front page 143.jpg (24257 bytes)

 

 

Water Projects Could Cost So Much that Even Environmentalists Worry

By DOUGLAS MARTIN

New York City has embarked on an array of water and sewer projects whose cost will raise water bills so high over the next 10 years that even environmentalists are beginning to raise alarms.

The bill for the coming projects, which are mandated by Federal environmental laws, is $8.5 billion -- by far the biggest item in the city's capital budget. The cost will be borne by ratepayers, who are expected to see an unbroken string of increases ii'{ their water bills -- on top of the huge jumps in rates in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

While they support the projects in concept, some environmental groups fear that asking ratepayers to accept too many increases all at once could undermine long-term political support for the environmental efforts. The groups, along with city officials and landlord and housing advocates, are exploring ways to spread out the big projects or accomplish them more cheaply.

The spending includes up to $1 billion for a new water-filtration plant, more than $800 million for new sewers, and $4 billion for sewage )lant improvements.

"it's logical to ask whether we have to do everything at the same time," said Jim Tripp, a lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund who also serves on the city's Water Board. which sets water and sewage rates, "Can we spread things out? Can we delay some of the investments?"

Eric A. Goldstein, a lawyer for another group of environmentalists, the Natural Resources Defense Council. echoed that. saying. "There is a need for some sensible priority-setting and triage."

Over the next five years, average water rates are forecast to climb to $534 a year for a single-family home. from $433. Already, water rates have gone up by 207 percent since 1986, Cheap water, long a feature of life in New York City. has become a memory. as rates have hit levels comparable to those elsewhere in the nation.

Increases in the last few years m New York have been relatively modest, and a rise of just 4 percent is in store for next year. But the forecast for a five-year increase means such slow growth will not last forever, just as the low interest the city pays on tke bonds that finance water projects could rise in the future, city officials warn.

There have also been significant revenue gains in recent years, largely the result of more aggressive billing, but further gains will probably be harder to achieve, the water experts say.

As a result, the city is scrambling to find ways to build these projects less expensively and stretch out the time frames, even as Federal environmental regulators, who can impose large penalties for failure to comply with environmental laws, oppose such steps.

 

 

  

Among the options city officials

are considering are pilot projects to test removing nitrogen from treated sewage, devising cheaper ways to protect upstate reservoirs, and cutting the size of a water filtration plant by a third.

Joel A Miele, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, said setting priorities was most Important. The questions, he said, are these: "Are all these things necessary? And if they're necessary, are they necessary on the proposed scale?"

Seeking cheaper ways to obey clean water laws.

The problem is that most of tile coming large expenditures are the result of court-ordered settlements in suits brought by Federal and state environmental regulators

Mr. Tripp. of the Environmental Defense Fund, said there are a number of steps iiiat could be considered. One possibility is to use Federal agricultural money intended for wetlands protection id help pay for protection of city reservoirs Officials could also delay building the later phases of a third water tunnel from upstate he, said

Mr. Trip also suggested working with pilot plants to develop a way to clean the sewage and storm water that flow together when it rains, in an effort to find the cheapest method. A citizens advisory committee is already exploring ways to make this project, as well as others, more efficient.

Environmentalists say the water rates could soar because two fundamental things have changed in the 1990s. First, large Federal and state subsidies for waste water treatment have dried up. And second, the city now pays for water projects by issuing its own bonds under an agency called the Water Finance Authority, which began in 1987. To pay for the bonds, the Water Board, created the same year, sets rates.

Before the creation of those agencies, the city financed water and sewer costs through general obligation bonds, a practice that had the effect of both subsidizing the projects and hiding their true cost, Mr. Miele said.

The people who have complained most about the climbing water charges are landlords of low- and middle-income housing. Experts note that water usage tends {Il be higher among lower-income residents than for the more affluent, since their homes are more crowded and tenants are home more on aver age.

The citywide installation of water meters, which link water bills to actual usage, has not yet included most multifamily dwellings. But metering is expected to magnify tile problem of rising water bills for landlords of low- and middle –income housing.

Housing advocates fled themselves in a quandary: most of them support the planned environmental improvements in principal, but worry about the effect on housing for the' city's poorest residents. "

 

 

Back

E-Mail: Information@waterdesalination.com
E-Mail: Webmaster@waterdesalination.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1998 Water Desalination International