Page 91 - Urban water supply handbook
P. 91

IMPROVING URBAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


             3.10              HISTORY, PLANNING, OUTSOURCING

             TABLE 3.3 Estimated Cost Savings from Water and Wastewater
             Public-Private Partnerships
                                               Contract term,   Estimated
                Municipality    System type       years     savings, %

             Atlanta, Ga.    Water                 20         45
             Franklin, Ohio  BOT wastewater        20         23
             Franklin, Ohio  BOT water             20         30
             Milwaukee, Wis.  Wastewater           10         30
             New Haven, Conn.  Wastewater          15         30
             Newport, R.I.   Wastewater            20         24
             Plymouth, Mass.  DBO wastewater       20         19.7
             Seattle, Wash.  DBO water             25         40
             Tampa, Fla.     DBO water            15   5      21
             Tampa, Fla.     DBOOT desalination    30         50

               BOT   build, operate, transfer; DBOOT   design, build, own, operate, transfer.
               Source: Public Works Financing, January 2001.


               Cities facing financial limitations and citizen opposition to tax increases will
             find it difficult to finance water and wastewater improvements internally. Public-
             private partnerships, offering significant cost savings, operational improvements,
             and innovative financing schemes, will be an increasingly attractive option for
             urban officials.


             3.4.3 Unfunded Mandates

             While reducing its contributions to local water systems over the past 30 years, the
             federal government imposes strict water quality and effluent standards under the
             Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. Unfunded mandates force munic-
             ipal systems to meet federal regulations through local sources of revenues or state
             revolving loan funds. The EPA continues to toughen monitoring requirements,
             develop stricter contaminant removal standards, and more vigorously pursue com-
             pliance, resulting in higher costs for municipalities.
               For example, AWWA estimates that the cost to local governments of meeting
             toughened arsenic standards is approximately $14 billion in capital investments
                                                                 23
             nationwide and $1.5 billion in additional annual operating costs. Nearly all the
             communities affected serve less than 10,000 people, putting further strain on lim-
                           24
             ited local budgets. Enforcement of a lower standard on radium levels in drinking
             water could impact more than 100 communities in Illinois.





         Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)
                    Copyright © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
                      Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96