WATER

Why Massachusetts Needs Federal

Funding for Water Infrastructure
Fact Sheet • April 2009

O ur nation’s water infrastructure and economy are bound together. Aiding

the former will help the latter. Unfortunately, these days, both are treading
troubled waters.
In communities in Massachusetts and across the country,
drinking water and sewerage systems are straining under
the weight of decades of federal government underinvest-
ment. In recent years, the State Revolving Funds were
financed at some of the lowest levels in history. For fiscal
year 2008, Massachusetts received only $45 million, a
mere 1.6 percent of the $2.8 billion that the state’s water
and sewer systems need.1

As the troubles with our water infrastructure mount, the

country’s economy slides deeper into recession. Mas-
sachusetts’s January 2009 unemployment rate reached
7.4 percent, or 252,400 people, up from 4.6 percent a
year earlier. One in 14 people in the labor force are now
unemployed.2

Investing now in water and sewer systems to generate sol-

id economic growth can lead the state out of the recession.
Every federal dollar invested in infrastructure yields a
$1.59 return to our states.3 The National Utility Contrac-
tors Association estimates that for every $1 billion spent
on water infrastructure, nearly 27,000 jobs are created.4

The economic stimulus legislation passed by Congress in

February 2009 provides more money to water infrastruc-
ture than the country has seen in recent years, but this
one-time allotment cannot cure the problems plaguing
many communities. In fact, the bill provides water and
sewer systems with less than one-third of what the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency estimates we should spend
each year just to maintain them.
Massachusetts’s Water Infrastructure Funding
Gap: Massachusetts’s water needs outpace its cur-
rent ability to fund projects by a large margin.
the state received only $21.8 million in federal funding6 –
enough to finance 3.2 percent of its needs.
For the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program,
which goes toward wastewater infrastructure, the state’s
most recent Intended Use Plan lists 97 projects at a total
cost of $2.1 billion.7 In 2008, the state received $23.1 mil-
lion in federal funding8 – enough to finance 1.1 percent of
its needs.

For the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) pro- Federal contributions to Massachusetts’s wastewater
gram, the state’s most recent Intended Use Plan lists 48 funding efforts have decreased by 66.8 percent since the
projects at a total cost of at least $675 million.5 In 2008, Clean Water SRF was fully implemented in fiscal 1991
and 79.0 percent when adjusted for inflation.9
Job Creation: Fully addressing Massachusetts’s
currently listed water needs of $2.8 billion would spur
73,980 employment opportunities, according to National
Utility Contractors Association estimates for job creation
from water infrastructure investments. That could put
back to work nearly 30 percent of the state’s unemployed
people.
Water Quality: According to EPA’s 2006 National
Water Quality Inventory assessments, 69 percent of river
miles, 88 percent of the state’s lake waters and 91 percent
of its bays and estuaries are impaired.10
Beach Closings: A report by the Natural Resources De-
fense Council shows that Massachusetts experienced 567
beach closure days lasting six weeks or less in 2007. Ag-
ing and poorly designed sewage and stormwater systems
cause many beach closures.11
Legislative Solutions: A comprehensive, long-term
solution is a dedicated source of public funding for water
infrastructure. This would help communities in Massa-
chusetts and across America keep their water clean, safe
and affordable. It would unburden overtaxed state and
municipal governments of the cost of water infrastructure
repairs. Such an investment also would create employ-
ment opportunities and give our economy a much-needed
boost. Two legislative solutions exist.
Clean Water Trust Fund: A federal water infra-
structure trust fund bill will be introduced during
the current legislative session. As with the trust fund
for highways and airports, we should have a Clean
Water Trust Fund to provide municipalities with the
funding they need to keep our water safe and clean
for future generations. The trust fund should distrib-
ute money to publicly owned water and wastewater
systems. It also should ensure that funds be made
available for research and implementation of green
infrastructure and conservation practices.
National Infrastructure Bank: Related to the
trust fund is a proposed national infrastructure
bank to raise and distribute the money necessary
to upgrade drinking water and wastewater systems,
highways and other underpinnings of our nation’s
prosperity. Policy-makers should strictly limit private
sector involvement in water infrastructure to financ-
ing only. The public should maintain ownership and
control of public water and sewer utilities because it
does a far better job of management and operation.
Endnotes
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. “Tentative
distribution of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund appropriation
for fiscal year 2008.” May 19, 2008; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. “FY 2008 Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Title VI Allotments.” January 28, 2008; Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Resource Protection. “State Revolving Fund Loan
Program for Drinking Water Projects Draft CY 2009 Intended Use Plan
and Project Priority List.” December 1, 2008 at 13-14; Department
of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Resource Protection. “State
Revolving Fund Loan Program for Clean Water Projects Draft CY 2009
Intended Use Plan and Project Priority List.” December 1, 2008 at Table
2.
2 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. [Press
Release]. “Regional and state employment and unemployment: January
2009.” March 11, 2009.
3 Schwartz, Bernard L. and Schwenninger, Sherle R. “A Public
Infrastructure–-Led Economic Recovery Program.” December
4, 2008; Zandi, Mark. Chief economist and co-founder, Moody’s
Economy.com. Testimony on Economic Stimulus For Small
Business: A Look Back and Assessing Need For Additional Relief.
U.S. House Committee on Small Business. July 24, 2008.
4 National Utility Contractors Association. [Press Release]. “New CWC
Report Demonstrates Immediate Economic Impact of Water/Wastewater
Infrastructure Investment?” January 28, 2009.
5 Department of Environmental Protection, “State Revolving Fund Loan
Program for Drinking Water Projects Draft CY 2009 Intended Use Plan
and Project Priority List.” December 1, 2008 at 13-14.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 19, 2008.
7 Department of Environmental Protection, “State Revolving Fund Loan
Program for Clean Water Projects Draft CY 2009 Intended Use Plan and
Project Priority List.” December 1, 2008 at Table 2.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 28, 2008.
9 Ibid; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. “Clean
Water State Revolving Fund Allotments.” April 4, 2007; Sahr, 2009.
10 , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. National
Assessment Database. Available at www.epa.gov/waters/305b/, accessed
February 6, 2009.
11 Dorfman, Mark and Kristen Sinclair Rosselot. National Resources
Defense Council “Testing the Waters 2008: A Guide to Water Quality at
Vacation Beaches.” National Resources Defense Council. 2008 at 76.
For more information:
web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org
email: info@fwwatch.org
phone: (202) 683-2500 (DC) • (415) 293-9900 (CA)
Copyright © April 2009 Food & Water Watch