Part of the argument is missing here. The ratepayers and the taxpayers are the same. So, what is the reasoning for shifting the burden from ratepayers to taxpayers? Bailouts for poorly run systems? Protection of elected officials who have refused for decades to do what is necessary to properly fund their own system? Rewarding bad management? Funding LIHWAP assist ratepayers who need assistance due to life’s circumstances. Hopefully it is a hand up. Funding poorly funded or managed systems is a bailout. Consolidation and regionalization away from politically controlled governance to independent public entities free of election cycle politics should be a requirement for federal tax dollar rescues. While I have some concerns about EPA’s proposed system assessment rule, it is clearly a step in the right direction. Biggest concern? By the time a system goes through all the requirements, the customers will have been drinking bad water for months, if not years.
Chair of Water Infrastructure Practice, Banner Public Affairs, bannerpublicaffairs.com || Founder and CEO Safe Water Voters safewatervoters.com
Governing's interview with Pew Research Center discusses how ARPA funding barely scratched the surface in what is needed to adequately #fundwater. Important to note: funding for clean water has diminished from 63% of capital improvements in 1977 to just 9% in 2017.
Well said!!
Retired
2wBingo! And many of the TAT programs only prolong the pain.