Category Archives: Affordability

Willingness to Pay for a New Gravity-Driven Membrane Filter, Kenya

Brouwer R, Job FC, van der Kroon B, Johnston R. Comparing Willingness to Pay for Improved Drinking-Water Quality Using Stated Preference Methods in Rural and Urban Kenya. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2014 Nov 8.

BACKGROUND: Access to safe drinking water has been on the global agenda for decades. The key to safe drinking water is found in household water treatment and safe storage systems.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we assessed rural and urban household demand for a new gravity-driven membrane (GDM)drinking-water filter.

METHODS: A choice experiment (CE) was used to assess the value attached to the characteristics of a new GDM filter before marketing in urban and rural Kenya. The CE was followed by a contingent valuation (CV) question. Differences in willingness to pay (WTP) for the same filter design were tested between methods, as well as urban and rural samples.

RESULTS: The CV follow-up approach produces more conservative and statistically more efficient WTP values than the CE, with only limited indications of anchoring. The effect of the new filter technology on children with diarrhea is among the most important drivers behind choice behavior and WTP in both areas. The urban sample is willing to pay more in absolute terms than the rural sample irrespective of the valuation method. Rural households are more price sensitive, and willing to pay more in relative terms compared with disposable household income.

CONCLUSION: A differentiated marketing strategy across rural and urban areas is expected to increase uptake and diffusion of the new filter technology.

Click here for full paper (fee).

H.R.5659 — Water Supply Cost Savings Act

Water Supply Cost Savings Act or the Savings Act – Requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to: (1) update their programs that provide drinking water technical assistance by including information on cost-effective, innovative, and alternative drinking water delivery systems; and (2) disseminate information on the cost effectiveness of wells and well systems to communities and nonprofit organizations seeking federal funding for drinking water systems serving small communities (3,300 or fewer persons).

Requires applicants for federal grants or loans for those drinking water systems to certify that wells have been considered as an alternative drinking water supply.

H.R.5659 — Savings Act (Introduced in House – IH)HR 5659 IH

113th CONGRESS2d SessionH. R. 5659To reduce Federal, State, and local costs of providing high-quality drinking water to millions of Americans residing in rural communities by facilitating greater use of cost-effective well water systems, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESSeptember 18, 2014Mr. STUTZMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILLTo reduce Federal, State, and local costs of providing high-quality drinking water to millions of Americans residing in rural communities by facilitating greater use of cost-effective well water systems, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Water Supply Cost Savings Act’ or the `Savings Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that–

(1) the United States is facing a drinking water infrastructure funding crisis; the Environmental Protection Agency (the `EPA’) projects a $384 billion shortfall in funding over the next 20 years; and this funding challenge is particularly acute in rural America;

(2) there are 52,000 community water systems in the United States, of which 41,801 are small community water systems;

(3) EPA’s most recent Drinking Water Needs Survey placed the shortfall in drinking water infrastructure funding for small communities (3,300 or fewer persons) at $64.5 billion;

(4) small communities often cannot finance the construction and maintenance of drinking water systems because the cost per resident for this investment would be prohibitively expensive;

(5) drought conditions have placed significant strains on existing surface water supplies, and many communities across the country are now considering the use of groundwater and community well systems to provide drinking water; and

(6) 42 million Americans receive their drinking water from individual wells, and millions more rely upon community well systems for their drinking water.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of the Congress that–

(1) providing rural communities with the knowledge and resources necessary to fully utilize wells and community well systems can save local, State, and Federal governments and taxpayers billions of dollars over the next two decades;

(2) wells and community well systems can provide safe and affordable drinking water to millions of Americans; and

(3) the Federal Government lacks the resources to finance the drinking water infrastructure needs of millions of citizens residing in rural America, and wells and community well systems can help significantly to close this funding gap.

SEC. 4. DRINKING WATER TECHNOLOGY CLEARINGHOUSE.

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Agriculture shall–

(1) update existing programs of the Agency and the Department of Agriculture designed to provide drinking water technical assistance to include information on cost-effective, innovative, and alternative drinking water delivery systems, including systems that are supported by wells; and

(2) disseminate information on the cost effectiveness of wells and well systems to communities and not-for-profit organizations seeking Federal funding for drinking water systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons.

SEC. 5. WATER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT.

In any application for a Federal grant or loan for a drinking water system serving 3,300 or fewer persons, a unit of local government or not-for-profit organization shall certify that it has considered, as an alternative drinking water supply, drinking water delivery systems sourced by publicly owned individual wells, shared wells, and community wells.

SEC. 6. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Agriculture shall report to Congress on–

(1) the utilization of innovative and alternative drinking water systems described in this Act;

(2) the range of cost savings for communities utilizing innovative and alternative drinking water systems described in this Act; and

(3) the utilization of drinking water technical assistance programs operated by the Agency and the Department.

 

USEPA delays action on “affordability”

For several decades now USEPA has continued to push consolidation and variable water rates or single tarriff pricing to force water and wastewater systems in the United States to raise water rates. The so called “affordability” issue has been an ongoing unresolved issue for many years. Why? Becuase a robust economy is needed for sustainable water and wastewater systems. But USEPA wants us to continue to believe that it only (the federal government) and more regulation are needed.

USEPA has used drinking water policy such as its affordability criteria as a very effective technique for putting cities and states “in their place”….that is, under the federal government’s thumb of control. Robert Perciaseppe, who orchestrated the drinking water program “redirection” of USEPA in the 1990’s, continues to position the agency as the final arbiter on everything drinking water, including how much it should cost (based on the elusive median household income). It has been 17 years since the SDWA amendments of 1996 were enacted, launching an unprecedented decade-long over-reach of government regulation of drinking water, as well as providing a launching pad for jamming through a much larger leftist progressive socialist (whatever you want to call it) agenda.

More to come on this history….

The State of California is bankrupt?

“At end of the week, California’s State Auditor released its annual financial report for the state (click here). The report, compiled by Auditor Elaine Howle, found the state has a net worth of -$127.2 billion. If the state were a business, it would be a candidate for liquidation.” Click here for full news article…..

Public unions bankrupted San Bernardino, California

“How does a city of 200,000 people go bankrupt? In the case of San Bernardino, CA, the answer is unsustainable pension obligations pushed by union-backed politicians.”

Click here for full news article….

Harrisburg (PA) slush fund, financial woes the fruit of progressive/liberal policy?

An interesting expose of the financial dealings of the Harrisburg Authority…..click here….

Oceanside (CA) votes to raise water, sewer rates….

Water rates to rise ~6.5% and sewer rates up ~5%…….click here for more.