Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 213
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania 6 Water Quality Improvement: Institutional and Financial Solutions Water quality problems and issues in southwestern Pennsylvania are both local and regional as evidenced by a variety of reports included in Appendix B, water quality assessments by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), and testimony received by the committee. Some of these water quality problems are associated primarily with urbanization in the immediate Pittsburgh vicinity; some are associated with activity in the Monongahela and Allegheny River basins; still others are common to the predominantly rural counties in southwestern Pennsylvania. Large differences exist among the sources of problems, their potential effects on public health and environmental quality, and their likely solutions. Further, resolution of water quality issues in southwestern Pennsylvania is affected by other regional issues such as transportation, land use, and governance of the metropolitan area. The existing pattern of water supply and water quality services in the region is highly fragmented, with more than 1,000 providers operating in the multicounty region. In Pittsburgh’s metropolitan area, like many other metro areas in the United States, large-special purpose authorities such as the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) can achieve substantial economies of scale through joint management agencies. Although private organizations may not have direct voting power in what mix of organizations is chosen to implement the plan, they could very well influence how the public and its elected and appointed representatives make these choices. Although no single unit of government has all the necessary power to implement the Three Rivers Comprehensive Watershed Assessment and Response Plan (CWARP) recommended and discussed in Chapter 5, it is desirable to have some mechanism to facilitate continued oversight of regional progress (or lack thereof) toward clean water and its relationships to other regional goals and activities, and to help southwestern Pennsylvania realize the benefits of cooperation. Furthermore, the situation is not static. Although the Pittsburgh metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is among the few in the nation to actually lose population during the 1990s (1.5 percent; see Chapter 2 for further information), it is nevertheless listed by American Rivers (2002) as among the top 20 metropolitan areas in terms of “urban sprawl.” This ranking is based on the percentage increase in developed land in 1997 compared to 1982. According to American Rivers,1 the Pittsburgh MSA experienced an increase of 42.5 percent in urbanized land, accompanied by a decrease in average density of 35.5 percent over those 15 years. Planning for water quality improvement, especially where capital investment is substantial, must therefore reflect regional planning goals concerning economic development and demographic character, such as impacts of urban sprawl and (re)development. 1 American Rivers is a national nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring natural rivers; see http://www.amrivers.org for further information.
OCR for page 214
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Finding the right mix of existing and new organizations that best fulfill the necessary conditions for planning, implementation, and oversight of CWARP will be a difficult and time-consuming process. Several options that the region should consider are discussed in this chapter. The discussion begins with a review of management functions necessary to deliver water supply and water quality services and criteria for evaluating alternative organizational arrangements to perform those functions. The challenge is to find the right mix of organizations that can perform the necessary functions in an efficient and politically accountable manner. The committee’s examination of specific arrangements begins with existing organizations in the region. This is followed by a brief review of what other regions with somewhat similar problems have done. Future options for water resource and quality management in southwestern Pennsylvania are then explored. These options are discussed in light of existing enabling legislation and what additional legislation may be desirable. Also, two other significant factors influencing the choice of organizational arrangements are discussed: (1) potential sources of financing and (2) financial burdens that may be imposed on citizens of the region. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS Choosing an appropriate organization or set of organizations to address regional water quality problems holistically is a complex task. Criteria for guiding the formulation and evaluation of alternative arrangements usually include consideration of the following: efficiencies with which each organizational arrangement could carry out the various policy-making and management functions by exploiting economies of scale; geographic coverage sufficient to incorporate significant hydrological, biological, and chemical processes between upstream and downstream elements of the water resource system and to incorporate significant linkages in construction and operation of infrastructure that crosses political boundaries; capacity to integrate water systems, wastewater systems, stormwater systems, and other aspects of water resources with land use and transportation; legal, technical, and financial capacities of each option to perform management functions; capacity of each option to involve the many faces of the public and minimize conflict in decision making processes; and the nature of existing contracts and other commitments. Before these criteria can meaningfully be applied, it is appropriate to describe the management functions, scale, and authorities of alternative arrangements. Management Functions A list of water quality planning and management functions for water systems is provided in Box 6-1. They are listed in approximate order of statutory authority necessary to perform them, beginning with the least intrusive government power and concluding with the most intrusive. Collection of data, planning, and technical assistance require only modest statutory authority. Implementing actions including financing, construction, taking of land, and adoption and
OCR for page 215
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania BOX 6-1 Water Quality Planning and Management Functions Organization of public forums to discuss and initiate appropriate activities Collection of basic data on water quality, sources of pollution, land use, and other relevant data Technical and financial assistance Planning for water quality improvements and related land use and transportation Construction of facilities Operation and maintenance of facilities and delivery of services Taking of land for public facilities Financing authority, including authority to incur debt and establish and implement user charges or taxes to recover costs of service Establishment of water quality related regulatory standards for private and public development activities and post-construction operation and maintenance Allocation of assimilative capacity to new and expanding regional activities enforcement of regulations require substantially greater authority. General-purpose local governments, including municipalities and counties, usually have the broadest array of powers delegated to them by state legislatures. Therefore, they tend to face fewer legal obstacles, exercise greater power to integrate land use and water services, and have greater flexibility to implement economically efficient management programs within their limited geographical jurisdictions. Issues of Scale Scale is a key factor in selecting an appropriate mix of organizations to deliver services in the region. The National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Watershed Management (NRC, 1999) addressed the issue of choosing an appropriate scale for planning that includes all relevant hydrologic linkages, commenting as follows: Managing water resources at the watershed scale, while difficult, offers the potential of balancing the many, sometimes competing, demands we place on water resources. The watershed approach acknowledges linkages between upland and downstream areas, and between surface and ground water, and reduces the chances that attempts to solve problems in one realm will cause problems in other…Organizations for watershed management are most likely to be effective if their structure matches the scale of the problem. Planning at the watershed scale offers the opportunity to address externalities among several parties within the basin. That earlier NRC committee addressed the problem of incorporating hydrologic and biological interdependencies that exist in water resource systems. Unfortunately, the geographic jurisdictions of organizations with the range of necessary legal authorities seldom match watershed boundaries. For example, Figure 5-2 shows about a dozen watersheds that contribute stormwater runoff to the contiguous urban area in and adjacent to Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh. There are approximately are parts of five counties and 100 municipalities within that area alone. New organizational arrangements may have to be created to effectively and efficiently manage water, but development of these arrangements may entail difficult political decisions that involve the transfer of some powers and responsibilities from existing units of government. These difficulties
OCR for page 216
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania must be weighed against the anticipated economy-of-scale benefits that new organization(s) may offer. As discussed in Chapter 5, planning and management are needed to address the array of water resource problems at four interrelated scales in (and beyond) the Pittsburgh region, and organizational arrangements should be responsive to each of the following scales: river basin, to address issues related to imports and exports to the multicounty region, including areas and states outside southwestern Pennsylvania; multicounty/metropolitan scale, where decisions are being made about large-scale infrastructure and related land use in southwestern Pennsylvania that affect water resources and where opportunities exist to achieve efficiencies and avoid conflicts in regional water management; urban areas in and around Allegheny County and outlying urban centers, where combined and separate sewer overflows and stormwater runoff must be addressed (see Figure 6-1); and rural areas within southwestern Pennsylvania having problems of inadequate human waste disposal and water supply. CURRENT SITUATION IN SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA Water quality management in the Pittsburgh region is highly fragmented, with responsibilities and authority distributed among a very large number of general purpose local governments, special districts, regional planning organizations, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For purposes of this discussion, the region is defined by the nine-county area served by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC). It is important to note that alternative definitions (e.g., 11 counties; see Box 1-2) are discussed elsewhere in this report. General Purpose Local Governments and Special Districts The 2002 Census of Governments2 lists 526 general purpose governments within the region, distributed by county and type of government as shown in Table 6-1. In the 1997 Census of Governments,3 boroughs, cities, and municipalities were lumped together under the heading “cities” (the number of cities in the 1997 census is the same as the sum of boroughs plus municipalities plus cities in the 2002 census), and the numbers were unchanged from 1997 to 2002. Under Pennsylvania law, each of those local governments and the nine counties are authorized to provide water supply and sewer services. In addition to the general purpose governments, there are 154 special districts engaged in either sewer service alone or both water supply and sewer service. The special districts are distributed by county, type, and characteristics of service boundaries as shown in Table 6-2. The only special districts included in the 1997 list of “large” districts in the Census of Government finances that were clearly identifiable as delivering sewer services were the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, with an annual expenditure of about $118 million, and ALCOSAN, with 2 See http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cog2002.html for further information on the 2002 Census of Governments. 3 See http://www.census.gov/prod/gc97/gc971-1.pdf for further information on the 1997 Census of Governments.
OCR for page 217
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania FIGURE 6-1 Approximate area of the urban core of southwestern Pennsylvania. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, http://ftp2.census.gov/geo/maps/urbanarea/-uaoutline/UA2000/ua69697/. TABLE 6-1 General Purpose Local Governments in Southwestern Pennsylvania in 2002 County Cities and Boroughs Municipalities Townships Allegheny 80 6 42 Armstrong 16 1 28 Beaver 27 2 22 Butler 23 1 33 Fayette 16 2 24 Greene 6 0 20 Indiana 14 0 24 Washington 33 2 32 Westmoreland 36 8 21 Total 251 22 246 SOURCE: United States Census of Governments, 2002, http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cog-2002.html.
OCR for page 218
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 6-2 Special Districts Providing Water and Sewer Service in Southwestern Pennsylvania County Type of Service Type of Boundary Sewer Water Supply and Sewer County Borough, City, or Township Within Countya Cross-County Allegheny 27 5 2 7 12 3 Armstrong 6 4 1 2 4 1 Beaver 21 7 1 4 7 0 Butler 6 4 0 0 4 4 Fayette 15 2 1 4 5 1 Greene 5 3 1 3 2 0 Indiana 4 3 3 2 2 2 Washington 21 2 1 10 6 1 Westmoreland 24 2 0 5 7 4 Total 122 32 10 37 49 16 a Within county but not limited to borough, city, or township. SOURCE: United States Census of Governments, 1997, http://www.census.gov/prod/gc97/gc-971-1.pdf. expenditures of $284 million annually. ALCOSAN serves 83 communities, most of which are located in or immediately adjacent to Allegheny County (see Figure 1-1). Fragmentation of sewer services in the region with its many special districts reflects the general pattern of special districts in Pennsylvania. The 1997 Census of Governments reported 2,004 single-purpose sewer districts in the United States; Pennsylvania had the highest number, 591, about 30 percent of the nation’s total. Wisconsin was the next highest state with 320 single-purpose sewer districts. Regional Planning Organizations The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)4 is the officially designated regional planning agency for the area in and around Pittsburgh. SPC’s major role is “comprehensive regional planning with emphasis on transportation and economic development.” It was designated in 1974 as the metropolitan planning organization for transportation (MPO; see more below). It is also the Economic Development District for southwestern Pennsylvania, as designated by the U.S. Appalachian Regional Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce. The SPC governing board includes more than 60 members representing the 10 counties, the City of Pittsburgh, the Governor’s Office, and several state and federal agencies. In addition to its primary functions, recent discussions regarding regional land use and growth decisions have pointed to the need for SPC to help address local development issues (e.g., WSIP, 2002). As a result, SPC is expected to continue to create, organize, and support public forums that bring a regional perspective to issues such as housing, sewer systems, and community development. In 1998, SPC requested that the Western Division of the Pennsylvania Economy League5 make a preliminary study of the region’s needs. That study pointed to water supply and wastewater problems as potential impediments to future economic growth, and in 1999, the Western Division of the Pennsylvania Economy League initiated the Southwestern Pennsylvania Water and Sewer 4 For further information about the SPC, see http://www.spcregion.org. 5 For further information about the Western Division of the Pennsylvania Economy League, see http://www.pelwest.com.
OCR for page 219
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Infrastructure Project (WSIP). The steering committee for that project included 60 public and private sector leaders from the region. As described elsewhere in this report (see also Appendix B), the WSIP report identifies several important water supply and wastewater management problems in the region, including the following: overflowing sewers and failing septic systems that annually discharge billions of gallons of inadequately treated or untreated sewage into the region’s streams and lakes; lack of clean and reliable water supplies to some residents, particularly in rural areas; inadequate water and sewer infrastructure at otherwise desirable development sites; and growth limitations in many communities resulting from inadequate facilities. The WSIP Steering Committee recommended the following: the SPC serve as the organization for setting regional water-related goals and priorities; that the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Program (3RWW) serve as the regional organization for public education and technical assistance, expanding its service area beyond the ALCOSAN area that it now serves; and that the Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance and the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce serve as a regional advocacy organization. These recommendations reflect a perspective from a knowledgeable leadership group within the region of the overall need to enhance regional water planning in southwestern Pennsylvania. The committee agrees with this need, and alternatives for meeting it are discussed later in this chapter. With its traditional focus essentially limited to economic development and transportation, SPC has not yet undertaken “comprehensive regional planning” that includes effective water planning. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is the state regulatory agency charged with water quality management. In that capacity it has jurisdiction over those portions of the Ohio River basin within Pennsylvania, including the Allegheny and Monongahela River tributaries (see Box 1-2 and Figures 2-1 and 2-2). The PADEP has included the Ohio River basin among six major basins in the state (the others being Lake Erie, Genessee, Susquehanna, Potomac, and Delaware). Unlike water resource planning under Pennsylvania’s Water Resources Planning Act (WRPA) of 2002 (General Assembly of Pennsylvania, 2002), PADEP does not have a planning program to guide management of water quality at the basinwide scale. The PADEP has, however, established a watershed restoration program at a smaller scale than the Ohio River basin under its nonpoint source program—Pennsylvania’s response to requirements of Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act. The Unified Watershed Assessment was begun in 1998 to set priorities for restoration of streams where quality had been degraded by a variety of pollution sources other than municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants and discharges. Included among sources are acid mine drainage, sewer system overflows, agricultural runoff, and other nonpoint sources (NPSs) of pollution. This program used PADEP’s 305(b) report (PADEP, 2002a) and its 303(d) list (PADEP, 2002b) of impaired streams as a starting point. The PADEP has delineated 104 watersheds that cover the entire state, 30 of which are located in the Ohio
OCR for page 220
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania River basin in southwestern Pennsylvania. Each watershed was initially assigned to one of four categories (see Table 6-3) based on the percentage of stream miles assessed, the percentage of these miles judged to be impaired, and the potential for NPS pollution. Priorities for water quality improvement were assigned to each of the 23 watersheds in Pennsylvania that fall into Category I. Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRASs) were then developed for priority watersheds in cooperation with federal, state and local agencies; watershed-based organizations; and the general public. Included among the 30 watersheds in the Ohio River basin for which a WRAS has been prepared are the following (see Figure 6-2): Redbank Creek, Conemaugh River/Blacklick Creek, Stony Creek/Little Conemaugh River, Lower Youghiogheny River, Upper Youghiogheny River/Indian Creek, Upper Monongahela River, Raccoon Creek, and Chartiers Creek. Each watershed plan includes descriptions of geology and soils, natural and recreational resources, and streams classified by PADEP as being of “exceptional or high quality.” Sources of water quality impairment are also discussed. Existing restoration initiatives are listed, and funding needs (to the extent they are known) are estimated. Funding from multiple sources has been provided to address some of the problems covered by these plans. Grants from Pennsylvania Growing Greener, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Section319 and Section 104(b)3, and Pennsylvania’s Watershed Restoration Assistance Program have all been received to fund restoration projects. The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST; see also footnote 8) also has made loans to local governments to address some of the problems. The PADEP Bureau of Abandoned Mines has also been an active participant in the implementation of many of these watershed plans. Table 6-4 summarizes some of the commitments already made to four of the eight watersheds listed above. The watershed plans address important issues as identified in Pennsylvania’s most recent 305(b) report (PADEP, 2002a) and 303(d) list (PADEP, 2002b) for priority watersheds (see Chapters 3 and 4 for further information), but there is no assurance that streams in these watersheds will be restored to a level that fully supports their designated uses. Section 319 requires adoption of best management practices for NPS pollution, but unlike the total maximum daily load (TMDL) process (see also Chapters 3 and 5), it does not require a demonstration using predictive models or other evidence that water quality standards will be achieved. Follow-up investigations of projects in WRAS plans will be required to assess progress toward the goal of fully restoring streams in those watersheds. TABLE 6-3 Pennsylvania State Water Plan Watershed Categories Category Stream-Miles Assessed Assessed Miles Impaired Other Criteria I ≥ 20% ≥ 15% High potential for NPS pollution II ≥ 20% < 15% — III Pristine — — IV Insufficient data — — SOURCE: PADEP, www.dep.state.pa.us.
OCR for page 221
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania FIGURE 6-2 State-delineated watersheds in southwestern Pennsylvania. NOTE: Shows two counties (Clarion and Jefferson) not included in the study area (see also Box 1-2). SOURCE: Data from PADEP, www.dep.state.pa.us. Contaminated water supplies and improper disposal of sewage from on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDSs) not connected to public water or sewer systems were identified in the 2002 WSIP report as being of major concern in the region, but the Unified Watershed Assessment did not include a systematic evaluation of the extent of these problems. As discussed in preceding chapters, better information is needed to make an informed assessment of the locations, magnitude, and priorities to be assigned to these water quality problems. In contrast to PADEP’s WRAS program, which focuses on priority problems within selected watersheds, water supply is being addressed on a basinwide scale that recognizes linkages among watersheds. Pursuant to the WRPA of 2002, PADEP has initiated the process to update the State Water Plan. That act establishes a Statewide Water Resources Committee (SWRC) to set guidelines and policies for the planning process and to conduct a formal review and approval of the product. Regional water resources committees are to be established for each of the state’s six major basins. After conducting an open public process and consulting with the SWRC and PADEP, the Ohio Basin Committee is to recommend regional plan components to the SWRC. These areas would be
OCR for page 222
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 6-4 Select Restoration Activities of the PADEP Bureau of Watershed Management’s Watershed Restoration Action Strategy Subbasin Problem Funding Source Number of Projects Project Expenditures (dollars) Redbank Creek watershed (Allegheny River) Abandoned mine drainage Pennsylvania Growing Greener Grants 7 $570,000 EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants 2 $156,000 Stonycreek River and Little Conemaugh River watersheds Abandoned mine drainage, Upgrade or expand water supply, sewers, and wastewater treatment Pennsylvania Growing Greener Grants 17 $1,508,000 EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants 7 $1,014,000 Pennsylvania Watershed Restoration Assistance Program 2 $54,500 PADEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation 4 $2,755,000 EPA Clean Water Act 104b3 3 $518,000 (grants) PENNVEST 4 $5,607,000 (loans) Upper Youghiogheny River Abandoned mine drainage Pennsylvania Growing Greener Grants 3 $1,371,000 EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants 4 $587,000 Pennsylvania Watershed Restoration Assistance Program 1 $261,000 Chartiers Creek watershed Point and nonpoint pollution, combined sewer overflow, abandoned mine drainage Pennsylvania Growin Greener Grants 10 $497,000 EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants 7 $476,000 Pennsylvania Watershed Restoration Assistance Program 1 $29,300 EPA Clean Water Act 104b3 1 $49,200 Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Rivers Conservation Grants 3 $178,000 PENNVEST 3 $3,030,000 (loans) SOURCE: PADEP, www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/Nonpointsourcepollution/Initiatives/Wraslist.htm.
OCR for page 223
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania designated, “critical water planning areas,” and identified on a multimunicipal watershed basis. Areas in which demand is expected to exceed supplies would be so designated, and more detailed critical area resource plans, or “water budgets,” would be established. The WRPA does not have a similar mandate for water quality. Nevertheless, the planning process it establishes for water supply provides an excellent opportunity for PADEP to exert administrative leadership to better integrate water quality and water supply into a broader framework of planning for water resources at the basin scale. Basin plans should at a minimum indicate the water quality effects on public water supplies and the water quality effects of flood control activities. Significant legislation enacted by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2000 could influence water planning among neighboring local governments. Among other provisions, Pennsylvania Acts 67 and 68 of the 1999-2000 legislative session, Article XI state the following: For the purpose of encouraging municipalities to effectively plan for their future development and to coordinate their planning with neighboring municipalities, counties and other governmental agencies, and promoting health, safety, morals and the general welfare…powers for the establishment and operation of joint municipal planning commissions are hereby granted. Local governments were given additional powers to regulate growth. Included in those powers were authority to limit development in specially designated “growth areas” and to implement a program of transferable development rights. Municipalities were given authority to enter into intergovernmental cooperative planning and implementation agreements. Municipalities located within the county or counties were also enabled to enter into intergovernmental cooperative agreements to develop, adopt, and implement comprehensive water resource plans for entire counties or any area within counties. Such agreements also enabled participating municipalities to share tax revenues and fees. The legislation also included incentives for municipalities to enter into such agreements. State agencies were directed (1) to consider multimunicipal plans when reviewing applications for the funding or permitting of infrastructure or facilities, and (2) to consider giving priority to applications for financial or technical assistance for projects consistent with the county or multimunicipal plan. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ridge issued an executive order in January 1999 directing PENNVEST to take land use into consideration when evaluating water project proposals; Acts 67 and 68 of 2000 had similar implications. Among other actions, PENNVEST established as an eligibility requirement that funding of proposed projects be consistent with applicable municipal, multimunicipal, or county comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances (see http://www.pennvest.state.pa.us/pennvest/cwp/ for further information). How effective this incentive will be in promoting cooperation remains to be seen. WHAT OTHERS HAVE DONE Southwestern Pennsylvania has many problems of water planning, delivery of services, and governance in common with other regions of the country. Knowledge and discussion of similar experiences in some of these regions may be instructive to those who will make decisions in the Pittsburgh region. Metropolitan areas across the United States have adopted a variety of arrangements to perform water management functions that transcend boundaries of local government. These
OCR for page 244
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania $50 million to $100 million in debt (beyond the $250 million authorized in the spring referendum) for PENNVEST to use for the same purposes. There is no restriction on whether these funds can be used as grants or loans. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service (RUS)9 administers various water and environmental programs, providing loans, grants, and loan guarantees for drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and storm drainage facilities in rural areas and in cities and towns with populations of 10,000 or less. As noted previously, both PENNVEST and RUS programs have been active in financing infrastructure in southwestern Pennsylvania; funds should continue to be available from these sources for appropriate activities. Similarly, several state and federal programs are available for addressing AMD. For example, the Clean Streams Program (formerly called the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative), administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining, provides for cooperative agreements to nonprofit organizations, especially small watershed groups, that undertake local AMD reclamation projects. Other AMD financing programs are discussed in Chapter 2. Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener program was established in 1999 to preserve farmland and protect open space, eliminate the maintenance backlog in state parks, clean up abandoned mines and restore watersheds, and provide new and upgraded water and sewer systems. As indicated in Table 6-4, some of these sources already have been used to support PADEP’s WRAS program. Although funding has been available from a variety of sources (some of which are discussed here), levels of funding are substantially lower than what was available during the 1970s and early 1980s. Special funding may be made available for special problems of national interest such as homeland security, but despite vigorous and coordinated efforts of the water industry, it is not likely that funding levels will be restored to anywhere near their historic highs in past decades. In the absence of additional intergovernmental aid, the region is left to carry much of the financial burden on its own shoulders or seek direct special appropriations. Basic options for local governments are general tax revenues, water rates, and various fees and charges. Because fees or charges can go beyond simple cost recovery, they can be used to encourage cooperative actions and promote actions that reduce generation of wastewater, stormwater runoff, pollutant discharges, and water demand. Water use fees are commonly levied by public and private water supply systems in southwestern Pennsylvania and elsewhere to cover capital, operating, and maintenance costs. Although flat rate structures were once common, charges based on metered water use are now routine for both commercial and residential customers (EPA, 1997) and are commonplace in southwestern Pennsylvania. The desirability of pricing water to recover the costs of water supply systems and encourage the conservation of scarce supplies is relatively noncontroversial. Moreover, because wastewater volumes are correlated positively with water supply, charges on water supply provide indirect incentives to reduce the generation of wastewater. Fees are also commonly imposed on the discharge of wastewater into public sewers and treatment works in the Pittsburgh region and elsewhere. The purpose is to cover costs, but if the charges are tied to the volume of discharges, then these fees can also provide an incentive to reduce the flow of wastewater delivered into sewers and treatment works. However, whereas metering of water sales to individual customers is routine, metering of wastewater from individual residential and commercial customers is not. Accordingly, fees for connection to public sewers and treatment 9 Further information about the RUS can be found on-line at http://www.usda.gov/rus/.
OCR for page 245
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania works generally do not provide incentives to limit wastewater flows that are unrelated to use (e.g., wet weather increases). ALCOSAN’s rate structure for sewer services to many of its member communities is based on the volume of water consumed, not on the volume or peak rate at which wastewater is received. This structure fails to provide an incentive for contributing communities to reduce flows from combined sewers and from sanitary sewers with excessive infiltration. It is also inequitable because communities with properly operated and maintained systems that contribute little to combined sewer flows pay the same per unit of water used as communities with high wet weather flows. The committee recommends that this system of charges be phased out and replaced with a rate structure based on volumes and peak rates of discharge into ALCOSAN’s interceptor sewers. Devices to measure these flows should be installed at sufficient locations to adequately estimate volumes and peak rates. Such devices could be installed to support real-time control of the collection system as described in Chapter 5. Discharge fees can also be levied on those who discharge wastes into streams. Many states, including Pennsylvania, assess fees under the Clean Water Act (CWA) NPDES permitting program (see also Chapter 3) to cover administrative costs. Similar to fees on wastewater discharges to sewers, discharge fees can provide an incentive to reduce the flow of polluting discharges to surface waters if the fee is based on volume of discharge and is large enough to alter the behavior of the discharger. However, these fees tend to be small compared to pollution control costs and in many cases are unrelated to discharge volumes (EPA, 2001). With the exception of single residences for which there is no charge, Pennsylvania charges a modest flat fee of $500 for an NPDES permit. Nonpoint sources of pollution are not required to have permits under the CWA. However, there are a variety of potential mechanisms for extending the “polluter-pays” principle to nonpoint sources in order to generate revenues and create disincentives for NPS pollution (e.g., Shortle and Horan, 2001). For agriculture, these include most notably fees on polluting inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. A recent innovation to help municipalities cope with the costs of stormwater management is the stormwater management fee. The fee is typically based on the amount of impervious surface area (i.e., paved areas, areas under hard roofs). Fees based in this way have desirable incentives in that they discourage impervious surface areas that generate high levels of surface runoff. This type of fee may be levied by local governments, and many states have authorized local governments to establish quasi-independent stormwater utilities. These utilities are then given authority to levy a fee or tax to defray the costs of stormwater management. One estimate put the number of stormwater utilities in the United States in 2000 at more than 400 (Kasperson, 2000). It is important to emphasize that the preceding financing options are not mutually exclusive. All of them (and perhaps others) will have to be considered in developing a financing mechanism for water quality improvement in southwestern Pennsylvania. A crude estimate of the revenue potential in the Pittsburgh region, with several simplifying conditions, is provided in Table 6-6. According to the 1995 American Housing Survey by the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 1,051,700 housing units in the Pittsburgh MSA. Of these, 871,500 were on public water supplies (either publicly or privately owned) and 797,100 were on public sewers (either publicly or privately owned). These calculations assume that there is no growth in the numbers of customers, that increases apply to each monthly water bill and each monthly sewer bill, and that increases in
OCR for page 246
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 6-6 Revenue Potential and Bond Capacity of Pittsburgh Region Increase in Monthly Water and Sewer Bill (dollars) New Revenue (million dollars per year) Bond Capacity (billion dollars) Water Sewer Total 5 52.29 47.83 100.12 1.36 10 104.58 95.65 200.23 2.72 15 156.87 143.48 300.35 4.08 20 209.16 191.30 400.46 5.44 SOURCES: HUD and U.S. Census Bureau, 1995. rates are uniform across all purveyors in the MSA. Furthermore, bonding capacity10 is calculated on the basis of 20-year bonds with equal annual payments having a yield of 4.0 percent. It is clear from these first approximations (see also Chapter 5) that fully funding estimated costs of improvements as stated in the TPR report (TPRC, 2002) of ALCOSAN’s draft LTCP (ALCOSAN, 1999) could lead to substantial increases in water and sewer rates. Customers could respond to increased rates by lowering rates of use through various water conservation activities, thereby reducing available revenues. Such reductions in use would have some effect on the need for the planned expansion and operation of wastewater treatment facilities. These effects should be examined when the costs of needed facilities are better known and financing packages are formulated. Affordability Black & Veatch Corporation, an engineering, consulting, and construction company, periodically publishes results of surveys of water and wastewater rates for cities in the United States. One such study, “Pennsylvania Water/Wastewater Rate Survey—2001,” compared the cost of water and wastewater services in 24 different communities throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This study compared residential (household) rates at two common quarterly levels of usage: 3,000 cf (cubic feet) of water or about 22,500 gallons used in three months; and 6,000 cf, or about 45,000 gallons. Out of 24 communities in Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh ranked 16 out of 24 for water and sewer charges resulting from use of 22,500 gallons of water in three months and 15 out of 24 for water and sewer charges resulting from use of 45,000 gallons of water in three months. Table 6-7 presents a comparison of quarterly water or wastewater bills for residential households in Pittsburgh and in cities in nearby states located in the Great Lakes and Atlantic coast regions. This group of cities includes those having populations ranging from less than half to more than twice that of Pittsburgh. Quarterly bills for 3,000 and 6,000 cf of water were nearly the same in Pittsburgh and Akron, the two cities with the highest bills. The lowest bills for cities in this size range were about half of the bills for Pittsburgh and Akron. Table 6-8 shows the results of the Black & Veatch survey of water and wastewater bills in the 49 largest cities in the United States. Pittsburgh’s water and wastewater bills fall between the highest 75th and 90th percentile for both 3,000 and 6,000 cf of water usage. Thus, Pittsburgh’s bills already exceed those paid by customers in more than three-fourths of the largest cities. 10 Bonding capacity = annual revenue generated/annual payment per dollar of bond issued.
OCR for page 247
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 6-7 Comparison of Residential Quarterly Water and Wastewater Bills for Pittsburgh and Cities in Nearby States City, State Population Year Bill for 3,000 cf Bill for 6,000 cf Pittsburgh, PA 334,563 2001 $157.35 $303.90 Fort Wayne, IN 185,716 2000 $99.60 $174.39 Indianapolis, IN 741,304 2000 $90.09 $155.97 Grand Rapids, MI 185,437 2000 $122.70 $205.20 Syracuse, NY 147,306 2001 $65.04 $130.05 Charlotte, NC 540,828 2001 $100.80 $185.70 Greensboro, NC 223,891 2001 $83.94 $174.75 Akron, OH 215,712 2000 $157.05 $300.36 Cincinnati, OH 336,400 2000 $115.59 $219.27 Cleveland, OH 495,817 2000 $102.00 $212.34 Columbus, OH 632,945 2000 $100.50 $183.30 Toledo, OH 312,174 2000 $72.60 $137.70 SOURCE: Black & Veatch Corporation, 2000 and 2001. TABLE 6-8 Comparison of Range of Quarterly Residential Water and Wastewater Bills for Pittsburgh and in 49 Largest Cities in United States Rank or Percentile Usage of 3,000 cf Usage of 6,000 cf City, State Bill City, State Bill Highest Seattle, WA $241.59 Seattle, WA $500.91 90th San Francisco, CA $174.96 Atlanta, GA $337.80 75th Honolulu, HI $138.57 San Diego, CA $250.47 50th New York City, NY $111.90 Oakland, CA $203.04 25th St. Louis, MO $93.87 Denver, CO $169.59 10th El Paso, TX $79.41 Sacramento, CA $123.36 Lowest Memphis, TN $40.20 Memphis, TN $80.37 No rank Pittsburgh, PA (2001) $157.35 Pittsburgh, PA (2001) $303.90 NOTE: This survey included 50 cities, but one did not provide data on wastewater rates. SOURCE: Black & Veatch Corporation, 2002. These data indicate that even before the challenge of solving combined sewer overflow problems is addressed, Pittsburgh’s water and sewer bills are relatively high compared to cities of similar size. As reported in the 2000 Census, median household income in Allegheny, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties ranged from $37,106 to $38,329. At prices given in Table 6-8, water and sewer bills would run from 3.2 to 3.3 percent of household income before taxes. Distributions of household income are shown in Figure 6-4. It is important to note that approximately one-third of the households had income of less than $25,000 in 2000. The added cost of addressing wet weather water quality problems would be especially onerous to this group of residents. A major challenge will be finding a way to address such problems without generating water and wastewater bills that are unaffordable and out of line with bills in nearby cities. Challenges It is clear that developing and implementing effective strategies for funding water quality improvement in southwestern Pennsylvania may well be the greatest challenge for the region. Among the financing issues the region will face are the following:
OCR for page 248
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Current water, stormwater, and wastewater services repayment capacity exists, but is unevenly distributed across communities and may be limited by affordability. Revenue sharing may be essential to achieve progress across the region. The current fragmented structure of local government in southwestern Pennsylvania tends to increase the cost of all aspects of wastewater management. Once opportunities to exploit economies of scale are forgone, the cost of financing is increased. Access to new and innovative technology that can reduce labor costs is expensive and requires expertise that may be beyond the reach of small independent communities, but in the long run, it can significantly reduce costs and improve performance (NDWAC Affordability Work Group, 2003). Current Financial Developments and Committee Recommendations As this study was being conducted, a number of analyses were being prepared on local water and wastewater rates in the region’s urban core. ALCOSAN and other utilities have adopted new rates to reflect rising costs, such as the control of infiltration and inflow as part of compliance with recently adopted consent decrees. The 3RWW conducted a rate survey that was completed as this report was in review in the fall of 2004. The development of a sound regional program that equitably shares future costs—considering relative contributions of wastewater flows, repayment capacity, and efficient use of debt obligations—would go a long way to making the future priority investments in affordable water quality improvement. Affordability is a significant issue in southwestern Pennsylvania, and many of the recommendations and conclusions in the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC. 2003) report to EPA on its small systems affordability FIGURE 6-4 Distribution of household income in select southwestern Pennsylvania counties in 2000. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, http://factfinder.census.gov.
OCR for page 249
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania criteria can be considered for wastewater systems in the region. The committee recommends the following actions toward a framework for a new regional financial approach: Develop and implement a sewer and/or water user surcharge, as recently proposed in Maryland, to fund the next five years of planning and data gathering under CWARP or a similar program. Ideally, the charge would be in addition to wastewater and water bills throughout the Three Rivers basin or, as a minimum, in the region’s urban core (see Figure 6-1). Initiate a flow-based repayment system for ALCOSAN and other regional wastewater treatment providers that reflects, to the extent practicable, the actual contributions of flow into sewerage systems. Select one or more forms of regional governance that have the necessary legal authority and administrative expertise to finance capital improvements and operating and maintenance expenses of management programs. Such authorities should include the power to incur debt for capital projects, establish user charges, and collect revenues necessary to pay for all expenses except those financed by intergovernmental grants. Continue efforts to increase regional assistance through PENNVEST and other sources of funds that can generate support for specific programs such as development of county-based management programs for on-site waste disposal and AMD control. To the extent that assistance is not available, continuing studies are needed regarding the efficient application of current local taxes and user charges to cover the start-up efforts identified above, with the goal of creating repayment mechanisms based on an equitable regional user charge system. Ultimately the system would generate sufficient revenues to repay debt obligations that will be necessary to fund priority facilities. SUMMARY: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Water management in southwestern Pennsylvania is highly fragmented among federal and state governments as well as 11 counties, 595 municipalities, and 492 water and sewer providers. Water planning in southwestern Pennsylvania has to be addressed on a regional scale and should be holistic rather than focused on particular goals; it should consider water quality, water supply, flood hazard mitigation, aquatic and riparian habitat protection and restoration, and recreation. In choosing an appropriate organization or set of organizations to address these concerns, the following three factors should be considered: water resource management functions for which improvements are necessary or desirable; the level of government or private sector enterprise to which management functions should be entrusted and to which legal authority should be delegated by the legislature; and the geographic scale that is appropriate to achieve efficiency by exploiting economies of scale and making significant regional interdependencies internal to the planning area. Consistent with the CWARP approach recommended in Chapter 5, changes are necessary at the following geographic scales: river basins and interstate river basins and watersheds; metropolitan region scale (multi-county areas); metropolitan urban core areas; and rural areas outside of the urban core.
OCR for page 250
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Some problems, particularly those related to long-distance transport of potentially pathogenic microorganisms, heavy metals, and persistent toxic chemicals, transcend regional and state boundaries. Basinwide planning is needed to address these issues. ORSANCO and PADEP are the appropriate agencies to establish the necessary monitoring, modeling, and formulation of management strategies at that scale. Management of water quality at that scale should be integrated with activities mandated under WRPA 2002 and previously undertaken by PADEP’s Unified Watershed Assessment and the WRAS program. Basinwide plans should assess and, where appropriate, adopt programs to address agricultural and other nonpoint pollution sources. Planning for transportation systems is occurring at the multicounty, regional scale by the SPC. These plans can have significant effects on regional land use and water-related services. Concerns about land use and associated water supplies, wastewater disposal, and stormwater management should be incorporated into planning at that scale. The SPC is probably the region’s best choice for accomplishing this goal, but its present representative structure and lack of water resource expertise limit its capacity to do so. Its regional databases on land use, transportation, and economic development are its strengths relative to water resource planning. Its effectiveness may be limited by the absence of regional leadership other than elected officials from local governments and may also by the makeup of its current membership where each of its counties and the City of Pittsburgh are equally represented. Rather, representation should reflect the fact that those counties with relatively high densities and a large number of intimately interrelated local governments have priorities that are quite different from those of more rural counties with more dispersed populations. An important step that SPC in coordination with ORSANCO could take to broaden representation and advance public education on regional water resources would be to establish a Three Rivers Regional Water Forum as conceptually illustrated in Figure 6-2. The forum should be charged with a broad mandate to assess priorities for water infrastructure planning, maintenance, and construction as these activities are related to regional transportation, land use, and economic development. The Forum should include elected and appointed officials of local governments, regional leaders in the private sector, academia, environmental organizations, and other NGOS, and participation should be encouraged by all organizations that share some responsibility for the proposed CWARP. Although there are several options for the creation and organization of a regional water forum, an unincorporated network of public and private stakeholders established by voluntary MOUs is recommended for careful consideration. However, the participants and exact organization plan should be determined locally. The dominant water quality management problems in Pittsburgh’s urban core are overflows from combined and separate sanitary sewers resulting from wet weather conditions. Continued fragmented management of the sewer collection-conveyance-treatment system (i.e., maintaining the status quo) is not a satisfactory situation. Planning and management of sanitary and combined sewers should be integrated with stormwater management. There are at least five viable organizational arrangements to serve that purpose, designated as the following options: (A) merger of city and county government; (B) establishment of county-wide management either by dedication of the systems to Allegheny County or through an administrative arrangement with Allegheny County using authority under Pennsylvania Acts 67 and 68; (C) creation of one or more special districts to manage sewer collection with or without authority over stormwater management; (D) expansion of the role of ALCOSAN to include sewer collection systems, with or without authority over stormwater management; and (E) continuation of the decentralized system but with performance standards and voluntary participation in an RMO provided on a fee-for-service basis. ALCOSAN would be encouraged to establish the RMO.
OCR for page 251
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania All five options are viable, and discussions of Option A between Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh have already occurred. It is recommended that Allegheny County take a leadership role in search of a consensus on one of the four remaining options. A merger of city and county government, though politically difficult, is desirable from the perspective of water quality management. The committee also prefers Option B (establishment of county-wide management) to Options C, D, or E because it captures economies of scale in planning and management; facilitates the use of a systems approach; and keeps decision making closer to politically accountable public officials. Whatever option is ultimately chosen, management entities would have to meet performance standards to minimize CSOs and SSOs. ORSANCO, with its prior experience with similar problems in the Ohio River basin, can be of valuable assistance in reaching a consensus on these options. In both scenarios, 3RWW should be continued or expanded to conduct public education programs for stormwater and CSO management; to provide technical assistance to local governments for stormwater and CSO management; to provide education to local governments on identifying and correcting illicit connections to sewer systems; and to monitor, analyze, and report on the status of stormwater and CSO management in Allegheny County. Additional steps are also needed to systematically address wastewater disposal problems and inadequate water supply in rural and small urban areas outside the region’s metropolitan urban core. The actions recommended to address OSTDS deficiencies in Chapter 5 should be undertaken cooperatively by several agencies. At the state level, the WRAS program should be expanded to include assessment of the effects of inadequate wastewater disposal on water quality. In doing so, the PADEP should work closely with local governments having legal authority over such systems. The SPC could and should take strong leadership in bringing local governments together to address these issues. In addition to PADEP, the SPC should request assistance from EPA and nongovernmental organizations having prior experience with programs of this kind. The Allegheny County experience in these activities should provide a sound foundation for other counties in the region. Financing programs to support the water quality improvement activities discussed in this chapter include the following: a new regional surcharge, changing the basis for current wastewater charges, expansion of debt repayment capacity, increased assistance, and studies of regional equity through user charge systems. Most of the funding will have to come from local sources. A first approximation to the financing capacity of the metropolitan urban core suggests that water and sewer fees and stormwater fees would have to be increased substantially to pay for outlays estimated in ALCOSAN’s draft LTCP. Furthermore, ALCOSAN’s current pricing structure fails to send the right signal to municipalities that contribute flow to the ALCOSAN system. Instead of charging communities on the basis of water consumption, ALCOSAN should be charging on the basis of actual wastewater flows entering its interceptors. Charges should be established for total volume and peak rates of flow. Flow-measuring devices should be installed as needed to implement a revised rate structure. It is clear from these preliminary figures that the cost of the program as outlined in the draft LTCP could have a significant effect on costs of water and sewer services for residents of the region. The committee reached no conclusion as to whether achievement of water quality goals in the region is financially feasible. This must await more detailed estimates of costs for each phase of the program and a more careful analysis of impacts on residential, commercial, and industrial consumers of regional water and sewer services. Use of an adaptive implementation strategy within CWARP as discussed in Chapter 5 would permit judgments to be made at each step of the process. Committee
OCR for page 252
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania support of that process should not be interpreted as a strategy for indefinite postponement of major investment decisions. As long as the region is making good- faith efforts, as each step of the process is completed the region can make cost-effective decisions based on evaluation of the outcomes of prior actions. The committee believes that the involvement of key stakeholder groups should be a significant feature of each of the activities undertaken by the groups identified in this chapter. In addition, information that exists today, as well as that developed under all elements of CWARP, should be made readily available to the public. Among this information are sources of water quality problems, their significance, appropriate solutions, costs, and social impacts. REFERENCES ALCOSAN (Allegheny County Sanitary Authority). 1999. Draft Combined Sewer Overflow Program Phase I Activity Report: Regional Long Term Wet Weather Control Concept Plan. Pittsburgh, PA: ALCOSAN. American Rivers, NRDC (National Resources Defense Council), Smart Growth America. 2002. Paving Our Way to Water Shortages: How Sprawl Aggravates the Effects of Drought. Washington, DC. Black & Veatch Corporation. 2000. Indiana Water/Wastewater Rate Survey—2000; Michigan Water/Wastewater Rate Survey—2000; Ohio Water/Wastewater Rate Survey—2000. Kansas City, MO: Black & Veatch. Black & Veatch Corporation. 2001. New York Water/Wastewater Rate Survey—2001; North Carolina Water/Wastewater Rate Survey—2001; North Carolina Water/Wastewater Rate Survey—2001; Pennsylvania Water/Wastewater Rate Survey—2001. Kansas City, MO: Black & Veatch. Black & Veatch Corporation, 2002. 50 Largest Cities Water/Wastewater Rate Survey—2002. Kansas City, MO: Black & Veatch. Cohan, J. 2004. Crisis spawns opportunity: Pittsburgh, Allegheny County talking openly about a merger. Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Available on-line at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04053/276148.stm. Accessed May 26, 2004. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy. FRL-4732-7. Federal Register 59(75). Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0111.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2004. EPA. 1996. The Enforcement Management System: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Clean Water Act): Chapter X: Setting Priorities for Addressing Discharges from Separate Sanitary Sewers. Washington, DC: Office of Regulatory Enforcement. EPA. 1997. Community Water System Survey, Volume I: Overview. 815-R-97-001a. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA. 2001. The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment. 240-R-01-001. Washington, DC: Office of the Administrator. General Assembly of Pennsylvania. 2002. House Bill No. 2302 Amending Title 27 (Environmental Resources) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. Chapter 31 Water Resources Planning. Available on-line at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/wu01/li/bi/bt/2001/0/hb2302p4697.htm. Accessed May 26, 2004.
OCR for page 253
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Herman, S. 2000. Memorandum: Compliance and Enforcement Strategy Addressing Combined Sewer Overflows ad Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Herman, S. and R. Perciasepe. 1995. Memorandum: Enforcement Efforts Addressing Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Office of Water. HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) and the U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Current Housing Reports H170/95-13: American Housing Survey for the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area in 1995. Washington, DC: HUD and U.S. Census Bureau. Kasperson, J. 2000. The Stormwater Utility: Will it Work in Your Community? Available on-line at http://www.forester.net/sw_0011_utility.html. Accessed November 18, 2004. McNulty, T. 2003. Study urged on merger of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Available on-line at http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030916conference0916p1.asp. Accessed May 26, 2004. NDWAC (National Drinking Water Advisory Council) Affordability Work Group. 2003. Recommendations of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council to the U.S. EPA on Its National Small Systems Affordability Criteria. Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ndwac/pdfs/report_ndwac_affordabilitywg_final_.08-08-03.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2004. NRC (National Research Council). 1999. New Strategies for America’s Watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 2002a. 2002 Pennsylvania Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report. Available on-line at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQStandards/305_wq2002_narr.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2004. PADEP. 2002b. 2002 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies. Available on-line http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqstandards/303-2002/303d-Report.htm#2002_List. Accessed April 6, 2004. Pennsylvania Economy League. 2000. Southwestern Pennsylvania Wastewater Survey. Pittsburgh, PA: Pennsylvania Economy League. Reekie, L. 2000. Attitudes and perceptions of drinking water customers. AWWA Research Foundation Presentation at H2Obiettivo Symposium, Torino, Italy, May. Rusk, D. 1995. Cities Without Suburbs. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Rusk, D. 2000. Growth Management: The Core Regional Issue in Reflections on Regionalism, B. Katz (ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Shortle, J. and R. Horan. 2001. The economics of nonpoint pollution control. Journal of Economic Surveys 15:255-290. Sullivan, J. 1997. Chicago Wilderness, An Atlas of Biodiversity. Chicago, IL: Chicago Region Biodiversity Council. TPRC (Third Party Review Committee). 2002. Third Party Review of the ALCOSAN Regional Long Term Wet Weather Control Concept Plan. Pittsburgh, PA: ALCOSAN. WSIP (Southwestern Pennsylvania Water and Sewer Infrastructure Project Steering Committee). 2002. Investing in Clean Water: A Report from the Southwestern Pennsylvania Water and Sewer Infrastructure Project Steering Committee. Pittsburgh, PA: Campaign for Clean Water.
OCR for page 254
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Yaro, R. 2000. Growing and governing smart: A case study of the New York region. In Reflections on Regionalism, B. Katz (ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Representative terms from entire chapter: