ALLEGHENY COUNTY May 9, 2008 What can you expect? In the next two - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ALLEGHENY COUNTY – May 9, 2008

What can you expect?

In the next two hours…

• An overview of the task force
• A video and verbal overview of our region’s

water-related problems

• Overview of southwestern Pennsylvania’s

current institutional system

• Exploration of multi-governmental collaboration
• Public input on problems and regional models

Task Force Background

 Over the last decade, several

regional studies have provided extensive information on our region’s water and sewage problems.

 These efforts have consistently

recommended regional collaboration to adequately confront our problems.

 The Regional Water Management

Task Force was formed to begin achieving consensus on action steps.

• Dr. Jared Cohon

Representation/Scope

 Diverse, high-level representation from 11 southwestern

Pennsylvania counties

 Appointed with input from county commissioners

and state legislators

 Chair – Dr. Jared Cohon

President, Carnegie Mellon University

 Vice Chair – Dr. Angelo Armenti

President, California University of Pennsylvania

 15 additional members from throughout the region

Public Water and Public Sewage Services in Southwestern Pennsylvania

Mission

Solving our region’s water-related problems in a way

that best serves our citizens

• Protect the public’s health, ensure environmental

sustainability, provide for the region’s economic vitality, and avoid costly regulatory actions

Institutional not technical project

• Public engagement to determine consensus
• Implementation

Our water seems fine…

The region has made great strides, BUT… Southwestern Pennsylvania continues to face one of the worst combinations of water problems in the nation.

Water Quality has Improved, but Many Problems Remain

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700% 800% 900%

Industrial Metals Industrial Metals Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform

70’s 90’s

Source: Analysis of U.S.G.S. data monitoring

Drinking Water Standard

Problems  Sewage

An urban problem

• combined and sanitary sewer overflows

And a rural problem

• malfunctioning septic systems

Wildcat sewers

Sewage Overflows From Sewers Into Our Rivers and Streams

…and by failure. By design…

Combined Sewer Overflows

SW PA Has Among the Worst Sewage Overflow Problem in the U.S.

States with the Most Combined Sewer Overflows

RANK STATE CSOS

1 Pennsylvania 1,631 2 Ohio 1,378 3 New York 1,032 4 Indiana 876 5 Illinois 742 6 West Virginia 681 7 Missouri 451 8 Kentucky 288 9 Massachusetts 278 10 Michigan 262

Communities with CSOs

Combined Sewer Overflows by Region

RANK PA REGION CSOS 1 Southwest 763 2 Northeast 349 3 Southeast 211 4 North Central 125 5 South Central 118 6 Northwest 65 TOTAL 1631

Sewage Overflows Exist Throughout the Region

15 413 19 17 62 2 72 140 22 1

Number of CSOs by County

Communities with CSOs

States with the Most Combined Sewer Overflows RANK STATE CSOS 1 Pennsylvania 1,631 2 Ohio 1,378 3 New York 1,032 4 Indiana 876 Southwest PA 763 5 Illinois 742 6 West Virginia 681 7 Missouri 451 8 Kentucky 288 9 Massachusetts 278 10 Michigan 262

Major Rivers are Unsafe for Bodily Contact 4 Out of Every 5 Days

Allegheny County Health Department CSO Warnings May 15 - September 30

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sanitary Sewer Overflows – 600+ Each Year

• 10,000

20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Westmoreland Washington Somerset Lawrence Indiana Greene Fayette Butler Beaver Armstrong Allegheny

300,000 Homes Are Not on Public Sewers… Another Sewage Problem: On-lot septic system malfunction

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Human waste disposal methods by county in southwestern Pennsylvania. Black (centralized WWTP); gray (on-site systems); white (“other;” e.g., cesspools, straight pipes)

…but most of SWPA is Unsuitable for Conventional On-lot Systems

USDA Soil Surveys show most

• f our soil does not support

the use of traditional septic systems.

Limited Use Slight or No Limitation

Thousands of Homes Have No Sewage Treatment At All

As many as 27,000 homes in SWPA discharge untreated sewage directly into streets or streams.

SW PA Has Worst Contamination Problems in Ohio River Basin

% Wat ater S Sam ampl ples Violat ating S g Saf afe C Contac act Stan andar dards ds for F Fecal C l Colif liform/E. c . coli, 2 li, 2006

Problems  Flooding and Stormwater

Between 1955 and 2000, PA’s median yearly

flood damage was $9.5 million

$4.4 billion in cumulative damages Southwest PA has been declared a federal disaster area

due to flooding 7 times since 1984

Continuing disconnect between land use and

stormwater will only worsen these problems

September, 2004

Problems  Abandoned Mine Drainage

2,800 of 4,000 miles of PA’s AMD degraded streams

are located in the Ohio River basin.

Moreover, northern West Virginia has 1,100 abandoned

mines discharging into the Monongahela River watershed.

Only some of our problems…

Sewage, AMD and stormwater are only three of

• ur region’s many problems

Others include water main breaks, aging

infrastructure, industrial pollution…

In a recent task force poll, 49% of respondents

reported being directly affected by at least one of the region’s water problems

Holistic approach needed

Why should we care?

Water does not recognize human or political boundaries

• Affects all of our region’s residents
• Urban and rural
• Regardless of age, sex, race or income level

Why should we care?

 Significant costs of inaction

• While there have been no recent outbreaks of waterborne

disease, our current situation is extremely vulnerable

• Imposed limits on growth and development due to

inadequate infrastructure

• State and federal regulatory actions, which will lead to

even greater costs

 With aging infrastructure, our problems will only get worse  The status quo is at best untenable –

• Neither safe, economically beneficial, nor legal for us to

continue in this manner

Water is One of Southwestern PA’s Greatest Regional Assets

Recreation Tourism Economic Development National Security Quality of Life Pittsburgh Kittanning Beaver Ohiopyle

These important problems must be confronted aggressively, but significant obstacles exist to fixing them.

Huge Cost of Addressing the Needs

Existing sewer systems $8.0 billion New sewer systems $0.5 billion Septic system upgrades $0.5 billion Total need $9 billion

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR NEEDED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, AMD, AND STORMWATER MONIES

Our Financing Approach Makes Improving the Systems Difficult

Some public needs are broadly funded through taxes

(e.g. education, welfare, roads)

Others are funded by insurance (health care) Water and sewage system funding through direct user

expenditures with less state or federal monies

• Applies to both public and on-lot systems

Malfunctioning Septics Surface Water Intake Ground Water Intake CSO Outfalls

The Causes of the Problems Are Complex and Regional

Pittsburgh Morgantown Water Quality Problems Downstream… …Are Caused by problems Upstream in Different Communities, Counties, and States

Over 1,000 Different Entities and 1,100,000+ Homes Responsible

11 Co 11 Count unties 601 M Municipalities 268 A 268 Aut utho horities Many other j jurisdictions 1, 1,140, 140,300 H 300 Hous useho holds

Number of Authorities by County

47 19 28 12 29 12 12 10 24 30 38

10 20 30 40 50 A l l e g h e n y A r m s t r

• n

g B e a v e r B u t l e r F a y e t t e G r e e n e I n d i a n a L a w r e n c e S

• m

e r s e t W a s h i n g t

• n

W e s t m

• r

e l a n d

Number of People per Authority

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Number of Square Miles per Authority

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Butler Fayette Greene Indiana Lawrence Somerset Washington Westmoreland

Some of these entities are doing well…and some not doing so well

Deteriorating infrastructure

• Average age is increasing
• Large disparity in investment

Lack of planning Sewage discharges overlooked Corrective action plans, consent orders, tap in

restrictions

Aging workforce

Cooperation Takes Many Forms

 As a region, we value the autonomy of municipalities and

there are strengths to this system which can be capitalized

• n

 However, sometimes we pay a cost  Not local ineptitude but regional inefficiency

• Water is a multi-municipal problem

 Nuances of regional approaches to regional problems

• Not about losing identity or voice

 Task Force does not have a preconceived solution, but

rather trying to determine the best way to proceed

• because we all live downstream…

Regional approaches can work…

Examples in the region

• Indiana County Municipal Services Authority (ICMSA)
• Bundles investments to get best funding, solving serious problems,

enjoys economy of scale

• Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC)
• Efficiently interconnected water systems
• Consolidated infrastructure and expertise in both water and sewage
• 3 Rivers Wet Weather, Inc.
• Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Regional approaches can work…

Other metro areas:

• Milwaukee

(Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)

• Minneapolis-St. Paul (Metropolitan Council)
• Cleveland (Northeastern Ohio Areawide

Coordinating Agency)

• Atlanta (Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District)

How multi-municipal collaboration might help us

 Efficiency

• Operations and management
• Shared equipment, technology and personnel

 Money

• Greater access to funding
• Coordinated investment

 Equity

• Greater ability to work out problems on a watershed basis
• Stabilized, appropriate and common fees
• Shared planning regarding future water decisions
• Upstream/downstream, Long term sustainability

 Regulatory Relief

Models for Input

These models are offered simply to give

you a clearer sense of the possibilities and should not be interpreted as recommendations.

4 models constructed to aid in public input process

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importance

• Efficiency/cost
• Environmental protection/sustainability
• Accountability
• Leadership
• Security
• Equity
• Regional Competitiveness
• (Political Feasibility)

Model A – Regional Planning

“Southwestern PA Regional Water District” Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning

• Recommendations on sewage service areas, which problems

should be addressed first and by which means…

Per capita tax to support planning functions No specific enforcement power

Model B – Regional Planning and Financing

“Southwestern PA Regional Water District” Integrated and comprehensive regional water planning Per capita tax to support planning functions Taxing authority to create regional water trust fund Pooling federal, state and local dollars to confront

problems in coordinated fashion

Local and regional water plans required

Model C – Watershed/County Operations and Planning

Creation of multiple authorities on watershed or county

basis

Each authority would complete enforceable water

resource plans for its area

Taxing authority for infrastructure investment Transfer of system ownership and/or operations to

authority would be permissible

Creation of regional coordinating committee

Model D – Incentives for Decentralized Collaboration

“SWPA Water Management Advisory Committee”

• Include participation from all local, regional, state and

federal stakeholders

Best Management Practices collection and circulation Review of specific problems or situations and provides

recommendations for solving

Could occur under current situation…

Mix and Match Components

Local operation of systems would continue Incentives for multi-jurisdictional collaboration Governance of each model could be established in any

number of ways

Technical assistance on a regional level Education efforts on water/sewage issues Data collection and analysis of water and water systems Advocacy on behalf of the region to state and federal

government

Evaluation Criteria

Ranked in order of importance

• Efficiency/cost
• Environmental protection/sustainability
• Accountability
• Leadership
• Security
• Equity
• Regional Competitiveness
• (Political Feasibility)

Phase II Goal

Production of a highly specific proposal for water

planning/management in southwestern Pennsylvania with an implementation strategy.

Task Force will remain focused on seeking

institutional solutions that will improve planning and management in the region

Task Force Timeline and Plans

Questions/comments

Ty Gourley, Project Manager dtg9@pitt.edu 412-624-7792 (W) 412-721-5142 (C) www.iop.pitt.edu/water

Sign up for our email distribution list Additional public meetings/individual presentations available

SW PA is the Most Reliable Watershed in the U.S.

Drought Status in April, 2002

Drought Area Drought Watch Area

Water is Vital to our Quality of Life