Water infrastructure funding in Idaho faces uncertain future if House bill passes

As Congress considers the House appropriations bill for the 2024 fiscal year, concerns over potential cuts to the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) have emerged, with implications for vital water infrastructure projects in Idaho. The American Business Water Coalition (ABWC) recently released a report highlighting dozens of projects at risk if the House bill is approved.

According to Mae Stevens, chief executive officer of American Business Water Coalition, more than 90% of funding could be cut for 76 projects that are at risk of not getting funding if Congress ultimately votes in favor of the House bill. Additionally, she highlighted that 83% of utilities in the U.S. believe they cannot maintain their systems adequately without external federal funding.

The ABWC report identifies key water infrastructure projects in various Idaho regions that could face delays or cancellations. These projects span both drinking water and wastewater systems, including initiatives such as replacing fire hydrants, implementing backup wells, enhancing storage capacity and addressing lead service line inventories.

“If the capacity of the sewer system is less than the amount of sewage that is going into that system, then the sewage backs up into people’s homes and businesses,” Stevens said. 

Paul L. Arrington, executive director and general counsel of the Idaho Water Users Association (IWUA), discussed the potential impacts of a spending bill on water-related organizations. He emphasized the critical role of funding programs in maintaining water infrastructure.

“From our perspective, every water manager, whether they’re delivering irrigation water or community drinking water — we’re just trying to do the best with what we’ve got,” he stated. “Costs are skyrocketing, and we’re just trying to figure out how to keep our systems running efficiently, properly and how to modernize them as necessary, with the least impact on our patrons.”

Arrington highlighted the challenges arising from urban development around water facilities.

“Because of this significant growth, we have more people living right near and in some cases under our canals,” he added. “We look to programs like a water SMART program or other types of grant programs, whether they be on the state or the federal level to help offset these skyrocketing costs to allow us to continue meeting our duty of safe, efficient deliveries of water.”

In the Treasure Valley, a real-time example is the New York Canal, which runs from the diversion dam below Lucky Peak to Lake Lowell. A six-mile section of this canal sits about 60 to 70 feet above some of the city’s most densely populated areas.

“Our need — the Boise Project Board of Control’s need — is to make sure that that canal never fails, and doesn’t break,” Arrington said. “It contains significantly more water than the Boise River during the summer, and if you had a failure of that canal — 60 feet above all those homes — the property damage and the potential human damage or impacts are significant. Hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Arrington said that when faced with a bill cutting funding for essential state and federal programs crucial for maintaining the water infrastructure, “It’s easy to get discouraged or frustrated.”

Amidst these concerns, Shelley Roberts, CEO of the Idaho Rural Water Association, which represents drinking water and wastewater utilities, provided insight into the dynamics of the appropriations bill. 

According to Roberts, Congressman Mike Simpson, the chair of EPA appropriations and a significant figure in this bill, likely navigated conflicting pressures from the caucus regarding budget reductions. “Congressman Simpson is a friend of the water industry in Idaho and has done a lot to advocate for us.”

However, in a recent announcement expressing satisfaction with the proposed appropriation bill, Simpson stated, “I am pleased to see the House pass my Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. As Chairman of this subcommittee, I vowed to create a bill that reduces unnecessary federal spending and prioritizes the critical needs and essential functions within these agencies.”

Simpson was unavailable to comment.

In response, the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities (CIFA), who oversee SRF funds, sent a letter to the SU Senate Appropriations Committee requesting $3 billion in federal funding for each SRF for fiscal year 2024. The CIFA also requested that congressional earmarks be funded in addition to, rather than in lieu of, SRF state water infrastructure projects.

“If there are cuts, it’s highly detrimental. The (Department of Environmental Quality) has shown that in Idaho, historically, we’ve had around $300 million a year for infrastructure,” Roberts said. “Requests surged to $1.3 and $1.5 billion, so the need is out there. If Congress cuts investment to these programs, it’ll be devastating; the challenge of compliance will get more difficult, the cost of infrastructure is going to go up. In the long run, it’s just going to cost us more money.”