet not at all safer. Your munici-pal water supply, available at an affordable rate, is probably the most attractive water supply source for a nearby thermoelectric power plant; and it may be con-suming more of your precious resource than you are willing to share. Are your residents participating in the discussion about how water is allocated?

The Hartford Metropolitan District’s Biosolids Incin-erator Heat Recovery Project features a 1.7 MW steam turbine projected to supply 40 percent of their plant’s electrical power needs and save $1.4 million annually in electricity costs. Hartford educated their public on the “green” attributes and favorable economics of the project. By educating their constituents, they built con-

sumer confidence in the balance between economics and environmental sustainability.

uniform utilitiesWater and wastewater systems are commonly the

responsibility of city government while the energy com-panies are typically independent power producers and wholesalers of electricity on the grid. They are rarely combined “under the same roof,”. Integrated planning of energy and water resources should interest mayors and constituents alike. It is reasonable for a mayor to initiate the dialogue on this topic, using the power of City Hall, and official planning mechanisms such as the “Land Use Master Plan- Water Element and/or Energy Element,” the “Capital Improvement Plan,” etc. to bridge a gap that may exist between public and pri-vate utility providers and to establish a collaborative (“uniform”) planning approach.

A recent contract exemplifying the collaborative concept is Black & Veatch’s work with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) for the 26th Ward Emergency Generator Project. The project will include replacement of existing gas turbine generators with diesel generators for 7.5 MW of emer-gency generation. The project will allow NYCDEP relief from servicing the generator and pollutant discharge issues with the current gas turbines used in emergen-cies. The project also responds to Mayor Bloomberg’s challenge to all city services to review their energy uti-lizations and become more efficient. By using a uni-form utility approach, NYCDEP will reduce operating costs, provide for more reliable wastewater treatment through diversifying their energy supply portfolio, reduce wastewater spills due to power outages, and may even be a source of electricity for peak shaving during critical summer months for the energy utility when not in service at the wastewater plant.

Tapping the Potential for Energy in Water

See POTenTIal on page 11

around, and without an on-site supervisor.In short, in these tough times, new mobile work-

force applications help you do more for your citizens with fewer of their dollars.

Guerry Waters is Vice President of Utilities Industry Strategy at Oracle, which offers Oracle Utilities Mobile Workforce Management, a field service application designed around complex municipal and utility needs for real-time, cost-effective handling of emergencies and scheduled field projects. This article is based on his presentation at a May 2010 meeting of the Confer-ence of Mayors.

MObIle wOrkfOrCefrom page 9

Mayors Water Council Page 11

Planning for ProgressStimulus projects have often focused on the “shovel

ready” construction industry, but this approach mere-ly fast-forwards projects on the verge of start-up. It doesn’t necessarily stimulate the planning process. An approach we may see in future stimulus bills is some-thing I like to call “pencil ready” projects that involve sustainable planning at the city government levels. This approach will put as many, if not more, people to work to produce the best management practices for your utility and generate more public participation in the planning process. Progress usually comes with a price tag and engaging your constituents early and often with the energy-water value proposition should yield a document that you can use for years to come and demonstrate accountability to the public.

The City of Philadelphia engaged their water and wastewater utility, Philadelphia Water Department (PWD), in the preparation of an Energy Master Plan project. The city had anticipated an increase in their energy costs due to a 2011 sunset of their favorable Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) electric rate cap. They face higher energy costs in the future due to potential increases in water and wastewater treatment requirements. The Greenworks Philadelphia city-wide sustainability initiative aims for a 30 percent reduction below 2008 levels in energy consumption, a 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels in GHG emissions, and a requirement to generate 20 percent renewable energy by 2015. PWD management identified the need for a strategic plan to verify utilization of best management practices, with a goal of becoming a water and waste-water utility energy management leader, with raised awareness of energy opportunities.

SMarT to SustainableThe terms “SMART” and “sustainable,” relative to

energy, have significant “green” connotations. As in the education process on water allocation, it makes

sense to initiate a public dialogue that includes both public and private utilities on how they are using and paying for their water with SMART systems similar to what is being implemented in the energy market. At the same time we need to make sure that the water solutions we are implementing have a reasonable use-ful life and are not driven strictly by popular market trends, as more affordable, sustainable solutions may be just around the corner. For this reason we recom-mend diversifying your energy portfolio at your water utility which will lead to the most economical and most efficient power source available and release you from your single source use of the local energy utility.

An example of a major water/wastewater util-ity actively increasing its own supply of renewable energy is the Massachusetts Water Resource Author-ity (MWRA). The Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Wind Turbine Project includes two wind tur-bines at 600 kW each that could save approximately $230,000 annually. The project is part of an ongoing effort to increase the number of renewable energies currently utilized. Their renewable energy portfolio now represents approximately 26 percent of their total energy, with a goal of achieving 30 percent self-gen-eration by 2020. MWRA utilizes solar panels, biogas, hydropower, and now wind turbines to provide power for a portion of their energy requirements.

ask yourself and your City Departments These Questions

A SMART and sustainable City should consider a simple self-examination: What are your resources (both public and private)? Who controls them? How can you impact their regulation, distribution, and cost?

As you consider your answers and your leadership obligation to maximize your water and energy resourc-es, join me in a “glass half full” world view and fill our glasses for the future. Your constituents will thank you.

Photo cutline: An 8 ounce glass of water will fuel a 60-Watt light bulb for an average of 30 minutes.

POTenTIalfrom page 10

Mayors Water Council Page 12

By Rich Anderson

Schenectady (NY) Mayor Brian U. Strat ton addressed participants of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association in Florida on April 20. The event marks the World’s largest gathering of PVC pipe manufacturers. PVC pipe (poly vinyl chlo-ride) is rapidly becoming the preferred material for municipal water transmission and wastewater collec-tion in public systems across the nation. Mayor Strat-ton, speaking on behalf of the Mayors Water Council of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, talked about the challenges facing America’s principal cities in provid-ing safe, affordable and adequate water and waste-water services and infrastructure for sustainable cities in the 21st Century.

Citing a 2010 report published by the Conference of Mayors, Stratton presented information about the huge looming cost to local government over the 20-year period 2009 to 2028 on public water and wastewater systems. He said that forecasts of spending on opera-tion and maintenance, and capital investment ranged between $3 and $5 trillion dollars. A significant por-tion of the capital investment, he said, will be devoted to the underground infrastructure (the pipes).

Stratton also presented information gathered by the Conference of Mayors National City Survey conducted in 2007. Pipe corrosion is the major reason for pipe breaks. Based on this information it has become clear that pipe rehabilitation and replacement may dominate capital investments in public systems for some time into the future. EPA has suggested that almost a quarter of a million pipe breaks in municipal systems occur each year. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that as much as 1.7 billion gallons of water is lost from these pipe breaks each year, at a cost of $2.6 billion. Stratton stated that every city has a vested interest in correcting this situation. He also stated that the costs are daunting, so that anyone who has a cost-

efficient solution needs to step-up with the evidence if they are going to be successful in helping cities.

Stratton commented on the importance of the plan-ning process conducted by local government in regard to water infrastructure. He stated that city officials must exercise ‘due diligence’ in choosing how to spend pub-lic money (whether tax payer or rate payer money). The traditional habit of using one or two pipe materials exclusively is no longer satisfactory. Local officials need to compare all proven pipe materials on a life cycle basis before choosing the best pipe for the city. “May-ors could be open to public-private partnerships as one way to meet the expected huge cost of replacing under-ground water and wastewater infrastructure, especially if those partnerships are proven and demonstrated to offer cost-effective solutions”, stated Mayor Stratton.

“The biggest challenges facing North American pipe manufacturers are to provide products that are sustainable both environmentally and economically. PVC pipe does both, providing a truly resilient, high quality option”, responded Bruce Hollands, Executive Director of Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association, (a Dallas-based nonprofit association). Hollands also stated “The biggest problem in water infrastructure is the corrosion epidemic. Corrosion-prone piping materials cost U.S. drinking water and sewer systems some $50.7 billion a year.” With municipalities facing serious financial chal-lenges, Mayor Stratton’s call for cost-efficient solutions in water and wastewater infrastructure is key to main-taining our quality of life. “In contrast to old-technology materials, less energy and fewer resources are needed to manufacture PVC pipe, its competitive price and durability are taxpayer friendly, and it doesn’t dete-riorate due to corrosion, producing significant savings over the life cycle of a pipe network. For sustainability, long-term performance is critical”, added Hollands.

Stratton concluded his remarks with an invitation to the Mayors Water Council Regional Meeting to be held May 12-13, 2010 in Schenectady.

Schenectady Mayor Brian Stratton addresses World’s largest Gathering of PVC Pipe Manufacturers

around, and without an on-site supervisor.In short, in these tough times, new mobile workforce

applications help you do more for your citizens with fewer of their dollars.

Guerry Waters is Vice President of Utilities Industry Strategy at Oracle, which offers Oracle Utilities Mobile Workforce Management, a field service application designed around complex municipal and utility needs for real-time, cost-effective handling of emergencies and scheduled field projects. This article is based on his presentation at a May 2010 meeting of the Confer-ence of Mayors.

MObIle wOrkfOrCefrom page 12

Mayors Water Council Page 13

By Gary Dale, PE, Associate Senior Engineer and Project Manager, CHA

According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials’ website, the recorded number of deficient dams in the US has risen by 85 percent since 1998. This, coupled with several high profile dam failures in the last decade, has brought the issue of dam safety to the top of many cities’ water supply infrastructure improvement lists. Glens Falls proactively addressed their dam safety, water supply and compliance issues in one project.

Clough, Harbour Associates (CHA), a consulting engineering company, was retained by Glens Falls to help them address their dam safety needs. Glens Falls is a small city of about 15,000 nestled at the foot of New York’s Adirondack Mountains. The city’s water supply comes from five surface water reservoirs: four remote upland reservoirs, and one auxiliary reservoir. The creation of these reservoirs and the five associat-ed embankment dams dates back to the 1870s. Three of the five dams are categorized as high-hazard and two are intermediate hazard, according to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations.

The city recognized in 2005 that deferred main-tenance and repair of the five dams created a dam safety issue. A review of the water supply situation concluded that these reservoirs could not be economi-cally replaced with an alternate source and that dam rehabilitation was the most cost-effective solution. Sub-sequently, City Engineer Steve Gurzler, PE, established a comprehensive dam safety program. Engineer Gur-zler implemented the program that included safety inspections and engineering evaluations to quantify the condition of the structures, embankments and appurte-nances of each of the dams. These technical analyses provided the information needed to determine the best methods to repair or rehabilitate. CHA was selected to be the city’s dam engineering consultant based on a proposal to perform dam safety inspections. The city retained CHA for all of the subsequent repair and rehabilitation work.

Each dam had several deficiencies that posed safety and operational concerns, including large tree growth on downstream slopes, inoperable low level outlet valves, seepage and stability issues, and insuf-ficient spillway capacity. CHA identified several criti-cal issues warranting immediate action: existing spill-ways needed to be expanded, upgrades in the form

of larger capacity piping and flow controls needed to be made to low level outlets, and improvements to the dam embankment slopes needed to be performed.

The city and CHA worked closely with the NYSDEC Dam Safety Section to develop cost-effective designs to bring the dams into compliance with current regula-tions. In addition, Emergency Action Plans (EAP’s) were developed for each dam. The EAP’s provide the city and first-responders with an understanding of the communi-cation network and individual responsibilities necessary to respond to a dam-related emergency or potential uncontrolled release of water from a reservoir.

The project had three general milestones for each dam: one for assessments, analyses and planning; one for dam rehabilitation design; and one for construc-tion. Milestone 1 tasks included dam inspection and repair recommendations, hazard assessments, survey and mapping, subsurface investigations, embankment stability analyses, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, emergency action plan development, and recommen-dations for dam modifications.

Milestone 2 tasks included performing necessary designs related to rehabilitating the dams to achieve compliance with the NYSDEC Guidelines for Design of Dams, and developing construction plans and speci-fications for spillway and outlet systems, access road improvements, seepage controls, and embankment sta-bilization plans. All required permit applications were prepared and submitted during this phase.

The final tasks (Milestone 3) included project adver-tisement, contract award, rehabilitation construction, construction inspection and observation by the engi-neer, reservoir filling monitoring, dam rehabilitation certification, and inspection and maintenance plan development and implementation.

CHA brought additional ‘value-added’ to the city by designing a public information website to keep the region’s residents and businesses apprised of the proj-ect’s progress. This provided a public education ele-ment that proved to be important because it explained to residents and ratepayers how public expenditures were used in a cost-efficient manner to provide water and safety services to the community. The website remains active, and can be viewed at www.glensfalls-water.com.

Currently, work on three of the five dams has been completed, and the final two are in the construction phase. All five dams will be fully rehabilitated and in full

Glens Falls addresses Dam Safety, Water Supply Infrastructure, Emergency Planning Regulatory Compliance in Single Project

See glen fallS on page 14

Mayors Water Council Page 14

operation by June of 2011. The entire project will have spanned six years and cost approximately $13 million.

By proactively and methodically addressing their dam safety issues and working with a qualified con-sulting firm with verifiable dam engineering experience and the NYSDEC Dam Safety Section, the city accom-plished three important objectives: they brought their water supply infrastructure up to date, enhanced the safety of residents living in potential flood zones, and

achieved compliance with New York State’s progres-sive dam safety regulations. These achievements sug-gest that the approach adopted by Glen Falls serves as a ‘Best Practice’ for other communities to address their dam safety problems.

CHA is a full service engineering firm providing planning and design services to municipalities in the fields of civil, environmental, geotechnical, mechani-cal, electrical, structural, traffic and transportation engineering as well as planning, survey, landscape architecture, construction inspection, and technology services. The firm employs 700 staff in over two-dozen offices across the United States.

By Pam Malone, Itron Inc.

The Importance of water efficiencyAccording to the EPA, total demand on the nation’s

public water supply systems nearly tripled from 1950 – 2007. Shortages across the US in traditionally water-abundant regions such as the Southeast, and parts of the East and Midwest, served as a shocking reminder that no geographical area is left untouched. The situation is exacerbated when demand is inflated by water loss due to main breaks and leaky pipes. Under these scenar-ios, water suppliers and end-users spend unnecessary financial resources and capital, often during times of poor economic conditions. Wasted water also impacts the environment as more water that is pumped, treated and distributed requires energy/electricity; resulting in increased green house gas emissions, in many cases.

On a local level, in an effort to address some of these issues, Providence Mayor David N. Cicilline published a comprehensive report and strategic plan called Green-print: Providence, (Matthew Soursourian, Greenprint: Providence, www.providenceri.com/greenprint). The Report is designed to help create a more sustainable community and accelerate the City’s green economy.

The plan includes a number of aggressive goals and objectives for the City and participants to reach by engaging in best practices and implementation meth-ods. Providence Water Supply Board (PWSB) is one of the plan’s key participants because it provides a critical resource that is vital to the life of every citizen – water.

Mayor Cicilline stated, “One of the most important aspects of a strong local economy is water. Providence Water continues to invest in projects that demonstrate

new and innovative ways to manage water resources in a sustainable way – and is a major contributor to build-ing a greener environment”.

PwSb’s water Conservation and greening efforts with acoustic leak Detection

Although PWSB’s water resources may be consid-ered abundant, 70 percent of its water is supplied to outlying communities. The strong external demand requires the efficient use and protection of its water supplies by employing information technology (IT) solutions. This approach becomes critical as subur-ban development increases and population expands. Moreover, using less water aids in reducing the City’s carbon footprint, and this is consistent with the water conservation and greening initiatives in Greenprint.

One such solution PWSB is utilizing is acoustic leak detection. Earlier this year PWSB embarked on a com-prehensive program to proactively prevent leaks and avoid distribution pipeline maintenance costs. The util-ity is using Itron’s Water Loss Management Solution called MLOG to monitor leaks throughout PWSB’s dis-tribution system spanning over 870 miles.

Reducing Wasted Drinking Water – Providence, Rhode Island’s Proactive leak Detection Program

Providence (RI) Mayor David N. Cicilline

See PrOvIDenCe on page 15

glen fallSfrom page 13

Mayors Water Council Page 15

how it works:Detecting leaks in PWSB’s water distribution system

is based upon measuring sound vibrations that travel down distribution pipes. MLOG acoustic sensors—or loggers—are spaced out along the distribution system adjacent to water meters. Sound vibrations are record-ed over a four-hour period and collected wirelessly with a mobile collector. The data is analyzed with specialized online software alerting the utility if a leak occurred. Compared to traditional leak detection meth-ods, the MLOG technology provides an efficient, cost effective and predictive way for PWSB to find leaks before they present a major problem.

The program:PWSB is planning to install 11,000 MLOGs in

selected locations throughout its service area. 8,400

sensors will be strategically located, and they are par-tially funded by an American Recovery and Reinvest-ment Act (Act) Grant that also aids in meeting the Act’s Green Project Reserve investment requirements. Funds from the grant provide additional benefits. The utility trained its meter technicians to perform MLOG installa-tions thereby broadening their skill set while enhancing PWSB’s water management program.

“Since mid-May, we’ve installed 2,500 sensors and discovered 40 leaks. Finding leaks so quickly helps in reducing non-revenue water and promotes conserva-tion. The MLOG system also enables us to mitigate leaks from surfacing into main breaks resulting in pos-sible road damage; and time, employee resources and money to repair,” said Mark Ceseretti, PWSB’s MLOG Program Manager.

Ceseretti remarked, “We’ve asked our customers to be good water stewards. With the leak detection sys-tem, we are leading by example.”

PrOvIDenCefrom page 14

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assembled public sector water organizations in Wash-ington (DC) September 2 to conduct a public outreach and consultation regarding their intention to propose rules revising existing water quality standards under authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The new rules are currently scheduled to be proposed by the summer of 2011 for comment. Final adoption of the proposed rules has not yet been determined.

Among the rules under consideration, the anti-degradation regulation would have important impli-cations for state and local government. States would be required to adopt specific antidegradation poli-cies and identify implementation methods. States would be required to specify methods to meet certain

minimum requirements to achieve or maintain water quality standards, and they would be subject to EPA review and approval/disapproval (this goes beyond the current situation). Local government, in turn would be required to implement measures to meet the water quality standards and ensure that the water use desig-nations are achieved or improved.

The EPA has not conducted any cost impact analy-ses on this subject. Nor has the Agency looked at cost implications for the other five rules under consider-ation in this effort. During the meeting, EPA officials recognized that cost impacts will be addressed, and they will be requesting such information from states, tribes and local government.

New Federal Water Mandates on Horizon

Mayors Water Council Page 16

THE UniTEd STaTES COnFEREnCE OF MaYORS

Tom Cochran, CEO and Executive director

1620 Eye Street, nWWashington, dC 20006

Tel: 202-293-7330Fax: 202-293-2352usmayors.org