A Kansas water utility gets affordability measurement right
Recently we’ve seen progress in affordability measurement, as more water utilities
are using better metrics when evaluating affordability.* Last year I published
a new methodology for measuring water
and sewer utility affordability (AR20
and HM), and followed that up with a national
assessment using those metrics. AR20
is the Affordability Ratio of basic
water and sewer service price divided by disposable income at the 20th percentile household income.
HMis basic water and sewer service
expressed in Hours of labor at Minimum wage.
These metrics seek to capture the trade-offs that low-income households
must make in paying for water and sewer services. Utilities have begun to use
these and other improved metrics, which is encouraging!
The main objection I’ve seen to the real-world use of AR20 is that it can seem too
complicated. You need to know the community’s 20th percentile income
and essential non-water/sewer costs of living in order to calculate AR20. But there’s no
convenient, off-the-shelf source for those numbers. You have to think about
economic conditions in your community.
I usually include housing, health care, taxes, food,
and home energy as essential non-water/sewer costs, and I use statistical
models to estimate those expenses. Statistical models are important in my
research because I’m analyzing affordability across hundreds of communities. Apparently that’s led some to think that
regression models using consumer data are the only way to estimate household expenses, so estimating
costs-of-living for a specific utility is impossibly difficult.†
Fortunately, it’s not really that hard. Since
publishing my 2018 article,
I’ve heard from folks in utilities large and small about efforts to use these
metrics exactly as they were intended: adapting AR20 to fit local needs, calculating it with local data,
and using it to shape local decisions.
WaterOne’s excellent measurement
An especially encouraging case is WaterOne, a special district that provides drinking water to a
population of about 425,000 in the Johnson County suburbs southwest of Kansas
City. As in plenty of other utilities, WaterOne’s leaders have long been
interested in the affordability of their service, but had also long employed
the conventional 2%MHI as their affordability metric. Dissatisfied with the
nonsensical conventional metric, WaterOne’s Natalie Morrison and Cassandra
Gunther decided to use AR20
to assess affordability and guide policy for their own system.
work for WaterOne required adapting it to local preferences and conditions in a
few ways. First, the original AR20
was calculated for water and sewer combined; since WaterOne provides only
drinking water, its AR20
calculation included only water rates, not sewer rates. Second, WaterOne
analyzed its own customer data and decided that 45 gallons per capita per day and
a 2.6-person household were the appropriate basic water consumption level for its customers (my published studies
assume a 4-person household at 50 gpcd). Third, WaterOne chose to exclude home
energy from their calculation of essential non-water/sewer costs. Rather than
constructing an econometric model to estimate essential non-water costs, Morrison
and Gunther used available data and guidelines from the Census, IRS, USDA, and
Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate appropriate costs for its service area.
The result was a WaterOne-specific AR20 that showed the
remarkable difference between the conventional %MHI method and the more
meaningful AR20. After
they’d done all that work, Cassandra Gunther contacted me to ask for feedback.
We had a terrific phone call with WaterOne leadership where I offered some
comments on their execution, but I didn’t have much of a critique to offer—they
pretty much got it right.
From analysis to decision
The results were reported with the district’s 2019
budget and written up in a white paper for WaterOne’s Board of directors.
Crucially, the paper uses the affordability metrics to frame a discussion of
goals and guidelines, not to declare WaterOne’s rates “affordable” or “not
affordable” according to some arbitrary threshold. They also warned against comparing AR20 values to my published works and to other systems’ AR20 values, since WaterOne’s
AR20 is based on different
assumptions and WaterOne’s values may not align with others.’
Measurement principles in practice
Complexity isn’t an excuse for crummy measurement; it’s a reason to be careful with measurement. A modicum of creativity can get you there. Want to know what low-income families pay for health insurance locally? Go to healthcare.gov. Need an estimate for local low-income housing costs? Check craigslist.org. Check with local charitable organizations to find out what low-income families pay for food or home energy. You don’t need a PhD or advanced econometric skill to do sound affordability analysis.
WaterOne answered the affordability measurement challenge with a thoughtful, nuanced analysis that applied community values to the best available data. Adapting AR20 for WaterOne—WOAR20?—is a fine of example how utilities can put measurement principles into practice.
conventional approach to water affordability measurement (average bill as a
percentage of Median Household Income (%MHI) is deeply flawed, as I’ve blogged previously. Despite its well-document problems,
use of %MHI remains widespread—mainly
because it’s easy and familiar.
use publicly-available Consumer
Expenditure Survey data and Ordinary Least Squares regression. They’re
not especially sophisticated.
A trillion-dollar federal infrastructure package and a chance to reform the water sector
– Warning: mixed metaphors ahead –
Observers of America’s water, sewer, and stormwater systems have known for years that the nation faces a trillion-plus-dollar bill for repairs, replacements, and upgrades. I’ve long been skeptical about the prospect of federal funding alleviating that burden in any significant way. With Congress ideologically divided and its chambers split across parties, the idea of a major infrastructure program coming out of Washington would seem unlikely on its face.
But rumblings over the past eighteen months have made me reconsider. Last spring the White House released an infrastructure plan that called for significant investments in water.*
Just before the 2018 mid-term elections, Congress passed the bipartisan America’s Water Infrastructure Act, which signaled federal priorities for the water sector but stopped short of sending tens of billions into the nation’s pipes and canals. Then last week President Trump met with House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer and apparently agreed in principle on a $1-2 trillion federal infrastructure program.†
Little is known about the dimensions of the program, beyond the eye-popping figures. What might a huge federal infrastructure package mean for the water sector?
Back to an afterthought?
Transportation is the politician’s perennial infrastructure darling, as “roads and bridges” (Rosenbrigez) offer excellent credit-claiming opportunities for politicians who like to associate themselves with gleaming, highly visible projects. President Trump has made a career of putting his name on buildings, so we shouldn’t be surprised that he’d like to put his name on some Rosenbrigez, too. Although Pelosi and Schumer’s letter on infrastructure to the White House last week mentions “broadband, water, energy, schools, [and] housing,” transportation continues to grab the headlines: Time’s glibly declared that all $2 trillion was for Rosenbridgez.
Although water, sewer, and flood control systems are arguably more vital, much of that infrastructure is literally buried. Politicians aren’t clamoring to put their names on sewage treatment plants. Creating credit-claiming opportunities for water infrastructure is an ongoing challenge. If Washington is really going to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into infrastructure, water sector leaders will need to work hard to make sure their systems aren’t forsaken in favor of sexier transportation projects.
The promise & perils of fiscal federalism
Let’s assume for blogging’s sake that the water sector gets some major love (say, >$300 billion) in a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill. When contemplating such a massive federal capital infusion, it’s worth considering the last time Uncle Sam poured hundreds of billions into the water sector. The 1972 Clean Water Act and 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act included grants that provided as much as 90% matches for local investments in water and sewer infrastructure. The political genius behind the CWA and SDWA was that sweeping new environmental mandates came with considerable sweeteners in the form of federally-funded jobs in construction and environmental engineering. The federal funding made the new regulations politically palatable. From a policy perspective, the idea was for the federal funding to help create systems that local governments would operate, maintain, and upgrade in perpetuity.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked that way. One of the main reasons so much of America’s water infrastructure is in trouble is that there are strong structural disincentives for local leaders to invest adequately in water systems, as I’ve observed before. Maintaining water infrastructure doesn’t offer much of a credit-claiming opportunity, and local officials worry a great deal about being blamed for rate increases. Many of the organizations that operate water systems are ill-suited to the task; the institutions that govern and regulate water infrastructure are badly fragmented and often ineffective.
Attaching some strings
A federal water infrastructure funding package that fails to address the systemic factors that got us into this mess would be a wasted opportunity. Hundreds of billions of dollars might help shore up failing systems today, but would simply kick the problem down a generation: our children and grandchildren would face a similar infrastructure crisis in 2070, and justifiably curse their forebearers.
Rather than simply firing a money cannon at local water systems, federal leaders should use a massive funding package as leverage to reform the institutions that govern, regulate, and finance water infrastructure in America. In future posts I’ll explore some of the strings that Congress might consider attaching to their water infrastructure dollars.
*President Trump has since disowned his own plan. 🙄
†Still unclear is the small matter of how to raise a couple trillion dollars. Donald, Nancy, and Chuck are supposed to meet about that soon.