Every year, water utilities, engineers, and local governments work with the state to plan out where and how water infrastructure funding will be distributed across Michigan.
Yet historically, local residents and community-based organizations have been largely absent from the decision-making process on how these funds should be spent. As it happens, Michiganders is now wrapping up the opportunity to be a part of one such decision-making process, but it’s not always as simple as it seems.
Since its creation in 1996, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) has provided low-interest loans to public water systems to help finance the costs of maintaining and improving drinking water infrastructure.
Funded through a federal and state government partnership, each state administers its own program, loaning out funds to water systems that repay the loan and interest back into their state’s fund to support future projects. It’s not exactly a household name, but it has remained a critical funding source for maintaining clean and safe drinking water.
State revolving fund programs (SRFs) are the largest source of funding for the nation’s water infrastructure, but historically, many low-income communities have not seen the benefits, and the program has flown under the public radar. Now, with the infusion of $50 billion for water and wastewater projects from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, water advocates are focused on ensuring those dollars are directed to the most impacted communities. Yet, this historic funding opportunity can be difficult for communities to access and maneuver.
Across the country, communities face similar challenges in navigating the complexities of SRF programs. The first challenge is that this program operates on highly technical and policy-laden language, which creates a difficult point of entry for the public. Without a basic understanding of the program, there is little chance to know when, where, and how to make your voice heard.
Community outreach strategies often reach as far as they are required and stop short of deeper proactive education and engagement practices. And to research on one’s own requires the luxury of time and resources many do not have in the face of more urgent crises like flooding and affordability.
The most direct way to participate is through public comment periods, like the one ending soon for Michigan. Every state is required to publish a plan for funding distribution, known as the draft Intended Use Plan (IUP), which must be open to public review and feedback. However, this poses a second challenge since the relevant documents to review, which are different in every state, can be excessively long, difficult to understand without prior knowledge, or challenging to locate in the first place. Finally, a third challenge lies in the commenting process itself.
States vary widely in how they share the draft IUP and notify the public on when public hearings occur to speak directly to the state’s program administrators. And if you decide to submit a written comment, there are different degrees to which you will get a response. You might get a response directly, no response at all, or anything in between.
The strategies that states employ in their public engagement are certainly inconsistent across the country. But Michigan can learn from working examples of successful engagement among these inconsistencies. For example, in Wisconsin you will easily find all the documents under review, how and by when to submit comments, and links to recorded workshops explaining that year’s draft on their website.
New Jersey and Oregon convene groups of community advocates, utilities, and state program administrators consistently throughout the year so when the time comes to provide feedback, the community is well-equipped and prepared to participate. And advocates in California will be able to see details of each comment submitted – who commented, when it was submitted, the agency’s response, and what changes to the draft it resulted in, if any.
More community-based organizations have stepped into the SRF realm and created space for ourselves, partly due to the massive supplemental funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
And while some agencies might no longer be surprised by community presence at their meetings, feedback from across the country reflects the feeling that we are still not seen as equal partners in this work to improve our own communities’ water infrastructure. Rather than seeing this influx of opinions as crowding the table, state administrators should embrace the spotlight on their work and take this opportunity to create long-term partnerships with those who know their communities best.
Water infrastructure isn’t just about new pipes, treatment plants, and engineering – it’s about affordable water bills, safeguarding public health, and equitable job creation.
Communities that have been systematically disinvested from must be given all the resources they need to actively participate in ensuring these infrastructure investments are going where they’re needed most.
And although this vision of improved education, access, and outreach will undoubtedly require more capacity, it is this groundwork and commitment to community that will be the bedrock of our equitable water future.