Can Anyone Spare a Dime for the Future?

Years ago, a majority of Californians took greater personal responsibility for their wastes. Water came from a local well. Sewage went into a back-yard septic tank and trash was burned in an incinerator or hauled to a local dump at the edge of town. Today, a rapidly expanding population, economic growth and environmental concerns have made these essential operations a vital element of government services.

Unfortunately, a growing number of California cities have failed to invest in their infrastructure needs. Without immediate attention, the consequences will profoundly affect our quality of life for generations.

Five years ago, the Governor’s Task Force on Infrastructure projected a 10-year public works deficit of more than $50 billion. That gap has only grown in the ensuing years. Our Golden State has a huge bill coming due for the neglect of sewer systems and trash facilities. Roads, bridges, water-delivery systems and municipal facilities are similarly in need of attention.

How big an issue is it? A few statistics from the city of Los Angeles illustrate the problems statewide. First, the sewers. By midnight tonight, more than 440 million gallons of waste water will have passed through about 6,000 miles of Los Angeles’ antiquated sewer system. Voters in the 1970s and early ‘80s routinely voted down sewer-bond measures. The relationship between an aging sewer system and the pollution of Santa Monica Bay was not grasped. With time and the tolerance of the bay running down, the city finally made a commitment to modernize its sewer system and, in so doing, to clean up the bay.

The city has embarked on a $3.4-billion sewer improvement program that will result in a state-of-the-art waste-water facility. And, in November, 1987, Los Angeles stopped dumping sludge, the solid remains from sewage, into the bay waters off our coastline. Although the costs are enormous, Los Angeles is in fact playing an expensive and high-stakes game of catch-up for failing to support earlier efforts to upgrade its infrastructure.

With its capital improvement program in place, Los Angeles is fundamentally on track with its sewer system. However, the city is in much poorer shape with respect to solid waste--the stuff we put in garbage cans. We must address this issue today and not wait for a California version of the now-symbolic “Mobro” barge that cruised the East Coast in search of a site to unload its cargo of trash.

Greater Los Angeles generates more than 14 million tons of trash every year that has to go somewhere both out of sight and environmentally safe. Meanwhile, we’re running out of places to put it. In less than five years, the city-owned landfill will be filled to the top.

The long-term solution to our trash problems requires a major commitment from the public and private sectors to reduce the amount of material going into the waste stream in order to relieve the pressure on our limited landfill reserves. Next, we must recover valuable natural resources by recycling. Market incentives are also needed for products using recycled materials.

The cost of public works investment is substantial, but so is the cost of underinvestment. Thus, while there are many needs and never enough money, public officials must inform the public shareholders in our municipal corporation of the depreciation of their infrastructure assets. Investment in these essential facilities is as much a state responsibility as a local concern because of their importance to our economic vitality and quality of life. Leadership in Sacramento is needed.

First and foremost, we must initiate, at the state level, a comprehensive, multi-year capital outlay planning process for each infrastructure element to meet California needs. Next, innovative financing mechanisms to assist local governments in financing capital needs should be explored. For example, the state could aggressively pursue “bond pooling,” in which the small bond issues of local governmental entities are assembled into larger issues. This strategy improves marketability and reduces costs for local issuers.

Through appropriate legislation, the state could selectively insure public infrastructure debt through an independent insurance fund supported by premiums charged to participating entities. This would lower the interest cost to borrowers.

Finally, to ensure that state and local governments can finance vital projects like schools, roads, prisons and water facilities for their citizens at the lowest possible cost, tax-exempt bonds must be protected. Nationally, the Public Securities Assn. estimates that $27.5 billion in additional costs to local taxpayers would result if this exemption were lost. California should join the growing number of states that have endorsed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to keep Congress from taxing these bonds.

If California’s basic transportation, water supply and waste disposal systems continue to deteriorate, the state’s vibrant economy, as well as its heralded quality of life, will erode. We must maintain a continuing investment in our public infrastructure. Today’s headlines that describe collapsing sewer pipes, gridlocked roads and trash with nowhere to go are a consequence of our failure to provide for California’s future. It is up to our leaders to tell us the facts and the costs. Today’s investment is tomorrow’s quality of life.