***water aff – infrastructure funding –

starter pack
***case
1ac – water infrastructure
 1ac – inherency

Bidens’ water infrastructure policy will create new regulations but won’t provide
enough funding- it magnifies the affordability crisis and results in rate increases and
service cuts
Tamborrino 21 (Kelsey, 2/26. Energy reporter and author of Morning Energy. "Biden's water
challenge" https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2021/02/26/bidens-water-challenge-
793621)

BIDEN'S WATER CHALLENGE: The Biden administration will ask Congress to spend trillions to renovate
the country's infrastructure. But even the most optimistic lobbyists don't expect the water sector to win
a big enough share of that money to cover the cost of upgrading the country's aging and failing water
infrastructure — let alone building expensive treatment systems, removing lead service lines and
hardening low-lying water utilities to withstand the growing threats from climate change.

As Pro's Annie Snider reports this morning, without addressing the affordability crisis head on, the
administration risks cutting off the poorest Americans from access to drinking water and wastewater
services if it implements new regulations that could add hundreds of millions of dollars of costs for
water utilities.

"A new regulation to make sure that your drinking water is safe or your wastewater is treated for a
chemical that would make everybody safer will come at a cost," said Adam Krantz, president of the
National Association of Clean Water Agencies. "To comply with that cost will demand a rate increase,
and that rate increase will arguably hit those who are poorer in a greater way, in terms of their relative-
to-income ability to pay."
 1ac – domestic water
Advantage one is domestic water-
We’re on the brink of a nationwide infrastructure crisis and federal financial
assistance is the only way to solve- it resolves short-term liquidity and provides long-
term predictability necessary for ensuring equitable recovery and clean water
Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

Water is the lifeblood of communities, the environment, and the United States’ economy. While always
essential, water has taken an elevated role in public health and well-being since the COVID-19 crisis.
Water must be a central part of the recovery .

Like so many other parts of the economy, the

water sector has felt the effects from compounding crises of the
pandemic and a nationwide recession, including utilities’ increased costs and declining revenue . On the cost
side, in addition to ongoing operations, maintenance, and regulatory compliance costs, utilities have

increased expenditures associated with emergency operations during the pandemic . On the revenue side, large
customers such as convention centers, industry and manufacturing facilities, sports arenas, hotels, schools, restaurants, and office buildings are all
operating at drastically reduced capacity, which translates to reductions in water consumption and rate
revenues. Devastating economic repercussions have made it more difficult for people to pay their utility
bills, further restricting cash flow. To make the matter worse, rising unemployment and personal income loss have
exacerbated already difficult challenges for many low-income consumers. Widespread water bill debts
have resulted in very real consequences on families who, in some cases, may have their water shut off
for nonpayment.

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) estimate that drinking water utilities
will experience a negative aggregate financial cost of $13.9 billion, or 16.9 percent, by 2021, due to revenue losses and
increased operational expenses during the pandemic .1 The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) estimates that the
resulting financial cost on wastewater utilities will be even higher, around $16.8 billion, including a 20 percent drop in sewer revenues.2 This

unprecedented disruption to utility operations will delay needed infrastructure investments that are
necessary to drive economic growth, safeguard public health, and protect the environment . Without
federal assistance, utilities will likely need to reduce staff and raise customer rates to make up for their
financial losses.

Smaller and rural utilities are in even more dire circumstances . Lower-capacity utilities may not
survive extended crisis conditions without assistance . A survey conducted early in the pandemic showed that only 30
percent of rural utilities indicated that they could continue to pay for all system costs beyond a year if
the revenue losses continued due to the COVID-19 pandemic .3 These systems are also uniquely
vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks. More than 43 percent of these systems rely on one full-time operator or part-time staff, operators, and/or
volunteers.4

The current situation facing water utilities across the United States did not just happen. Decades of federal underinvestment in water
infrastructure have left state and local governments to manage and update water systems largely on
their own . Between 1977 and 2017, the federal government’s contribution to water infrastructure
capital spending fell from 31 percent in 1977 to just four percent in 2017, while federal spending on other
infrastructure categories has been much higher and remained roughly stable. Despite local utilities’ best
efforts to make do with what resources they have, the rate of water main breaks in the US rose between 2012
and 2018 by 27 percent, to roughly 300,000 breaks per year —equivalent to a break more than every two minutes.5 Drinking

water systems currently lose at least six billion gallons of treated water per day , 2.1 trillion gallons per year.6 The US
also lost an estimated $7.6 billion of treated water in 2019 due to leaks. As water infrastructure
deteriorates and service disruptions increase, annual costs to US households for water and wastewater
failures will be seven times higher in 20 years than they are today —from $2 billion in 2019 to $14 billion by 2039.7 If this
trend continues, the nation’s water systems will become less reliable, breaks and failures will become
more common, vulnerabilities to disruptions will compound, and the nation’s public health, safety,
economic recovery, and long-term growth will be at risk .

Clean, affordable, and accessible water and wastewater services and flood protection are essential to
public health and thriving communities . Water and wastewater systems are two of the greatest public
health achievements in this country and cannot take them for granted . While COVID-19 emergency federal assistance has
flowed to other affected sectors like transit and air travel— Congress has provided very little direct, targeted relief for the

water sector .8 This is a serious oversight with costly implications for all. Dozens of industries like food production, mining,
manufacturing, and health care depend on water and wastewater services to function. If these and
other sectors lost access to water and wastewater services, the economic and public health effects
would be devastating. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that the public health benefits from safe drinking
water and wastewater treatment are immeasurable . And even before the crisis, over 2 million people in the US still lacked reliable
access to water.9

These inequitable realities only underscore what the nation already knows: there can be no equitable recovery from the COVID-19
pandemic without a focus on water . To recover stronger from this crisis and achieve safe, reliable, and affordable water, there must be an
approach that coordinates between local, state, and federal governments. The US Water Alliance believes that any recovery plan must include
water investments as a central component to achieve the following outcomes:

• Make Water More Stable . Federal recovery efforts must address the short-term financial shortfalls
and the long-term structural challenges in the water sector. In the short term, water systems need increased
liquidity to make up for lost revenue to keep the taps flowing and capital improvements on schedule.
The sector also needs long-term support, including dedicated funding and technical assistance to
better prepare and fortify water utilities from future crises .

Make Water Safer. While advanced water treatment technologies have allowed people in the US to enjoy some of the best drinking water in the world,
challenges remain, particularly related to contaminants like lead and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The
federal government must take a holistic approach and make historic investments across federal agencies aimed at
eliminating emerging and legacy contaminants in the water sector—especially in communities of color,
rural and urban low-income communities, and tribal communities .

Make Water More Affordable and Accessible. There are significant structural and institutional barriers to
water affordability and access. Low-income communities and communities of color in both rural and
urban areas are disproportionately affected by a lack of access to safe and affordable drinking water and
wastewater services. The federal government needs to take an active role in addressing water
affordability and access through increased monitoring, data collection, funding , and programs to
eliminate structural inequities in the water sector .

• Make Water Smarter. Technology adoption can help water and wastewater systems deliver critical public health services that are safer, more
affordable, and more resilient. Financial and regulatory constraints have created obstacles to widespread adoption

of tools that can save ratepayers and utilities’ money, ensure better service, and improve environmental
outcomes. The federal government can incentivize utility modernization and research in the water
sector. From support for pilot projects to research grants for moonshot technology ideas modeled on
existing defense and energy programs, the whole water sector can come into the 21st century.

Lead contamination causes 400,000 deaths a year domestically

Belluz 18 (Julia, Vox's senior health correspondent. March 30. https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/3/15/171079lead24/lead-health-adults-heart-problems)

The ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan, is a reminder that lead exposure remains a toxic, irreversible
threat to children’s brains, even in otherwise wealthy countries. After the city switched to a new water
supply to cut costs, thousands of children suffered from lead exposure and the mayor declared a state of
emergency in 2015 over the disaster.

New research published March 12 in The Lancet suggests the water crisis likely harmed adults too — in
particular, their hearts .

The study estimated that more than 400,000 — or 18 percent — of all deaths in the US every year can
be linked to lead exposure from all sources. Some 250,000 of those deaths are from cardiovascular
disease, while 185,000 were related to coronary artery disease.

That’s about 10 times more than the current estimates of lead-related deaths — and it suggests, lead
study author Bruce Lanphear of Simon Fraser University, said, “Lead exposure appears to be a major but
largely ignored risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death from cardiovascular disease — especially
coronary heart disease.”

“This is huge,” said Mona Hanna-Attisha, a pediatrician in Flint whose research helped expose the water
crisis there. “It’s time our policies and practices caught up with the science, and we truly invested in lead
elimination not only for our children today but also for decades to come.”

The participants in the study, who were adults in the late 1980s, were exposed to lead through sources
like paint, gasoline, water, or soil, potentially starting in childhood and lasting throughout their lives.
And there was a strong association between people with higher blood levels of lead and a higher risk of
death, especially from cardiovascular complications.

While smoking, a lack of exercise, and an unhealthy diet are certainly important contributors to
cardiovascular disease, health researchers are now warning that lead exposure needs to be considered
too.
“These findings throw one important risk factor into the mix [for cardiovascular problems], which has
largely been overlooked until now,” said Philip J. Landrigan, dean of global health at the Icahn School of
Medicine at Mount Sinai, who wrote the study’s related commentary.

Lead damages brain cells — but it can wreak havoc on the blood vessels too

Lead is a naturally occurring heavy metal found in mineral deposits in the Earth’s crust. It’s also a
poisonous substance for humans, accumulating in our teeth and bones. At higher levels, lead can
register in blood tests.

People are typically exposed to lead by breathing in lead-contaminated dust, drinking water from leaded
pipes, or eating from cans that have been soldered with lead. For children, there are other risks: eating
soil, or paint chips, for example. “Children’s innate curiosity and their age-appropriate hand-to-mouth
behavior result in their mouthing and swallowing lead-containing or lead-coated objects,” the World
Health Organization summed up.

Inside the body, lead can slip into human cells easily and wreak havoc. In children, particularly under the
age of 10 or babies in the womb, the metal can pass through the blood-brain barrier and kill off brain
cells. Children absorb up to five times as much lead as adults, and with their smaller bodies and
developing nervous systems, it doesn’t take much to sicken them.

“That is why children who have been exposed to lead in early life have loss of IQ or shortening of
attention span or other cognitive or mental health problems,” Landrigan explained.

There’s also no real cure for lead poisoning. Chelation therapy can reduce the amount of lead circulating
in the bloodstream — but this hasn’t been proven to improve children’s intellectual abilities or
behaviors after lead damage has been done.

Since the 1970s, lead exposure has been declining worldwide after the metal was eliminated from paint
and gasoline in the wake of research exposing its health effects.

Researchers have also known that lead can enter blood vessels in both adults and children, harming the
endothelial cells that line the vessels. This process hardens arteries and causes plaque to form in blood
vessels, increasing blood pressure and the risk of heart disease and stroke. Meanwhile, lead can damage
kidneys, which play an important role in regulating blood pressure — also increasing a person’s risk of
heart disease and stroke, Landrigran explained.

This is why the Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization, and the National
Toxicology Program out of the National Institutes of Health have all determined that high levels of lead
exposure increase the risk of high blood pressure and coronary heart disease, Lanphear said.

But lead’s potential harms to adults and their hearts have gotten relatively little attention among the
public and policymakers. Lanphear and his co-authors hope to change that.

A high level of lead exposure was associated with a 70 percent increase in cardiovascular disease
mortality risk

For the study, the researchers gathered data on a nationally representative sample of 14,000 adults who
were enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1988 and 1994, and
followed up until December 31, 2011. The study participants had undergone a slew of medical tests,
including quantifying the lead levels in their blood. Their health data was also linked up with records
about their cause of death, when relevant.

Lead in the blood is typically measured in µg/dL (micrograms per deciliter) or in parts per billion.
Researchers used to think 5 µg/dL — or 50 parts per billion, about the same concentration as 100
tablespoons in an Olympic swimming pool — was a safe blood lead level. But agencies like the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention have recently determined there’s actually no known safe blood
concentration for children.

Lanphear and his colleagues believe the same may be true for adults. In the study, they found a strong
correlation between lead in the blood and a higher risk of death from cardiovascular complications:
Comparing the group with the lowest level of lead exposure (1 µg/dL or 10 parts per billion) to the group
with the highest (6.7 µg/dL or 67 parts per billion), the researchers found a 70 percent increase in
cardiovascular disease mortality risk and a doubling of mortality from coronary heart disease. This
indicates that more lead exposure may lead to more heart trouble, and also that there is no safe
threshold for lead exposure.

Even after the researchers controlled for potential confounding factors — including age, sex, ethnic
origin, where people lived, smoking status, diabetes, alcohol intake, and even household income — the
association held.

The impact is incalculable because it makes every other problem worse

Yglesias 19 (Matt, senior correspondent, Vox. "The case for fully cleaning up America’s lead problem"
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/12/18661193/lead-pipes-paint-flint-michigan-usa-
cost-fix)

We’ve grown too daunted to solve America’s lead crisis because of the sheer amount of money
necessary to clean it up. But the fact that it’s a really big problem — one that does inordinate harm to
children, in particular — is exactly why it’s worth trying to solve.

As the 2020 Democratic presidential primary heats up, and candidates stake out their policy positions,
every candidate should propose a solution. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián
Castro, to his credit, is proposing a big, comprehensive plan to tackle lead. But the amount of money
he’s proposing to dedicate to the problem, while large compared to today’s inadequate efforts, is still
relatively modest compared to the scale of the problem.

We know lead is a dangerous neurotoxin. Regulators years ago forced an end to its routine use as an
additive to paint and gasoline or its use as a metal of choice in water pipes. But many old houses are full
of old lead paint. Lead water pipes run beneath the streets of many of our houses. Most insidiously of
all, though our cars no longer spew lead into the atmosphere, all that old lead from the gasoline of the
1940s, ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s didn’t vanish. It settled on the ground, where it contaminates the dirt and soil
of every place that had a lot of automobile traffic during the generation following World War II.

The federal government has poked and prodded at the problem of lead for decades, and the acute
water crisis that struck Flint, Michigan, gave it national attention. But nobody has ever really tried to
tackle the problem in a way that is commensurate to its scale or significance.
Really cleaning up America’s pipes and paint would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Cleaning up the
worst-contaminated soil would cost hundreds of billions more. We should spend the money. The
cognitive impairments induced by lead exposure likely cost the country vast sums of money in extra
health care treatments, extra crime, and increased special education needs. They likely cost individuals
billions of dollars in lost wages. Children exposed to more lead get worse grades in school, are more
likely to become teen mothers, and are more likely to drink recklessly.

These lead-related problems collectively hold back America’s human capital in a much more profound
way than any imperfection of the school system or anything that’s going to be addressed through the
tax code . Getting really serious about it might cost us half a trillion dollars over a decade, but that’s not
out of scale with what politicians are willing to commit to really big problems. And this is a really big
problem.

There is too much lead almost everywhere

The water crisis in Flint put lead poisoning on the national political radar.

But even though the images of undrinkable water were alarming, the fragmentary data collected by the
federal government reveals that high levels of lead toxicity are a fairly common occurrence in many
counties throughout the country.

What’s more, as you can clearly see on the map, lots of states — including the three with the highest
populations — don’t even bother to report on this.

Flint has become the poster child for lead poisoning, but the city isn’t even close to being the worst in
terms of lead toxicity. The problem became sufficiently infamous that families eventually avoided the
tainted water. Although lead pipes are fairly widespread in America, they don’t automatically cause
contamination in the water. In Flint’s case, officials’ mistakes in treating the water corroded the pipes
and released the lead — a tragic but mercifully relatively rare situation.

Unfortunately, lead gets into children’s bloodstreams not only through toxic water but also through old
paint chips and, critically, through contaminated soil that’s full of small bits of lead left behind by
industrial activity or gasoline often decades in the past.

Many rural areas have sky-high rates of lead poisoning; in one county in Alabama, most children tested
positive for lead.

This sounds bad — and is bad — but it sharply understates the case.

The standard of considering 5 micrograms of lead per liter of blood to be “lead poisoning” is an
improvement on the old 10 micrograms standard, but it’s not really grounded in science; 5 and 10 just
both happen to be round numbers. As best we can tell, lead is harmful to children’s brains at all levels .

There is no safe amount of lead in children’s blood

Children in essentially every city in America are being exposed to hazardous levels of toxic lead , and
very little is being done about it.
At the most severe levels, according to the World Health Organization, “lead attacks the brain and
central nervous system to cause coma, convulsions, and even death.” Thankfully, very little lead
poisoning that severe is happening in the United States. But lead’s impact on the brain — particularly
the developing brains of children and fetuses — is severe and systematic, “resulting in reduced [IQ],
behavioral changes such as shortening of attention span and increased antisocial behavior, and reduced
educational attainment.” At least mild versions of these impacts are felt at even low levels of exposure
“that cause no obvious symptoms and that previously were considered safe.”

Studying the impact of very low levels of lead exposure is more challenging than studying the most
severe cases. But the research that has been done appears to show that even very small amounts of
lead toxicity do real harm.

Joe Braun and his co-authors found that within the range of 2 and 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter,
more blood lead is associated with higher levels of ADHD.

Then Joel Nigg et al. studied a population with blood levels “slightly below United States and Western
Europe population exposure averages, with a mean of 0.73 and a maximum of 2.2 μg/dL,” and found
that even at this range, more lead means more ADHD.

Scientific understanding of this issue is limited by the fact that it’s hard to chemically detect very low
levels of lead in the blood. But to the extent that scientists have been able to study low levels of lead
exposure, they have found that there is no safe point. More lead is always worse , and the level of
blood lead enjoyed by the typical American child is at least somewhat hazardous.

Because the harms of lead come by damaging brain development, the consequences are also
extremely widespread and sprawl across multiple policy domains .

Lead makes everything worse by damaging brains

The most famous link between lead and social problems is about crime.

Kevin Drum renewed interest in the lead-crime link in an excellent Mother Jones article in 2016 and
followed up last year with some more cross-sectional international data making the same point. And the
best study yet was published last July in the American Economic Journal by Stephen Billings and Kevin
Schnepel.

Using administrative data from Charlotte, North Carolina, they were able to compare outcomes for
children with a variety of levels of lead exposure, but also able to compare children with high levels of
lead toxicity who were randomly assigned to get treatment to those who were not treated.

The association between lead levels and crime is striking, as is the extent to which receiving treatment
breaks the association — a strong indication that this is a real causal impact of lead , and not simply a
consequence of the lower average socioeconomic status of lead-exposed children.

What’s particularly important to understand about the lead-crime link, however, is that lead isn’t some
kind of magic crime-causing molecule.

Rather, it appears to be associated with increased levels of criminal activity simply because of general
cognitive impairment. That’s why even low levels of lead exposure are associated with more ADHD
diagnoses. And a study by Anna Aizer, Janet Currie, Peter Simon, and Patrick Vivier of students in Rhode
Island showed that modest reductions in lead even from already low levels were associated with better
reading scores in schools. A study by Jessica Wolpaw Reyes of Amherst found that lead exposure is
associated with teen pregnancy, early initiation of sexual behavior, teen drinking, and general aggressive
behavior.

In other words, lead is contributing to all kinds of problems at essentially all levels of exposure. The most
severe lead exposure cases tend to come from old lead paint, and the most obvious lead problems come
from contaminated water, but there are bits of old lead left over from leaded gasoline and certain
factories in all kinds of places — especially in Northeastern and Midwestern cities and near major
highways. The lead problem is everywhere, but efforts to tackle it have been sporadic at best.

Julián Castro has a big lead plan

The biggest bullet point in Castro’s proposals is to try to get $5 billion per year for 10 years “to
remediate lead in paint and soil and replace lead pipes in areas of highest need.”

He’s also endorsing Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act that would help
homeowners and landlords defray the cost of lead abatement. He wants a $100 million per year boost in
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and is
calling for a suite of changes to remediate lead hazards in government-owned structures, including,
most notably, public schools and public housing. Last but by no means least, Castro calls for making
childhood lead testing and lead treatment to be made a bigger priority in the existing Medicaid program
and in any future Medicare-for-all system.

The lead item in Castro’s plan is a little bit dull by the standards of a campaign proposal, but it likely
draws on his practical experience in the federal government: “Convene a Presidential Taskforce on Lead
in Communities, charged with eliminating lead poisoning as a major public health threat and
coordinating the inter-agency response in partnership with state and local governments.”

That’s not exactly visionary stuff, but it reflects how the government actually works with lead-related
programs scattered across various agencies and much of the practical responsibility resting with state
and local governments. Many of these programs are worthy (their effectiveness is demonstrated by a lot
of the existing lead research literature), but there’s never really been a president who’s made them a
major priority — and thus signaled to agency heads that they should be treated as a major priority.

In terms of the president’s actual powers of office, this is what he or she can do: set priorities, and
dedicate time and energy to specific problems. Sweeping legislation is something you can ask for, but
there’s no telling if you’ll ever get it. But as long as presidents are drawing up legislative wish lists,
there’s a strong case for asking for even more than Castro has put in his plan.

Truly eliminating lead would be expensive — and worth it

The main reason the lead problem has not been comprehensively tackled (even though it’s well-
understood scientifically) is that it would require a lot of money.

In 2000, a Cabinet-level task force suggested that all lead paint in America could be eliminated by
spending $17 billion per year for 10 years. In today’s money, that would be more like a $25 billion per
year program.
Replacing all lead pipes in municipal water systems could cost somewhere between “a few billion to $50
billion,” according to Fitch Ratings, a bond firm that has considerable expertise in the economics of
municipal water grids.

Nobody really knows how much it would cost to clean up contaminated soil, in part because most cities
don’t bother to measure lead contamination. But extrapolation from some of Howard Mielke’s work in
New Orleans suggests that $10 billion per year for 10 years could probably eliminated the worst
contamination.

Spending $400 billion over 10 years — and realistically continuing at least a healthy fraction of that
spending further into the future to keep chipping away at the soil problem — would be no joke.

But the return on investment would likely be large. The cost would be about half of what many
Democrats are proposing to spend on federal matching funds to make college tuition free and about a
quarter of the fiscal cost of the Trump tax cuts. The long-term educational benefits of helping children
avoid brain damage are unquestionably going to be larger than providing more generous subsidies for
college tuition. And the long-term growth and dynamism of the national economy will fundamentally be
driven more by a smarter, healthier population than by a lower corporate tax rate.

You can, of course, try to pencil out the cost-benefit analysis in a more precise way. Drum calculates that
a 10 percent drop in the crime rate associated with lead abatement would generate $150 billion per
year in benefits. A 2009 study by Elise Gould suggested that eliminating lead paint alone would generate
somewhere between $41 billion and $199 billion in reduced expenditures on health care and special
education, plus $25 billion to $35 billion in extra tax revenue. That tax revenue comes from higher
lifetime earnings, conferring a very large $165 billion to $233 billion benefit to the children themselves.

These individual-level earnings estimates may be missing the biggest part of the story by extrapolating
from individual-level effects. The main reason for these higher earnings is likely that childhood lead
exposure reduces IQ, which is modestly correlated with higher lifetime income. But as George Mason
University economist Garrett Jones argues in his book Hive Mind, the correlation is much stronger when
you look at the level of whole countries.

The impact of lead on things like crime, teen pregnancy, and underage drinking reflect the fact that
cognitive impairments make people more impulsive and less cooperative, which matters for national
prosperity on a collective level and not just an individual one. In other words, while helping one child
avoid lead improves her ability to get ahead, helping every child do so improves the overall
circumstances that everyone faces.

The lead problem , in short, is a genuinely social problem — not just an individual one that happens
to disproportionately impact low-income communities that may not be able to afford to address it —
with widespread benefits whose total scale is almost incalculable . Tackling the problem would take a
lot of money for something we’re not used to thinking of as a major issue. But for a public health policy
that’s also an education policy and a crime policy and wage policy, it looks downright cheap .
Geographic and economic inequality drives polarization
Florida 18 (Richard, co-founder and editor at large of CityLab and a senior editor at The Atlantic. He is
a University Professor and Director of Cities at the University of Toronto’s Martin Prosperity Institute,
and a Distinguished Fellow at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate. Jan 25. “America's
Polarization Threatens to Undo Us" https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/americas-polarization-
threatens-to-undo-us/551483/)

On top of America’s long-running political divide between red and blue states, and its widening
economic divide between the rich and the poor, there is a troubling gap between its geographic
winners and losers . The U nited S tates is growing spatially more unequal, in ways that are ripping the
country apart and threaten to undermine prosperity for all of us. New data released earlier this week by Mark Muro and Jacob Whiton of the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan
Policy Program get to the heart of the matter. Bigger cities are prospering more than smaller cities, and much, much more than rural areas. And the trends are accelerating. Between 2010 and
2016, the 53 largest metropolitan areas accounted for two-thirds of growth in economic output and almost three-quarters of job growth, despite making up just 56 percent of the country’s
population. Between 2014 and 2016, these same metros accounted for 72 percent of economic growth and 74 percent of job growth. On the flip side, small metros—those with fewer than

Rural areas saw net population decline

250,000 people—saw their share of the nation’s economic output shrink by 6.5 percent between 2010 and 2016.

over this same period, and in 2015, saw their modest rate of employment growth actually decrease. The
political repercussions of these trends are profound . The growing divide between large, dense, diverse
winners in the knowledge economy and the rest of the country has fueled the populist political climate
that landed Donald Trump in office and put conservative Republicans in control of a large share of
governors’ mansions and state legislatures. As my Atlantic colleague Ron Brownstein points out in a recent essay for CNN, the voters who
put this cast of characters in power are overwhelmingly from economically lagging areas . Trump won an
overwhelming share of U.S. counties, 2,600 of them, five times more than Clinton. But Clinton’s seemingly meager 500 counties accounted for 72 percent of the nation’s growth in economic
output and two-thirds of its job growth between 2014 and 2016. Indeed, Clinton won 79 of the 100 counties that saw the greatest net economic growth over that period, and 76 of the top 100

The rub is that the declining parts of America now control our politics, and not just nationally,
in job growth.

but also in the states. As Brownstein sums up: “ The nation is poised for even greater tension between an
economic order that increasingly favors the largest places—and a political dynamic that, for now,
sublimates them to the smaller places that are economically falling behind .” Far from Making America Great Again, Trump
and the GOP are putting into place a backward-looking economic and social policy that threatens to
undermine the key pillars of American innovation and economic prosperity. They are curtailing immigration and
excluding global talent; slashing federal spending for r esearch and d evelopment; lashing out at gay and
women’s rights; cutting back on spending for state universities ; and making efforts to undermine and
preempt cities. Once America’s innovative engine is dismantled, and talented people start to go elsewhere, it will be hard to put it back together again. For the first time in a very
long time—perhaps since the Civil War—America’s divides threaten to put it on the wrong side of history . Moreover, cities are

not immune to this populist backlash, no matter how much they think they are. Back when Trump was making reality TV shows and venting about Barack
Obama’s birth certificate, Rob Ford was elected mayor of Toronto, one of the fastest-growing, most technologically advanced, diverse and socially progressive places on the planet. He was
elected by a multicultural, suburban populist coalition that felt it was being left behind by a small group of downtown urban elites. As I said then, if Ford could happen in Toronto, more and
worse are likely to follow. Trump is not likely to be the end of this trend. It may even take root in U.S. cities. That’s because the dynamics underlying the rise of populism are broad and
encompassing. They are ricocheting through places like Toronto and much of Europe (notably the U.K. with Brexit), as well as the United States. Recent studies find a hauntingly similar divide

between urban and rural areas across the U.K. The political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris painstakingly document how such spatial inequality sowed
the seeds of a backlash from lagging places and rural areas across Europe and much of the advanced world. This spatially-
induced backlash manifests more along cultural and political lines than economic ones. Study after study has shown that the great majority of
populist voters, including Trump voters, are working-class or middle-class, and even affluent. What distinguishes them is that they are concentrated in places
that are falling behind. Their political backlash takes the form of a cultural turn against the values that
cities have come to represent, especially openness, diversity, tolerance, and inclusion . Although there are policies that
could help mitigate these trends, the depth of the spatial divide in the United States means that none of them are very feasible politically. One way to lessen it would

be via federal strategies to redistribute economic activity across more places . But there is no way that is happening with Trump and
the Republicans in power. Not only are they committed to serving the interests of the rich, they have also risen to power by exploiting our country’s divisions. The last thing they would want to
do is heal them.
That causes extinction- polarization caused by inequality and perceived loss of
community undermines international stability and governance of emerging tech-
amplifies every risk
WEF 17 (World Economic Forum. "The Global Risks Report 2017"
www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR17_Report_web.pdf)

The combination of economic inequality and political polarization threatens to amplify global risks , fraying the
social solidarity on which the legitimacy of our economic and political systems rests. New economic systems and
policy paradigms are urgently needed to address the sources of popular disenchantment.20 These could
include more effective human capital policies, to enable more people to benefit from skill-biased
technological change; better public goods (whether publicly or privately provided) to address the ambitions of the growing middle class
around the world; and more responsive governance systems to empower individuals at the local level without

sacrificing the many benefits of globalization. Society: Rebuild ing Communities Issues of identity and culture were
central to the two most dramatic Western political results of 2016, in the United Kingdom and the
United States. This is part of a broader trend affecting both international and domestic politics. Across the European Union,
parties stressing national sovereignty and/or values have prospered,21 boosted in part by migration flows that GRPS respondents continue to point to as a major
geopolitical risk. Outside the European Union, polarization in Turkey has deepened since 2010,22 while Russia has been expressing its national political identity in
increasingly assertive foreign policy stances.23 Globally, politics is increasingly defined by the rise of charismatic “strongman”
national politicians and emotive political debate : “post-truth” was the Oxford English Dictionary’s word of the year.24 In the latest GRPS,
respondents ranked “ increasing polarization ” as the third most important trend for the next 10 years – it was cited by 31% of respondents, with
“increasing national sentiment” cited by 14%. The survey recorded an increase in the perceived impact of “failure of national governance” but, perhaps surprisingly,
“profound social instability” dropped in the rankings for both perceived likelihood and impact. One possibility is that the global decision-makers who mostly
comprise the GRPS panel have not been sufficiently attuned to this risk. Another way of interpreting the GRPS, however, is to focus on the underlying trends rather

than the risks. By placing both polarization and intensifying national sentiment among the top five trends (see Table 1.1), GRPS respondents have
highlighted long-term patterns that, if they persist, arelikely to continue to amplify a range of social and political risks . In
the West, decades of rapid social and economic change have widened generation gaps in values, disrupted

traditional patterns of affiliation and community , and eroded the support of mainstream political
parties.25 Early analysis by political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris points to the populism behind the victories of Brexit and President-elect Trump
as being driven more by demographics and cultural factors than income inequality:26 a backlash among older and less-educated voters who “feel that they are
being marginalized within their own countries” by changing values in areas such as gender, sexual orientation, race, multiculturalism, environmental protection and
international cooperation. Pew research found stark divisions in the self-described values of supporters of President-elect Trump and Democrat candidate Hillary
Clinton: for example, 72% of President-elect Trump’s supporters described themselves as “traditional”, versus 31% of Clinton supporters; other big differences
included “honor and duty are my core values” (59% vs 35%); “typical American” (72% vs 49%), “feminist” (5% vs 38%) and “supporter of LGBT rights” (24% vs
66%).27 Many established political parties are ill-equipped to respond to voters’ placing greater emphasis on culture and values, because the parties have shifted
towards the centre of the political spectrum and a managerial or technocratic style of politics.28 They have lost touch with their traditional core constituencies,
particularly those with class-based roots.29 In 2013, political scientist Peter Mair wrote that political parties’ failure to engage voters meant democracy was starting
to buckle as electorates “are becoming effectively non-sovereign”.30 Events last year suggest that verdict may have been premature. Both the Brexit and President-
elect Trump victories featured (1) outsiders to major party politics (2) successfully engaging traditionalist voters with (3) appeals to sovereignty rooted in national
identity and pride. Unusually, older voters were in the vanguard of these disruptive movements – and with populations ageing, the pendulum may not swing back
towards the younger generation’s views for some time.31 Dramatic events can have complex effects on the risk landscape. They can trigger new risks or exacerbate
existing ones, but they can also open the way to responses that mitigate risks. As many of the West’s democracies face up to the growing electoral influence of
traditionalist political identities, there are potential gains for social solidarity and democratic legitimacy if processes of political debate and compromise re-connect
with the older, less-educated and predominantly male voters who currently feel excluded. However, it will be challenging to find political narratives and policies that
can repair decades-long cultural fault-lines while preserving, for example, gender and minority rights. Failure could further undermine social and cultural cohesion:

Daron Acemoglu, author with James Robinson of Why Nations Fail, has cautioned that current
divisions in the U nited S tates risk
undermining not just the electoral process but the institutions and norms on which it is founded.32
Technology: Managing Disruption Evidence suggests that technological change provides a better explanation than globalization for the industrial decline and

deteriorating labour-market prospects that have catalyzed antiestablishment voting in many of the
world’s advanced economies. Today’s world is one in which production, mobility, communication, energy and other systems are changing with
unprecedented speed and scope, disrupting everything from employment patterns to social relationships and geopolitical stability .

Driven by the convergence between digital, biological and physical technologies, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is creating new global risks
and exacerbating existing risks . Perhaps because of the increasing ubiquity of innovative technology, respondents to the GRPS have tended not
to include technological risks among the most impactful or the most likely to occur. This can be seen in the comparatively few technological risks that appear in the
evolving risk matrix (Figure 2, inner cover). There are possible signs of change, however. The year 2014 was the first in which two technological risks made it into the
evolving risk matrix, and this year, although only one is included (“massive incident of data fraud/theft”), another (“large-scale cyberattacks”) came sixth in the list
of risks most likely to occur in the next 10 years. According to the economists Michael Hicks and Srikant Devaraj, 86% of manufacturing job losses in the United
States between 1997 and 2007 were the result of rising productivity, compared to less than 14% lost because of trade. Most assessments suggest that technology’s
disruptive effect on labour markets will accelerate across non-manufacturing sectors in the years ahead, as rapid advances in robotics, sensors and machine learning
enable capital to replace labour in an expanding range of service-sector job. Estimates of the number of jobs at risk to technological displacement vary: a frequently
cited 2013 Oxford Martin School study has suggested that 47% of US jobs were at high risk from automation; in 2016 an OECD working paper put the figure lower,
at 9%.33 In 2015 a McKinsey study concluded that 45% of the activities that workers do today could already be automated if companies choose to do so.34 As

in Chapter 3.1, respondents to this year’s GRPS rate a rtificial i ntelligence and robotics as the emerging technology
discussed

with the greatest potential for negative consequences over the coming decade. Technology has always created jobs as
well as destroying them, but there is evidence that the engine of technological job creation is sputtering. The Oxford Martin School estimates that only 0.5% of
today’s US workforce is employed in sectors created since 2000, compared with approximately 8% in industries created during the 1980s.35 Technological change is
shifting the distribution of income from labour to capital: according to the OECD, up to 80% of the decline in labour’s share of national income between 1990 and
2007 was the result of the impact of technology.36 At a global level, however, many people are being left behind altogether: more than 4 billion people still lack
access to the internet, and more than 1.2 billion people are without even electricity.37 We can shape the dynamics of the 4IR. Careful
governance can
guide the distribution of benefits and impact on global risks, because the evolution of new technologies
will be heavily influenced by the social norms, corporate policies, industry standards and regulatory
principles being debated and written today .38 Unfortunately, however, current legal, policy-making and standard-setting institutions tend
to move slowly. For example, the US Federal Aviation Authority took eight months to grant Amazon an “experimental airworthiness certificate” to test a particular
model of drone, by which time the model was obsolete;39 Amazon conducted its trials in Canada and the United Kingdom instead. In 2015, the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved an application by AquaBounty Technologies for regulatory approval of genetically modified salmon – an application made in 1995.
The salmon still cannot be sold in the United States, pending an update to labelling regulations.40 Such regulatory delays can mean social and economic benefits are
missed – but when health, the environment and broader social impacts are at stake, a cautiously deliberative approach is prudent. How best to strike this balance is
currently causing debate, for example, in efforts to accelerate the regulation of self-driving vehicles.41 Although populist movements have recently tapped public
hostility to globalization more than to technology, there is still the risk of backlash against technological change. For example, public concerns about genetically
modified foods have consistently exceeded scientific assessments of the risks associated with them, and concerns about climate change have not precluded public
opposition to wind farms.42 We are in a highly disruptive phase of technological development, at a time of rising challenges to social cohesion and policy-makers’
legitimacy. Given the power of the 4IR to create and exacerbate global risks, the associated governance challenges are both huge and pressing, as further discussed
in Part 3. It is critical that policy-makers and other stakeholders – across government, civil society, academia and the media – collaborate to create more agile and
adaptive forms of local, national and global governance and risk management. Geopolitics: Strengthening Cooperation In
a worrying sign of
deteriorating commitment to global cooperation, states are stepping back from mechanisms set up to
underpin international security through mutual accountability and respect for common norms. For example,
2016 saw Russia, South Africa, Burundi and Gambia withdraw from the International Criminal Court, and China reject the verdict of the international tribunal on the
South China Sea. At the time of writing, the incoming US president is considering withdrawal from the recent Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran nuclear deal)
and the Paris Climate Change agreement. The exit of major stakeholders from economic agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership also carries geopolitical significance. In Syria, the drawn-out nature of the war indicates how the absence of a great-power accord
handicaps the United Nations, compounding the difficulties of brokering a settlement to a conflict with multiple stakeholders at global, regional and non-state
levels, or even organizing a limited intervention to facilitate humanitarian relief or protect civilians. The death toll among non-combatants – including from chemical
weapons – has been met with despairing rhetoric but no effective action to enforce long-standing humanitarian laws and norms. In parallel to their withdrawal of
support for collective solutions, major powers now openly trade accusations of undermining international security
or interfering in their domestic politics. For years President Putin has accused the United States of seeking to undermine global stability and
Russian sovereignty, and in 2016 the US National Security Agency blamed Russia for interference in the presidential election. Tensions rose between

the United States and China over freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and the deployment of US missile defence systems to the Republic of
Korea, which led to Beijing warning the United States not to “harm China’s strategic security interests”. In response to the general loss of

faith in collective security mechanisms, regional powers and smaller nations are increasingly
exploring the acquisition of new conventional weapons capabilities, offensive cyber weapons and
even nuclear ones . Notwithstanding the normative and practical obstacles confronting a state seeking nuclear capability, political leaders in nuclear
and non-nuclear weapons states alike have increasingly made reference to the utility of nuclear weapons in the context of changing threat perceptions

and wavering confidence in alliance structures. If this rhetoric turns into policy, it could entail a huge diversion of
resources into a new nuclear arms race and a jump in the risk of preemptive strikes aimed at
preventing an adversary gaining nuclear capability . In summary, developments in 2016 present numerous reminders that
international security requires collective commitments and investment to define a positive vision, as well as political will to
make responsible trade-offs and commit resources (Box 1.1). As technological, demographic and climate pressures intensify the

danger of systems failure , competition among world powers and fragmentation of security efforts
makes the international system more fragile, placing collective prosperity and survival at risk .
 1ac – modelling
Advantage two is modelling-

The aff sets a model for water infrastructure investment to solve global water scarcity
and lead contamination
Katner et al 18 (Adrienne Katner & Komal Brown, LSU. Kelsey Pieper, Marc Edwards, and Yanna
Lambrinidou. Virginia Tech. Wilma Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action Network. "America’s Path to
Drinking Water Infrastructure Inequality and Environmental Injustice: The Case of Flint, Michigan" The
Palgrave Handbook of Sustainability. May 1)

America’s corroding water infrastructure and leaded plumbing significantly impacts the safety of our
drinking water, a substance we need for human survival (Edwards 2004b, 2014); and in the case of lead
service lines, the source of lead is government owned and initiated (Troesken 2006). Planning and
budgeting for replacement of our drinking water infrastructure and in-home leaded plumbing
components must be prioritized, especially for low-income communities. It is estimated that 35.5
percent of US households will no longer be able to afford their water bills by 2022 (Mack and Wrase
2017); thus, steps must be taken to protect low-income and vulnerable populations. Any federal effort
to systematically repair corroding infrastructure, and remove lead from systems and premise plumbing,
would be complex and require decades-long investment and ongoing policy reform. But before moving
forward, it is essential that proposed actions are evaluated critically within the context of historical
warnings, failures, and successes, each system’s unique water quality and infrastructure characteristics,
as well as community composition and needs.

The issues faced in America could serve as a warning to other nations . Globally, 663 million people
lack access to clean water affecting mostly the rural poor (UN 2015). While lead is perhaps one of the
oldest and widely known water contaminants of concern, there are other new and re-emerging
contaminants of concern, like OPPPs that must also be considered . Other worries are looming,
including unmonitored and unregulated water contaminants (Dennis 2016b), water scarcity (Global
Researcher 2008), and health impacts of unregulated water sources like private wells (Pieper et al.
2015). The relationship between our country’s aging plumbing systems, inequality, and environmental
injustice discussed in this chapter serves as a presage to the forthcoming challenges and
disproportionate burdens that will continue to be felt nationally and internationally, if the looming
water infrastructure crisis and water infrastructure inequality is not addressed .

Global lead crisis kills hundreds of thousands every year

Worland 16 (Justin, Washington D.C.-based writer for TIME covering energy and the environment.
February 24. time.com/4227906/lead-poisoning-global-impact/)

The crisis in Flint over the contamination of tap water with toxic levels of lead has
inspired a national outcry over this
environmental health disaster—and the government failures that led to it. Thousands of children in Flint could develop an
array of disorders associated with lead poisoning, including diminished cognitive function and an increased propensity for violence, health experts say.
But the U.S. problem—enormous in scale—is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the global
burden of lead, environmental health experts say. Contamination from the toxic metal contributes to hundreds of
thousands of deaths each year and leads to developmental problems in hundreds of thousands more.
And while the U.S. and countries in Europe have taken meaningful steps to address lead poisoning over the years, dozens of other countries across the

globe have failed to do anything meaningful to protect their most vulnerable populations .
“The problem in the U.S. is serious,” says Dr. Philip Landrigan, dean for global health at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, who did pioneering research in the 1970s on
the health effects of lead. “But numerically it’s overshadowed by the global problem.”

Unlike many other environmental health problems —think climate change—scientists know how to stop lead
poisoning, and they know how to do it inexpensively. But that doesn’t mean local officials are willing to
commit the time and money to address it. Lead tends to affect the poorest of the poor and the effects
aren’t immediately noticeable, making it easy for policymakers to ignore the problem. Thousands of
communities around the world suffer lead exposure with no meaningful remediation efforts . A slew of medium
and low-income countries including Mexico, India and the Philippines rank among the most exposed.

It also creates feedback loops of unintended consequences and makes adaptation to

shocks impossible, risking extinction
Schettler 6 (Ted, Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network. MD from Case-
Western Reserve University and a master's degree in public health from the Harvard School of Public
Health. "Toward an ecological view: Complex systems, health, and disease" San Francisco Medicine:
Journal of the San Francisco Medical Society, Vol 79, No. 1)

Multiple interactions among variables, positive and negative feedback loops, and non-linear system
dynamics determine the health and behavior of individuals, populations, and entire ecosystems. System
behavior depends on specific circumstances and often fluctuates around a mean. However, exaggerated oscillations or near-threshold

conditions can create vulnerability to small perturbations that can propel the entire system into new
dynamic operating conditions . Studies that ignore details of system conditions will miss important real-
world determinants of health in complex interactive systems .

In humans, homeostatic mechanisms work to maintain favorable physiologic conditions, but sufficient
external stress can exceed the buffering capacity of the system or cause adaptive responses with their
own adverse impacts . In individuals, the result may be illness or premature death. In populations of people, changes in system
conditions can cause the emergence of new patterns of disease or behavior . Ecosystem changes may favor certain populations,
and some species may find new system dynamics inhospitable . These are the driving forces of evolutionary biology.

Most medical conditions do not have single "causes" or single necessary antecedents. Typically, a number of factors are linked together in complex causal webs, in a context of susceptibility. At
best, we can say that some collection of factors increases the risk of a disease but their relative contributions may vary considerably from one circumstance to another.

The strength of association between an exposure and disease is fundamentally affected by the prevalence of other component causes in a given context. What is unimportant in one set of

Commonly used statistical models intended to describe relationships among

circumstances may be very important in another.

multiple risk factors, including multiple regression analyses, are often unable to capture the complex
heterogeneity of real world circumstances .

impacts of dietary iron deficiency, lead exposure, and social conditions on brain development of children
The combined and independent

illustrate some of these points. These three variables are, of course, not the only determinants of childhood brain development, but they are important.
Awareness of their interactive, combined effects is essential for designing effective public health interventions.
Iron deficiency, lead exposure, social circumstances and brain development in children:

Many studies show that developmental low-level lead exposures are associated with persistent cognitive impacts and
behavioral changes. (Needleman, Bellinger, 1987; Lanphear) Blood lead levels around 2 or 3 years of age are particularly important for their impacts on cognitive development.
(Bellinger, 1991; Bellinger, 1992)

Iron deficiency is probably the world’s most common single nutrient deficiency. About 10% of toddlers in the US are iron deficient, and the prevalence is substantially higher in non-Hispanic
blacks, Mexican-American females, and Alaskan natives. (CDC, 2002). Children who are iron deficient are at risk for cognitive deficits, even if they do not have iron deficiency anemia. (NAS,
2000; Grantham-McGregor & Ani, 2001) Studies of the impact of treatment are inconsistent though most conclude that children continue to exhibit lower academic performance, even after
iron deficiency anemia is corrected. (Martins, 2001; Hurtado, 1999; Halterman, 2001)

A number of studies have documented a correlation between iron deficiency and elevated lead levels, particularly in younger children. (Yip and Dallman, 1984; Yip, 1981; Wright, 1999;
Bradman, 2001) Iron deficiency may amplify the effect of environmental lead contamination by increasing absorption and retention and/or by increasing hand-to-mouth behavior and lead
ingestion.

Despite their correlation, iron deficiency is not essential in the pathway between lead exposure and cognitive impacts. Lead also has effects on cognition that are independent of iron status.
(Kordas, 2004) Iron is required for neurotransmitter synthesis and myelination. (NAS, 2000) Lead can disrupt cell proliferation, differentiation, synapse formation, myelination, and
programmed cell death, as well as altering neurotransmitter levels. (Silbergeld, 1992)

Studies of the impact of interventions that reduce blood lead levels have variable results. (Ruff, 1993) The children who benefit most from lead level reduction appear to be those whose iron
status is sufficient. (Ruff, 1996) Lead level reduction in children who are iron deficient does not seem to improve cognitive performance.

Even when corrected, iron deficiency in infancy appears to have long term consequences, with reduced mental and motor functioning and increased behavioral problems in children when
evaluated at 10 years of age. (Lozoff, 2000) Children living in poor social circumstances seem to be particularly affected, whereas more enriched social circumstances tend to blunt the impacts
of early iron deficiency on mental functioning.

Discussion:

This example points to a deeply rooted problem: Focusing on individual risk factors often does not honor the complexity of systems of interest. Other examples from animal and human studies
also illustrate the interpenetration of nutritional status, exposure to toxic chemicals, and mammalian biology:

Nutritional status can modify the carcinogenic risk of exposure to carcinogens

Nutritional status can modify the teratogenic risk of exposure to teratogens

Dietary selenium reduces the toxic impacts of mercury

Maternal social and economic deprivation increase the neurodevelopmental impact of prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos in their children. (Rauh, Whyatt, et al)

Omega 3 fatty acids in fish reduce the cardiovascular toxicity of mercury (Clarkson, 2003)

Mercury decreases the beneficial effects of omega 3 fatty acids on brain development.

Omega 6 fatty acids increase atherosclerosis caused by PCB exposure while plant derived anti-oxidants protect against this effect (Hennig, 2002)

The prevailing paradigm resists framing cognitive impairment, cancer, or birth defects as ecological outcomes—outcomes inherent in a particular ecosystem—and favors conceptualizing these
as problems in individuals to be explained by individual risk factors and understood using primitive models.

should be
Identifying individual risk factors has been very helpful for understanding major determinants of certain diseases like lung cancer and heart disease. Perhaps, however, we

thinking about diseases that are resistant to a risk-factor approach, such as breast and prostate cancer, many birth defects, or
neurodevelopmental disorders as ecological manifestations of multiple changes in the dynamic system
in which people are conceived, develop, live, and grow old.
It seems unlikely that we will truly understand the origins and prevalence of these conditions and be able to design preventive strategies by looking just at individual risk factors. These are
conditions that emerge from complex systems, and we do not understand their ecology well enough. Effective prevention is more likely to be realized when top-down systems analyses are
added to a bottom-up individual risk factor approach. Biologists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and the general public must be willing to expand their horizons, learning from ecologists and other
integrative disciplines.

New approaches may be fruitful in three areas:

how we imagine the world,

how we study the world, and

how we respond.

Many different social and cultural institutions could address these three approaches, including education, research, medical care, public health, governmental agencies, businesses, religious
organizations, the non-profit sector, and philanthropy.

Ecology and evolutionary biology should be introduced early into primary, secondary, college, and graduate education to supplement a reductionist, bottom-up approach with a top-down
systems perspective.

Efforts at cross disciplinary research and collaboration are likely to offer new insights. New epidemiologic and statistical techniques should be employed to deal with system interactions,
feedback loops, and non-linear system dynamics. Methods used in the ecological and social sciences may have much to offer the biological sciences to aid in understanding.
Traditional clinical medical care tends to focus primarily on individual risk factors and therapies directed at modifying them individually. A more integrative approach that simultaneously
addresses a number of relevant factors may hold promise for enhancing the systemic health of individuals and populations, as well as addressing the health of entire ecosystems.

Businesses, health care facilities, local and regional governments, farmers, agricultural institutions, religious organizations, among others, could be encouraged through a variety of incentives
to modify or expand their spheres of concern to entire ecological systems in which they operate. New economic analyses that are better indicators of ecological health, rather than simply
monetary growth, are needed. As it is, "silos" of specialization encourage a focus on single risk factors or metrics, with little attention to entire systems in which those factors operate.

How might we address malnutrition, food production systems, soil and water quality , exposure to carcinogens and other toxicants, and socioeconomic stress
collectively? How would this change the structure and approach of educational, scientific, medical, and civic institutions? Can we continue to hope that a haphazard collection of interests,

ideologies, and civic and governmental institutions developed long ago will contribute to ecosystem resilience that will remain favorable

to continued human survival on a finite planet over time ?

Water infrastructure investments are key to Colorado River sustainability

Gold 17 (Barry, Environment Program Director, Walton Family Foundation. Former chief of the Grand
Canyon Monitoring and Research Center where he led an effort to restore the Colorado River ecosystem
throughout the Grand Canyon. Barry has held senior positions with the U.S. Department of the Interior,
the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Science, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served as board president for the
Consultative Group on Biological Diversity, the leading affinity group for environmental foundations, and
was vice-chair of the California Ocean Science Trust Board. Barry received a B.S. from the University of
Miami, an M.S. from the University of Connecticut, an M.A. from George Washington University and a
D.Sc. from Washington University in St. Louis. June 7. "Why Water Infrastructure Investments are
Essential to the Colorado River" https://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/stories/environment/why-
water-infrastructure-investments-are-essential-to-the-colorado-river)

The Colorado River is a place of unimaginable beauty – it flows furiously through rises and rapids, valleys and deserts 1,500 miles all the way to Mexico.

The river provides

water to more than 30 million Americans and supports billions of dollars in economic
activity across the West. But it is facing incredible challenges that, left unmet, put communities and the
environment at unacceptable risk.

It is still reeling from the impacts of a 16-year drought that brought its basin states to the brink of
shortages and is under constant pressure caused by population growth and climate change .

The struggle we face to protect the Colorado River basin is one of necessity , not choice. 

While there has been a lot of talk recently about the

critical need to fund infrastructure projects in the United States, these conversations so far have put little
focus on the importance of water infrastructure to the people and economy of the West, and the Colorado River basin in

particular.
As a way to help start the much-needed conversation on infrastructure, the Walton Family Foundation has released a Colorado River Critical Infrastructure Needs
White Paper.

Each of the 15 projects highlighted creates jobs and enhances local communities, prevents
hazardous situations from developing as
a result of aging infrastructure, and underscores the importance of using water efficiently for the benefit
of multiple purposes. They range from a groundwater replenishment project in Arizona to a project that would increase stability and storage capacity at
a reservoir in Wyoming.

The projects are impressive in their diversity:

Municipal and Agricultural Projects

Several projects from the municipal and agricultural sectors will benefit urban and rural communities. For example, the Los
Angeles Regional Recycled Water Program will provide drinking water to one of the country’s largest municipal

areas by reusing wastewater and decreasing the region’s reliance on imported water from the Colorado
River basin. In Utah, the Steinaker Service Canal Enclosure Project will rehabilitate infrastructure constructed more than 50 years ago to install a pipeline to
convey irrigation water to farms with increased efficiency and improved water quality.

Ongoing Projects and Tribal Projects

The white paper underscores the importance of completing ongoing infrastructure projects – especially those connected with tribal water rights settlements. Those
include the Gila River Indian Community Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project and the Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project. Completing these projects will: 1) provide
necessary drinking and irrigation water to communities that need them; and, 2) ensure the security and stability that the tribal water rights settlements provide.

Multi-Use Projects

Certain projects highlight the valuable partnerships among multiple water use sectors, including conservation organizations. The Salton Sea Management Program is
a good example of the complicated situation Southern California faces as the Salton Sea gradually recedes and becomes more saline. The Salton Sea is an important
flyway for migrating birds and is located in an area with one of the nation’s highest levels of asthma due to poor air quality. Increased efforts by the state of
California, local agencies, national conservation organizations and the federal government are necessary to ensure that essential dust suppression and habitat
restoration projects will be completed within the next 10 years.

On a smaller scale, at the Wines Ditch in Colorado, a private landowner has teamed up with conservation organizations and the state of Colorado to rehabilitate a
water diversion structure to allow continued delivery of irrigation water and increased recreational opportunities and restoration of riparian habitat.

Projects Supported by Public-Private Partnerships

The white paper shows the diversity of funding programs that are available and the broad variety of potential partnerships that can be developed. Federal funding
from existing programs at the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture is essential for these projects to continue to protect the national
benefits that derive from improved water infrastructure. New and evolving programs such as the Bureau of Reclamation’s recent Public Private Partnership (P3)
Request for Information provided insights into potential funding opportunities for some of the projects listed in the infrastructure report, including the
rehabilitation of the Yuma Desalting Plant in Arizona and the replacement of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program’s Paradox Valley Unit in Colorado.
Importantly, these projects can be developed in ways that support or improve the environment.

These projects can be constructed to generate stability and sustainability in the Colorado River basin for
municipal, industrial, agricultural and recreational uses and for the natural ecosystem .

Taken together, the white paper identifies critic infrastructure work that has
the potential to do enormous good for the environment and the
economy – and to ensure the Colorado River basin has the water supply it needs for the future.

Colorado River Basin is a model for transboundary water cooperation but effective
resource management is key- that solves global escalation from water conflict
hotspots- resilient water infrastructure resolves ongoing cycles of destruction that
sustain these conflicts and cooperative water management spills over to other issues
to resolve broader interstate conflicts
Risi 19 (Lauren, directs the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program, which is
housed in the Global Risk and Resilience Program. Risi has authored and edited a number of
publications, and is the managing editor of New Security Beat; co-producer of the "Backdraft" and
"Water Stories" podcast series; and managing producer of the animated short, "Water, Conflict, and
Cooperation." holds a master’s degree in environmental security and peace from the UN-mandated
University for Peace in Costa Rica. Summer. "Beyond Water Wars"
https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/water-in-a-world-of-conflict/beyond-water-wars/)
Former World Bank Vice-President Ismail Serageldin predicted in 1995 that “the wars of the next century will be about water.”

It was a bold assertion, anchored in human behaviors that have led to a growing scarcity of clean water in some of the most contentious political zones in the world.
Predictions of wars between nations over water have not come to pass. But there is no shortage of
battles over this essential resource . Bitter conflicts over water at the subnational level already take a
fierce toll on human life and welfare—and could grow into something more deadly.
Concern over “water wars” writ large has gained renewed traction as climate change, continued population growth, and increasingly polluted waterways pose
growing risks to the world’s water. It remains a go-to concept, no matter what the facts are.

“We’re seeing some of the same headlines we’ve been trying to knock down for going on 30 years,” says Geoff Dabelko, former director and current senior advisor
to the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change & Security Program. “Despite the seemingly irresistible temptation for politicians and headline writers to proclaim
otherwise, countries have not fought wars over water.”
Researchers have put the notion of "water wars" to the test. An analysis in the 1990s of 263 international water basins conducted by Aaron Wolf, Shira Yoffe, and
colleagues at Oregon State University found conclusively that states are much more likely to cooperate over shared water than go to war. In fact, while water may
be one of many factors influencing skirmishes between states, wars have rarely, if ever, been fought over water. To date, this finding continues to be backed up by
empirical studies.

Dabelko says that the implications of clinging to the broad concept of “water wars” between nations comes at a cost. “When we focus so heavily on potential
interstate wars over water,” he says, “we miss the mark on how important water is to fostering cooperation, to achieving development goals, and to managing the
inevitable tensions over competing uses for water at local levels.”

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t large scale battles over water looming . Some of them are right in our own
backyard. Last year, research by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) inspired a new spate of

headlines about coming “water wars.”

"Water wars" remain a go-to concept, no matter what the facts are.

The JRC researchers analyzed historical records of conflict and cooperation over transboundary water to
identify the factors most relevant to “hydro-political interactions,” or transboundary conflict or
cooperation over water. Then, they mapped those factors—water availability, population density, power
imbalances, and climatic stressors, among others— against future climate and population projections .

The result? The centre’s researchers identified five “hotspot” water basins where demographic and
climatic conditions will increase “hydro-political risk” in already stressed basins .

Four of those hotspot basins might not come as a surprise: the Nile, the Ganges/Brahmaputra, the Indus, and the
Tigris/Euphrates. But the fifth should bring a healthy dose of reality for those of us sitting in the U nited S tates: the Colorado River
basin.
The Dynamics of Water Conflicts

The case of the Colorado River underscores the cross-boundary risks of a water crisis . The basin has been a
source of contention for nearly 100 years, since California began lobbying for the Hoover Dam to secure the state’s water supply. While most
of the water originates in the upper basin states (Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico), a majority of the demand is generated

in the lower basin states (California, Nevada, and Arizona)—and in Mexico. In the United States, more than 40 million people and 5.5 million
acres of farmland rely on the basin for water.

The water levels in the Colorado basin have fallen to dangerously low levels—and the future looks even
more bleak. With temperatures in the basin projected to increase by 5 degrees Fahrenheit by midcentury, research estimates put the reduction in water flow
of the river at 20 percent or more in the same time period.

At the same time, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that compared to 1995 population numbers, the basin states’ populations will increase by more than 50 percent.
Without immediate action, scientists anticipate that within five years, the reservoirs will be at such low levels that water supply to downriver cities, like Phoenix, Los
Angeles, Tucson, and San Diego will be disrupted.

Yet the
steps taken to forge agreement over the Colorado River basin also demonstrate the power of
water to bring neighboring governments together , not apart.
In May of this year, followingyears of negotiation and collaboration, the seven basin states in the U.S., the United
States Bureau of Reclamation, and Mexico signed the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan (DCP). The DCP aims to
protect water levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead by reducing water usage across the basin.

“Drought is the new normal, and this legislation is an important step in securing sustainable water
supplies throughout the Southwest, and minimizing future conflicts and litigation,” said Senator Tom Udall (New Mexico) in a
press release announcing bipartisan legislation to ensure the plan’s implementation.

The DCP is just one step in managing the many challenges facing the basin . But it also illustrates the findings generated
by Wolf, Yoffe, and others. While the assumption is often that scarcity drives conflict, cases like the Colorado River

basin demonstrate that scarcity has actually incentivized cooperation .

“It turns out that conflict increases when there’s more to fight over,” says Scott Moore, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania and author of
Subnational Hydropolitics: Conflict, Cooperation, and Institution-Building in Shared River Basins. “In the case of the Colorado, interstate conflict has tended to spike
in response to competition for federal funding to build dams, irrigation systems, and other water infrastructure.”

Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding

Variability in a basin, and not scarcity, turns out to be a more accurate indicator of potential conflict . Sudden changes
in the physical nature of a basin or its governance (the creation of a new country, for example), and the institutional capacity to absorb those changes, is more likely
to lead to increased tensions and hostility between parties.

Often, these changes take the form of a large infrastructure project, like the development of a large dam by one country without consideration of the impact on
downstream neighbors. Ultimately, geography takes a backseat to governance when it comes to determining the conflict or peace
outcomes of a water source.
This is small comfort in an era of unprecedented climatic change. It also leads to a prudent question: Will the future of conflicts over water look like the past?
Between climatic change and explosive population growth in many of the world’s most vulnerable regions, is it reasonable to assume that
countries will continue to cooperate over shared water ?

“On one side, the

drivers to cooperate—optimizing the benefits and managing increasing variability— will be
greater than ever,” says Aaron Salzberg, who until recently led U.S. foreign policy on transboundary water at the Department of State. “But on the
other, water’s growing value as a strategic asset that can have a direct impact on national security will
make it a red-line that many countries will seek to protect .”

And this logic may extend past mere protection. As countries face rising water insecurity, will water be
used as a coercive tool to achieve other strategic objectives ?
Another hotspot identified by the JRC researchers might be useful to examine. For nearly 60 years, the Indus Water Treaty has governed India and Pakistan’s
management of the Indus River Basin’s rivers and tributaries. “The Indus Waters Treaty has done a remarkable job managing India-Pakistan water tensions,” says
Michael Kugelman, Deputy Director of the Wilson Center’s Asia Program. “After all, India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars, but they’ve never fought a war
over water.”

Yet Kugelman observes that India’s status as the upper riparian may give it the potential to use the treaty as a “pressure point” against Pakistan. Just a few months
ago, India threatened Pakistan’s water supply in retaliation for a suicide bombing carried out by a Pakistan-based terrorist group that killed more than 40 Indian
police officers in Kashmir. And in fact, India has, at multiple points in the treaty’s history, threatened to withdraw from the treaty.

“For Islamabad, the nightmare scenario would be a decision by New Delhi to revoke the treaty at a time of deep tensions in India-Pakistan relations,” says
Kugelman. “Even the mere threat of revoking the treaty would be enough to send shock waves through Islamabad. This is because backing out of the accord would
give India carte blanche to stop the Indus River—Pakistan’s most important water source—from flowing downstream.”

Such a step might also have costs to India that would prevent it from ever being taken, however. “To be sure, building the dams and other structures necessary to
bottle up river flows would take India a lot of time, and given India’s geography, this may cause so much flooding in India that it wouldn’t be worth the effort,” says
Kugelman. “Also, India, which wants to be taken seriously by the world as a responsible rising power, may not want to face the international opprobrium resulting
from a decision to unilaterally withdraw from an international treaty. And yet, these considerations don’t make India’s potential abrogation of the treaty less
unsettling for water-insecure Pakistan. In fact, Islamabad would likely regard such a move as a hostile act.”

The Big Ripples of Local Politics

Nations see the strategic advantages and challenges of water on a grand scale. But human beings
experience issues of water supply—both availability and quality—at an intensely personal level .

Water is inextricably linked to people’s livelihoods, to their health and well-being, and ultimately, to security . While countries may not go to
war over water, people lose their lives every day because of bad water management, diminished access to safe water, and yes, even violent conflict over water in
their own community.

Today there
are 2.2 billion people without access to safely-managed drinking water, and 4.2 billion people
who lack sanitation services. Put another way, every third person on the planet lacks safe drinking water, and half of the world’s population doesn’t
have access to safe sanitation. More than 297,000 children under five die every year from diarrheal diseases. It is a fact that bears repeating: more than 297,000
children under five—more than 800 per day—die every year from diarrheal diseases.

In places experiencing violent conflict, water insecurity is heightened by the destruction of

infrastructure and interruption of vital services . According to UNICEF, children younger than 15 who live in areas where there are
protracted conflicts are nearly three times more likely to die from diarrheal disease—as a result of unsafe water and sanitation—than from the violence of a
protracted conflict.

These statistics are even bleaker for children under five years of age, who are over 20 times more likely to die from diarrheal disease linked to unsafe water and
sanitation in a conflict zone than they are from a bullet. In real numbers, the figures are stark. UNICEF found that on average, 85,700 children under the age of 15
died from unsafe water, sanitation, and hygiene, as compared to 30,900 deaths from conflict per year from 2014 to 2016.

And, again, scarcity is only part of the story. In

South Sudan, five years of civil war left 400,000 people dead, another 4 million displaced,
vital critical infrastructure in ruins, and a stark humanitarian crisis . Fully 80 percent of the country lacks
access to clean water. Yet as Bel Trew, Middle Eastern correspondent for The Independent, observed in a dispatch from the region: “Officials in South
Sudan’s water authority say there is more than enough water to serve the population of just 10 million.” What is lacking in

South Sudan, she continued, is the “capacity to build permanent water infrastructure for people or livestock.”

As countries face rising water insecurity, will water be used as a coercive tool to achieve other strategic objectives?

Getting help to places made water-insecure by conflict is difficult . Aid organizations are hampered in their
efforts to respond by limited resources to access remote areas and ongoing insecurity. Competition between such communities

for water is ratcheting up as well , with increased violence between farmers and herders in Africa’s Sudano-Sahel region, and against the women
and children who are often the ones tasked with the long walk to collect water.

Water infrastructure is often an indirect casualty of war, but increasingly, water and energy infrastructure are targeted by armed
groups seeking to undermine communities’ resilience . This was the case in South Sudan, for instance. And there are reports of this
tactic being used elsewhere, including Yemen, Ethiopia, Syria, Kenya, and Palestine. This can have long-lasting impacts that undermine

a country’s ability to rebuild and provide essential services to its citizens after a conflict .
“When water becomes a weapon, we’ve essentially increased the vulnerability of infrastructure, the vulnerability of communities,” says Erika Weinthal, a professor
of environmental politics and environmental security at Duke University. “Especially
where there are protracted conflicts, like those
in the Middle East, the repeated cycles of direct and indirect targeting of critical infrastructure exacts a
heavy cost on human welfare and livelihoods.”
A report from VICE news last year described how protesters were shot and killed in the Iraqi city of Basra during a demonstration sparked by water shortages and
contaminated water. Layered on top of high unemployment, limited public services, and extremely high temperatures, protesters were responding to an outbreak
of contaminated water that left hundreds hospitalized.

Deteriorating water quality on the Tigris and Euphrates, two rivers on which Iraq is heavily dependent for farming and drinking water, results in part from dams in
Turkey, Syria, and Iran. With freshwater levels in those rivers reduced by the dams upstream, sea water from the Southern Persian Gulf infiltrated the canals and
streams with devastating impacts for farms in the area. This also contributed to the contamination of drinking water for over 2 million residents of the city of Basra
and helped fuel the protests.

Examples like this exist all over the world. As communities contend with poor water management and uncertainty in supply and quality, the conflict that arises—
from rising tensions to violent altercations—is most acutely experienced at the local level.

Water, Cooperation, and Peace

When Ismail Serageldin predicted 25 years ago that the wars of our century would be over water, he likely didn’t imagine that such a conflict would be so long in
coming.

Thankfully, that war has not come to pass. But the connections between water, conflict, and cooperation are real, and
they are already playing out all over the globe.

For instance, observing that concerns over interstate water conflicts often obscure intense local-level
violence and water insecurity does not mean we should look past key questions about water’s effect
on international security. In fact, the two are often connected .

Take migration, for example. While the decision to move is most often the result of a combination of complex and interconnected political, social,
economic, demographic, and environmental drivers, flooding and drought are increasingly playing a driving role in these

choices. In 2017, nearly 19 million people were internally displaced by extreme weather events—including drought and flooding— as compared to 12 million
people internally displaced by conflict and violence.

High rates of criminal violence have spurred a dramatic increase in migration from Central America’s
Northern Triangle—Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. But the impact of drought on the region’s smallholder
agriculture, on which people are heavily dependent for their livelihoods, should not be overlooked.
Increased temperatures and record-breaking droughts have devastated crops in the Northern Triangle .
Climate change has also contributed to an outbreak of coffee rust disease that has desiccated coffee crops across the region.

And finally, even when nations do cooperate over water, agreements between nations can complicate water management at the local level. “The very
transboundary agreements that we applaud for preventing conflict at the regional level may, in fact, exacerbate conflicts over water at the local level,” says Ken
Conca, a professor of global environmental governance at American University. “The Mekong River Commission, for example, has brought the countries of the
region together to talk about ‘sustainable’ management of the river system. But to date it has done more to enable dam building in the basin than to hold it up to
serious environmental scrutiny, putting the resource-based livelihoods of tens of millions downstream in jeopardy.”

The future of water seems inextricably linked to conflict and competition . But focusing solely on the conflict risk of
water can undermine the very solutions that address those risks. Such an approach puts the military and security community in the drivers’ seat—to the detriment
of other key partners.

Addressing water insecurity requires a multi-sectoral approach that is inclusive of aid agencies, international financial
institutions, diplomatic engagement, private sector innovation, as well as the military. When water is recognized as a tool for peace and

diplomacy, for economic prosperity, and a cornerstone of healthy communities, and the actions taken to
secure water resources reflect that vision, the future looks quite different.
“The very transboundary agreements that we applaud for preventing conflict at the regional level may, in fact, exacerbate conflicts over water at the local level."

Changing the narrative on water and conflict can have an important impact on the outcome. While the researchers at Oregon State University were developing the
database that recognized cooperation as the more common outcome from shared water, a wider community of researchers, including Dabelko, Weinthal, and
Conca, began to think about what happens when we recognize water as a tool for cooperation, rather than conflict.

They found that focusing on water management as an avenue for peace helps facilitate dialogue between
nations, even when there are broader disputes between those nations ; that cooperation over water
creates people-to-people and expert-to-expert connections that can reverberate through governing
agencies and institutions; and that a peacemaking approach to water can foster a shared sense of
identity and institutionalize cooperation on issues beyond water .
Behind the frightening headlines of “water wars,” real work is being done to anticipate and mitigate future water conflicts, both between and within nations. The
Wilson Center is collaborating with NOAA and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research to develop a framework to improve predictive capabilities for
security risks posed by extreme weather events, including drought and flooding. The framework prioritizes alignment and sustained engagement across the U.S.
government, and seeks increased and better coordination between all stakeholders.

While the future of “water wars” remains unclear, we do have many of the tools needed to address
today’s most pressing water challenges. Around the world, significant expertise, development experience, and private sector
innovation could be better harnessed and propelled by political will to do the things that prevent conflict.
We can provide clean water to the millions of people who don’t currently have access to it, and ensure that countries and populations
protect and manage their water resources in a way that encourages sustainable economic prosperity.

Indus Water Treaty disputes escalate to nuclear war- US water cooperation efforts
have been empirically modelled in the region to resolve conflict- resolving water
scarcity and encouraging new transboundary cooperation is key
Kugelman 16 (Michael, writer of Foreign Policy’s weekly South Asia Brief. He is the Asia Program
deputy director and senior associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center in Washington. September 30.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/30/why-the-india-pakistan-war-over-water-is-so-dangerous-indus-
waters-treaty/)

Why the India-Pakistan War Over Water Is So Dangerous

As New Delhi and Islamabad trade nuclear threats and deadly attacks, a brewing war over shared
water resources threatens to turn up the violence.
BY MICHAEL KUGELMAN | SEPTEMBER 30, 2016, 2:13 PM

Early on the morning of Sept. 29, according to India’s Defense Ministry and military, Indian forces staged a “surgical strike” in Pakistan-
administered Kashmir that targeted seven terrorist camps and killed multiple militants. Pakistan angrily denied that the daring raid took place, though it
did state that two of its soldiers were killed in clashes with Indian troops along their disputed border. New Delhi’s announcement of its strike plunged already tense
India-Pakistan relations into deep crisis. It came 11 days after militants identified by India as members of the Pakistani terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed killed 18
soldiers on a military base in the town of Uri, in India-administered Kashmir.

Amid all the shrill rhetoric and saber rattling emanating from India and Pakistan in recent days — including India’s home minister
branding Pakistan a “terrorist state” and Pakistan’s defense minister threatening to wage nuclear war
on India — one subtle threat issued by India may have sounded relatively innocuous to the casual listener.

In reality, it likely filled Pakistan with fear.

On Sept. 22, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesman suggested, cryptically, that New Delhi could revoke the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). “For any
such treaty to work,” warned Vikas Swarup, when asked if India would cancel the agreement, “it is important for mutual trust and cooperation. It cannot be a one-
sided affair.”

The IWT is a 56-year-old accord that governs how India and Pakistan manage the vast Indus River Basin’s rivers and
tributaries. After David Lilienthal, a former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, visited the region in

1951, he was prompted to write an article in Collier’s magazine, in which he argued that a transboundary water accord between
India and Pakistan would help ease some of the hostility from the partition — particularly because the
rivers of the Indus Basin flow through Kashmir. His idea gained traction and also the support of the
World Bank. The bank mediated several years of difficult bilateral negotiations before the parties
concluded a deal in 1960. U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower described it as a “bright spot” in a “very
depressing world picture.” The IWT has survived, with few challenges, to the present day .

And yet, it has now come under severe strain.

On Sept. 26, India’s government met to review the treaty but reportedly decided that it would not revoke the agreement — for
now . New Delhi left open the possibility of revisiting the issue at a later date . Ominously, Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi told top officials present at the treaty review meeting that “blood and water cannot flow together.” Ominously, Indian Prime Minister Narendra
Modi told top officials present at the treaty review meeting that “blood and water cannot flow together.” Additionally, the government suspended,
with immediate effect, meetings between the Indus commissioners of both countries — high-level sessions that ordinarily take place twice
a year to manage the IWT and to address any disagreements that may arise from it.

These developments have spooked Pakistan severely . Sartaj Aziz, the foreign affairs advisor to Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif,
said revoking the IWT could be perceived as an “act of war,” and he hinted that Pakistan might seek assistance from the United
Nations or International Court of Justice.

If India were to annul the IWT, the consequences might well be humanitarian devastation in what is already one of the world’s most water-starved countries — an
outcome far more harmful and far-reaching than the effects of limited war. Unlike other punitive steps that India could consider taking against its neighbor —

including the strikes against Pakistani militants that India claimed to have carried out on Sept. 29 — canceling the IWT could have direct,
dramatic, and deleterious effects on ordinary Pakistanis.
The IWT is a very good deal for Pakistan. Although its provisions allocate three rivers each to Pakistan and India, Pakistan is given control of the Indus Basin’s three
large western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — which account for 80 percent of the water in the entire basin. Since water from the Indus Basin flows
downstream from India to Pakistan, revoking the IWT would allow India to take control of and — if it created enough storage space through the construction of
large dams — stop altogether the flow of those three rivers into Pakistan. To be sure, India would need several years to build the requisite dams, reservoirs, and
other infrastructure to generate enough storage to prevent water from flowing downstream to Pakistan. But pulling out of the IWT is the first
step in giving India carte blanche to start pursuing that objective .
Pakistan is deeply dependent on those three western rivers and particularly the Indus. In some areas of the country, including all of Sindh province, the Indus is the
sole source of water for irrigation and human consumption. If Pakistan’s access to water from the Indus Basin were cut off or merely reduced, the implications for
the country’s water security could be catastrophic. For this reason, using water as a weapon could inflict more damage on Pakistan than some forms of warfare.

To understand why, consider the extent of Pakistan’s water woes. According to recent figures from the International Monetary Fund, Pakistan is one of
the most water-stressed countries in the world , with a per capita annual water availability of roughly 35,300 cubic feet — the scarcity
threshold. This is all the more alarming given that Pakistan’s water intensity rate — a measure of cubic meters used per unit of GDP — is the world’s highest.
(Pakistan’s largest economic sector, agriculture, consumes a whopping 90 percent of the country’s rapidly dwindling water resources.)

In other words, Pakistan’s

economy is the most water-intensive in the world, and yet it has dangerously low
levels of water to work with.

As if that’s not troubling enough, consider as well that Pakistan’s

groundwater tables are plummeting precipitously. NASA
satellite data released in 2015 revealed that the underwater aquifer in the Indus Basin is the second-most stressed in the

world. Groundwater is what nations turn to when surface supplies are exhausted; it is the water source
of last resort. And yet in Pakistan, it is increasingly imperiled .
There are other compelling reasons for India not to cancel the IWT, all of which go beyond the hardships the decision could bring to a country where at least 40
million people (of about 200 million) already lack access to safe drinking water.

First, revoking the treaty — an international accord mediated by the World Bank and widely regarded as a success story of transboundary water management —
would generate intense international opposition. As water expert Ashok Swain has argued, revoking the IWT “will bring global condemnation, and the moral high
ground, which India enjoys vis-à-vis Pakistan in the post-Uri period will be lost.” Also, the World Bank would likely throw its support behind any international legal
action taken by Pakistan against India.

Second, if India decided to maximize pressure on Pakistan by cutting off or reducing river flows to its downstream neighbor, this would bottle up large volumes of
water in northern India, a dangerous move that according to water experts could cause significant flooding in major cities in Kashmir and in Punjab state (for
geographical reasons, India would not have the option of diverting water elsewhere). Given this risk, some analysts have proposed that New Delhi instead do
something less drastic, and perfectly legal, to pressure Islamabad: build dams on the western rivers of the Indus Basin. The IWT permits this, even though these
water bodies are allocated to Pakistan, so long as storage is kept to a minimum to allow water to keep flowing downstream. In fact, according to Indian media
reports, this is an action Modi’s government is now actively considering taking.

Such moves, however, would not be cost-free for Pakistan. According to an estimate by the late John Briscoe, one of the foremost experts on South Asia water
issues, if India were to erect several large hydroelectric dams on the western rivers, then Pakistan’s agriculture could conceivably lose up to a month’s worth of river
flows — which could ruin an entire planting season. Still, it would not be nearly as serious as the catastrophes that could ensue if India pulls the plug on the IWT.

Third, if
India ditches the IWT to punish its downstream neighbor, then it could set a dangerous precedent
and give some ideas to Pakistan’s ally, China. Beijing has never signed on to any transboundary water
management accord, and New Delhi constantly worries about its upstream rival building dozens of dams
that cut off river flows into India. The Chinese, perhaps using as a pretext recent Indian defensive upgrades in the state of Arunachal
Pradesh — which borders China and is claimed by Beijing — could well decide to take a page out of India’s book and slow the

flow of the mighty Brahmaputra River. It’s a move that could have disastrous consequences for the
impoverished yet agriculturally productive northeastern Indian state of Assam. The Brahmaputra flows southwest across large areas of Assam. Additionally, Beijing
could retaliate by cutting off the flow of the Indus — which originates in Tibet — down to India, depriving New Delhi of the ability to limit the river’s flows to
Pakistan.

Fourth, India’s
exit from the IWT could provoke Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the vicious Pakistani terrorist group that carried out
the 2008 Mumbai attacks. LeT
has long used India’s alleged water theft as a chief talking point in its anti-India
propaganda, even with little evidence that New Delhi has intentionally prevented water from flowing
downstream to Pakistan. If India backed out of the treaty and took steps to stop the flow of the Indus
Basin’s western rivers, LeT would score a major propaganda victory and would have a ready-made
pretext to carry out retaliatory attacks in India . An angry Pakistani security establishment, which has close links to LeT, would not go out
of its way to dissuade the group from staging such attacks. Indeed, given the damaging effects India’s move could have on ordinary Pakistanis in such a water-
insecure country, Pakistan would be keen to find ways to strike back at India .

What this all means is that India’s

cancellation of the IWT would not produce New Delhi’s hoped-for result: Pakistani crackdowns
on anti-India terrorists. On the contrary, Pakistan might tighten its embrace of such groups. The mere act of
canceling the IWT — even if India declines to take steps to reduce water flows to Pakistan — would be
treated in Islamabad as a major provocation , with fears that water cutoffs could follow, and thereby spawn retaliations .

To be sure, India has good reason to be unhappy about the IWT. The treaty allocates to India only 20 percent of the entire Indus
River Basin’s water flows, and New Delhi knows it’s gotten the short end of the stick. Additionally, the IWT’s provisions limit India’s ability to build hydro-projects in
Kashmir. These are significant matters in a nation with its own severe water stress. According to an estimate by the New Yorker, India
boasts 20 percent of the world’s population but only 4 percent of its water. Not surprisingly, more than 300 million
people in India face water shortages . Severe droughts have contributed to an alarming farmer suicide campaign that has claimed a staggering

300,000 lives over the last 20 years. And in an ominous indication of what the future may hold, India is consuming more groundwater than

any other country in the world.

All this is to say that India has a strong case for requesting a renegotiation of the treaty. That would be a more prudent strategy than unilaterally revoking it.

India should preserve its decision to keep the IWT in place. Rescinding it could have disastrous consequences for Pakistan — and
especially for ordinary Pakistanis — and also damaging results for India. With India-Pakistan relations nearly on a war footing,

threatening a course of action that risks humanitarian devastation could bring the subcontinental
powder keg one dangerous step closer to exploding .

Water stress is devastating to global biodiversity- funding local water infrastructure

creates innovative practices that spill over
McManamy 17 (Ryan A, Sujithkumar Surendran Nair, Christopher R. DeRolph. Urban Dynamics
Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Benjamin L. Ruddell, School of Informatics, Computing, and
Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University. "US cities can manage national hydrology and biodiversity
using local infrastructure policy" https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/08/15/1706201114)
Transforming City Policies.

Forging city policies that manage regional ecosystems and environments using hard infrastructure
requires understanding the spectra of local to regional policies, their constraints, and their potential to create positive impact. Adequately
addressing issues of water sustainability will require holistic transformation of urban infrastructure
designs (24). These transformations not only have implications for ecosystem impacts, but also city resilience. In an unfortunate coincidence, most
global urban regions anticipated to see severe water stress or to face environmentally triggered
economic decline are also the most ill-prepared to adapt to such crises (19⇓–21). Through inter- and intracity

policy coordination , cities can achieve these expensive changes in their impact trajectory, such as divestment of
funds from water-intensive energy producers, water taxes (similar to carbon), and incentives to encourage water-saving technologies (22). With increasing

populations, the tendency is to assume two alternative options for addressing city resource needs:
reduce demand or increase supply (34). We suggest a third and superior option: achieving both reduced
demand and resilient supplies by transforming city infrastructures into low-impact designs . Although
increasing efficiency is a commendable practice, efficiency has little benefit to diminishing regional and
global ecosystem impacts if new infrastructure designs are not adopted (24). Based on our analysis, city-level
impacts on regional hydrology and biodiversity are driven by infrastructural designs within three sectors: urban land
cover, electricity production, and water supply . We review city policies surrounding each of these sectors.
Urban land transformation.

Globally, US cities are among the lowest-density urban designs, typically consuming large areas of land per person (24). The model of urban growth in the
southeastern United States is particularly low density and highly expansive (35). For example, Atlanta and Knoxville occupy 1.5 and 2.1 times, respectively, the
amount of developed land per person than the southwestern US cities and several times more land per person than most global cities. This area is directly
proportionate to the ecosystem impacts of ULT. Additionally, urbanization is far less dense in the eastern cities with developed land:urban area ratio being 0.57 and
0.61 for Atlanta and Knoxville, respectively, compared with more dense urbanization in the western United States (0.64–0.77). Our analysis suggests that at the
regional scale, urban extensification—especially in the case of Atlanta—leads to greater impacts in streams than intensification. This finding corroborates the
general effectiveness of modern urban stormwater management infrastructures, but also highlights the fundamental impact that land transformation creates on
aquatic ecosystems regardless of management practices. Because as little as 10% urban land cover can induce significant hydrologic and ecological impacts in
streams (9), less-intensive but more extensive urban development leads to more widely dispersed impacts in more streams and more species.

Electricity production.

Altering the trajectory of city impacts on ecosystems stemming from electricity production will require policies transforming hard infrastructure to minimize its
impacts, more than by reducing demand through efficiency upgrades (24). For example, Atlanta has many initiatives to increase energy efficiency and ranks close to
Phoenix in national energy efficiency scores (Table 1). However, Atlanta has the most extensive water-dependent hard infrastructure to support its demands, and
creates more ecosystem impacts compared with other cities in our analysis. Infrastructure must be fine-tuned to mitigate impacts, or the gains of efficiency are lost.

Novel policies start with ambitious goals. Renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and photovoltaics have water use and aquatic ecosystem impact advantages
over thermoelectric fossil fuel electricity sources. Only one (small) US city, Burlington, VT, has 100% of its electricity demand met by renewable sources as of 2012
(36). Multilevel governmental incentives play a large role in fostering investments in renewables. For example, cities with local finance incentives and state
renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) deploy 69% and 295% more solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity, respectively, than cities without those incentives (37). Phoenix,
Tucson, and Las Vegas all have local solar finance incentives and their respective states all have RPSs (37). In contrast, Atlanta and Knoxville lack both city-level
financing incentives and state RPSs. The price per watt for solar PV is far cheaper in the western compared with eastern United States (37), owing to economies of
scale, regulatory conveniences, and to a lesser extent diminished cloud cover in the west. Not surprisingly, western cities in our study have far more solar farms
either currently operating or under development within their EnergySheds (Table S4). Although solar energy capacity is substantial across the United States,
generation from solar sources only contributes to 4% and 19% of the overall electricity production in Phoenix and Tucson, but only 1.5% and 0.1% of production in
Las Vegas and Atlanta. This suggests that solar and wind renewable capacities and associated infrastructures will require considerable expansion to contribute to a
larger portion of electricity consumption in cities to reduce aquatic ecosystem impacts of the hard power infrastructure. Most cities pursuing high renewable
penetration have the political flexibility to do so and are motivated to decrease or offset carbon emissions from fossil-based energy sources (38). Because of
synergies between emissions reduction and aquatic ecosystem impact mitigation, we suggest that cities explicitly add regional aquatic ecosystem impact and water
use management to carbon emissions reduction as power infrastructure policy goals, if they have not done so already.

There are three important policy and technology-related caveats to achieving a large mix of renewable energy. First, US cities that operate their own municipal
utility have greater leverage in renewable energy investments as opposed to investor-owned utilities or independent system operators (39). Because municipal
utilities have monopolies over transmission and power plant infrastructure and captive customer bases, they are free to rearrange their energy market (39). Cities
without this market structure have far less flexibility, but can still impose taxes on utilities and provide incentives, both of which promote investments in renewables
(22). A second important caveat is that the mix of available renewable resources will determine the ability of a city to attain high renewable penetration. For
example, Burlington, VT, has an energy portfolio of 50% hydropower, 30% biomass, and 20% wind energy (36). Likewise, Norway has achieved near-100% renewable
energy, relying primarily on hydropower energy (97%) (40). Hydropower is a flexible energy resource that can provide energy storage, while also meeting peak
demand. In contrast, large integration of intermittent renewables, such as wind generation, is not viable unless paired with a mix of flexible energy resources (e.g.,
natural gas) or energy storage technologies (38). The final caveat is that underlying the desire of cities to promote renewable penetration lies a fundamental
assumption: minimizing city impacts on the environment requires renewable energy technologies. This is certainly not always the case; in fact, carbon-neutral
renewables may not translate into water-neutral technologies. For example, whereas hydropower expansion can displace fossil fuel-based technologies,
hydropower has significant effects on hydrology and biodiversity. For instance, Norway’s pursuit of near zero-emission status has come at great cost to the nation’s
aquatic ecosystems, such as inducing large impacts on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations (41). Solar power farms sometimes have significant water use (42),
whereas natural gas combined cycle turbines use very little water (43). City governments should work with their utilities to think creatively about how to minimize
total environmental impacts using the conventional power technologies in their portfolio. For example, much of Phoenix’s electricity consumption is derived from
the Palo Verde nuclear plant, which is cooled with treated sewage from Phoenix, with municipal economic benefits (44).

Water supply.

Similar to electricity production, water supply impacts on surrounding ecosystems can be minimized through
increasing efficiency and/or implementing new infrastructure. Water efficiency does not always yield straightforward results in
reducing impacts to regional aquatic ecosystems and flows. Understanding the nuances of complex human–environmental

systems may require system-level perspectives and modeling. This should lead to more informed and
prioritized investments, such as whether efficiency policies need investment vs. upgraded hard infrastructures. For example, system dynamics
modeling revealed that Las Vegas policies on reducing residential outdoor use would be more beneficial than reducing indoor use by the same amount because
treated water (from indoors) is returned to the Colorado Rivers system and available for reuse or aquatic ecosystems (34). Water uses in the southeastern United
States during the wet season may have little to no ecosystem impacts, whereas water uses during the late summer season may have large impacts. Some
groundwater-fed supplies create minimal aquatic impacts. Maximizing
the benefits of efficiency policies will require that cities
take deep introspective evaluations of their complex infrastructure and system interdependencies.

Although cities have taken initiatives to transform water efficiency policies across sectors, cities continue
to use outdated, energy-intensive, and leaky systems for water distribution . Likewise, approaches to water
infrastructure investments have remained resource intensive , i.e., more intakes or more storage. For example, in response to
growing water demands and lower lake levels, Las Vegas has incrementally deployed new intakes (currently three) at progressively deeper levels in Lake Mead (21).
To mitigate Atlanta’s water demand, we estimate that 19 reservoirs have either been constructed or are under construction, expansion has been proposed for 16
existing reservoirs, and 8 new reservoirs are in various stages of permitting in north Georgia since the late 1990s (45). Our analysis suggests that cities should
attempt to meet water demands without highly impactful hard infrastructures (e.g., reservoir construction).

Biod loss causes extinction

Mmom 8 (Dr. Prince Chinedu, University of Port Harcourt (Nigeria), “Rapid Decline in Biodiversity: A
Threat to Survival of Humankind”, Earthwork Times, 12-8, http://www.environmental-
expert.com/resultEachArticle.aspx?ci d=0&codi=51543)

From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that the survival of Humankind depends on the continuous existence and
conservation of biodiversity . In other words, a threat to biodiversity is a serious threat to the survival of
Human Race. To this end, biological diversity must be treated more seriously as a global resource , to be
indexed, used, and above all, preserved. Three circumstances conspire to give this matter an unprecedented urgency. First, exploding
human populations are degrading the environment at an accelerating rate , especially in tropical countries. Second,
science is discovering new uses for biological diversity in ways that can relieve both human suffering and
environmental destruction. Third, much of the diversity is being irreversibly lost through extinction caused
by the destruction of natural habitats due to development pressure and oil spillage , especially in the Niger Delta.
In fact, Loss of biodiversity is significant in several respects. First, breaking of critical links in the biological

chain can disrupt the functioning of an entire ecosystem and its biogeochemical cycles. This disruption
may have significant effects on larger scale processes. Second, loss of species can have impacts on the
organism pool from which medicines and pharmaceuticals can be derived. Third, loss of species can
result in loss of genetic material, which is needed to replenish the genetic diversity of domesticated
plants that are the basis of world agriculture (Convention on Biological Diversity). Overall, we are locked into a race. We must
hurry to acquire the knowledge on which a wise policy of conservation and development can be based for centuries to come.
 1ac – plan
The plan-
The United States federal government should substantially increase its technical and
financial assistance programs to help communities build sewage treatment and
drinking water treatment works
 1ac – solvency
Next is solvency-

Federal funding is key to solve both short-term revenue losses from COVID and long-
term financial stability of water systems- infrastructure upgrades are first on the
chopping block, direct financial relief that they don’t have to pay back is critical- the
aff’s funding streams are empirically effective at getting infrastructure built but a
permanent increase is key
Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

This section discusses the financial sustainability of the water sector . Recommendations center on the
fundamental tension that water is a necessity for all, but the cost of providing water and wastewater
services is rising. Additionally, the majority of operations, maintenance, and capital improvement costs
for an individual utility are funded by water bills that customers pay. In most communities, water rates
do not reflect the true cost of providing this essential service. Because of this, a utility’s ability to cover
increasing costs and maintain system reliability depends on the financial well-being of its customers,
which is increasingly precarious. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has only worsened this situation. The
recommendations provide practical solutions to address both emergency and long-term funding needs
while addressing structural issues like system fragmentation.

To make the water sector more stable, the federal government should: • Provide direct financial relief
to water utilities to make up for lost revenue due to COVID-19. • Enact temporary, short-term financial
and tax policy changes to support the financial solvency of local water agencies. • Increase funding for
the state revolving funds (SRFs) and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ( WIFIA ), with
expanded technical assistance to water utilities. • Expand US Department of Agriculture (USDA) water
and environmental programs. • Incentivize regional partnerships between utilities.

Provide Direct Financial Relief to Water Utilities That Make up for Lost Revenue Due to COVID-19 As a
result of the declining revenues during the pandemic, coupled with increased costs, drinking water
systems are projecting a $15.5 billion loss,10 $ and wastewater systems are projecting a 12.5 to $16.8
billion loss.11 In many cases, this unprecedented disruption to utility revenue will delay badly needed
infrastructure investments at the local level that support economic growth, safeguard public health,
and protect the environment. Utilities need federal funding to offset the revenue losses and increased
emergency operating costs, similar to how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act provided assistance to airports, public transit, and other service entities. The financial stability of
drinking water and wastewater utilities is critical to their ability to provide clean, safe, and reliable
service to their customers. Congress must provide financial relief to utilities so that reliable water
service is not compromised because of customers’ inability to pay their water bills. Local water utilities
stepped up to maintain life-sustaining, essential services during the pandemic and took a financial hit to
do so. They need the resources to become whole.

Legislative Action Congress should provide direct financial relief to local water utilities to offset revenue
losses and emergency operating costs incurred due to COVID-19. The federal government should
provide funds directly to utilities as grants or forgivable loans. There should also be funds for technical
assistance to help lower-capacity utilities access financial relief.

Enact Temporary, Short-Term Financial and Tax Policy Changes to Support the Financial Solvency of
Local Water Agencies Even under normal circumstances, many state and local governments (which fund
97 percent of the infrastructure investments in the water sector) struggle to make ends meet. 12 The
pandemic made these problems even more acute, increasing the need for financial and technical
assistance to access the limited federal funding and finance tools available to the water sector. A few
targeted changes to the tax code can be leveraged for substantial results in the sector.

Legislative Action Congress should enact legislation that would make changes to the tax code as follows.
• Congress should establish a Public Water Liquidity Facility, similar to the Municipal Liquidity Facility
established in the CARES Act, which would buy up short-term notes (financial obligations that generally
run for less than two years) directly from water utilities and inject capital directly into the utility to help
pay for operating costs. Providing water utilities with direct access to the Federal Reserve will assist
utilities in managing short-term cash flow issues. • Congress should restore tax-exempt advance
refunding for utilities and their restructuring abilities on debt obligations issued in at least the last 10
years and throughout the COVID-19 crisis. This would keep, or lower, the cost of capital for utilities
improving their financial situation and help keep water rates low for customers. • Congress should raise
limits on bank-qualified debt to $40 million for at least two years. This would encourage banks to invest
in tax-exempt bonds from smaller municipalities and to provide access to lower interest rates. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 changed the bond limit for a two-year period to $30
million.13 • Congress should create a Taxable, Interest-Subsidized, Infrastructure Bond (TIIB) for all
types of infrastructure— including water—that features federal tax credits or subsidies for bondholders
and state and local government bond issuers. This would make investors who are interested in the
traditional tax-exempt municipal bond offerings (like insurance companies and mutual funds) interested
in investing in water infrastructure projects as well. This is similar to the very successful Build America
Bonds program from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009. When established, the
program should be exempt from any future sequestration to reduce investor risk.

Increase Funding for SRFs and WIFIA with Expanded Technical Assistance to Water Utilities Water
infrastructure is dramatically underfunded in the United States. The American Society of Civil Engineers
gives the US a D grade for drinking water14 and a D+ grade for wastewater.15 The nation needs a $1
trillion investment in drinking water and another $250 billion for wastewater just to bring these
essential services up to a state of good repair. WIFIA, the SRFs, and technical assistance funding are
proven financing mechanisms that can close this gap if fully funded . The national backlog of necessary
improvement projects has grown too large and desperately needs increases in funding through these
accounts. With increased investment to close the water infrastructure investment gap, the nation’s
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would grow by $4.5 trillion in 20 years. This investment could create
800,000 new jobs and raise disposable income by more than $2,000 per household.16 Moreover, the
application process for both WIFIA and the SRFs currently takes more than a year, delaying much-
needed infrastructure investment. To safeguard federal or state investment, both processes could easily
be streamlined while continuing the same level of community involvement, public comment, and due
diligence.

Executive Action The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should convene a taskforce
of staff and water sector stakeholders to recommend ways to streamline the application process for
both the SRFs and WIFIA to bring more utilities into the process and lower the cost of applying for funds.
This taskforce should also investigate ways to maximize investment efficacy for environmental justice
communities, low-income areas, and rural communities.

Legislative Action Congress should permanently augment water infrastructure funding through
increased federal appropriations for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) programs.
Collectively, these programs are annually funded at around $2.7 billion. Funding should at least be
doubled, and technical assistance should be expanded to help communities apply for these programs. At
least 40 percent of funds through these programs should be allocated as grants, negative interest loans,
and principal forgiveness for environmental justice communities, low-income areas, or rural
communities.

Expand USDA Water and Environmental Programs More than 90 percent of drinking water systems
serve fewer than 10,000 people.17 These small, predominantly rural utilities represent a larger total
number of compliance issues (although the percentage of small systems with health-based violations is
actually smaller than larger systems) and struggle to achieve monitoring compliance with water quality
standards set by the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. Without a large ratepayer base, small
utilities often cannot cover the costs of service and struggle to make necessary investments in
operations and maintenance, let alone capital expenses. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this
situation considerably worse.

Increasing funding for water and wastewater services in rural communities will not just help individual
utilities and their customers during, and emerging from, the pandemic— it will serve as an investment
in rural communities as a whole . It will ease the financial burden associated with system repairs for
state and local governments with many small systems and the customers of those systems. It is
important that funds are provided as grants rather than loans. Small systems often cannot pay back a
loan or do not have the resources and expertise to apply for one in the first place. An increase in
technical assistance funding via USDA grants will provide small utilities with the added capacity they
need to make loan and grant dollars go further, avoid noncompliance issues, and keep their customers
safe.

Legislative Action Congress should at least double appropriations for the USDA Rural Development
Water and Environmental Program to boost the agency’s grant, technical assistance, and training
programs, including the Rural Utilities Service Water and Environmental Programs (WEP). With a
successful track record, this critical and underfunded program helps small, struggling utilities come into
compliance and provide safe, reliable water service to their customers. Congress should also expand the
WEP Programs to include a new regionalization technical assistance program to facilitate regionalization
projects. It should also expand the existing USDA Household Water Well System Program to include
grants and forgivable loans, particularly for low-income households.
Federal funding is key to modernization to make water infrastructure resilient to
future shocks- local water utilities are risk averse, which means the plan is key to
overcome their reluctance to modernize the system
Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

Modernization in the water sector is much needed to close current gaps, prepare for future needs, and
safeguard against all types of shocks, foreseen or otherwise . The steady decline in federal investment
in water infrastructure over the last 40 years has left the burden for modernizing largely on local
governments, many of which are already cash-strapped and unable to take on the upfront investment
needed .41 In the United States, clean, safe, resilient, and affordable water is necessary for the well-
being of every person. A modern water infrastructure system is also essential to the commercial and
industrial sectors to improve competitiveness and fuel economic growth .

The water sector is understandably risk averse. Minor changes can have big, cascading effects on the
health and safety of the public, economic activity, and the environment. There is significant risk
involved in taking on new approaches. The US will need to support research and innovation, as well as
leverage the private sector and academia, to solve current challenges with new technologies and
methods. Moreover, the water sector needs real leadership in Washington, DC, to create a
comprehensive modernization plan that ensures inclusiveness and resilience and supports all sectors.
With success stories across the energy and transportation sectors, it is time to apply proven regulatory,
policy, and financial incentives to moderniz ing the nation’s water systems.42

To make water smarter, the federal government should: • Establish an assistance program to aid utility
modernization. • Establish a national Internet of Water network. • Create a research and development
(R&D) program supporting innovation in the water sector. • Expand and improve federal efforts to
develop the water workforce.

Establish an Assistance Program to Aid Utility Modernization Conventional upgrades to water

infrastructure are expensive, disruptive, and often slow. Proven digital, datadriven solutions are
available to modernize water networks at lower up-front cost, lower ongoing operating cost, and with
improved delivery of safe and reliable water supplies. A federal assistance policy that places a premium
on implementing next-generation water technologies would modernize both rural and urban water
infrastructure affordably, benefitting public health, economic recovery, community access to safe water
and wastewater, and improve resilience. Federal assistance to support the upgrade of water
infrastructure would ensure investments help build systems that plan for the future with the flexibility
to adapt to changing conditions or address unforeseen shocks such as pandemics .

The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made significant investments in modernizing the
electrical grid. These investments helped the industry accelerate the deployment of advanced
technologies that increased grid reliability and efficiency while reducing costs. Utility consumers can
now better manage their energy consumption and save money with easier access to their own data, and
utilities work with a smaller environmental footprint, reduced peak loads, and lower operational
costs.43 A public policy to advance the next generation of water technology will be critical to future
public health infrastructure . It could reduce the costs of providing such services and meet the challenge
by integrating smart water technologies into traditional water infrastructure responses.

Legislative Action Congress should create a new grant program to support water utilities’ effort to
develop and implement smart water infrastructure programs. This program should enhance the digital
information capabilities of utilities to improve real-time decision-making about water supply,
wastewater, and stormwater collection systems. The program should focus on accelerating the
implementation of technologies that improve the efficiency of physical operations and deliver real-time
data, allowing for interactive decisionmaking. Technologies should also enhance or establish system
automation and remote monitoring of water and wastewater systems’ performance, asset
management, and extended life cycles. The program should also set aside funds for technology
improvements at smaller systems and technical assistance in deploying technology modernization at
smaller systems.

Federal funding is comparatively the best way to solve- deficit spending, positive
spillover effects, economies of scale, quality, sustainability, and equitable growth are
all necessary outcomes that only federal investment can access
Blair 17 (Hunter, Policy and Research Director at ThinkTennessee. Previously, Hunter worked as a
budget analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, where he provided research and policy analysis relevant
to federal tax and budget policy. He also worked as a part of EPI’s Economic Analysis and Research
Network (EARN) on their EARN in the South initiative. Hunter earned a bachelor of arts in math and
economics from New York University and a master’s in economics from Cornell University. September
11. https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-ideal-mix-of-federal-state-and-local-government-
investment-in-infrastructure/)

the state
This report looks at different factors—including but not limited to economic efficiency—that policymakers consider when seeking to determine what is most appropriate division among federal, , and local governments for funding, financing, and overseeing

infrastructure investment Some contend that it is most economically efficient for state and local
.

governments to play the larger role in infrastructure investment, But the case for with the federal government having only a small role.

this is actually quite weak, And the benefits of a strong role for the federal government in
as we show below.

funding infrastructure investments are

, financing, and overseeing greater than advertised , in fact, often .

The key findings of this report include:

The federal government can help mitigate infrastructure funding challenges at the state level during
economic downturns. The ups and downs of the business cycle can make it difficult for states to
maintain stable levels of infrastructure investment . While states’ balanced budget requirements generally do not apply to capital investment, many states still fund infrastructure on a pay-as-you-go

During economic downturns—when states’ tax revenues decrease and social services spending
basis.

increases—state-funded infrastructure is likely to suffer from neglect. The federal government can play
a role in mitigating this challenge. Because the federal government can run deficits —even quite large
ones over the short run—it is well positioned to help states maintain stable or increasing infrastructure
investment over the course of a business cycle.
Infrastructure user fee pricing mechanisms are the best funding option for ensuring economic efficiency; such mechanisms can be managed at any level of government. An infrastructure funding system is most economically efficient when the beneficiaries pay the full cost of the benefits
they receive. Some say that state and local governments should pay for state and local infrastructure projects, arguing that the beneficiaries of this infrastructure are taxpayers in those states and localities. But determining who the beneficiaries are is actually more complicated than that.
For this reason, infrastructure user fee pricing mechanisms are a better choice for ensuring economic efficiency. Infrastructure that is funded by user fees can be financed and managed at any level of government—federal, state, or local.

Because most infrastructure is connected to regional or national infrastructure networks, a federal role
in infrastructure investment has greater benefits for economic efficiency than is often assumed .

Networks involve economies of scale and positive spillover effects that may not be taken into account
by state and local government infrastructure decisions. The federal government may be better
positioned than states to make infrastructure decisions that most effectively and efficiently integrate
the network .

The federal government can play an important role in pricing externalities. When infrastructure policy aims to maximize economic efficiency, costs need to be measured correctly to ensure infrastructure users are paying the full cost. This means, for example, that the externalities of
carbon emissions must be taken into account in pricing the use of transportation infrastructure. Because carbon emissions have the same impact on the global climate regardless of where they are emitted, all states share responsibility for this impact and need to share the cost in order
for pricing to be economically efficient; however, when states set carbon pricing independently, they may choose not to bear the full cost (or any cost). The federal government may therefore be better positioned than state and local governments to set efficient carbon prices.

A federal role can help ensure equitable access to infrastructure for all citizens Policymakers don’t .

only consider economic efficiency when making decisions about infrastructure investments . Often, they
wish to ensure that basic needs—for example, clean drinking water —are met for all citizens regardless
of their ability to pay. When equity—rather than economic efficiency—is the primary goal, such
infrastructure investments may be better handled by the federal government, which is better positioned
to assure access to all citizens regardless of where they live and regardless of local economic conditions .

Increased infrastructure investment could give the economy a boost

The Great Recession and a slow recovery in its wake have led Washington policymakers to focus recently on short-term boosts to infrastructure investment as a way to stimulate the economy. In the near term, the economy will likely continue to remain below full employment, and short-
term boosts in infrastructure investment could stimulate aggregate demand and boost job growth if accommodated by the Federal Reserve (Bivens 2017b). This near-term boost would also cut into the estimated $2.1 trillion funding gap needed to boost our infrastructure to a state of
good repair, as reported by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2016). Getting the economy quickly back to full employment could also stem the recent deceleration in productivity growth that is likely a result of a prolonged period of weak aggregate demand (Bivens 2017a).

In the long run, infrastructure contributes to the nation’s public capital stock. Such investment has historically been provided by the public because infrastructure typically has natural monopoly characteristics. Building a water utility involves enormous upfront fixed costs, but once that
infrastructure is in place, an additional gallon of water can be provided to a household at a low marginal cost. If infrastructure investment were left to the private sector, once the infrastructure were in place a private firm could easily keep new market entrants out by underbidding them.
This market power allows the private monopoly to hike prices, degrade service quality, and undersupply infrastructure goods and services. Given that a substantial government role is already required to prevent such abuses in infrastructure management and pricing, often it has been
simpler for the government to provide the infrastructure itself. Private capital increases productivity growth through capital-deepening—giving workers more tools and machines so they can produce more in an hour of work. And private producers rely on the nation’s public capital stock
—the systems of roads, bridges, and airports, for example—when supplying their goods to the market. Theoretically, the role played by public capital in the production process means that allowing the nation’s stock of public capital to decline could slow private-sector productivity growth.
As Figure A shows, higher public capital is indeed associated with faster productivity growth.

Bivens (2017b) details that the economic evidence supports a substantial impact from public investment on productivity. Early work by Aschauer (1989, 1990) found a return to public capital that was about three times higher than the return to private capital. These estimates were then
criticized by a following round of researchers but recent research—notably by Heintz (2010)—has addressed these criticisms while still finding very large rates of return to public investment.

Is the current mix of government involvement for funding, financing, and managing infrastructure investments optimal?

The evidence noted above argues strongly that a permanent increase in public investment including — the “core” infrastructure 1 [1. Here we define “core” infrastructure

as transportation and water infrastructure . The data presented in this report focus on these investments , but we also discuss other infrastructure investments as we explore what roles might be played at different levels of

government; examples of other investments include green energy, smart grids, and broadband.] this report focuses on— may help to partially reverse the recent slowdown to
productivity growth .
But noting the broad benefits of a permanent increase in infrastructure investment does not clarify what are the proper roles to be played by federal, state, and local governments in this investment. The rest of this report focuses on this question. We begin by detailing the historical roles
played by these different levels of government.

Currently, much infrastructure spending is funded and directed by states

Total public spending on transportation and water infrastructure2 was $416 billion in 2014. Of that total, just 23 percent came from the federal government, with the vast majority—77 percent—coming from state and local governments (CBO 2015).

2. The Congressional Budget Office defines transportation infrastructure as including all national, state, and local roads, bridges, tunnels, mass transit, rail, aviation, and water transportation. It defines water infrastructure as including water containment systems, sources of fresh water,
and water utilities.

Historically speaking, state and local governments have consistently taken responsibility for the majority of spending on transportation and water infrastructure but to varying degrees at different times. Figure B shows the percentages contributed by the federal government and by state
and local governments to total public spending on transportation and water infrastructure from 1956 to 2014.

Following the passing of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956—which enabled construction of the country’s interstate highway system—the federal government’s role in infrastructure ramped up considerably. In 1956, the federal percentage of public spending on transportation and
water infrastructure was 15 percent; by 1960, it was 31 percent. Between 1959 and 1975, the federal share of infrastructure spending averaged 30 percent; that share increased further in 1976, hovering between 35 and 38 percent until 1981, when it began to decline. The federal
percentage of spending on transportation and water infrastructure averaged 25 percent between 1987 and 2014; in 2014, it sat at 23 percent.

Behind these numbers lie considerable differences in how the types of water infrastructure transportation and

spending are apportioned among different levels of government. Federal government spending leans
more heavily toward capital investment Federal contributions make up a ; in 2014, the federal government’s share of capital spending was 38 percent.

much smaller percentage of spending on operations and maintenance —12 percent in 2014. (Total public capital spending on transportation and water infrastructure

state and local governments

was $181 billion in 2014, while total spending on operations and maintenance was $235 billion.) Though bear the heavier burden for both types of transportation and water infrastructure spending, they

must spend a much larger share of their dollars on operations and maintenance than on capital
investments .
Figure C shows the percentage of public capital spending on transportation and water infrastructure that came from the federal government and the percentage that came from state and local governments each year from 1956 to 2014. Figure D shows the shares each contributed to
operations and maintenance spending during those same years.

State and local governments may face challenges to maintaining infrastructure investment during
economic downturns
While most states and localities are theoretically capable of maintaining a stable permanent increase in infrastructure investment over the course of a business cycle, their balanced budget requirements may mean they are not the optimal government entities to do so.

As a legal matter, states are generally required to balance their budgets. Since states do not print their
own money, this requirement makes some economic sense—it prevents states from being forced into
a self-fulfilling liquidity crisis by herd-driven financial markets (which can happen even in cases where
a state’s debt would otherwise have been sustainable in the long term This type of self-fulfilling ).3 [3.

liquidity crisis has been a key feature of the Eurozone crisis in recent years, as member countries issue
debt in currency that they cannot print even states that have fiscally sustainable . See De Grauwe and Ji 2012 for evidence that

deficit positions may be pushed into default by herd-driven financial markets if they do not control
their own currency states have separate operating and capital
.] But capital expenditures have long-term benefits, and states and localities are aware of this. For this reason, most

accounts with the capital account being exempt from balanced budget requirements. This allows states
,

to borrow money to finance the large upfront fixed costs associated with infrastructure and spread the
funding out over time .

However, this type of borrowing doesn’t happen for all states . McNichol (2017) notes that 22 states fund infrastructure on a pay-as-you-go basis, paying for capital projects with

If a state chooses to fund infrastructure on a pay-as-you-go basis, a recession can cause serious
cash on hand.

problems for maintaining stable levels of infrastructure investment across the business cycle As people .

lose their jobs, state government spending on Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, and other social
programs increases. At the same time, revenues slump due to lower income, sales, and property tax
receipts. The fiscal strain caused by higher spending and lower revenues makes it more likely that
infrastructure investment will be neglected during these periods. As we will detail later, infrastructure is often part of a network; to optimize efficiency within a network,
consistent investments are needed throughout the system—not just in states willing to borrow to invest in infrastructure. In the absence of changes to the laws or traditions of those 22 states, there is a clear case for a strong federal role to maintain stable infrastructure investment over
the business cycle.

For states that do utilize the bond market extensively to finance infrastructure spending, recessions
may still cause problems Theoretically, assuming nothing happens to the funding behind capital
.

projects, capital accounts allow states to maintain (or even increase countercyclically) their investments
in infrastructure. Figure E, which tracks state and local government debt since 1992 as a percentage of GDP, appears to lend support to this theory. Over the course of the business cycle, state and local government debt seems to average out to imply stable
investment (albeit with a significant increase in state and local government debt even over the business cycle expansion from 2001–2007).

But on the whole , as shown in Figure F (which follows state and local government gross investment since 1979), there appears to be some evidence that state and local gross investment
falls during recessions . During the recession periods 4 since 1980 the average annualized growth rate of state and local gross investment was -0.6 percent, compared with an average annualized growth rate of 2.2 percent during the intervening

nonrecession periods.

4. We define recession period as the time period from the peak to one full year after the trough of a recession.

On its face, this evidence seems clear cut: it shows that state and local gross investment 5 tends to decline during recessionary periods and increase during nonrecessionary periods. However, it is important to note that these averages may not be fully representative of typical spending
trends during recessionary versus nonrecessionary periods. The negative average growth rate for recession periods is driven by a steep decline during the 1980 recession. Without factoring in the 1980 recession, the average annualized growth rate would be 2.5 percent. On the other
hand, the average nonrecession period growth rate is pulled down considerably by an unusually long period of decline during the post-2010 period, which was clearly a function of the enormous damage to tax collections inflicted by the Great Recession and the slow recovery in its
aftermath. Without the post-2010 decline, the nonrecessionary growth rate would be even higher, at 3.6 percent. Regardless, it seems clear that, in general, state and local gross investment spending is more likely to falter in recessionary periods than in nonrecessionary periods.

Of course, a simple comparison between recessionary and nonrecessionary periods does not take into account other possible factors influencing state and local gross investment. For instance, 2010 saw Republican wins in many state-level elections. Many of these Republicans ran on
strong spending-cut platforms, and the subsequent fall in state investment post 2010 could have been driven more by political decisions than by genuine fiscal strain. On the whole, however, the evidence from Figure F suggests that we should be concerned about the ability of state and
local governments to sustain investment in the face of recessions.

the combination of state funding and financing of infrastructure with the desire to impose user fees
Additionally,

to provide the revenue streams and bolster economic efficiency can put great pressure on states. As we will discuss

it is often claimed (with far less evidence) that state direction of

in more detail later in the paper, imposing user fees is good for economic efficiency, and

infrastructure investments is somehow more efficient than federally directed efforts But relying on user .

fees can put great pressure on states’ ability to maintain consistent investment effort over the business
cycle.
For instance, investments in roads and bridges have often been funded by gas taxes. The historical purpose of gas taxes was to approximate user fees. Driving more meant filling up the gas tank more, which in turn meant that heavy road users would pay more in taxes at the pump. This
logic has been slowly breaking down in recent years with the increase in the number of hybrid and electric vehicles on the roads—drivers of these vehicles pay a lower gas tax per mile (or none at all), making the gas tax a less meaningful way of collecting user fees for road usage. For this
reason, some states are experimenting with new funding mechanisms, such as mileage-based user fees.

To get a sense of how such a funding mechanism might interact with future business cycles, let’s look at historical trends in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in relation to business cycles. Figure G shows a 12-month rolling average of vehicle miles traveled for the years from 1970 to 2017.
Recession periods are shaded.

If a state or locality were to fund a road with some type of user fee on vehicles, a revenue projection made before the most recent recession likely would have followed the general upward trend in VMT. But during recessions, VMT has historically declined or stagnated—and during the
most recent recession this decline was quite sharp: it declined by 3.2 percent, from a high of 3.04 trillion miles in late 2007 to its business cycle low of 2.94 trillion miles in late 2011, and did not regain its late-2007 level until late 2014.

Air traffic control provides another example of how economic shocks can cause a decline in revenue coming from a user fee funding source. Britain and Canada both have commercialized air traffic control systems that fund their services through user fees. But the airline industry
downturn in 2000—intensified by 9/11 and the 2003 SARS outbreak—would bring both countries’ air traffic control systems to the brink of insolvency (GAO 2005).

Since infrastructure projects would be financed long term through capital accounts, it is unclear the extent to which such declines in revenues would impact state and local government finances during a downturn. But user fees become yet one more declining revenue source during a
recession, and the decline in user fee revenue can add to the strain on a state’s budget; this interaction between user fees and state budgets should certainly be considered. In fact, state and local governments have an option to offload the risk of declining revenue sources onto private
capital. They can finance with a revenue bond, which is tied to the specific revenue-generating source—for example, a toll on a new road—instead of general obligation bonds. But private capital holders will require a higher interest rate to take on that risk, thereby increasing the long-
term cost of financing the infrastructure project to the municipality.

increasingly state and local governments are using P3s to

It is worth noting here, though we will turn to public-private partnerships (P3s) in more detail later in the report, that

finance infrastructure investment Such P3s are often funded by user fees, and demand risk . (the possibility that there may be

can be a serious concern for the structure of P3 contracts When the number of
fewer cars on the road paying tolls than originally anticipated) .

infrastructure users goes down during an economic downturn, a P3 may be brought near insolvency .

In such cases, the private partner often engages in opportunistic renegotiation in an attempt to be
bailed out by the public partner (Engel, Fischer, and Galetovic 2014). Too often this effort succeeds and the public partner ends
up shouldering the demand risk (Blair 2017).

Insofar as infrastructure investment is used as a stimulus measure, the federal government has an
advantage in undertaking this during an economic downturn . Fiscal strain may make some states that fund infrastructure investment on a pay-as-you-go basis unable to engage

while state and local governments without pay-as-you-go laws or

in infrastructure investment during a downturn, while it may make others more reluctant to do so. And

traditions appear to keep long-term debt stable over business cycles the —as would be necessary to maintain stable investment over the business cycle—

funding and financing these states utilize have the potential to cause fiscal strain or even lead to the
type of self-fulfilling liquidity crisis mentioned above.

The federal government may be better positioned than state and local governments to ensure
infrastructure investment is consistent over an entire business cycle

The federal government has fewer constraints than state and local governments when attempting to
ensure strong permanent investment in infrastructure that remains stable even as the economy sinks
into recession .

In theory, state capital accounts should allow states to maintain stable infrastructure investment over the course of a

without running afoul of legal requirements to balance budgets In practice, however, states often
business cycle .

face challenges to doing so A strong federal government role in a permanent infrastructure

.

investment could mitigate or avoid these challenges .

Almost half of states finance infrastructure on a pay-as-you-go basis, and bond proceeds make up less than 10 percent of financing for capital projects in 17 states (McNichol 2017). As we will detail, the network characteristics of much infrastructure means that a permanent increase in
infrastructure investment should be sustained across states to maximize national benefits. But if some states are unwilling to finance infrastructure with long-term debt, their infrastructure spending is likely to decline during economic downturns as state and local budgets undergo fiscal
strain. Infrastructure projects should not be abandoned or delayed in any state simply due to poor business cycle timing.

And while states that do use long-term debt considerably to finance infrastructure investment have been willing to keep such debt stable over the course of the business cycle, they are not immune
to the ups and downs of the business cycle . The extent to which P3s and user fees are involved in respectively financing and funding infrastructure can cause
fiscal headaches .

Unlike state and local governments, the federal government is able to run quite large short-term
deficits—and during a recession doing so is good for the economy The federal government can absorb .

declining revenues without necessitating a spending cut The federal government is well
, including declining user fee revenues, .
positioned to maintain stable infrastructure investment over the course of the business cycle, by
ramping up its investment to offset declining state and local investment during economic downturns.
Infrastructure investments are most economically efficient when beneficiaries bear the full costs

Broadly speaking, for infrastructure investment to be provided in an economically efficient way, those that benefit from a particular project should bear the cost. If the full cost is not borne by beneficiaries, too much may be consumed or provided. If those bearing the costs do not receive
much of the benefit, too little may end up being provided. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2015), among others, uses this understanding of economic efficiency to define what it sees as the appropriate roles of federal, state, and local governments in infrastructure. CBO argues that
to avoid inefficiencies, the federal government should fund projects that benefit the nation as a whole, while projects that benefit only particular states or localities should be left to their respective governments. This type of argument is often used as the de facto reasoning for assigning
further responsibility for infrastructure funding to state and local governments. But state and local governments are already responsible for the vast majority of infrastructure funding, even as the funding gap continues to widen. In the following sections, we argue for a broader
understanding of economic efficiency that isn’t defined by a simple breakdown into federal or state and local beneficiaries, and we argue that user fees are a better means of ensuring economic efficiency than attempting to assign beneficiaries to specific levels of government.

Economic efficiency depends substantially on how funding is raised

Infrastructure provision involves two distinct aspects that are often conflated—funding and financing (Blair 2017). We will dig into the efficiency implications of financing a bit later, but for now let’s focus on funding. Funding refers to how infrastructure is eventually paid for—through
some combination of user fees and taxes (Geddes 2015). The extent to which the beneficiaries of infrastructure ultimately bear its costs depends mostly on the funding mechanism. Some examples should make this clear.

As we noted above, historically the gas tax has been used to fund surface transportation infrastructure by approximating road usage. However, as the number of hybrid and electric vehicles increases, the gas tax’s usefulness as an approximation of usage is declining. Ignoring for a
moment the externalities associated with carbon emissions, this means that the gas tax is doing a worse job of making sure that those that benefit from roads pay for their costs. Electric vehicles allow users to obtain all the benefits of road usage while incurring almost none of the costs.
This makes the gas tax a less economically efficient funding source. What’s relevant for our argument is that this is clearly true regardless of who is imposing the gas tax (state, local, or federal government agency) or which roads are being used (a local city’s road, a state highway, or a
national interstate). A user fee—when it correctly measures usage—is substantially better able to ensure costs are paid by beneficiaries when compared with simply assigning state, local, or federal governments to fund, finance, or manage infrastructure.

While intuitively it may appear that the beneficiaries of local roads are local residents, and hence anything that ensures these local residents fund infrastructure will improve efficiency, the correspondence between geography and efficiency of infrastructure provision breaks down pretty
quickly on close analysis. Maybe a city road should mostly be paid for by the city’s residents, as they will obtain most of the benefits. But if funding came solely from a local government income tax, other (nonlocal) households who benefit from the roads would receive those benefits
without paying for them. For example, if the road is used to transport a consumer good from a local company to a nonlocal consumer, the end consumer will not pay for the use of the road despite having benefited from it. Because some beneficiaries are not bearing the cost of their
usage, we can expect that these local roads will eventually be underprovided. On the other hand, a direct user fee would ensure that the beneficiaries eventually pay the costs (in our example, the cost of tolls paid by the truck driver would be passed through to the end consumer as an
increase in shipping costs), no matter what level of government has assigned the cost, thus ensuring that road usage will be priced efficiently and the road maintained at a level commensurate with usage.

To build on this example, let’s consider the trucking industry more generally. The benefits of highway interstate infrastructure are national and diffuse, so it is more efficient for the federal government to fund the interstates—which are heavily used by the trucking industry. The
beneficiaries of trucking are likewise national and diffuse. But the damage that trucks impose on roads varies substantially with axle weight. Assigning interstate road costs in the most economically efficient way, therefore, would entail a pricing mechanism that is able to adjust the user
fee to the weight of the truck rather than simply using a “one size fits all” mileage-based user fee. Crucially, which level of government manages the infrastructure is not nearly as relevant for economically efficient infrastructure provision as the infrastructure’s pricing (which, when
utilized, is often its funding source).

These examples have focused on roads, but similar arguments can be made for the relevance of user fees for economic efficiency in other types of infrastructure. Breaking apart responsibility for infrastructure among state, local, and federal governments may get close to beneficiaries
bearing the full costs, but user fees get far closer no matter which level of government undertakes the investment.

Some might wonder whether it’s possible to assign a price to infrastructure because they think of infrastructure as a public good. But in economic terms, “public good” usually refers to a good that is nonexcludable (those who don’t pay can’t be excluded) and nonrival (consumption by
one person does not prevent consumption by another)—and infrastructure is generally not treated as a “public good” in this sense. Instead, the economic case for public provision of infrastructure more commonly rests on claims that infrastructure investments tend to have the
characteristics of natural monopoly—and are thereby open to abuses when managed privately. Because, in economic terms, infrastructure is generally considered to be excludable—it is usually possible to exclude those who haven’t paid to use a piece of infrastructure, for example,
through tolls, utility bills, or other user fees—there is no reason that infrastructure cannot be appropriately priced as such. And, in principle, there is no reason a state or local government is in a better or worse position to use an economically efficient pricing mechanism than the federal
government. User fee–funded infrastructure can, in theory, be managed at any level of government.

The federal government can often help state and local governments price usage more efficiently

The federal government could play a useful role in helping states and localities better use pricing mechanisms for infrastructure provision. One example is electronic tolling. Recent technology has made electronic tolling a considerably easier way to collect user fees for road usage—which
is particularly useful as the gas tax stops functioning as an accurate user fee (though it continues to be a good way to price carbon emission externalities). But the network characteristics of our highway system create a problem, as states must negotiate with one another to create
interoperable electronic toll systems. The electronic toll systems of most states are still not widely interoperable, despite the 2012 enactment of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which required “that all Federal-aid highway toll facilities provide for the
interoperability of electronic toll collection by October 1, 2016” (FHWA 2012). One option for the federal government to help states and localities reach a more efficient user fee for road usage is to lean more heavily on compliance with this law, making it easier to collect tolls from
nonlocal road users. State and local households would also likely be more receptive to participating in electronic toll collection programs if they knew they would be able to use their transponders across the national network.

The federal government likely has an efficiency advantage in financing infrastructure

Apart from the funding mechanism, infrastructure provision also requires upfront financing of capital
investments. Since a defining characteristic of infrastructure is its large upfront fixed costs, and user fees
and tax revenues only come in gradually over time, financing is needed to bridge the gap .

For governments the typical source of financing is bonds. The federal government sells Treasuries, and
states and localities sell municipal bonds For bond financing, there isn’t any (on which earned interest is exempt from federal taxes).

particular reason to believe that financing of infrastructure by states or localities is more efficient than
federal financing The pre–Great Recession advantage of municipal bonds
. Figure H compares 20-year Treasury rates with the Bond Buyer 20 Index. (from 1979 to

is almost surely driven by their federal tax advantages, and these tax advantages actually make
2007)

municipal financing more expensive overall than the interest rates alone would indicate, as the
federal government is deprived of tax revenue that would otherwise be derived from municipal bond
interest income. In the post–Great Recession period, Treasuries have seen their rates fall below those of
municipal bonds even without the former’s tax advantages. This is clearly being driven by widespread
sentiment that Treasuries are less risky than any other bond vehicle , including municipal bonds .

Another growing source of infrastructure financing at the state and local levels is public-private
partnerships (P3s). However P3s are less efficient economically than other forms of
, there may be reason to believe that, at least in some cases,

financing.

In the financing of a typical P3, the private partner pays some of the upfront costs of an infrastructure
project in return for a stream of revenues—either user fees or tax dollars. P3 contracts also often assign
operations and maintenance duties to the private partner; the hope is that the private partner will
undertake these tasks more efficiently than the public partner could the natural monopoly . However,

characteristics of infrastructure mean that, this division of labor may not result in if contracts are not carefully negotiated,

increased efficiency Government must still play a strong role in contracting and regulating P3s,
(Blair 2017).

and so far resource-constrained state and local governments have not established a strong track
record in this regard. 6

If P3s are in fact not economically efficient, then the federal government could help state and local
governments avoid P3 usage by providing funding to relieve some of the resource constraints (often driven by political

that push them to use P3s

considerations as much as economic ones—see Blair 2017) .

On the other hand, P3s with appropriate contracts may offer more efficiency for certain projects. As mentioned above, though, state or local governments may lack the resources to
effectively contract and regulate P3s. The federal government could play a useful role in providing assistance and institutional knowledge to states and localities on effectively negotiating P3 contracts and using P3s. Indeed,
one of the strongest arguments for a national infrastructure bank is that a strong, centralized source of federal expertise in managing and regulating P3s can provide technical assistance and advice for state and local governments looking to tap private finance.

Another concern to factor in when exploring the relationship between financing and economic efficiency is the externalities associated with climate change. A significant public investment in green energy would help combat global climate change and, as Bivens (2014) explains, current
generations need not sacrifice economic efficiency in order to make this investment. Current consumption levels can be maintained by decreasing investment in the conventional capital stock as we increase our investment in green energy. Given that private-sector capital is drive by
profitability, it is likely these particular marginal investments in the conventional capital stock are economically inefficient as they do not take into account the unpriced externality of carbon emissions. The unpriced externality of carbon emissions means that a deficit-financed public
investment in green energy would combat global climate change while being economically efficient. However, if the decision of whether or how much to invest in green energy is left up to the states, those investments may be inconsistent. The federal government is likely best positioned
to increase the deficit to finance these investments and crowd out economically inefficient (due to the unpriced externality) private capital nationwide.

Externalities need to be accounted for to maximize economic efficiency, and the federal government may be in the best position to internalize them

As discussed above, externalities are an important part of the equation when seeking to maximize economic efficiency in infrastructure investment. In this section, we take a closer look at the relationship between externalities and public investment—a relationship that is often
overlooked in discussions of the roles of federal, state, and local governments in infrastructure investment.

An externality exists when another party benefits or is harmed by the actions of an economic actor. One of the more common examples is pollution of a river. The owners of a factory upstream are not affected when they pollute a river as long as they are not charged for discharging
pollutants into it; instead, the household downstream incurs the pollution’s costs. The economic prescription for this inequitable situation is to make the user internalize the externality, that is, make the polluter incur a sufficiently high cost—one that reflects the real costs of the pollution
in terms of its harm to others and to the environment. One way to do this is to put a tax on pollution; another is to create a market for pollution rights with a system such as cap and trade that puts a price on emissions.

In an earlier discussion, we ignored externalities when discussing the gas tax; now we consider those externalities. In order to mitigate climate change, carbon emissions need to be decreased. And while the gas tax has lost some efficiency as a pricing mechanism—as it looks less and less
like a user fee—it does help attach a price to carbon emissions from vehicles and is therefore more efficient than it appears to be when only considering its value as an approximation of road usage. As we have noted before, if carbon pricing is left up to the states, some states may not pay
their full share of the costs and users in those states may not incur sufficiently high costs to disincentivize carbon emissions. A substantial federal role in addressing the impacts of carbon emissions—both through appropriate pricing and through infrastructure investments (green energy
investments to mitigate carbon emissions and other investments for adaptation to the impacts of climate change)—may be appropriate.

The benefits of network effects and spillovers boost the case for a larger federal role in infrastructure
While we argue that pricing mechanisms have more to do with assigning costs to beneficiaries than with which level of government does the funding, the typical efficiency case—which argues that the federal government should take on projects of national significance—itself implies a
strong federal role for most infrastructure projects because of infrastructure’s network characteristics. What we think of as “core” infrastructure is usually part of a network—think of the nation’s roads and bridges, airports, waterways, or broadband. Here, we look at three different
economic aspects of infrastructure networks and how they imply a strong role for the federal government.

Network effects—or economies of scale in consumption—increase the benefits of infrastructure to users

nationwide

What is typically referred to in economics as “network effects” are essentially economies of scale in
consumption Economies of scale in consumption mean that the benefits of a good or service increase
.

with an increase in the number of users in the network . The typical example is telephones. If only one person owned a telephone, that telephone would be useless. But as more people own
telephones, the value of having a telephone to each individual person increases. These network effects are often present in infrastructure—for example, airports or broadband. Broadband internet access is more valuable the more people and organizations are connected to it. Likewise,

When such network effects are present, there is a clear

one airport is not particularly useful. But with many airports come many destinations, making each airport in turn more valuable.

onus for the federal government to play a major role. Individual states and localities do not internalize
the benefits they confer on others when they provide an additional node in the network. The federal
government sits in an ideal place to recognize this value and reach a more economically efficient
outcome .

Infrastructure projects have spillover effects beyond their specific state and local contexts

As we noted previously, because of the network characteristics of infrastructure, not all of the benefits
from a particular piece of infrastructure are realized by the state or locality in which the
infrastructure is built. Infrastructure built in one area interacts in various ways with infrastructure in
other areas to generate spillover effects investments may draw . Infrastructure investments in one city may provide benefits to cities connected to it in a network; conversely, the

in economic activity from connected cities, having negative economic effects on those cities. An
individual state or local government will not internalize the effects—whether positive or negative—that
their investments have on other cities or regions. The federal government may be in a better position to
take spillover effects into account and therefore boost the economic efficiency of an infrastructure
investment .

The literature assessing the macroeconomic effects of public investment on productivity includes
discrepancies between aggregate- and regional-level estimates that could be explained by spillover
effects. The evidence we have discussed for large positive effects of public investment on output has largely utilized aggregate
data. And these effects have not been typically found at the regional level Spillover effects (Pereira and Andraz 2013).

are one possible explanation, since these effects would be captured in aggregate-level studies but not in
studies focused on the regional level when researchers have used . Pereira and Andraz (2013) note that these spillover effects have been little studied, possibly because

regional data, the general results of the effect of public investment on output have been inconclusive:
some studies find that public investment has positive but smaller effects on output at the regional
level compared with the aggregate, while others do not find effects at the regional level .

However, one study that does explicitly look into spillover effects finds that only 20 percent of the aggregate effects of public investment in U.S. highways occur in the state itself where a particular highway is located (Pereira and Andraz 2004). International evidence for the impact of
public capital at the regional level has been similar to the U.S. evidence (Pereira and Andraz 2013).

The degree to which regional and aggregate benefits of infrastructure diverge due to spillovers will
depend on the extent to which the infrastructure investments have been coordinated or not between
levels of government. spillover effects can be positive or negative
As we have noted, positive spillover . And it is plausible that

effects are more likely when investments are coordinated . Such an understanding would be consistent with the inconclusive
results of the effects of public investment at the regional level . While the effects of coordinating infrastructure investments have been little studied, one recent paper does attempt
to disentangle the different possible spillover effects to isolate the role played by coordinated investments—those focused not on local objectives but rather with a coordinated aim to cause positive spillover effects. Looking at data on Italian regions, Di Giacinto, Micucci, and Montanaro

the positive effects of coordinated investment are

(2012) find positive effects on output from both coordinated and idiosyncratic infrastructure investment but find that

substantially greater than for noncoordinated investment .

the federal government can increase the efficiency of infrastructure

If spillover effects are substantial, as the economic evidence so far suggests,

investments by helping to coordinate investments that will result in positive spillovers and discouraging
those projects with negative spillover effects .

One objection that might be made to this—as well as to the argument for a strong federal role
stemming from the network effects discussed in the last section—is that such efficiencies could be
replicated by state and local governments cooperating to act together While in theory this is possible, .

it seems unlikely in practice . Again, we point to the recent example of transponders in electronic tolling—the takeaway from this example being that smaller regional cooperation seems possible in practice, but broad
cooperation looks to be more difficult . As of 2014, a driver from Florida, Georgia, or North Carolina (using North Carolina’s cheaper transponder version) can use a SunPass, Peach Pass, or NC Quick Pass in any of those

states
three (FDOT 2014). But as soon as that driver hits Virginia and the mammoth E-ZPass system that is used for electronic tolling throughout much of the Northeast and Midwest, the driver’s transponder will no longer work. This despite the fact that North Carolina offers a

more expensive transponder that is already interoperable with E-ZPass (North Carolina Turnpike Authority 2017)—so North Carolina clearly has the capability for interoperability —and

the fact that the MAP-21 Act requires interoperability

“that all Federal-aid highway toll facilities provide for the Given that states
of electronic toll collection by October 1, 2016” (FHWA 2012).

have not managed to achieve widespread interoperability of electronic tolling systems , it seems unlikely that states
would be able to cooperate on infrastructure investments with positive network and spillover effects .

Consistent network quality is essential: A chain of infrastructure is only as strong as its weakest link

Often the goods and services provided by infrastructure networks act as intermediate goods to the
production process of private firms Problems will reduce output . with electricity generation or transportation will not confine themselves to those sectors. They

throughout other sectors of the economy with knock-on effects causing problems further down the line , .
Jones (2011) builds a model taking into account such linkages and finds that disruptions to intermediate goods are easily quantifiable and have large multipliers—reducing output in economies substantially.

In addition to linkages, Jones’ (2011) model includes complementarities:

In any production process, there are many things that can go wrong that will sharply reduce the value of production. In rich countries, there are enough substitution possibilities that these things do not often go wrong. In poor countries, on the other hand, any one of several problems can
doom a project. Obtaining the instruction manual (the “knowledge”) for how to produce socks is not especially useful if the import of knitting equipment is restricted, if replacement parts are not readily available, if the electricity supply is erratic, if cotton and polyester threads cannot be
obtained, if legal and regulatory requirements cannot be met, if property rights are not secure, or if the market to which these socks will be sold is unknown.

In other words, a production chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This theory is harder to quantify, and Jones’ results may be empirically smaller than one may have expected because of firms’ ability to substitute. But in terms of infrastructure, there’s a connection back to the
linkages. If one state decides not to keep up its interstates, the effects of that decision will be felt throughout the regional and national economies. Trucks would have to choose between taking an alternate route around the state or driving on the poorly kept roads, thereby increasing the
wear and tear on their trucks—either choice results in decreased productivity. And the linkages of infrastructure with the broader economy would imply knock-on effects lowering productivity throughout.

Infrastructure is often provided as part of a network, and to maintain economic efficiency that network
needs consistent quality throughout. Consistent quality ensures that disruptions are not multiplied
throughout the production chain. These networks benefit the nation’s efficiency as a whole and so
shouldn’t be allowed to vary in quality because of particular state and local government funding
decisions the federal government may be better positioned to take these network benefits into
. Again,

account when making infrastructure investment decisions than individual states or localities would be .

When deciding how to provide infrastructure, policymakers often take into account broader public policy goals beyond economic efficiency

policymakers do not typically

Though this report has emphasized what economic efficiency considerations imply for defining the appropriate role of federal, state, and local governments in infrastructure investment,

constrain themselves to just considering economic efficiency. Objectives outside of economic efficiency
also matter a great deal .

For example, economic inequality has been widening for decades. One characteristic driving this inequality is the gap
between productivity and a typical worker’s compensation Productivity allows for the potential to .

boost wages but does not guarantee such a boost . Since the 1970s this potential has gone unrealized. Net productivity grew 72 percent between 1973 and 2014, while during that same time period

the inflation-adjusted hourly compensation of the median worker grew just 9 percent (Bivens and Mishel 2015). As we noted at the beginning of the report, public infrastructure investment can boost
private-sector productivity; unfortunately, the benefits of private-sector productivity growth clearly
aren’t being shared as broadly as one might hope But public investment has benefits beyond . , as Bivens (2017b) notes,

private-sector productivity growth that are more broadly shared :

Several methodologically sound papers have suggested that countries with larger public capital stocks tend to have greater equality of
incomes (see, for example, Calderón and Servén 2004). This should not be a shock—by its nature public capital is more broadly
based in its ownership than private capital (in the United States, the wealthiest 1 percent of households own more than 40 percent of private wealth) and so its benefits
should be more broadly distributed (Getachew 2008).

A federal investment allows for the broad-based benefits of public investment to be felt nationwide , but
individual state and local governments’ infrastructure investment could provide broad benefits as well.

Equity considerations seem to more explicitly define a major role for the federal government Often, a .

political consensus has formed that some service, such as clean drinking water, should be available to all
citizens regardless of where they live or their ability to pay Once such a policy goal has been established, .

there is no reason to leave the implementation of that goal to state and local governments. If a
particular service is to be available to all citizens, then the federal government is best positioned to
guarantee that access. For example, if we want affluent residents of Mountain View, California, to help pay to replace lead water
pipes in Flint, Michigan, that is best done through federal policy .

Sustainability and energy efficiency could be positive goals in

Other broad national goals would also imply a significant federal government role for infrastructure investment.

their own right, particularly in the absence of an established price on carbon emissions. The federal
government can play a role in promoting such goals through the infrastructure sector . This touches back on a previous point. In the case of

when economic efficiency does drive

carbon, this constitutes the federal government internalizing an externality—in effect reaching what is actually a more economically efficient allocation of resources. That is,

policymaking decisions, those decisions should get the measure of efficiency right. Often, as is the
case with carbon emissions, this implies a substantial federal role .
Conclusion: There are reasons to consider a stronger federal role in infrastructure investment

Too often it is taken for granted that state and local policymakers are better positioned than federal policymakers to match infrastructure levels to the needs and preferences of users—under the assumption that the primary users are their constituents. This kind of reasoning is used to
argue that more of the responsibility of infrastructure investment should be shifted onto state and local governments—even though they already account for the majority of public spending on infrastructure. (For instance, as shown in Figure B above, state and local governments
accounted for 77 percent of public spending on transportation and water infrastructure in 2014.) If economic efficiency is the aim, pricing mechanisms provide a far better tool for assigning costs to the appropriate infrastructure beneficiaries than any attempt to separate beneficiaries
among different levels of government.

the network characteristics associated with many types of infrastructure suggest that a strong federal
Further,

government role could help to ensure economic efficiency. State and local governments are unlikely to
take such effects into account when making infrastructure investment decisions. And when efficiency is
measured correctly, it often implies a substantially stronger federal role; for instance, there are
efficiency benefits from decreasing carbon emissions to mitigate future climate change, but if the
decision to invest in green energy is left up to the states, those investments may be inconsistent.
Outside of efficiency, the federal government is best situated to ensure that national policy goals
beyond economic efficiency are achieved such as providing all citizens clean drinking water or ensuring —

that the benefits of investment flow further down the income distribution than they have in past
decades .

Delays are devastating- utilities need to begin infrastructure projects now to ensure
sufficient time to spread best-practices prior to the regulatory deadline-
Via 21 (Steve, director of federal relations at the AWWA Government Affairs Office. March 2. "Get
Started Yesterday" https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/awwa.1665)

In March 2020 I reviewed the proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) revisions by stating that it is “critical
to the water community's ongoing efforts to protect consumers from the risk of lead in drinking water.
The revised rule is an important step and there are several opportunities to make it better.” On Jan. 15,
2021, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published the final LCR. Yes, the Biden
administration delayed the effective date. Yes, there are multiple parties that have filed petitions in the
US District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Yes, the Biden administration is seeking a stay of
ongoing litigation to allow it to review the rule. Still, none of these actions change the fact that water
systems and state regulators are required to meet the compliance deadlines in the final rule as
published— we should get start ed now .

Before Jan. 15, 2024, utilities must take these actions:

Build and share a credible service line inventory that reflects not only their portion of the service line but
also the portion owned by the customers. That inventory must include galvanized service lines
potentially preceded by lead pipe, currently or historically. Utilities must also report when they are
uncertain of the material used in a service line.

Expand customer service contact programs to support rapid notification of lead sampling results, engage
customers in lead service line replacement, rapidly distribute pitcher filters, and sample at schools and
childcare facilities.

Update utility communications plans and practices to include ongoing communication and public
notification required by the revised rule.

Review and adapt current lead and copper monitoring protocols and sample plans before deadlines.
Understand current corrosion control practice and develop data streams to facilitate evaluation of
ongoing operations and potential changes in treatment, analysis of new supplies, or response to
observed high lead levels.

The standard of care that USEPA incorporated into the final rule for virtually every action required by
water systems will be challenging to meet. Given the public health and political significance of lead,
water systems must do more than simply comply with the letter of the law . Large and midsize water
systems face the most severe hurdles, particularly if they are behind the curve and must take additional
actions because they have exceeded the lead action level or the new trigger level.

AWWA and USEPA have different estimates of how many systems will be required to engage in
mandatory lead service line replacement and mandatory revision of corrosion control practice . An initial
estimate is that 40% of larger systems with lead service lines will be undertaking both these activities.
The sector knows from experience that when systems rush into corrosion control revision and lead
service line replacement programs, they can end up in very challenging implementation circumstances
and sustain substantial loss of public confidence.

Water systems often can rely on states for counsel in times of crisis. In this instance, however, states are
trying to determine how to manage the workload associated with the rule while providing oversight for
hundreds if not thousands of systems. While deadlines are now three and four years away, when they
arrive, states will be dealing with a deluge of service line inventories, lead service line replacement
plans, revised sample plans, exceedances, tier‐1 public notifications, and then the follow‐through on
those exceedances. There will not be an opportunity to learn from the successes and mistakes of others
unless water systems start now and take the steps necessary to comply .

The LCR revisions are the most effective and most expensive Safe Drinking Water Act rulemaking since
the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The revised rule is arriving as water systems face revenue shortfalls
from the impacts of COVID‐19, and they are unable to engage their communities and community
leadership in person. It's challenging to focus on a rule with compliance dates several years away, but
focus we must without delay .

Systems that have lead service lines, galvanized service lines preceded by lead pipe, and service lines of
unknown material will face an arduous rule framework come January 2025. Taking steps appropriate to
your community to address these lines— removing those that need to be removed , characterizing those
that are uncharacterized, reaching consensus on how lead services on private property will be managed
in your community—will pay dividends in public confidence . Legwork accomplished now on
inventories, protocols, outreach materials, and intra‐agency planning can facilitate hitting the ground
running when pandemic restrictions ease.
**solvency
 2ac – water key to lead
Water infrastructure is key to lead
Frostenson 17 (Sarah, Covering environmental and health disparities. April 27.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/27/15424050/us-underreports-lead-poisoning-cases-
map-community)

America’s infrastructure literally makes children sick

Water doesn’t naturally contain much lead. The problem is with the pipes. Prior to 1980, most US
drinking water systems contained lead service lines. Today there are an estimated 6 million lead pipes
still in operation, servicing at least 10 million Americans.

And now many of these systems are in desperate need of repair.

Public schools in Portland, Oregon, shut off their drinking water taps last summer after high levels of
lead were found across the school district’s water fountains. A school in western Pennsylvania was sued
for letting high levels of lead in the drinking water go untreated for months. And a USA Today
investigation found 2,000 public water systems across the US with elevated lead levels that exceeded
the Environmental Protection Agency limit of 15 parts per billion — 350 of which serviced elementary
schools or day cares.

“What we’re figuring out now in the public health community is you have this deteriorating
infrastructure, which makes the lead poisoning problem suddenly rise, and no one would have known if
they weren’t monitoring,” said Roberts.

And as we saw in Flint, Michigan, it was grassroots activism and increased testing of children for
elevated blood lead levels that threw the lead poisoning crisis into the national spotlight. It was the
worst public water infrastructure failure America had seen in decades, and implicated all levels of
government — local, state, and federal. But something else we learned from Flint is that excessive levels
of lead in our water and in our homes are far more prevalent in the US than anyone suspected.

And low-income neighborhoods and communities of color are disproportionately impacted. A 2014
paper found that social disparities exist in accessing clean water and that lower-income communities are
at greater risk of exposure to drinking water contaminants.

Civil engineers have estimated that overhauling America’s drinking water system and bringing it up to
code will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 25 years, but if these investments aren’t made, we risk
continuing to poison children with dangerous levels of lead.
 2ac – water utilities key to regional economies

Investing in water infrastructure creates durable career paths key to equitable

economic growth- water utilities are vital to regional economic opportunities
Kane & Tomer 18 (Joseph, Senior Research Associate and Associate Fellow. Prior to Brookings, Kane
was an economist at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. He holds a master’s degree in urban and
environmental planning from the University of Virginia and a bachelor’s degree in economics and history
from the College of William and Mary. Adie, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and
leads the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative. His work focuses on metropolitan infrastructure usage
patterns, including personal and freight transportation, and the intersections between infrastructure
and technological development. Prior to his work at Brookings, Adie was a Senior Analyst at the New
York County District Attorney’s Office where he advised senior executives on policy-relevant matters. He
holds a master’s in Public Policy from American University and a B.A. from the University of Florida.
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institute. "Renewing the Water Workforce: Improving water
infrastructure and creating a pipeline to opportunity" June. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Brookings-Metro-Renewing-the-Water-Workforce-June-2018.pdf)

Investing in infrastructure represents one of the timeliest ways for the country to support longlasting
pathways to economic opportunity for all Americans. Infrastructure-related occupations tend to provide
competitive wages, while not requiring as much formal education.9 And the country’s water
infrastructure, in particular, is well positioned to offer more durable careers to a wide variety of workers
across urban and rural areas alike.

The economic opportunity stems from the urgent investment needs around the country’s water
infrastructure assets. Municipalities, led by water utilities, are often at the front line of this challenge,
responsible for more than 95 percent of public spending on operations and capital improvements
annually.10,11 With $655 billion in capital investments needed nationally over the next 20 years, utilities
are working alongside a host of different partners to address physical infrastructure needs head-on.12
Together, for instance, 30 of the country’s largest water utilities are estimated to spend $23 billion
annually on operations and capital projects, while contributing $524 billion to the economy over the
next decade.13

Renewing America’s water infrastructure will require a skilled workforce to construct, operate, and
maintain facilities for decades to come. However, meeting these demands depends on more
coordinated, purposeful actions by water utilities, other employers, workforce development partners,
and state and national leaders. These actions also need to acknowledge how utilities are often
positioned as anchor institutions in many regions, with nearly 52,000 water systems spread across the
country.14 There is a genuine opportunity to promote shared prosperity in the communities that
utilities and other water sector actors serve, but seizing this opportunity requires a clearer recognition
of the economic importance of the water workforce and a better articulation of future actions.

This report aims to identify the extent of the U.S workforce involved in overseeing water infrastructure.
Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative information— including dozens of conversations
with utility leaders and other workforce groups across the country—the report finds that the water
workforce represents a crucial segment of the labor market. 15

Healthy water utilities are key to regional economic growth

Kane & Tomer 18 (Joseph, Senior Research Associate and Associate Fellow. Prior to Brookings, Kane
was an economist at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. He holds a master’s degree in urban and
environmental planning from the University of Virginia and a bachelor’s degree in economics and history
from the College of William and Mary. Adie, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and
leads the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative. His work focuses on metropolitan infrastructure usage
patterns, including personal and freight transportation, and the intersections between infrastructure
and technological development. Prior to his work at Brookings, Adie was a Senior Analyst at the New
York County District Attorney’s Office where he advised senior executives on policy-relevant matters. He
holds a master’s in Public Policy from American University and a B.A. from the University of Florida.
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institute. "Renewing the Water Workforce: Improving water
infrastructure and creating a pipeline to opportunity" June. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Brookings-Metro-Renewing-the-Water-Workforce-June-2018.pdf)

WATER UTILITIES AS ECONOMIC ANCHORS BOX C Water utilities represent significant employers for
water workers at both a national and metro level. In particular, they control some of the most critical
public infrastructure assets in need of long-term operation and maintenance and in many ways are
anchor institutions for their communities . The subregional analysis here aims to delve deeper into that
role by exploring where utilities are located and how their establishments relate—geographically and
otherwise—to the communities they serve.75

Using a spatial dataset based on EPA's Facility Registry Service (FRS), this analysis looks at more than
12,847 publicly-owned water treatment plants nationally, with a particular focus on their location and
the characteristics of the neighboring population served.76 The water treatment plants are organized by
ZIP code which are then linked to census tracts to investigate several relevant variables, including
demographics, educational attainment, unemployment, and poverty rates. 77,78

These data are based on five-year estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS). In total, the
plants analyzed are found across 32,659 unique census tracts, serving a total population of nearly 146
million people. Given the enormous geographic extent and reach of these plants, the demographic
characteristics of the population they serve often closely mirror those of the United States as a whole.
However, there are three distinguishing characteristics worth noting: water treatment plants tend to be
located in neighborhoods with (1) lower levels of educational attainment, (2) higher unemployment
rates, and (3) higher levels of poverty, speaking to their importance as economic anchors to many
disadvantaged workers and residents.

For example, in tracts with water treatment plants, 43.6 percent of workers have a high school diploma
or less, compared to 32.5 percent of all workers nationally.79 In addition, unemployment rates typically
exceed 5 percent, compared to the 4.5 percent unemployment rates seen nationally in 2016. Finally, 15
percent of residents in these same tracts live below poverty, slightly more than the 14 percent poverty
rate seen nationally in the same year. Collectively, water treatment plants are located in tracts where:
42.5 million workers have a high school diploma or less, 5.6 million workers are unemployed, and 21.2
million residents live below the poverty line.

Of course, there is wide variation in these demographic and economic characteristics depending on the
particular region—and tract—observed.

As just one example, consider the case of Camden, New Jersey. Among those living near one of the
biggest water treatment plants in Camden, 69.3 percent of workers have a high school diploma or less
and unemployment stands at almost 10 percent. The poverty rate stands at 57.5 percent. Furthermore,
nearly half of all residents—47.4 percent—are black, which the previous finding has shown are a group
of workers underrepresented in the water sector compared to national averages. Camden continues to
face a long list of economic and environmental struggles, but leaders are pioneering collaborative
solutions focused on infrastructure investment and workforce development. Led by the Camden County
Municipal Utilities Authority (CCMUA), the region’s primary wastewater utility, a variety of groups have
partnered together to improve existing water services, promote green infrastructure development, and
help local residents fill positions connected to all these activities.80 One such effort, PowerCorps
Camden, has helped promote environmental stewardship and applied learning in the community by
recruiting young people to maintain green spaces and improve formerly polluted sites as part of a six-
month AmeriCorps program. Several additional regional efforts are highlighted in the recommendations
section below.

While Camden only provides a snapshot of this issue, it demonstrates how water utilities—and the
public assets they oversee—can potentially play a key economic role in the communities they serve .
Obviously, the hiring needs and capacities of each utility vary from region to region—and from facility to
facility—but many utilities are already pioneering new workforce strategies across the country . While
doing so, they are forging new collaborations and training efforts to not only improve their
operations, but also to connect more workers with economic opportunity. This analysis shows that
utilities are strategically located in many places where the benefits could spell economic gains in their
backyard .
 2ac – SRF key to workforce
Increasing SRF funding key to workforce development
Kane & Tomer 18 (Joseph, Senior Research Associate and Associate Fellow. Prior to Brookings, Kane
was an economist at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. He holds a master’s degree in urban and
environmental planning from the University of Virginia and a bachelor’s degree in economics and history
from the College of William and Mary. Adie, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and
leads the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative. His work focuses on metropolitan infrastructure usage
patterns, including personal and freight transportation, and the intersections between infrastructure
and technological development. Prior to his work at Brookings, Adie was a Senior Analyst at the New
York County District Attorney’s Office where he advised senior executives on policy-relevant matters. He
holds a master’s in Public Policy from American University and a B.A. from the University of Florida.
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institute. "Renewing the Water Workforce: Improving water
infrastructure and creating a pipeline to opportunity" June. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Brookings-Metro-Renewing-the-Water-Workforce-June-2018.pdf)

The financial barriers many regions face to create new training programs also stand as another clear
area of priority nationally. First, federal and state leaders should expand funding via existing workforce
development programs and educational initiatives, including apprenticeships. For instance, national
apprenticeship programs geared toward smaller utilities and regions, developed in concert with states,
are accelerating efforts to train water treatment operators and fill other mission-critical occupations,
which could benefit from additional capacity. Doing so would acknowledge the varying scale of the
water workforce challenge, opportunity, and response. The WaterPro Apprenticeship program
represents one such effort, with the aim to connect to water professionals across all states.143 Likewise,
the recent Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2018 has increased federal funding for apprenticeship
programs centered on construction, transportation, and other related activities.144 Moreover, some
utilities are taking advantage of State Revolving Funds (SRFs) and other federal programs to support the
completion of needed water infrastructure projects while expanding community benefits and workforce
training.145 Moving forward, federal leaders should make it easier for utilities and other eligible entities
to use SRF funding in more nimble, flexible ways to support workforce development.146
 2ac – water innovation

Water innovation is key- solves long-term water problems, but funding is key
Ajami et al 16 ("The Path to Water Innovation" October. The Hamilton Project. Launched in 2006 as an economic policy initiative at the
Brookings Institution, The Hamilton Project is guided by an Advisory Council of academics, business leaders, and former public policy makers.
The Project provides a platform for a broad range of leading economic thinkers to inject innovative and pragmatic policy options into the
national debate. The Project offers proposals rooted in evidence and experience, not doctrine and ideology, and brings those ideas to bear on
policy debates in relevant and effective ways. This policy brief is based on The Hamilton Project discussion paper, “The Path to Water
Innovation,” which was authored by: NEWSHA K. AJAMI Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. BARTON H. THOMPSON JR. Stanford
Woods Institute for the Environment Stanford Law School. DAVID G. VICTOR University of California, San Diego.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/path_to_water_innovation_policy_brief.pdf)

The U.S. economy depends on a well-functioning water infrastructure. America’s water systems support
55 million acres of irrigated farmland, 315 million domestic users of water, and a $16 trillion national
economy. Commercial industries ranging from manufacturing to information technology to retail rely on
readily available access to water; without it, the profitability of these companies and the livelihoods of
their employees are threatened. In sum, our long-term prosperity depends on satisfying the U.S.
economy’s thirst for water while also protecting the environment.

The U.S. water infrastructure—including dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, and distribution pipes—is aging
and is ill-equipped to efficiently handle current water needs. Almost 40 percent of the pipes in our water
distribution systems are at least forty years old. Some key infrastructure predates World War I. In fact,
about one fifth of the piped water in this country is lost to leaks and system inefficiencies, wasting about
7 billion gallons of treated water every day.

The continued deterioration of the nation’s water systems is just one of many threats to the viability of
America’s water supply. The population is growing and is expected to reach 400 million by 2050. This
will place pressure on the water infrastructure despite continued gains through water conservation.
Climate change will further threaten water supplies in some parts of the country; it is likely to shift
weather patterns and thin snow packs in the West. In coastal zones the impacts of climate change will
be felt through stronger storms and coastal flooding that could put the reliability of urban water supply
systems at risk. Higher temperatures will also raise evapotranspiration rates, further increasing
agricultural water needs. Finally, rapid depletion of groundwater reservoirs has threatened,
permanently in some locations, water users’ ability to draw on long-standing water reserves. In the
future, we will need to do more with less.

New technologies can help better allocate water in the face of scarce supply. Innovation can provide
additional water, increase the productivity of existing water sources, and make conservation measures
easier and cheaper. For example, advances in recycled water and desalination can provide additional
sources of water that are better insulated from drought and from other supply-related pressures.
Furthermore, new water technologies and improvements in the management of groundwater aquifers
and complex river systems can further improve drinking water quality.

While there is great promise in new technologies, the potential for innovation in the water sector has
barely been tapped. Investment in the water sector totaled only $1.5 billion in 2012—a small amount
when compared to other industries, such as clean energy, where investment amounted to $69 billion
during the same year. Similarly, patent levels have remained relatively constant over the past decade in
water subsectors such as purification, whereas the number of patents in the clean energy sector has
increased rapidly.

The relatively low levels of innovation in the water sector are due to a host of barriers that drive down
incentives to invest. Pricing policies fail to pass on the full cost of water to consumers, and limit water
suppliers’ revenue to invest in innovation. Outdated and inflexible regulations encourage the continued
use of status quo technologies instead of new advances. For example, California requires that industrial
plants using recycled water be inspected by the Department of Health Services, despite the remote
chance for human contact with that water. In addition, limited mechanisms for raising capital hinder
development of new technologies. Industry conservatism, the inherent long lifespan of water
infrastructure, and system fragmentation also inhibit innovation.
 2ac – brink – COVID recovery
Now is the key time- recovery from COVID creates a unique opportunity to ensure
equitable and stable water access
Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

The US Water Alliance is releasing this federal policy agenda during a time of great change—in our daily
lives, in the water sector, and in the United States. COVID-19 is upending life across America, disrupting
business as usual and shifting the way we relate to and work with one another. In many ways, and
across many areas of our economy, the pandemic exposes and reinforces structural challenges and
social inequities. In the water sector, this plays out in access to water, the cost of water services,
governance structures, and even how we fund and deliver critical water services.

That is why the Alliance is launching the Recovering Stronger initiative. For the next two years, we will
address the structural problems that have led to decades of suboptimal and inequitable outcomes in
water. We will also examine ways to address those problems: pricing water to reflect its true value,
providing affordable and universal access, catalyzing utility partnerships and consolidation, deploying
smart water operations at scale, and using water as a key pathway to address the climate crisis.

We have a unique opportunity in how we respond to and recover from COVID-19. We can take this
moment of disruption to rework our systems so that they ensure both the financial stability of water
agencies and the equitable delivery of services . If we do this, we can emerge stronger than before—a
resilient water sector prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.

At the US Water Alliance, we are committed to aligning diverse stakeholders to find common ground
solutions to our nation’s most pressing water challenges. This commitment and mission is more critical
than ever during this public health and economic crisis. We hope that this federal policy agenda will
spark national dialogue and serve as a blueprint for the 117th Congress and the Biden administration in
employing water investments and policies to set the country on a transformational path to recovery.
 2ac – brink – delays
Now is key- utilities are going to delay capital expenditures, causes cascading effects-
prefer our ev, it has data
Raftelis 20 ("The Financial Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on U.S. Drinking Water Utilities" American
Water Works Association, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, funded by the Water Industry
Technical Action Fund of AWWA. April 14.
https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/Communications/AWWA-AMWA-COVID-Report_2020-04.pdf)

Drinking water utilities across the U.S. have experienced, and are anticipated to continue to experience,
revenue and cost impacts associated with the COVID-19 crisis. This report was prepared for the
American Water Works Association (“AWWA”) and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
(“AMWA”) to estimate the financial impacts of the crisis on drinking water utilities in the U.S.

The anticipated financial impacts were estimated by (1) obtaining recent and relevant data regarding
observed or anticipated financial and operational water utility impacts, (2) monetizing the impacts, and
(3) scaling up or aggregating the impacts to estimate the impacts on a national level.

The results of the assessment indicate that the aggregate financial impact of COVID-19 on drinking
water utilities will likely be approximately $13.9 billion, representing an overall 16.9 percent financial
impact on the drinking water sector. These impacts are a result of drinking water utilities eliminating
shut offs for non-payment, anticipated increased delinquencies as a result of high unemployment rates,
reductions in non-residential water demands and associated revenues offset by increases in residential
consumption, and lower customer growth. A summary of the financial impacts associated with these
factors are provided in the table below.

Due to these financial impacts, drinking water utilities across the nation are anticipated to delay and
reduce capital expenditures by as much as $5 billion (annualized) to help manage cash flows due to the
crisis. These capital expenditure reductions will have a cascade effect on economic activity in
communities across the U.S. As a result, communities will experience a reduction in economic activity
by as much as $32.7 billion (annualized) in aggregate when considering economic multiplier effects. The
reduction in capital expenditures is also anticipated to result in a loss of 75,000 to 90,000 private sector
jobs.

Drinking water utilities may also experience additional future revenue losses estimated at approximately
$1.6 billion in aggregate as a result of deferrals of planned water rate increases, bringing the total
combined impact of the crisis on drinking water utilities to more than $15 billion. These deferrals will
further exacerbate community economic impacts by further reducing capital spending and will put the
water sector further behind in addressing its capital infrastructure needs.
 2ac – decentralized water infrastructure

Aff solves decentralized water systems-

Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

Increase Funding for Places Too Remote for Centralized Infrastructure The current regulatory and
funding framework favors centralized infrastructure . Unfortunately, many communities are too small
and remote to support centralized drinking water and wastewater systems, while other communities
have environmental conditions that make centralized systems prohibitively expensive. These are just a
few reasons that more than two million people in the United States do not have access to drinking water
and wastewater services at home. Other communities may have the infrastructure in place but do not
have the funding base to adequately maintain or replace centralized systems .

Legislative Action Congress should increase funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds and USDA well and wastewater programs, with an additional set aside for small-scale
drinking water and wastewater systems. This could include: community water kiosks, decentralized
water reuse (such as rainwater harvesting and graywater systems), microgrids, and remote monitoring
(among other emerging technologies and processes) in rural and underinvested communities where
geography or population size make centralized systems technically or financially unfeasible. Congress
should further direct the EPA to create standards and fund technical assistance to ensure the
decentralized systems are appropriately staffed, safe, efficient, maintained, and that community
members take the lead in designing the system that is right for their community.
 2ac – water key to biod
Water crisis crushes biodiversity
Wetlands 10 (Wetlands International. October 2010. "Biodiversity loss and the global water crisis A
fact book on the links between biodiversity and water security"
https://www.wetlands.org/publications/biodiversity-loss-and-the-global-water-crisis-a-fact-book/)

Globally we are facing a water crisis. We use and dispose of more water than ever before: to grow food
and now increasingly biofuels, for domestic use and to generate power for our homes and industries.
Such activities are viewed as necessary - through them the world’s poorer countries can develop and
those that are already developed can become greener and more sustainable. However, the growing
demand for water is diminishing the amount, quality and regularity of water available for our
ecosystems. This is causing a loss and degradation of biodiversity in ecosystems of all types. It is also
diminishing the ability of ecosystems to provide essential services that keep people healthy and out of
poverty.

Access to clean drinking water protects other sources of water- that’s key to
biodviersity
Wetlands 10 (Wetlands International. October 2010. "Biodiversity loss and the global water crisis A
fact book on the links between biodiversity and water security"
https://www.wetlands.org/publications/biodiversity-loss-and-the-global-water-crisis-a-fact-book/)

Water is essential for life in the sea and on land. 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water.
However, only a tiny proportion (3%) of this is fresh water, a large amount (around two thirds) of which
is unavailable, being frozen as polar ice-caps or glaciers. Another large part (about a third) is stored as
deep groundwater. As a result, all, non-marine, living creatures rely on less than 1% of the planet’s
total freshwater for their survival.

There is huge competition for this available fresh water . It is necessary to maintain biodiversity, but
also to produce food, fuel, generate power, provide water for domestic and industrial uses and
maintain the carbon content of ecosystems . Groundwater fulfils some of these needs but the pressure
on surface water is huge.

2.2 Water stress and scarcity: an unequal world Although freshwater makes up just a small fraction of
the world’s total water resources, it is thought that there is still enough available for the world’s uses.
Unfortunately water is not always found in the places where it is most needed. Many places experience
water scarcity, creating water stress for different users. The concept of scarcity is a complex one;
sometimes even where there is enough water, there is not enough capacity to make it available to
different users. In some places water scarcity and stress fuel competition and even conflict between
users.
In addition there are also temporal variations in water resource availability. Seasonal variability in water
availability is common in many parts of the world. In some places this seasonal water scarcity creates
pressure on the quantity and quality of freshwater resources. Furthermore, changing long-term climatic
patterns are creating extended periods of drought or water abundance. The climatic patterns in the
Sahel are thought to be an example of this 1.

3.1 Biodiversity and water security go hand in hand Water security can be jeapordised by a number of
man-made factors, including river fragmentation, overgrazing, the draining of marshlands and pollution.
These problems often increase with economic development. The same factors also lead to biodiversity
loss 2.
 2ac – indus water wars ext
Indus water conflicts escalate to nuclear war- kills billions- encouraging cooperation is
key to avoiding inevitable disaster
Wellen 11 (Russ, edits the foreign policy blog Focal Points for the Institute of Policy Studies. He has
written about disarmament for AlterNet, Asia Times Online, the Journal of Psychohistory, Scholars &
Rogues, and Truthout. December 13. "WILL PAKISTAN COUNTER INDIA’S “WATER BOMB” WITH A
NUCLEAR BOMB?" https://fpif.org/will_pakistan_counter_indias_water_bomb_with_a_nuclear_bomb/)

“Every now and again, one reads an editorial that stops the reader in his tracks,” writes John Daly at Oil Price. He’s referring to a
story titled “War
Inevitable To Tackle Indian Water Aggression” on Pakistan’s Urdu-language widely read daily newspaper
Nawa-e Waqt, which “bluntly commented on India’s Kashmiri water polices and Islamabad’s failure up to now to

stop New Delhi’s efforts to construct hydroelectric dams in Kashmir.”

First some background on the tug of the war over the Indus, a prime water source for Pakistan. Almost 2,000 miles long, its wellspring is in the Tibetan plateau,
which incorporates the Himalayas. The Indus runs through Kashmir (and Jammu) and flows south through Pakistan to Karachi where it empties into the Arabian Sea.
But the dams that India builds across rivers feeding into the Indus not only decrease the share of water for Pakistan but can be used to deprive Pakistan of even
more water in the event of war.

To address this issue, in 1960 India and Pakistan signed the Indus Waters Treaty , which gave India control of the
main rivers of the Punjab, and Pakistan control of the Indus. Recently, though , wrote Tufail Ahmad for the Henry
Jackson Society in 2009, “Concern is growing in Pakistan that India is controlling the water flow of rivers that flow

from India into Pakistan, especially the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers that pass through India’s Jammu
& Kashmir state.”

Pakistani commentators, pressure groups and religious leaders think that India is controlling the river
waters to strangulate Pakistani agriculture, which could affect Pakistani exports and increase its dependency on food imports. Pakistani
commentators fear future war with India may break out over water disputes .

This is hardly the first time that Pakistan voices have called for war over water issues . Ahmad writes
about how in

… early 2008, an editorial in the [Pakistani] newspaper Roznama Ausaf accused India of planning a “Water Bomb”
strategy to strangle Pakistan economically. The article quoted the officials of the IBWC pressure group [Pakistan’s I ndus B asin
W ater C ouncil] as saying that India wants to achieve through a “water bomb” what it could not achieve through
the three wars waged over the past six decades.

He then sheds light on the meaning of the phrase “water bomb .”

Noting that India is planning “50 dams to raid the waters of the rivers” flowing into Pakistan, the IBWC warned: “If this is not foiled, Pakistan will face the worst
famine and economic disaster.”

Daly quotes the Nawa-e Waqt editorial on how to counter the water bomb.

India should be forcibly prevented from constructing these dams. If it fails to constrain itself, we should not hesitate in launching nuclear
war because there is no solution except this .
That, too, is an old refrain in Pakistan. Ahmad again.

In May 2009, [IBWC

Chairman Hafiz Zahoorul Hassan] Dahir described “India’s water terrorism as a bigger threat than
Talibani terrorism,” and then added: “The day is not far when circumstances like those in Somalia, Ethiopia and
Chad will emerge inside Pakistan… India has readied a weapon for use against Pakistan that is more
dangerous and destructive than an atomic bomb.” … [A] convener of the Pakistani chapter of the Kashmiri secessionist organizations’
alliance, Syed Yousaf Naseem stated. … “ Unless this issue is resolved, the Damocles’ sword of a nuclear clash will

remain hanging over the region .”

The rhetoric is as flamboyant as it is incendiary — and irresponsible to the power of ten megatons. In a 2007 paper for the Physicians for Social Responsibility titled

An Assessment of the Extent of Projected Global Famine Resulting From Limited, Regional Nuclear War, Ira Helfand, MD, writes that nuclear war in the
region would result in “a total global death toll in the range of one billion from starvation alone .”
An atmospheric scientist from the University of Colorado in Boulder, Brian Toon helped Carl Sagan put nuclear winter on the map. Colorado Arts & Sciences
magazine reports:

even a small-scale nuclear war —one involving 100 15-kiloton explosions—could

In 2006, Toon helped lead two studies that found that

slaughter as many people as were killed during World War II and disrupt the world’s climate (and food
production) for a decade. … Pakistan and India have the capacity to detonate 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear
bombs.
Daly wonders aloud if “there any way out before the missiles fly?” Ahmad wrote, “There is a realization in Pakistan that the 1960 Indus Water Treaty that
establishes legal framework for use of river waters has been to the advantage of India.” But Daly writes:

The 1960 I ndus W ater T reaty. … is considered one of the world’s most successful trans-boundary water
treaties, as it addresses specific water allocation issues and provides unique design requirements for
run-of-the-river dams … All foreign governments interested in avoiding further military conflict in South
Asia should impress upon both New Delhi and Islamabad the ongoing value of their 51 year-old water agreement and
urge them to resolve their conflicts within its framework .
***counterplans
**private investment counterplan
 2ac – private investment counterplan – [starter pack]

1. Perm do both

2. Perm do the plan and reduce barriers to nonfederal investment for sewage
treatment and drinking water treatment works.

3. Only federal funding can solve the aff- it’s the only way to resolve the trilemma of
choice necessary for equitable affordable water services- alternative funding
mechanisms creates a forced choice between finances, water rates, and
infrastructure- none of their evidence assumes systems with declining revenue
bases- systems are prioritizing financial stability
Bash et al 20 (Rachel Bash, Walker Grimshaw, Kat Horan, Ruby Stanmyer, Simon Warren, (Master of
Environmental Management students at Duke University’s Nicholas School) and Lauren Patterson
(Senior Policy Associate in the Water Policy Program at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Solutions.) "Addressing Financial Sustainability of Drinking Water Systems with Declining Populations
Lessons from Pennsylvania" October. Duke Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Addressing-Financial-Sustainability-
of-Drinking-Water-Systems-with-Declining-Populations.pdf)

Tradeoffs: The Trilemma of Choices for Water Utilities in Shrinking Cities The traditional financial metrics
of the Struggling Systems cities identified in this study are surprisingly strong. It should be
acknowledged, however, that all systems we examined already have the capacity to issue debt,
indicating a certain level of financial strength as a starting point. A focus on strong financial metrics (as
evidenced in the Struggling Systems) may come at the expense of affordable water rates and
infrastructure condition. That is to say that utilities must balance three competing factors: (1) Stable
financial strength (e.g., high revenue relative to expenses), (2) Affordable water rates for their
customers, (3) Sustainable and high-functioning infrastructure.

A water system with growing revenue base may be able to sustain all three goals, but a system with
declining revenue base cannot—it will likely only be able to prioritize two of the three. A water system
can provide high functioning infrastructure with high quality water at affordable rates, but the utility
would have very limited revenues and decreased financial strength. Alternatively, a system could have
affordable water and a high-performing financial condition by reducing expenditures considerably, but
this would come at the expense of infrastructure quality and pose a risk to public health. If a system
prioritizes financial strength and sustaining infrastructure, it may come at the cost of reduced water
affordability.

Our four Focus Systems illustrate that while many financial metrics are within the desired range, other
areas, including their rate structures, affordability, and infrastructure condition, display the potential for
improvement. Based on our analysis, Struggling Systems are prioritizing their financial condition to the
potential detriment of affordability and/or high-functioning infrastructure .

4. Water utilities are risk-averse- federal spending is key to avoiding project delays
and incentivizing innovation- the perception of stable funding is what matters,
that’s Berry- err on the side of established funding mechanisms especially given
the state of water utilities finances

5. Federal funding solves in the short-term- SRFs are a proven pipeline to quickly and
effectively allocate funding to prevent job losses, rate increases, and infrastructure
delays
Surfus 20 (Krisina, Managing Director, Government Affairs, National Association of Clean Water
Agencies. "Recovering from Coronavirus Mitigating the Economic Cost of Maintaining Water and
Wastewater Service in the Midst of a Global Pandemic and National Economic Shut‐Down"
https://www.nacwa.org/docs/default-source/resources---public/water-sector-covid-19-financial-
impacts.pdf?sfvrsn=98f9ff61_2)

The COVID‐19 pandemic underscores the critical importance of clean, safe water in ensuring proper
sanitation and hygiene to protect public health. Families, businesses, hospitals and first responders
around the country are counting on drinking water and clean water agencies to help save lives and keep
people healthy. Utilities are working around the clock to ensure customers have safe and reliable water
services while keeping their own essential workforce safe.

The drinking water and clean water sectors are facing major losses in revenue and significant costs for
maintaining services to low income and financially vulnerable households during the pandemic. The
sector is committed to providing service to all households during the pandemic regardless of ability to
pay. But this does not come without cost—and as revenues fall, utilities may face hard decisions
regarding how to address shortfalls including potentially delaying planned water infrastructure
investments, impacts to staffing, and facing new pressures to raise rates at a time many households can
ill‐afford rate increases. As Congress responds to the COVID‐19 crisis, significant funding should be
allocated to help offset revenue losses by water and wastewater utilities and to support the
continuation of services to all users.

Impacts to Drinking Water: Lost Utility Revenues & the Costs of Maintaining Water Access Are Estimated
at $13.9 Billion AWWA and AMWA commissioned an assessment of the financial impact of COVID‐19 on
drinking water utilities. The results, released April 14, 2020, indicate an aggregate financial impact of
COVID‐19 on drinking water utilities of approximately $13.9 billion, representing an overall 16.9 percent
financial impact on the drinking water sector. These impacts are a result of drinking water utilities
eliminating shut offs for non‐payment, anticipated increased delinquencies as a result of high
unemployment rates, reductions in non‐residential water demands, and associated revenues offset by
increases in residential consumption, and lower customer growth.

Included in the above $13.9 billion total is the cost of maintaining household drinking water access,
which includes $.570 billion in marginal costs from suspending shut‐offs and a $4.92 billion in revenue
losses due to increased bill delinquencies from COVID‐19 related job losses. Maintaining services to
households regardless of ability to pay has emerged as a key concern during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Utilities are stepping up to address this concern – more than 90% of drinking water utilities surveyed
have suspended water shut‐offs – but this comes at significant cost to utilities and their ratepayers.

Impacts to Clean Water: Lost Utility Revenues & the Costs of Maintaining Sewer Access Are Estimated at
$16.8 Billion NACWA conservatively estimates the impact to clean water utilities nationwide of lost
revenues due to COVID‐19 at $12.5 billion, reflecting a conservative 20% drop in sewer revenues. This
solely reflects the financial impact clean water utilities anticipate from the economic downturn as
industrial and commercial water use declines. Revenue drops will vary across the country and over time;
some communities with major commercial/industrial sectors are projecting reductions closer to 30‐40%.
If these revenue losses are not addressed, clean water utilities we have no choice but to make up for
them in future rate increases, creating even more of an affordability challenge for low‐income
households.

Applying the same methodology for estimating the costs of maintaining household clean water access
as done for drinking water, NACWA estimates $3.8 billion in revenue losses due to increased bill
delinquencies from COVID‐19 related job losses, on top of a conservative estimate of $.500 B in existing
household debt on clean water utility books nationally, for a total estimated cost of $4.3 B to clean
water utilities to maintain service to households that were either delinquent in payment before the
pandemic hit or are now financially vulnerable and at high risk of not paying bills due to COVID‐19
related job lossesiii. This estimate for household access to clean water comes on top of the $12.5 billion
in declining water usage revenue losses noted above.

Revitalizing the Economy Safe, secure and sustainable water is the foundation of a healthy
environment, thriving communities, and a robust economy. Investing in water infrastructure will
increase protection for the public health and the environment while creating high‐wage jobs to help
the economy rebound from the global coronavirus pandemic.

The Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds ( SRFs ) – the nation’s premier programs for
financing water infrastructure – have an established SRF Project Pipeline to effectively and efficiently
deliver federal stimulus funding to thousands of communities across the nation . A national SRF Project
Pipeline, recently released by the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities (CIFA), includes more
than $73 billion in current and prospective water infrastructure projects in various stages of
development.

Increasing the volume and velocity of the SRF Project Pipeline will create high‐wage jobs across the
country and across the economy, including jobs in planning, design, engineering, manufacturing and
construction, which will help families rebuild their lives and livelihoodsiv.
6. Those jobs are key to equitable growth
Kane & Tomer 18 (Joseph, Senior Research Associate and Associate Fellow. Prior to Brookings, Kane
was an economist at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. He holds a master’s degree in urban and
environmental planning from the University of Virginia and a bachelor’s degree in economics and history
from the College of William and Mary. Adie, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and
leads the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative. His work focuses on metropolitan infrastructure usage
patterns, including personal and freight transportation, and the intersections between infrastructure
and technological development. Prior to his work at Brookings, Adie was a Senior Analyst at the New
York County District Attorney’s Office where he advised senior executives on policy-relevant matters. He
holds a master’s in Public Policy from American University and a B.A. from the University of Florida.
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institute. "Renewing the Water Workforce: Improving water
infrastructure and creating a pipeline to opportunity" June. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Brookings-Metro-Renewing-the-Water-Workforce-June-2018.pdf)

As the U.S. economy continues to grow, many communities are struggling to translate this growth into
more equitable and inclusive employment opportunities . Simultaneously, many of the nation’s water
infrastructure assets are in urgent need of repair, maintenance, and restoration. Yet the workers
capable of carrying out these efforts are in short supply due to an aging workforce eligible for retirement
and the lack of a pipeline for new talent.

However, addressing these two challenges together offers an enormous infrastructure and economic
opportunity. Constructing, operating, designing, and governing water infrastructure systems demands a
skilled workforce, and hiring a diverse workforce can support greater economic mobility . To unlock this
opportunity, local, state, and national leaders must work together to better understand current
workforce challenges and develop new techniques to hire, train, and retain water workers.

By analyzing occupational employment data, this report explores the water workforce in greater depth
to uncover the accessible, wellpaying opportunities in this sector. In particular, it finds:

A. In 2016, nearly 1.7 million workers were directly involved in designing, constructing, operating, and
governing U.S. water infrastructure, spanning a variety of industries and regions. Water utilities employ
many workers, but multiple other industries and establishments, including engineering firms and
construction contractors, are essential to the water sector too. Collectively, the water workforce fills 212
different occupations—from positions in the skilled trades like electricians and technicians to financial,
administrative, and management positions—that are found everywhere, from big metropolitan markets
to smaller rural areas.

B. Water occupations not only tend to pay more on average compared to all occupations nationally, but
also pay up to 50 percent more to workers at lower ends of the income scale. Water workers earn
hourly wages of $14.01 and $17.67 at the 10th and 25th percentiles, respectively, compared to the
hourly wages of $9.27 and $11.60 earned by all workers at these percentiles across the country.
Significantly, workers across 180 of the 212 water occupations—or more than 1.5 million workers— earn
higher wages at both of these percentiles, including many in positions that tend to require lower levels
of educational attainment.
7. Extend Blair 17 from the 1AC- federal funding is key-
a. federal spending is good- trying to maintain state funding during downturns
causes a liquidity crisis, deficits are key to preventing crowd out during a
recession, P3s take advantage of states, bonds have higher rates than t-bills so
they’re more expensive, and centralized investment is better able to leverage
economies of scale

b. States make worse infrastructure- state projects are unsustainable and provide
worse services, best data proves states make decisions with negative spillovers
which cancels out any economic benefits and cooperation can’t solve, and state
projects are empirically ineffective at achieving equitable access

8. P3s can’t solve and links to their offense

Bourne 17 (Ryan, Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato. efore joining Cato,
Bourne was Head of Public Policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs and Head of Economic Research at
the Centre for Policy Studies (both in the UK). Bourne has extensive broadcast and print media
experience, and has appeared on BBC News, CNN and Sky News, CNBC, and Fox Business Network. He
writes weekly columns for the Daily Telegraph and a fortnightly column for the UK website
ConservativeHome. Bourne holds a BA and an MPhil in economics from the University of Cambridge,
United Kingdom. "Would More Government Infrastructure Spending Boost the U.S. Economy?" June 6.
Policy Analysis No 812. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/would-more-government-infrastructure-
spending-boost-us-economy)

Provision of infrastructure through PPPs works best when obvious cash streams are associated with the
asset. Theory would suggest that allowing private companies to both build and operate an asset with a
user revenue stream, even for a fixed period, will incentivize them to consider the long-term
maintenance needs of the asset at the point of construction and bear the usage risk.

Cato Institute scholar Randal O’Toole has described these types of arrangements as “demand risk PPPs.”
They tend to work well. Clearly though, this form of PPP cannot be applied universally. The more
difficult cases include maintenance or upgrading of existing infrastructure , rural roads and bridges,
and loss-making modes that are believed to have some broader social benefits. No obvious user fees
are associated with them. Indeed, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John
Barrasso (R-WY) recently expressed concern that PPPs were being touted as a solution to the
infrastructure question when they could not deliver these types of projects.

Yet a different type of PPP can be used in areas where user fees are not possible. PPP contracts can be
designed such that private investors design, build, operate, own, maintain, and finance an asset and gain
revenue from a stream of taxpayer payments for leasing and maintenance services for a fixed period.
These are called “availability payment PPPs,” because regular payments from government are
conditioned on the asset being available to use at a specified quality, as outlined in a detailed contract.
This type of PPP already exists in the United States for rural transportation. In Pennsylvania, the Rapid
Bridge Replacement Project is replacing hundreds of geographically dispersed, structurally deficient
bridges with a bundled contract, including maintenance for the next 25 years. Tax revenues provide
availability payments.102 Rolling up a significant number of assets in this way can help diversify risks for
the private contractor.

The theoretical benefits of this approach are substantial. A large part of the construction and other risks
are transferred to the private sector, albeit reflected in higher borrowing costs (a risk premium). Given
that the private contractors are paid only when the asset is delivered, timely construction at a fixed
price is encouraged. The long contracts should incentivize development with low whole lifetime costs,
with the providers assessing maintenance needs in advance. Contracts can also be standardized, with
penalties for failure to achieve targets and maintain quality. If many different smaller projects can be
bundled in this way, the transaction costs of contract development can be reduced.

The question is whether these benefits overcome the higher borrowing costs the private sector often
faces, and whether contracts can be effectively designed. As the CBO has noted, even with these PPPs,
taxpayers are still the ultimate source of funds. They just do not face the upfront capital costs.103

Sadly, this “availability payment” model—in which the private contractor gets paid irrespective of usage
—has a more mixed record than “demand risk PPPs.” In fact, the United Kingdom made extensive use of
this type of agreement in building hospitals and schools through the 2000s under the New Labour
government, and the results have been disappointing.

Success in road schemes and a number of privately owned prisons in the early 1990s (with a much
higher proportion delivered on time and within budget than through traditional procurement) led to a
huge expansion of PPPs in the 2000s. By 2004, they accounted for 39 percent of capital spending by UK
government departments, and over 500 were in operation by 2008, including for building schools,
hospitals, and public transportation (especially rail). That expanded use of PPPs occurred in part because
this type of financing could be done “off balance sheet” for the government (as contingent liabilities),
flattering the public finances. At a time when the government was looking for significant capital
investment quickly, it appeared to make sense to allow private operators to build new infrastructure
with taxpayers in essence paying over time.

Yet this huge expansion of PPPs is now widely regarded as a failed experiment. Any theoretical benefits
arising from more innovation, the privatization of risk, and on-time and within-budget delivery of
projects (for which some evidence existed104) was eclipsed by the higher borrowing costs in the
private sector, the costs of a host of consultants and lawyers in drawing up the contracts, and
unnecessarily expensive bundled services .105 The opacity of the liabilities for taxpayers has also
proved very unpopular, with various attempts to renegotiate inflexible contracts .

What went wrong? Conservative member of Parliament Jesse Norman believes the government was
simply a poor client :

These were generally huge one‐off projects agglomerating very different skills, services and expertise,
from construction to [information technology] to facilities management. They were laden with social,
bureaucratic and political prestige, creating external interference and a demand for expensive
“signature” buildings with unknown future costs. Often the clients were dominated by producer
interests, overspecified the projects, changed the specification en route, lacked the necessary
commercial or negotiation skills to manage the procurement, were naïve about using external
professional advice, and did not adequately understand the risks involved, the likely future costs or the
relevant financing models.106

He also identifies failures within the public sector to account for risk effectively. This point was echoed
by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which highlighted how provision of perceived “essential”
infrastructure through this mechanism led to a continued assumption that the ultimate risks lay with the
public sector.107

Several major projects in the UK saw the government step in when private contractors were unable to
fulfill contracts, not helped by the inflexibility of the agreements. The process of contract design often
led to hostile bargaining. Add to this the fact that specific projects were dogged by political interference,
even at the development stage, and it is easy to see why the UK record was so mixed. Many of the
problems associated with government provision of infrastructure remained with government
contracting for it.

9. Federal investment key to research and development of new water tech and pilot
projects- water utilities are risk averse so only direct funding solves innovation
Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

Create an R&D Program Supporting Innovation in the Water Sector Several factors inhibit the water
sector from dedicating significant resources to R&D. Primarily, underinvestment at the federal level
has meant that the water sector struggles to keep up with operations and maintenance, let alone
proactively invest. This is even more acute with smaller systems, which often do not have the staff,
financial resources, capacity, or economies of scale to test and adopt technological advancements.
Further, the risk-averse nature of the water sector leaves little room to test new technologies and
start pilot projects .

This program would have widespread benefits in every sector of the economy . Industrial, commercial,
and residential users alike could see a decrease in rates with increases in their efficiency. Public health
and the environment could benefit from simpler and more costeffective ways to meet regulatory
requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act. State and local governments
across the US would benefit from easier, more efficient, and more cost-effective ways to provide clean,
safe, reliable, and affordable water.

Legislative Action To encourage greater efficiencies and higher productivity in the water sector,
Congress should create and robustly fund a new program, Advanced Research Project AgencyWater,
ARPA-W, that supports research and development within the water sector to mitigate these challenges .
ARPA-W would be modeled after Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), housed at the Department of Energy and the Department
of Defense respectively, promoting and funding research and development of advanced energy and
defense technologies. ARPA-W would define R&D needs within the sector that are especially high-risk
and high-reward and award grants for solutions-oriented projects. Eligible entities could include water
agencies, universities, research facilities, and the private sector. ARPA-W should be a shared enterprise
between the EPA, USDA, and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to ensure regulatory
compliance across agencies on any new technology or method, as well as support a broad swath of
economic sectors. Finally, the program should include information-sharing to the thousands of existing
water utilities for adopting new technologies and methods.

10. Best models go aff, fully funding is great for the economy-
EBP 20 ( EBP—formally Economic Development Research (EDR) Group—is a firm dedicated to advancing the state-ofthe-art in economic evaluation and analysis to support planning and policy in the areas of
transportation, energy resources, urban development, and economic growth strategy. Since its founding in 1996, EBP has helped state and local governments make infrastructure investment and economic development decisions
that support broad-based job creation, income generation, and overall prosperity. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign contracted with EBP to conduct this study. The American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than
150,000 members of the civil engineering profession in 177 countries. Founded in 1852, ASCE is the nation’s oldest engineering society. ASCE stands at the forefront of a profession that plans, designs, constructs, and operates
society’s economic and social engine—the built environment—while protecting and restoring the natural environment. The Value of Water Campaign educates and inspires the nation about how water is essential, invaluable, and
in need of investment. Spearheaded by top leaders in the water industry, and coordinated by the US Water Alliance, the Value of Water Campaign is building public and political will for investment in the United States‘ water and
wastewater infrastructure through best-in-class communication tools, high-impact events, media activities, and robust research and publications. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign are grateful to an esteemed group of Value
of Water Campaign supporters and ASCE members for their expert review of the document, including: • Greg DiLoreto, P.E., retired, former CEO of Tualatin Valley Water District • Mami Hara, General Manager and CEO, Seattle
Public Utilities • John Kmiec, Deputy Water Director, Tucson Water • Kelley Neumann, P.E., Deputy Director, Planning and Engineering, Aurora Water • Darren Olson, P.E., Vice President, Assistant Department Head, Water
Resources, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. • Carolyn Peterson, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies • Larry Pierce, P.E., retired, San Diego region • Jim Schlaman, Director,
Planning and Water Resources, Black & Veatch • Amit Shah, Senior Manager, Evoqua • Joe Szafran, External Affairs Manager, American Water "The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure How a Failure to Act Would
Affect the US Economic Recovery" August 27. www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/The%20Economic%20Benefits%20of%20Investing%20in%20Water%20Infrastructure_final.pdf )

The cost of failing to invest in water infrastructure is tremendous. But if the United States proactively
invests in water infrastructure and closes the water infrastructure investment gap, the benefits to the
economy, trade, and public health will be enormous.

As in the previous section, the INFORUM model was used to generate economic projections using 2019
baseline data. These projections assume that the years, starting in and following 2020, meet 100
percent of capital and O&M water infrastructure needs. It should be noted that 2019 met only 37
percent of capital investment needs. Closing the gap would require spending $2.2 trillion above the
baseline projections over the next 20 years.

The study projected the impacts of a 100 percent investment scenario on employment, wages, business
sales, and exports. The LIFT model is dynamic, with the ability to show how changes in one industry
ripple across the entire economy. As a result, the numbers shown here are dramatically different from
earlier studies that used static economic multiplier models . In assessing the benefits of closing the
water infrastructure investment gap, three key findings emerged: • Business sales would increase, and
the US GDP would grow by $4.5 trillion . • The US trade balance would dramatically improve, making
exports more competitive . • Investment would create 800,000 jobs, and disposable income would
rise by over $2,000 per household.

Business sales would increase, and the US GDP would grow by $4.5 trillion. Under current investment
levels, the nation will spend $1.067 trillion on water infrastructure over the next 20 years, but the total
need over this time frame is over $3 trillion. To close the gap, the United States would need to increase
its investment in water infrastructure by $2.2 trillion over the next 20 years, or roughly $109 billion per
year.

Closing the investment gap would improve the condition and performance of water systems, leading to
supplyside and demand-side benefits to the economy. Improved reliability and water quality would
increase productivity and efficiency in other sectors and lead to higher capital investment and O&M
spending. Over the next 20 years, the national economy would stand to gain $4.5 trillion in GDP. The
economic gains from more reliable and efficient water systems would build over time; most would
accrue in the second decade as households and businesses reap the benefits of improved water
reliability. By 2039, business sales (gross output) would exceed $5.6 trillion.

The US trade balance would dramatically improve, making exports more competitive. As capital
infrastructure projects move forward and industrial productivity rises, US businesses would gain $225
billion in export value. Four commodities and service industries would see an increased export value of
$10 billion or more above the projected baseline: wholesale trade, motor vehicles, aerospace products
and parts, and other chemicals.

Investment would create 800,000 jobs, and disposable income would rise by $2,000 per household. Full
funding of water infrastructure needs would create nearly 800,000 new jobs by 2039. Of these new jobs,
61 percent would be in construction and professional services stimulated by the boost in infrastructure
spending. Increased reliability and water quality would also increase productivity and efficiency in other
sectors like manufacturing, leading to job gains. And wages would rise: US workers would earn more
than $2.8 trillion in additional disposable household income over 20 years, leading to an increase of over
$2,000 per household.

More reliable water services would also help US households avoid up to $7.7 billion in cumulative
medical costs over 20 years, $2.6 trillion in cumulative losses incurred from service disruptions and
overflows, and $1.4 trillion in cumulative disposable income loss.

While this model cannot generate public health predictions, wages and disposable income are part of a
web of interrelated factors that affect health over a lifetime.48 People with lower incomes tend to have
a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and other chronic disorders.49 Other studies have shown
that as jobs, wages, and other indicators of economic prosperity improve, so does public health.50 The
model shows that investing in water infrastructure has a positive effect on the economic conditions of
people at many income levels. Adequate investment in water infrastructure protects public health
directly by maintaining safe water quality and indirectly by creating economic conditions that enable
people to thrive.

Direct, Indirect, and Induced Impacts Both visions for the future evaluated in this study account for
direct, indirect, and induced impacts on the economy. • Direct impacts include the economic
implications for companies directly involved in designing, engineering, and constructing water
infrastructure. • Indirect impacts include the additional economic implications created by the actions of
firms directly involved in water infrastructure. Business to business purchases of goods and services, like
machinery for construction of a water infrastructure project, is an indirect impact. • Induced impacts
include the purchases in retail, medical, leisure, and other sectors dependent on the income earned by
workers in all sectors of the economy that are affected by infrastructure investments. The implications
of water infrastructure investment ripple through the US economy through induced impacts.
11. Counterplan can’t solve the second advantage
Poole & Stuart 17 (Robert W., director of transportation policy and the Searle Freedom Trust
transportation fellow at Reason Foundation, a national public policy think tank based in Los Angeles.
Poole received his B.S. and M.S. in mechanical engineering at MIT and did graduate work in operations
research at NYU. Austill, policy analyst at Reason Foundation, a non-profit think tank advancing free
minds (lol) and free markets. Stuart earned his M.A. in economics at George Mason University and his
B.A. in economics at Auburn University. "Federal Barriers to Private Capital Investment in U.S.
Infrastructure" https://reason.org/wp-
content/uploads/files/federal_barriers_to_private_capital_investment.pdf)

Global infrastructure investment funds , U.S investment banks and large pension funds are eager to
invest in such P3 projects in the United States . But to date, the opportunities to do such projects have
been far greater in Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe and Latin America than here in the land of free
enterprise. Part of this is due to the institutional inertia of many state and local governments that are
slow to adopt new ways of doing business. But another major factor is federal obstacles to this kind of
private capital investment in state and local infrastructure.

There is no lack of candidate projects. Those considered in this report include: • 130 large, medium and
small-hub airports; • 44,000 miles of non-tolled Interstate highways nearing or exceeding their 50-year
design lives; • Over 2,000 municipal electric and gas utilities; • 99 seaports; • 56,000 municipal water
systems; and • 15,000 wastewater treatment facilities

All of these already have bondable user-fee revenue streams or (in the case of Interstates) could
implement such fees (state-of-the-art all-electronic tolling).

Infrastructure that is already owned by investors—most electric and gas utilities and the occasional P3
airport (San Juan) or toll road (Indiana Toll Road)—already has access to private capital and is being
rebuilt and modernized. It is public-sector infrastructure that suffers from large-scale investment
shortfalls.

Worldwide and in a few dozen U.S. revenue-financed P3 projects , an impressive track record has been
assembled. Benefits include: • Major investments much sooner , thanks to ready access to capital; • A
demonstrated track record of largely on-time completion; • Innovation that reduces costs and/or
improves performance; • Lower life-cycle cost, since projects are designed to be efficiently maintained;
• Transfer of major risks (cost overruns, traffic shortfalls, etc.) from taxpayers to investors; and • New
tax revenues to government (as with investor-owned utilities).

The United States is missing out on these benefits, while much of our infrastructure continues to
deteriorate. In transportation alone, the last five years have seen $160 billion of P3 projects in Canada,
Europe, Latin America and the United States. But only 12.5% of that has been in this country. This lack of
projects is due in part to federal barriers that make it difficult , financially disadvantageous, or impossible
to do such projects here, compared with other countries.

This report identifies the principal federal barriers . Among them are the following: • A very restricted
airport privatization program that erects barriers not found in other countries; • A federal ban on using
toll revenues to finance the reconstruction of aging Interstate highways (except for a tiny pilot program);
and • An OMB rule requiring that if a facility that has received federal aid is privatized, the grant money
must be repaid (a de-facto tax on reinventing government). But by far the greatest federal obstacle is
the inability in most cases to use tax-exempt revenue bonds for P3 projects . The United States is
virtually alone in allowing state and local governments to issue tax-free revenue bonds . This creates a
non-level financial playing field since, except for surface transportation projects, P3 projects are limited
to using taxable debt. Once interest rates return to normal levels, the difference between taxable and
tax-exempt interest rates will be significant. Even for projects that still pencil out with taxable bonds, the
user fees will reflect the higher cost of taxable debt financing.

Two policy changes would create a level financial playing field: 1. Generalize the existing surface
transportation Private Activity Bond (PAB) program to apply to P3 projects for all categories of public-
purpose infrastructure; and 2. Allow the new PABs to be used to acquire and reconstruct existing
infrastructure, not just to build new projects. The second point is critically important, since the primary
need is not new infrastructure but the reconstruction and modernization of existing infrastructure.

This program would likely be revenue-positive for the U.S. Treasury for two reasons. First, hardly any
public-purpose infrastructure today is being financed by taxable bonds (or in cases where it has been,
large fractions of those bonds have been purchased by non-taxable entities such as pension funds). So, a
largescale expansion of infrastructure investment with tax-exempt PABs would not be substituting for
nonexistent taxable bonds. Second, there would be net new federal tax revenue from (a) corporate tax
payments by the P3 companies building and operating the rebuilt facilities, and (b) additional personal
income tax payments by a larger pool of construction and maintenance workers, getting premium wages
and overtime thanks to the expanded program.

Finally, there would be additional economic benefits over and above the value of the modernized
infrastructure. A trillion-dollar P3 infrastructure program would attract global equity investment from
the scores of global infrastructure investment funds that are mostly investing in other regions of the
world. Also, over time the United States would develop world-class P3 infrastructure
developer/operators that would compete in global markets, generating service-export revenues .

12. Condo is bad because straight turns are good-

a. Punishes bad negs- creates a cost to unprepared counterplans, non-
strategic 1NCs, and bad predictions about what the 2AC will do
b. Rewards smart affs- creates a benefit to thinking about how arguments
interact, predicting what the neg wants to go for, and determining the
strategic benefit of defense
c. It’s a voter- status is part of the counterplan which they don’t get to kick-
determined the 2ac because we can’t count on theory- also for
deterrence
 1ar – blair 17 ext

Extend Blair 17 from the 1AC-

a. states can’t run deficits so they have difficulty maintaining investment during downturns- if they fiat
through this, that magnifies the link to the liquidity disad- markets assume states will cut investment
during downturns- failing to do so causes a liquidity crisis through herd-driven financial markets,
even when the debt is sustainable- so their funding mechanism doesn’t matter because the market
doesn’t know about fiat
b. deficits are also a better financing strategy for the economy in a recession- alternative financing
mechanism crowds out other investments, we’re the only ones that can create money from nothing
which is what you want in a downturn- any non-new dollar spent on infrastructure is a dollar that
would be better spent elsewhere
c. P3s and bonds are worse than deficit spending- states suck at regulating P3s so they inevitably get
taken advantage of and bonds have higher rates than t-bills and are tax exempt so they don’t
generate tax revenue for the fed- means all their federal spending bad offense links more to them
d. Economies of scale- centralized investment makes decisions for more people, better economic
return
 1ar – perm – P3s
P3s perm
Greer 20 (Robert, Associate Professor and Director of the Graduate Certificate in Public Management.
August 28. "A review of public water infrastructure financing in the United States"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wat2.1472?casa_token=WzvLDHWPdIAAAAAA
%3ALsWTk3Xc_JbfrNR0FXeyUWeVRWXp_X_h0rfZ6hAGYuVs63ZVtqTcobFptfWO3HAcpGZ8nqQ_zHiczibB
)

In an effort to ensure the various project and management risks are shared, several types of partnership
arrangements have emerged. The functions, or stages, of an infrastructure project, are typically broken
down into the following: design, build (or rehabilitate), finance, operate, and maintain. While financing
is one function of a PPP, it is not required . Therefore, when discussing water infrastructure financing, it
is important to note that not all partnerships will include private sector financing, but many do. The
other financing methods discussed above, including federal programs, state programs, and various bond
market tools, may all be used in a PPP. A partnership does, however, require that the private sector
entity take on two or more functions in the process. The PPP type is described by which functions are
transferred to the private sector. For example, a fairly common contract type is a Build‐Operate‐Transfer
(BOT). Under a BOT project, the private company owns the project assets until they are transferred at
the end of the contract. In contrast, in a Build‐Transfer‐Operate (BTO) contract, the asset ownership is
transferred after construction is completed. Which party has legal ownership and who is responsible for
operations determines how various risks are shifted across the lifespan of the project (OECD, 2009). A
variety of partnership contracts can be written to transfer functions to the private sector, and in
complex projects where multiple assets exist, separate contracts may be needed. The type of asset,
payment source, legal context, and project details will all factor into the type of arrangement that is
used for any given PPP project.
 2ac – leveraging = multiplier effect
Federal spending gets leveraged to raise more money- the multiplier effect definitely
goes aff, means we result in more private capital being raised
Bash et al 20 (Rachel Bash, Walker Grimshaw, Kat Horan, Ruby Stanmyer, Simon Warren, (Master of
Environmental Management students at Duke University’s Nicholas School) and Lauren Patterson
(Senior Policy Associate in the Water Policy Program at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Solutions.) "Addressing Financial Sustainability of Drinking Water Systems with Declining Populations
Lessons from Pennsylvania" October. Duke Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Addressing-Financial-Sustainability-
of-Drinking-Water-Systems-with-Declining-Populations.pdf)

Federal spending on drinking water infrastructure represents a small portion of total spending
compared to federal, state, and local governments (Tiemann 2018). The federal share of total public
spending on water and wastewater utilities was reported to be 4% as of 2014, while state and local
government expenditures accounted for roughly 94% of all infrastructure public spending. Often, water
systems must address infrastructure requirements that are ineligible for DWSRF assistance. This can
include future growth, ongoing rehabilitation, and operation and maintenance of systems. Additional
needs such as these can result in communities seeking alternative funding options, aside from DWSRF or
CWSRF (Tiemann 2018). New programs, such as the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of
2014 (WIFIA), have been designed to complement SRF programs, rather than replace them. WIFIA is not
primarily focused on regulatory compliance and therefore can be used to fund projects that may be
ineligible under SRF programs. In 2018, Congress provided $20.0 million for the EPA to begin providing
loan guarantees under WIFIA and an additional $63 million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act in
2018 (Governor’s Report 2017). The EPA has estimated that the approximately $60 million
appropriation will allow approximately $6 billion to be available for long-term, low-cost water and
wastewater infrastructure finance. WIFIA is managed cooperatively between the EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers (Governor’s Report 2017).

The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act is an additional program enacted in
2016. Rather than becoming a separate funding program, the WIIN Act rewrote portions the DWSRF
program and the SDWA. America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 reauthorized appropriations
for SDWA programs and DWSRF grants. AWIA increased the amount of DWSRF funding that states could
use to assist disadvantaged communities and authorized states to extend the loan repayment period.
Additionally, AWIA authorized states to require system owners or operators, in certain circumstances, to
assess options for consolidation, transfer of ownership, or other actions to achieve compliance (Tiemann
2018).

A 2016 analysis showed that WIFIA financing offers the lowest debt-service cost compared to SRFs and
tax-exempt municipal bonds (Vedachalam and Geddes 2016). However, the lowest financing available to
water system ultimately depends upon the spread between U.S. Treasury rates and borrowing rates of
the SRF administrating agency, PENNVEST. SRF programs remain the most reliable and common
financing mechanisms available to municipalities. SRFs are additionally often augmented by municipal
bond issues. Since it is likely that WIFIA will remain the most appealing option among qualifying
applicants, PA drinking water systems should be educated on the eligibility and application requirements
for this form of funding. WIFIA can only be used to support up to 49% of project cost, with overall
federal assistance limited at 80% for any one project (Vedachalam and Geddes 2016). Thus, it is
apparent that water systems must use a combination of financing mechanisms to support large-scale
drinking water improvements.

SRF financing is generally used for smaller projects, while projects under WIFIA must be $20 million or
greater (or $5 million or greater for rural communities with population less than 25,000) to be eligible.
Municipalities without a triple A rating may be more interested in the WIFIA program as those interest
rates tend to be lower than the current tax-exempt borrowing rate (Vedachalam and Geddes 2016).
Typically, municipal bonds offer the highest interest rates out of these three financing options. A
combination of WIFIA and SRF financing can result in the lowest debt service coverage (Vedachalam and
Geddes 2016). WIFIA is still gaining traction and in Fiscal Year 2018, 39 projects were selected. The single
WIFIA approved Pennsylvania project was located in Lancaster, PA at the loan amount of $22 million for
a wastewater project. Based on this analysis, WIFIA has not proved to be a substantial financing program
for drinking water systems in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (U.S. EPA 2018).
 2ac – small systems

CP can’t solve- private investment is only suitable for large projects, not all the smaller
systems necessary to solve the advantage
Poole & Stuart 17 (Robert W., director of transportation policy and the Searle Freedom Trust
transportation fellow at Reason Foundation, a national public policy think tank based in Los Angeles.
Poole received his B.S. and M.S. in mechanical engineering at MIT and did graduate work in operations
research at NYU. Austill, policy analyst at Reason Foundation, a non-profit think tank advancing free
minds (lol) and free markets. Stuart earned his M.A. in economics at George Mason University and his
B.A. in economics at Auburn University. "Federal Barriers to Private Capital Investment in U.S.
Infrastructure" https://reason.org/wp-
content/uploads/files/federal_barriers_to_private_capital_investment.pdf)

Private investment in infrastructure is best suited to large projects, so this section identifies the primary
candidates for such investment. To the extent that major reconstruction and expansion projects can be
partially or entirely funded via long-term public-private partnership (P3) agreements, conventional tax-
based funding can be refocused on smaller projects that are less suited to P3 modernization.

Funding key
Fedinick et al 19 (Kristi Pullen, Natural Resources Defense Council. Steve Taylor, Coming Clean.
Michele Roberts, EJHA. Contributing Reviewers: Richard Moore, EJHA. Erik Olson, NRDC. "Watered
Down Justice" September.https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/watered-down-justice-report.pdf)

According to the EPA 2016 Drinking Water Action Plan, crumbling water infrastructure and limited
funding are two of the major water challenges threatening public health.79 Populations of color and
low-income populations are more likely to live with aging, underdeveloped, and underfunded water
infrastructure, largely because of residential segregation in the United States.80 Although the American
Society of Civil Engineers gave the country as a whole a D+ for the condition and performance of its
overall infrastructure,81 infrastructure in marginalized communities is generally even worse.

When long-term infrastructure needs are addressed, racially and economically segregated
neighborhoods have been grossly overlooked (see Text Box—Sandbranch, Texas). This disinvestment
has contributed to economic decline and reinforced patterns of segregation for people of color and low-
income communities.

In October 2016, the EPA charged its National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) with
developing recommendations on Environmental Justice and water infrastructure finance and capacity.83
The NEJAC’s final recommendations, issued in March 2019,84 focused on eight goals to achieve
Environmental Justice in providing clean, affordable water and sanitation for all communities, including:
n Require that governments treat water as a human right; n Request that Congress allocate more
funding to help communities with infrastructure building, oversight, and public health protection; n
Promote affordable water and wastewater rates; n Prioritize problems in Environmental Justice
communities; n Involve Environmental Justice communities meaningfully in infrastructure decisions; n
Build community capacity in water systems; n Support innovative technologies; n Be accountable and
rebuild public confidence and trust in regulations. The report stressed the importance of prioritizing
Environmental Justice community needs, building community capacity to protect and provide safe
drinking water, and creating opportunities to address water infrastructure challenges and needs across
the county.

SMALL SYSTEMS COULD FACE ADDITIONAL BURDENS Our analysis found that small community water
systems—those that serve fewer than 3,300 people—accounted for more than 80 percent of all
violations and of health-based violations.lv Nearly 50 percent of small systems had at least one violation
compared to 43 percent of systems serving more than 3,300 people.lvi We found that very small
systems—those that serve less than 500 people—were responsible for more than 60 percent of all
violations and 50 percent of health-based violations.lvii Similar to small systems, 50 percent of very
small systems had at least one violation compared to 46 percent of systems serving more than 500
people.lviii Approximately 11 percent of all system sizes had health-based violations.lix

Many small systems do not have the capacity to maintain and improve their infrastructure, identify and
address threats to drinking water, hire experienced and highly-trained engineering staff, and comply
with current standards. The EPA has noted that “vulnerable, overburdened and economically distressed
communities” may face disproportionate hazards and lack the resources or capacity to address them,
and many small systems “are likely to serve low-income, vulnerable populations.”85

Through its 2015 Environmental Justice strategic plan,86 the EPA has committed to making
concentrated efforts to address the national challenge of small and tribal drinking water systems, but it
is unclear what progress the agency has made toward this goal or whether it is dedicating sufficient
staff, resources, and management attention to it. In addition, President Trump has proposed eliminating
the EPA Office of Environmental Justice and slashing funding for other programs that support
Environmental Justice communities or address Environmental Justice concerns.87
 2ac – at: P3s
PPPs fail
Greer 20 (Robert, Associate Professor and Director of the Graduate Certificate in Public Management.
August 28. "A review of public water infrastructure financing in the United States"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wat2.1472?casa_token=WzvLDHWPdIAAAAAA
%3ALsWTk3Xc_JbfrNR0FXeyUWeVRWXp_X_h0rfZ6hAGYuVs63ZVtqTcobFptfWO3HAcpGZ8nqQ_zHiczibB
)

PPPs often do not live up to the lofty expectations due to wide gaps between the sectors' expectations.
Due to its complex nature in terms of documentation, financing, taxation, technical details,
subagreements, and the fact that various industries are involved and affected, there is an increase in the
likelihood of opposition and complex decision‐making (Grimsey & Lewis, 2002; Van Ham & Koppenjan,
2001). This creates misunderstandings and a lack of coordination, which often leads to the complete
failure of PPPs . Furthermore, there may be more loosely defined planning and a lack of clear objectives
from the government. However, if the public sector explicitly defines the projects for the private sector,
the said “partnership” will lean more toward contractorship, thus killing the very idea of the PPP. In
order for the PPP to be effective, it is imperative that the private sector is allowed to exercise its
expertise, resources, and innovation (Klijn and Teisman, 2005; Van Ham & Koppenjan, 2001).

At: tax credits and P3s

Bourne 17 (Ryan, Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato. efore joining Cato,
Bourne was Head of Public Policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs and Head of Economic Research at
the Centre for Policy Studies (both in the UK). Bourne has extensive broadcast and print media
experience, and has appeared on BBC News, CNN and Sky News, CNBC, and Fox Business Network. He
writes weekly columns for the Daily Telegraph and a fortnightly column for the UK website
ConservativeHome. Bourne holds a BA and an MPhil in economics from the University of Cambridge,
United Kingdom. "Would More Government Infrastructure Spending Boost the U.S. Economy?" June 6.
Policy Analysis No 812. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/would-more-government-infrastructure-
spending-boost-us-economy)

Although the benefits of PPP arrangements can in theory run up against difficulties in practice, the case
for infrastructure tax credits does not add up, even in theory. The tax credit in itself does not change the
overall profitability of different investments, meaning loss‐making areas of the transportation system
and projects geared toward maintenance of existing roads, bridges, and highways are highly unlikely to
get buy‐in from investors.

Those projects appealing to investors would likely have been undertaken anyway. That is one reason
why the tax credits almost certainly will not be “fiscally neutral.” Private companies already intending to
invest in infrastructure development before the credit will now seek out the tax benefit, too. The Ross‐
Navarro plan implicitly assumes that any new infrastructure development uses engineers or
construction workers who were previously unemployed. In fact, if the new projects compete for existing
workers employed elsewhere at the same wage rate, then the tax credit will have a pure fiscal cost.

From a public finance perspective, it might just be cheaper for governments to borrow directly. As
O’Toole has noted, the tax system is currently highly biased toward public provision of infrastructure,
because government agencies can sell tax‐free bonds at low borrowing costs.109 It is unclear how, given
this tax advantage, allowing private taxable bonds coupled with a very generous tax credit can be
economical.

Then there are questions about whether the tax credits will even work to stimulate significant
investment. Many of the big institutional investors, such as pension funds, are tax‐exempt anyway and
so will not be incentivized by them. In fact, for tax efficiency reasons, the types of tax credits envisaged
are most likely to incentivize companies repatriating overseas earnings. That is one of the reasons many
Republicans are keen to link any infrastructure provision to a tax reform bill. Yet it is unclear
economically why it would be sensible to link the amount spent on infrastructure to the financial
decisions of large companies.

The scope for more private involvement in the provision of infrastructure is strong, but PPPs and tax
credits are no substitute for genuine privatization. Although PPPs make sense for a range of projects,
designing contracts well seems of paramount importance. The U.S. taxpayer should be wary of these
schemes being used for huge upfront investments, but with often long‐term expensive commitments for
taxpayers.
 2ac – at: loans

Loans can’t solve equity

Fedinick et al 19 (Kristi Pullen, Natural Resources Defense Council. Steve Taylor, Coming Clean.
Michele Roberts, EJHA. Contributing Reviewers: Richard Moore, EJHA. Erik Olson, NRDC. "Watered
Down Justice" September.https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/watered-down-justice-report.pdf)

FUND water infrastructure projects, giving priority to Environmental Justice communities. The EPA has
noted that “some communities may be more challenged than others in their efforts to achieve the goals
of safe and clean water” and that vulnerable, overburdened communities often lack the financial
resources needed to ensure safe water.10 Congress and state legislatures should make a major infusion
of additional drinking water infrastructure funding, including grants for Environmental Justice
communities, a top priority. In addition, the EPA and the states should redirect current funds to improve
infrastructure in disproportionately affected, chronically neglected communities and ensure that
underserved communities have the knowledge and capacity necessary to apply for funding resources
(particularly in the form of grants, not loans). When funding improvements to infrastructure, decision
makers must ensure that these improvements do not make water bills unaffordable for low-income
customers.
 2ac – at: debt

Utilities can’t take on more debt- new federal funds are key
Bash et al 20 (Rachel Bash, Walker Grimshaw, Kat Horan, Ruby Stanmyer, Simon Warren, (Master of
Environmental Management students at Duke University’s Nicholas School) and Lauren Patterson
(Senior Policy Associate in the Water Policy Program at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Solutions.) "Addressing Financial Sustainability of Drinking Water Systems with Declining Populations
Lessons from Pennsylvania" October. Duke Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Addressing-Financial-Sustainability-
of-Drinking-Water-Systems-with-Declining-Populations.pdf)

In addition to these challenges, water utilities across the U.S. face high levels of debt obligations. Water
systems often take on debt to secure upfront capital to fund necessary infrastructure projects. In a
growing number of cases, water systems have difficulty adequately repaying this debt even with rate
increases. Long-term debt per customer increased by 84% from 2007 to 2016 for rated utilities (GAO
2016). Although the cost of borrowing has hit record lows in recent years, many utilities still do not
have the capacity to take on more debt due to existing debt burdens . The low appetite to take on new
debt is further complicated by large pension liabilities and the impact of the 2008–2009 recession
(Puentes and Sabol 2014). Additionally, credit rating agencies consider a utility’s long-term debt in their
rating calculations based on past financial conditions and future forecasted performance. The credit
rating of a utility may go down due to the inability to maintain a sufficient debt service coverage ratio,
further affecting their ability to obtain financing for capital improvements.

It is also important to note that the federal government originally subsidized building much of the water
services infrastructure in the U.S. through grants, state distribution programs, or subsidized loans. The
federal contribution for water infrastructure has dropped from providing more than 60% of total
infrastructure spending in the 1970s to 9% in 2017 (Forstensen 2017). The decrease in federal subsidies
means that local utilities must take on individual debt to meet their infrastructure needs.
 2ac – at: bonds
Bonds just refinance debt- doesn’t result in capital expenditures or solve any of the aff
Bash et al 20 (Rachel Bash, Walker Grimshaw, Kat Horan, Ruby Stanmyer, Simon Warren, (Master of
Environmental Management students at Duke University’s Nicholas School) and Lauren Patterson
(Senior Policy Associate in the Water Policy Program at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Solutions.) "Addressing Financial Sustainability of Drinking Water Systems with Declining Populations
Lessons from Pennsylvania" October. Duke Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Addressing-Financial-Sustainability-
of-Drinking-Water-Systems-with-Declining-Populations.pdf)

There is a trilemma of tradeoffs between sustaining financial strength, water system affordability, and
infrastructure condition. Oftentimes, financial strength is prioritized over these other necessary
indicators of water system stability, and financial strength is often prioritized in order to manage the
costs of debt service. Financial strength, water system affordability, and infrastructure conditions should
be considered strategically to ensure that considerations are made on each front to benefit the whole of
the system. In some scenarios, if the bond rating decreases and infrastructure ages, both water
affordability and level of service could become problematic.

The state revolving fund (SRF), PENNVEST, is currently awarding loans and grants to every system that
formally applies. PENNVEST has the capacity to issue more awards but has not had the demand to justify
efforts to increase the availability of subsidized loans. If demand for loans increased, PENNVEST could
leverage capital to increase the amount of grants and loans awarded, as done in 22 other states. While
PENNVEST is awarding all grants and loans, a review of the projects that begin, but never finish a formal
application could be instructive

The studied water utilities primarily used municipal bonds to refinance existing debt rather than
capital improvement projects. Only 30% of bond funds were used for capital projects in the cities
studied, while most funds were used to refinance existing debt at lower interest rates. Refinancing
existing debt at a time of historically low interest rates can significantly reduce the burden of debt
service, and utility boards may have a fiduciary responsibility to refinance when it is in the best interest
of their ratepayers. However, a clearer understanding of the incentives informing these choices is critical
to inform policy.
**process counterplans
 2ac – process counterplan – generic
1. Perm do the plan and the part of the counterplan that isn’t mutually exclusive-
guaranteeing an increase in funding doesn’t preclude part of the counterplan
sufficient to solve the net benefit
Susskind 13 (Lawrence, Director of the MIT Science Impact Collaborative (scienceimpact.mit.edu). He
is Founder of the Consensus Building Institute, a Cambridge-based not-for-profit company that provides
mediation services in complex resource management disputes around the world. He also was one of the
Co-founders of the interuniversity Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, where he now directs
the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, serves as Vice Chair for Instruction, and leads PON’s Master
Classes in Negotiation. "Water and Democracy: New Roles for Civil Society in Water Governance"
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/88248/Water%20and%20Democracy.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

There are costs involved in working this way, especially if a professional mediator needs to be hired and
deliberations stretch over several months. Stakeholder representatives may have to convene in both
plenary sessions and in working subgroups to produce an informed consensus. The product of their
efforts is usually a proposal and not a binding decision . While it is illegal in most countries for public
officials to delegate away their statutory authority ; we have found that elected and appointed officials
are usually pleased (and surprised) to receive carefully crafted proposals that, if adopted, will satisfy
most, if not all, of the contending political interests and conform to all legal and regulatory
requirements . (Susskind et. al, 1999) While this still leaves public officials responsible for making final
water allocation and water policy decisions , they know they will lose political and electoral support if
they ignore proposals produced through transparent, independently-facilitated and collaborative
efforts.

2. This counterplan is illegitimate- it’s a distortion of the 1NC solvency evidence to

artificially generate competition while avoiding any solvency deficit- the more it
tries to solve, the less legitimate it is- we can clarify in the 1AR after the block
shenanigans but all know this counterplan either can’t solve or is theoretically
illegitimate- if they extend it, it’s a voting issue for 1AR time distortion
3. Counterplans that replace the aff’s inherent barrier with a new one that they then
fiat past are bad- counter-interp- the neg can start their process but can’t
guarantee the outcome-
a. solves their theory offense- tests inherency and leads to more germane
comparisons
b. it’s future fiat- functionally allows counterplans to do the aff unless it’s
bad, which makes debate impossible- justifies perming the delay part of
the counterplan to do the plan after the counterplan’s process

4. The CP is bad for SRF credibility and effectiveness- immediate funding is key and
the perception of long-term stability of SRF is destroyed by the CP, which means
states won’t start construction
Walton 21 (Brett, writes about agriculture, energy, infrastructure, and the politics and economics of
water in the United States. He also writes the Federal Water Tap, Circle of Blue’s weekly digest of U.S.
government water news. He is the winner of two Society of Environmental Journalists reporting awards,
one of the top honors in American environmental journalism: first place for explanatory reporting for a
series on septic system pollution in the United States(2016) and third place for beat reporting in a small
market (2014). He received the Sierra Club's Distinguished Service Award in 2018.
https://www.circleofblue.org/2021/world/at-dawn-of-biden-administration-opportunities-for-water-
systems/)

In a call to action, Biden

put forward a $2 trillion climate plan that mentions a bucketful of spending options to
shore up America’s built and natural infrastructure: drinking water systems , sewage treatment, wetlands restoration,
levee repairs, irrigation improvements, flood protection, and cleanup of abandoned oil and gas wells.

Biden pledged that disadvantaged communities — those that are predominantly low-income and communities of color with heavy
pollution burdens — would receive 40 percent of the benefits of this spending.

Therein lies one of the tricky policy questions that the administration must address, Doyle said. How will the
agencies define equity and justice? And how will those definitions steer funding to specific projects and
communities?

“You have to come up with scoring criteria to ensure that injustice and inequity are being addressed ,”
explained Doyle, who worked on budget scoring when he was a fellow at the Interior Department during the Obama administration.

One of Biden’s first actions on Wednesday was to direct the Office of Management and Budget to
conduct a study on how to assess equity as it applies to agency actions . Agencies, in turn, will conduct their own equity
evaluations. A working group was tasked with combing through federal datasets to build the informational foundation to support the initiative.

Besides the promise of infrastructure investment, there are immediate water needs related to the Covid-19 pandemic .
Biden’s $1.9 trillion Covid-relief proposal includes $5 billion to cover water and energy bill arrears and $20 billion for tribal governments — money that could be
used to provide running water to homes without it. Congress already appropriated $638 million for overdue water bills.

Nathan Ohle, chief executive officer of Rural Community Assistance Partnership, said that those overdue
bills are hurting utilities financially
as well, particularly smaller utilities that may have fewer cash reserves to buffer a revenue downturn .
Because utilities are delaying repairs and capital projects during the emergency, federal aid to
utilities and their customers could relieve financial burdens today while preserving the capacity to
deliver water in the future.
“It’s an opportunity to ensure that utilities can be sustainable,” Ohle told Circle of Blue.

Both Ohle and Doyle said that federal

financing programs like the state revolving funds could be used as leverage
for structural changes within the water sector. The state revolving funds , which receive about $2.5 billion annually in
appropriations, facilitate low-interest loans for water, sewer, and green stormwater projects. Last year, House Democrats proposed boosting the
revolving funds by $62.9 billion over five years as part of their Moving Forward package. Along with U.S. Department of Agriculture grants and loans, the funds are
the primary federal funding source for water infrastructure.

One of the biggest structural hurdles is the array of community water systems, which number around 50,000. Many of these systems serve fewer than 3,000
customers and some only a few hundred.

Ohle, who represents rural interests, is not in favor of forcing utilities to merge simply to reduce the number of systems. But he said that conditions could
be attached to grants and loans to require utilities to begin conversations about regional collaborations or other partnerships that could cut costs
and improve service.

Doyle also mentioned the state revolving funds as a leverage point for policy items like utility mergers. But he was
also noted that policymakers shouldn’t overload the vehicle, weighing down a financing program with
too many riders .

“At some point, a single program can’t bear all the issues of water infrastructure ,” he said.

5. [Write a functionally intrinsic perm, either-

a. Do the plan and the CP for [omit “technical and financial assistance”]-
does the counterplan for other programs to help communities build
infrastructure]

b. do the plan and the CP for [omit “technical and financial assistance” and
“help communities build”]- does the counterplan but for federally built
infrastructure

6. Counterplan isn’t functionally competitive- it could result in the aff which justifies
perm- do the plan and the outcomes of the counterplan that could include the aff

7. Counterplan isn’t textually competitive- perm do the plan and the United States
does the counterplan
8. That solves- the fed gives the money and the states implement it through the CP
Ramseur & Tiemann 19 (Jonathan & Mary, Specialists in Environmental Policy, Congressional
Research Service. “Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations” April 10)

The principal federal program to aid municipal wastewater treatment plant construction is authorized in
the Clean Water Act (CWA). Established as a grant program in 1972, it now capitalizes state loan
programs through the clean water state revolving loan fund (CWSRF) program. Since FY1972,
appropriations have totaled $98 billion.

In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, P.L. 104-182) to authorize a similar
state loan program for drinking water to help systems finance projects needed to comply with drinking
water regulations and to protect public health. Since FY1997, appropriations for the drinking water state
revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program have totaled $23 billion.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers both SRF programs, which annually
distribute funds to the states for implementation . Funding amounts are specified in the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) account of EPA annual appropriations acts. The combined appropriations for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure assistance have represented 25%-32% of total funds
appropriated to EPA in recent years.

9. Certainty is key- perception of a known, stable funding stream prevents project

delays, staffing cutbacks, and rate increases- that’s the entire 1AC solvency page

10. Certainty is key- establishes stable funding streams that resolve the risk perception
of water utilities
Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

While many take high-quality drinking water and wastewater services for granted, two
million in the US— low-income people, people
in rural areas, people of color, tribal communities— live without running water or basic indoor plumbing.
Many more live without wastewater services or adequate stormwater protection. Millions of low-
income people and working families technically have access to drinking water and wastewater services
but cannot afford to pay their water bills . When water bills are unpaid, utilities can shut off services. In 21 states, a parent’s
inability to provide running water in the home can be considered “child neglect,” and children can be separated from their parents and sent to foster care
indefinitely.35 Unpaid water bills can also lead to home eviction and foreclosure—either because water bills are included in a tenant’s rent or because unpaid water
bills can allow a lien on a customer’s property tax, which, if unpaid, can lead to foreclosure.

As critical as they are, clean, safe, and reliable water and wastewater
services are not free. In fact, many utilities face a catch-22:
they are operating at a deficit and need to raise rates to reflect the true cost of water while being reluctant to raise rates
because their lowest-income ratepayers cannot absorb the additional cost. Many states also require public
utilities to charge uniform rates to all customers, so the revenue collected from some ratepayers cannot
be used to support aid programs that reduce the bills of low-income customers. The COVID-related shutdowns of local
economies coupled with skyrocketing unemployment have led to an even greater loss of revenue and utilities’ inability to make ends meet.

To make water more affordable and accessible, the federal government should: • Expand and improve the Low-
Income Household Drinking Water and Wastewater Emergency Assistance Program. • Provide technical assistance to utilities
for customer assistance program (CAP) operations and equitable rate design. • Increase funding for places too remote for centralized

infrastructure. • Revamp census questions on water access and affordability and centralize federal data. • Conduct equity assessment and mapping.

Expand and Improve the Low-Income Household Drinking Water and Wastewater Emergency Assistance Program Water
affordability is a growing
concern as utilities, states, and local governments balance the need to ensure all their residents have
access to affordable drinking water and wastewater services . The reality is that they require sufficient revenue
to protect public health and modernize their aging infrastructure to meet increased demands and
withstand a changing climate. In general, water service is affordable for most people in the US, but in every community, rates
impose burdens on vulnerable populations, including low-income, elderly, and disabled residents,
among others.

Utilities in cities and towns with a high proportion of lowincome residents, those with declining populations, and those
in rural areas all struggle to protect public health while keeping rates affordable for those who need it most. This
outsized burden often causes people in lowincome households to make difficult tradeoffs between paying their water bills, rent, medical expenses, and other debts.
Congress created the Low-Income Household Drinking Water and Wastewater Emergency Assistance Program in late December 2020 as part of COVID-19
relief.36 This onetime infusion of funds is very much needed, but Congress should do more to ensure that clean, safe,

and reliable water and wastewater services are available to all . Committing to a Low-Income Household Drinking Water and

Wastewater Emergency Assistance Program

for the long-term and robustly funding it will help reduce the costly
burden weighing down struggling utilities and water customers alike. Low-income people in the US are required to make
difficult decisions about how to stretch limited resources each month; deciding whether to pay for water and wastewater services should not be one of them.

Legislative Action Congress

should make the new Low-Income Household Drinking Water and Wastewater Emergency Assistance Program
permanent in the annual appropriations process and expand its funding level at least into parity with comparable programs such as the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

11. Condo is bad because straight turns are good-

a. Punishes bad negs- creates a cost to unprepared counterplans, non-
strategic 1NCs, and bad predictions about what the 2AC will do
b. Rewards smart affs- creates a benefit to thinking about how arguments
interact, predicting what the neg wants to go for, and determining the
strategic benefit of defense
c. It’s a voter- status is part of the counterplan which they don’t get to kick-
determined the 2ac because we can’t count on theory- also for
deterrence
 1ar – perm ext
Perm establishes a floor- there’s no such thing as prior, binding consultation that
allows complete veto power over legislation- it’s illegal and not what their ev
assumes- changing the process to allow for engagement with a range of acceptable
options that require the plan as the minimum doesn’t sever the aff and solves 100% of
the net benefit- also we have a short-term funding deficit to the counterplan because
genuine participation takes months- either normal means solves the net benefit or the
counterplan isn’t competitive- the aff is one required criteria for the options
presented, the CP just adds additional criteria- “prior, binding” key is a made-up
debate concept, the kind of consultation their ev describes is part of the EPA process
and definitely solves the net benefit- genuine input just means the ability to resolve
potential consequences, not negate the statutory mandate
EPA 15 (Environmental Protection Agency. "Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the
Development of Regulatory Actions" https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
06/documents/considering-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-final.pdf) [*ADP = Action Development Process, the
process followed at the EPA for developing regulations]

ADP Step 7 – Data Collection, Analysis and Consultation, and Development of Regulatory Options In this
step, rule-writers should implement the DABP and investigate the regulatory problem that the action is
intended to address, gather relevant information, consult with stakeholders, including minority
populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples, and develop options for resolving
the problem.31 Integrated into all of these activities should be the consideration of the extent to which
there are potential EJ concerns, and how those concerns may be addressed. Rulewriters should use the
Agency’s available EJ assessment tools to determine the extent to which the action has potential EJ
concerns, complete EJ-related consultation or public participation, as appropriate, and analyze any
potential EJ concerns.

Although analyses to evaluate potential EJ concerns will vary across regulatory actions, they typically
have the same starting point. Rule-writers should attempt to describe the regulatory baseline and the
anticipated changes in emissions, exposures, and/or risks to be achieved by an action. It is important,
where appropriate and when data permit, to characterize the potential changes in emissions, exposures
and/or risks on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. The analysis
should cover the appropriate range of options considered to address those impacts and should provide
a sufficient level of detail to distinguish major environmental or public health impacts across the options
for these population groups. Rule-writers should consider the data needed to support such analyses
when developing their Preliminary and Detailed Analytical Blue Prints in order to maximize their
opportunities to describe these baselines and the projected impacts of their regulatory actions. See the
Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for
guidance on analytic expectations.

ADP Step 8 – Options Selection Options selection is the last step in the ADP before rule-writers finish
drafting the regulatory action. In this step, the rule-writers can identify the significant issues and several
options to resolve each issue. Senior management decision-makers then selects those options that
would best achieve the goals of the action. Selecting a regulatory action from among many options is a
complex process. The extent to which potential EJ concerns factor into the process will vary considerably
across regulatory actions, and will depend in large part on the operative requirements of the statute
under which the action is being taken .

In presenting the options to senior management decision-makers for final decision-making, rulewriters
have another opportunity to consider whether potential EJ concerns have been addressed. Decision-
makers will also have an opportunity to confirm that the rule-writers have considered and addressed
potential EJ concerns, including any necessary consultations to achieve meaningful involvement . The
options selection presentation should describe the rule-writers’ activities and efforts to assess potential
EJ concerns and to involve affected populations, including minority populations, low-income
populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples. The presentation should also describe what actions are
recommended to ensure that potential EJ concerns are addressed by each of the options being
presented (see Text Box 15). Rule-writers should be prepared to discuss the options under consideration
in the regulatory action (such as pollution control options) in light of their impacts on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, including reductions in exposure or
risk.

In presenting the results of the analysis evaluating potential EJ concerns to decision-makers, rulewriters
should be aware of the specific statutory and other important criteria they will use to select an option.
Where EJ concerns represent the major consideration for selecting an option, it is vital that the nature
and magnitude of impacts be clearly presented in some detail. For example, the following questions
might be answered: • Are there studies documenting impacts? How complete are the studies? • Is there
indication that certain populations are particularly sensitive? • What are the qualitative and quantitative
differences?

Perm solves and is normal means- the aff is an appropriations statute, consultation
happens after the plan sets the minimum floor- consultation guarantees the plan but
also creates mitigation strategies to resolve potential consequences and provides
options with the “increase in funding” as the minimum standard
EPA 15 (Environmental Protection Agency. "Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the
Development of Regulatory Actions" https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
06/documents/considering-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-final.pdf) [*ADP = Action Development Process, the
process followed at the EPA for developing regulations]

Appendix A: Incorporating Environmental Justice into Tier 1 and 2 Actions Under the ADP

1. Statute , court order, Presidential Initiative, or Administrator’s priority as cause for rulemaking • EJ, as an agency priority,
may be cause for initiation of a rulemaking, but more often will be a factor to consider in the
development of rulemakings initiated in response to statutes , court orders, etc.
2. Tiering and Commencement • Respond to EJ questions in ADP Tracker • If potential EJ concerns are evident, request involvement of staff with EJ expertise • Initial
EJ screening process typically begins in this step; document the process
3. Preliminary Analytic Blueprint • Flag potential EJ concerns and associated data and analytical needs • Identify issues and staff with needed
expertise • Plan for consultation and outreach
4. Early Guidance • Managers ask and materials describe whether the action raises and addresses potential EJ concerns • Materials summarize information to be
gathered for analysis of potential EJ concerns

5. Detailed Analytic Blueprint (DABP) • Describe planned analyses and outreach activities related to potential EJ concerns, including a public involvement plan, key
analyses, options to be considered

6. Management Approval of the DABP •Managers ask how potential EJ concerns are addressed in DBP before approving it

7. Data Collection, Analysis and Consultation, and Development of Regulatory Options • Prepare data on results of consultations/public
involvement and data on impacts on minority, low-income and indigenous populations • Incorporate EJ impacts into options, including
options to mitigate adverse effects, as appropriate

Competition would require the aff be extra-topical- we’d have to include a plank in the
plan prohibiting the counterplan- otherwise, there’s sufficient authority for the EPA to
do the plan and the counterplan
EPA 15 (Environmental Protection Agency. "Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the
Development of Regulatory Actions" https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
06/documents/considering-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-final.pdf)

It is important, however, to recognize that the Agency’s statutory and regulatory authorities provide a
broad basis for protecting human health and the environment and do not require a demonstration of
disproportionate impacts in order to protect the health or environment of any population, including
minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. Thus, consistent with its
mission, the Agency may address adverse impacts in the context of developing regulatory actions
without the need to show that the impacts are disproportionate. Unless prohibited by statutory or
regulatory authority, the EPA can and should consider action to address adverse health and
environmental impacts on populations of concern, consistent with this guidance. Rule-writers should
focus attention on the health of and environmental conditions affecting minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, both before and after implementation of a rule and/or
for the regulatory options under consideration. This will allow decision-makers to make more informed
choices between different regulatory options. An important consideration for regulatory options is the
extent to which they improve the adverse health and environmental impacts in minority populations,
low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
 1ar – cp is illegal

Funding can only come from Congress- that means the counterplan gets struck down-
fiating through this without an advocate is a voting issue, there’s no solvency
advocate in the context of legislation- also justifies perm, do the plan and then the
counterplan for reviewing delegation of legislative power
Schmidt et al in '5
(Steffen, Prof Pol Sci @ Iowa State, Barbara Bardes, Prof Pol Sci @ Cincinnati and Mack Shelley, Prof Pol
Sci @ Iowa State, "American Government and Politics, 2005-2006, p. 2, Google Print)

As a practical matter, the U.S. Constitution makes no provision for referenda , initiatives, or recalls. It also does not ban
such procedures. The United States Supreme Court, however, has strongly opposed any delegation of the

congressional power to draft legislation . Some years ago, for example, congress passed a "line-item veto" law
that allowed the president to block part of a spending bill without rejecting the entire package. The Supreme Court found this law to be an

unconstitutional delegation of congressional power. The membership and opinions of the Court can
change, but the existing Court would surely never permit a binding national referendum. Of course,
Congress could always sponsor a purely advisory referendum, it is unlikely that the Court would block
such a procedure, as long as Congress retained the right to accept or to ignore the results of the vote.
 2ac – reg neg
No net benefit
Andrea Renda 16, George C. Lamb, Jr. Regulatory Fellow at the Kenan Institute for Ethics and a Senior
Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Duke University, Adjunct Professor at
Luiss Guido Carli University, June 2016 “Regulation and R&I Policies Comparing Europe and the USA,”
European Commission, p. 26

In 1990, Congress formally endorsed negotiated rulemaking with the passage of the federal Negotiated
Rulemaking Act, and both the Clinton Administration and the current administration have been among negotiated rulemaking’s strong
supporters. Those who advocate negotiated rulemaking – including Congress - tend to identify two primary
benefits that are expected to flow from its use: reduced rulemaking time, and decreased litigation over
the final rule. In practice , however, it is not at all clear that negotiated rulemaking delivers on eithe r of
these promises. Of all the federal agencies in the United States, EPA has used negotiated rulemaking the most often.
A study by Penn’s Cary Coglianese (1997) concluded that: (a) on average, the promulgation of EPA rules through
negotiated rulemaking took no less time than did the promulgation of a “control” group of similar EPA
rules through traditional notice and comment rulemaking; and (b) 50% of EPA's twelve finalised
negotiated rulemakings were the subject of legal challenge , compared with a litigation rate of 26% for
all EPA rules issued during the period from 1987 through 1991.

Delay and no signal

Ackerman 94 (Susan Rose, Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence (Law and Political Science), Yale
University, Duke Law Journal, April, Lexis)
According to Improving Regulatory Systems, the aims of regulatory negotiation are to reduce the time it takes to put a rule into
effect and to obtain high levels of compliance. Because affected parties have signed on to the negotiated regulation, they may be both less
likely to challenge the rule in court and more likely to comply with it. However, as the authors of the report recognize, regulatory
negotiation under current law introduces an extra step that is time-consuming and difficult . One observer advised
participants to expect a “roller coaster experience.” Even though regulatory negotiation may shorten the
regulatory process in terms of calendar time, the actual hours of participant time [*12 121 may be greater than under other
regulatory procedures. Although a number of regulatory negotiations have been successful, 22 the claims of widespread benefits are
mostly speculative. And when it comes to enforcing the regulation, reg neg may not help significantly: even for rules promulgated by
standard methods, compliance seems high.

Can’t solve innovation

Coglianese 1 (Cary, Assistant Prof Public Policy – Harvard, Environmental Law Journal, Lexis)
Negotiated rulemaking's emphasis on unanimity also makes it more likely that the final outcome will succumb to
the lowest-common-denominator problem. The outcome that is minimally acceptable to all the
members of a negotiated rulemaking committee will not necessarily be optimal or effective in terms of
achieving social goals. A recent study of negotiated rulemaking conducted by Charles Caldart and Nicholas
Ashford shows that in industries that are not likely to innovate in the absence of strong governmental
regulation , the lowest-common-denominator problem keeps negotiated rules from promoting the technological
innovation needed to improve environmental and safety performance. 276 They conclude that because
industry representatives in these types of industries will be reluctant to agree to regulations that would compel
firms to make dramatic investments in new technologies, "negotiated rulemaking's focus on consensus can
effectively remove the potential to spur innovation ." 277
 2ac – race audit
Racial impact statements empirically fail
Maggie Clark, 13 - Staff Writer, Pew Charitable Trust (“Should more states require racial impact
statements for new laws?” USA Today, 7/31,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/31/racial-impact-statements-
laws/2602563/ //DH

Racial impact statements aren't a panacea, however. Even though Iowa has required them for more
than four years, the state still has wide racial disparities in its justice system. The state has the worst
racial disparity in the U.S. in marijuana arrests, according to an ACLU study. Blacks are more than eight
times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, even though usage is about even,
according to researchers. Minnesota, which also uses racial impact statements although not required by
law, ranked third behind Iowa in the ACLU report, with blacks more than seven times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession. Still, the statements are a helpful tool for lawmakers to
evaluate outcomes of new legislation, said Nicole Porter, advocacy director at The Sentencing Project.
"We don't claim that racial impact statements will resolve all disparities, but it will allow lawmakers to
be intentional about the effects of the laws they enact," Porter said.
 2ac – consult tribes
Federal funding is a prerequisite to consultation- budget cuts mean they can’t engage
in the research necessary for effective consultation- there are already consultation
programs which solves your net benefit, but funding is an a priori issue
GLRC 5 (Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. Federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force,
Council of Great Lakes Governors, Great Lakes Cities Initiative, Native American Tribes, and Great Lakes
Congressional Task Force signed a Declaration and agreed to a Framework Document that signified the
convening of the Collaboration in December 2004. A framework was developed to guide the
collaboration process designed to develop, by consensus, a strategy and action plan to restore and
protect the Great Lakes. https://www.gsgp.org/media/1847/glrc_strategy.pdf)

The Collaboration recognizes Tribal Nations as valuable partners under this Plan. It also acknowledges the U nited
S tates’ unique treaty obligations and trust responsibilities toward Tribal Nations and their communities .
Accordingly, the Framework Agreement establishes the need for this Plan to address Tribal interests and
perspectives as an overarching issue . The Collaboration recognizes the efforts of each Strategy Team
to consider and address Tribal perspectives . These general comments are offered to complement and help integrate the
Teams’ efforts.

Tribal Nations count upon the United States government to adequately fund their natural resource and
environmental management programs pursuant to various laws2 and long-standing federal policies.3 Consequently,
Tribal programs are particularly vulnerable to federal budgetary reductions. The loss of what might be
considered a small amount of funding to others usually constitutes a large percentage of a Tribal program’s
funding, resulting in a correspondingly large reduction in services to Tribal communities, if not a de facto
elimination of that program.

The Collaboration recognizes the need to maintain base funding levels for Tribal programs to ensure
that the Tribal Nations are able to provide for the health and welfare of their communities. A secure,
on-going funding base ensures the capacity to carry out the primary purposes of basic natural resource
and environmental management programs. It further assures essential, culturally-appropriate research
and monitoring of consumption patterns and risk exposures of Tribal members who engage in subsistence life ways, who use natural
resources for medicine and in ceremonies, and whose livelihood is based upon natural resources. And, only with this funding can

Tribal Nations remain effective partners in Great Lakes protection and restoration efforts.
 2ac – substantial key – read if the CP omits ‘substantial’

Substantial increases in funding key- substantial in the context of the aff defines the
amount of funding we provide- the counterplan doesn’t provide enough to ensure
equitable water access
Fedinick et al 19 (Kristi Pullen, Natural Resources Defense Council. Steve Taylor, Coming Clean.
Michele Roberts, EJHA. Contributing Reviewers: Richard Moore, EJHA. Erik Olson, NRDC. "Watered
Down Justice" September.https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/watered-down-justice-report.pdf)

FUND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, ESPECIALLY IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES

The EPA has already noted that “some communities may be more challenged than others in their efforts
to achieve the goals of safe and clean water” and that vulnerable and overburdened communities often
lack the financial resources needed to ensure safe water.113 n Congress and state legislatures should
substantially increase funding for water infrastructure , including specific additional set-aside grants for
disadvantaged communities. n The EPA and states should direct funds to improve water infrastructure in
highly affected, underserved communities, including leveraging state revolving funds or prioritizing and
funding underserved, inadequately protected communities under the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund. n The EPA and states should ensure that underserved communities have adequate knowledge and
capacity to identify funding opportunities and apply for grants or loans to address inequities and gaps in
the ability of different communities to seek and obtain funding. n The EPA and states should
substantially increase water infrastructure grants (not loans) to disproportionately affected communities
that prioritize spending in areas least able to afford solutions. n The EPA and states should provide
grants to economically challenged and Environmental Justice communities (including Indigenous
communities) to support water system technical and management capacity. n The EPA and states should
ensure that local costs of improving infrastructure do not make water bills unaffordable for low-income
customers, including new and expanded low-income affordability programs and more equitable rate
structures.
**advantage counterplans
 2ac – lead treatment
Complete line replacement is key
Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

While corrosion control treatment measures are an effective temporary solution to reducing the
prevalence of lead in drinking water, they are not a permanent fix, as lead can still leach into pipes in
unpredictable ways. And some corrosion control measures added to a community’s drinking water, like
phosphates, must then be cleaned out of the water at wastewater treatment plants, further increasing
the cost for the community. Full replacement of LSLs and tackling lead sources inside homes are the
only viable ways to ensure the water supply to homes is free of harmful metals . Full LSL replacement,
at an average cost of $4,700 per household (ranging from $1,200 to $12,300 per line replaced) across
the US, presents a massive financial hurdle.33

Additionally, low-income communities and communities of color are more likely to have an LSL leading
into their homes, more likely to have lead plumbing/fixtures in the house, and less likely to afford a
replacement, a major systemic inequity. Further, various programs to address lead contamination exist
through the EPA, CDC, and HUD. Funding for these programs, however, must be increased and better
coordinated to adequately address the issue adequately.

Legislative Action Congress should create a Lead-Safe Communities Fund for the removal of lead paint,
the funding of water pipe corrosion control treatment measures, support for state programs to identify
and replace lead plumbing/fixtures in individual homes, and the replacement of lead service lines on
both public and private property. This fund should coordinate, streamline, and increase current funding
across agencies to fight lead poisoning holistically. Activities should also include but not limit to the
following: • Supporting utilities that pilot innovative financing for LSL replacement34 • Developing
equity criteria for LSL replacement for vulnerable populations • Directing the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) to provide tax-exempt bond financing for removal of LSLs • Mandating that IRS and the
Department of the Treasury (through the Federal Housing Administration and Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac) include the cost of LSL replacement in a home’s mortgage
 2ac – polarization
Perm do both

Counterplan can’t solve polarization

Matthews 18 (Dylan, 4/23. "The myth of an ending: why even removing Trump from office won’t save
American democracy" https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/23/17233952/trump-
democracy-decay-decline-coup-war-collapse-impeachment)

What does that look like? An unsatisfying litany of heavy political lifts, most of which will fail, and each
of which on its own would only mildly improve matters if adopted. We should abolish the filibuster and
Electoral College and eliminate midterm elections by having the House, Senate, and president serve
concurrent four-year terms. We should adopt the  Fair Representation Act to end gerrymandering and
move toward proportional representation. We need a  robust right to vote in the Constitution, public
financing for elections, and more transparency for corporate and nonprofit political spending.

These seem like ambitious reforms, and in all likelihood most of them will fail, leaving us in a perhaps
mildly better version of the morass we’re in now. Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event we make
them all happen, a number of core problems in our politics will remain. You can’t legislate negative
partisanship away , and you can’t entirely prevent corporations and the wealthy from exerting some
degree of oligarchic power without trampling on freedom of speech.

And if those changes are not enough, then getting Trump frogmarched out of the White House certainly
won’t be. Ejecting him cannot and will not suddenly cure our political dysfunction. The problems in our
democracy don’t suddenly disappear when he’s no longer in the White House, any more than they
would’ve disappeared had he narrowly lost in 2016 rather than narrowly won.

Counterplan links to the net benefit-

**states
 2ac – states

1. Perm do both

2. Water utilities are risk-averse- federal spending is key to avoiding project delays
and incentivizing innovation- the perception of stable funding is what matters,
that’s Berry- err on the side of established funding mechanisms especially given
the state of water utilities finances

3. Extend Blair 17 from the 1AC- federal funding is key-

a. federal spending is good- states can’t deficit spend and trying to maintain state
funding during downturns causes a liquidity crisis, deficits are key to preventing
crowd out during a recession, P3s take advantage of states, bonds have higher
rates than t-bills so they’re more expensive, and centralized investment is
better able to leverage economies of scale

b. States make worse infrastructure- state projects are unsustainable and provide
worse services, best data proves states make decisions with negative spillovers
which cancels out any economic benefits and cooperation can’t solve, and state
projects are empirically ineffective at achieving equitable access
4. States can’t sustain long-term investments
Bergal 21 (Jenni, veteran journalist who covers transportation, infrastructure, and cybersecurity for
Stateline. She has been a reporter at Kaiser Health News, the Center for Public Integrity and the South
Florida Sun-Sentinel, and was supervising senior editor of “Weekend Edition” at NPR. Bergal has spent
much of her career doing investigative reporting. She has won numerous national awards, including the
Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business and Financial Journalism, the National Press Club
Consumer Journalism Award and the Worth Bingham Prize for Investigative Reporting and is a two-time
Pulitzer Prize finalist. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/03/29/states-covid-era-budget-surpluses-could-pay-for-infrastructure)

Smith’s Bridge, spanning 447 feet across Smith Bayou, connects residents in the small city of Ferrysburg,
Michigan. But the two-lane structure is in such shoddy condition it was closed for months in 2019 to car
traffic. It would cost millions to replace.

Now there may be help coming from the state. Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has
proposed allocating hundreds of millions of dollars to replace or repair it and more than 119 other local
bridges in serious or critical condition, using one-time money coming from a state surplus.
She and leaders in other states who have wound up with unexpected budget surpluses despite the
COVID-19 pandemic are planning to use a chunk of the money to tackle long infrastructure to-do lists.

Congress, at the behest of President Joe Biden, is hashing out its own major infrastructure plan, but
some governors and legislatures figure they can go ahead and make critical one-time investments in
road construction, broadband or other infrastructure projects. Some also are looking to target long-term
funding for bigger-ticket items.

“Our needs are so great. We have been underfunding infrastructure for so many years,” Colorado
Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, a Democrat, said in an interview with Stateline. “We have no
choice now but to fund it.”

While many states have made some progress with their infrastructure needs by raising gas taxes to pay
for transportation investments over the past decade, they still have a long way to go, according to the
American Society of Civil Engineers.

State officials know that.

A recent report from the National Association of State Budget Officers found that many governors
highlighted infrastructure investments in their 2021 State of the State speeches. Governors called for
more investments in projects such as road maintenance, bridge repairs and water systems.

They also proposed using state and federal money to expand broadband and help rural areas. The
pandemic exposed how the lack of broadband connectivity among tens of millions of Americans has hurt
schoolchildren and workers.

In Colorado, which is projecting at least $1 billion in unexpected tax revenue, Democratic Gov. Jared
Polis and bipartisan leaders from the state House and Senate announced the Colorado Recovery Plan
earlier this month. The one-time spending package would put $700 million into an economic stimulus
plan.

A big chunk—$170 million—would go to shovel-ready infrastructure projects, such as repairs to tunnels

and bridges. Another $50 million to $75 million would be used for broadband expansion, $30 million
would be allocated to revitalizing community main streets, $20 million would go toward improving
infrastructure at state parks and $10 million to $20 million would be earmarked for water plan projects.

“Infrastructure is incredibly important. It touches every corner of our state,” Fenberg said. “It’s the
lifeblood of our economy.”

While Colorado has lots of other funding needs, such as K-12 education and higher education, Fenberg
added, putting one-time dollars into those isn’t sustainable.

“Transportation and infrastructure are the perfect investment,” he said. “There are dollars that can
move immediately and be put into local communities. It’s good for jobs and it spurs economic growth.”

In the early months of the pandemic, many states trimmed spending, froze hiring and sharply reduced
their revenue forecasts, figuring the economic crisis foreshadowed a grim future.
Some tourism-dependent states, such as Hawaii and Nevada, or energy-dependent ones, such as
Louisiana and Alaska, got hit hard, said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the state budget
officers association.

But many states were surprised to find their revenues come in higher than projected. The spending cuts
and hiring freezes helped. So did the state income taxes that high-income earners continued to pay
during the pandemic. And federal stimulus funding pumped lots of money into state economies.

Those unexpected windfalls left states with extra cash to use this year. And infrastructure is a popular
place to spend it, no matter which party runs the legislature.

“It hasn’t been a red, blue issue,” Sigritz said. “We’ve seen the importance of infrastructure and
expanding broadband in both.”

In Colorado, while Democrats control the governor’s office and the legislature, Fenberg pointed out that
the one-time spending infrastructure package under consideration was crafted by both parties.

“We’re living in challenging times right now, but we don’t see this as a partisan issue,” he said. “We
think it is a one-time investment that’s prudent financially and that will get the state on a better footing
as soon as possible.”

Susan Howard, a program director for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, said the infrastructure issue generally gets bipartisan support at the state level—and the
national one.

“You have this sense of …. there are no Democratic roads, there are no Republican roads,” she said.

‘Fix the Damn Roads’

America’s infrastructure is in rough shape. An American Society of Civil Engineers’ report card recently
gave it a C- grade, noting that there is a water main break every two minutes and that 43% of public
roadways are in poor or mediocre condition.

“America's infrastructure bill is overdue, and we have been ignoring it for years. The COVID-19
pandemic only exacerbates the funding challenge because state and local governments have had to
prioritize public health over everything else for the past year,” Jean-Louis Briaud, the group’s president,
said in a March news release.

5. Federal funding solves in the short-term- SRFs are a proven pipeline to quickly and
effectively allocate funding to prevent job losses, rate increases, and infrastructure
delays
Surfus 20 (Krisina, Managing Director, Government Affairs, National Association of Clean Water
Agencies. "Recovering from Coronavirus Mitigating the Economic Cost of Maintaining Water and
Wastewater Service in the Midst of a Global Pandemic and National Economic Shut‐Down"
https://www.nacwa.org/docs/default-source/resources---public/water-sector-covid-19-financial-
impacts.pdf?sfvrsn=98f9ff61_2)
The COVID‐19 pandemic underscores the critical importance of clean, safe water in ensuring proper
sanitation and hygiene to protect public health. Families, businesses, hospitals and first responders
around the country are counting on drinking water and clean water agencies to help save lives and keep
people healthy. Utilities are working around the clock to ensure customers have safe and reliable water
services while keeping their own essential workforce safe.

The drinking water and clean water sectors are facing major losses in revenue and significant costs for
maintaining services to low income and financially vulnerable households during the pandemic. The
sector is committed to providing service to all households during the pandemic regardless of ability to
pay. But this does not come without cost—and as revenues fall, utilities may face hard decisions
regarding how to address shortfalls including potentially delaying planned water infrastructure
investments, impacts to staffing, and facing new pressures to raise rates at a time many households can
ill‐afford rate increases. As Congress responds to the COVID‐19 crisis, significant funding should be
allocated to help offset revenue losses by water and wastewater utilities and to support the
continuation of services to all users.

Impacts to Drinking Water: Lost Utility Revenues & the Costs of Maintaining Water Access Are Estimated
at $13.9 Billion AWWA and AMWA commissioned an assessment of the financial impact of COVID‐19 on
drinking water utilities. The results, released April 14, 2020, indicate an aggregate financial impact of
COVID‐19 on drinking water utilities of approximately $13.9 billion, representing an overall 16.9 percent
financial impact on the drinking water sector. These impacts are a result of drinking water utilities
eliminating shut offs for non‐payment, anticipated increased delinquencies as a result of high
unemployment rates, reductions in non‐residential water demands, and associated revenues offset by
increases in residential consumption, and lower customer growth.

Included in the above $13.9 billion total is the cost of maintaining household drinking water access,
which includes $.570 billion in marginal costs from suspending shut‐offs and a $4.92 billion in revenue
losses due to increased bill delinquencies from COVID‐19 related job losses. Maintaining services to
households regardless of ability to pay has emerged as a key concern during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Utilities are stepping up to address this concern – more than 90% of drinking water utilities surveyed
have suspended water shut‐offs – but this comes at significant cost to utilities and their ratepayers.

Impacts to Clean Water: Lost Utility Revenues & the Costs of Maintaining Sewer Access Are Estimated at
$16.8 Billion NACWA conservatively estimates the impact to clean water utilities nationwide of lost
revenues due to COVID‐19 at $12.5 billion, reflecting a conservative 20% drop in sewer revenues. This
solely reflects the financial impact clean water utilities anticipate from the economic downturn as
industrial and commercial water use declines. Revenue drops will vary across the country and over time;
some communities with major commercial/industrial sectors are projecting reductions closer to 30‐40%.
If these revenue losses are not addressed, clean water utilities we have no choice but to make up for
them in future rate increases, creating even more of an affordability challenge for low‐income
households.

Applying the same methodology for estimating the costs of maintaining household clean water access
as done for drinking water, NACWA estimates $3.8 billion in revenue losses due to increased bill
delinquencies from COVID‐19 related job losses, on top of a conservative estimate of $.500 B in existing
household debt on clean water utility books nationally, for a total estimated cost of $4.3 B to clean
water utilities to maintain service to households that were either delinquent in payment before the
pandemic hit or are now financially vulnerable and at high risk of not paying bills due to COVID‐19
related job lossesiii. This estimate for household access to clean water comes on top of the $12.5 billion
in declining water usage revenue losses noted above.

Revitalizing the Economy Safe, secure and sustainable water is the foundation of a healthy
environment, thriving communities, and a robust economy. Investing in water infrastructure will
increase protection for the public health and the environment while creating high‐wage jobs to help
the economy rebound from the global coronavirus pandemic.

The Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds ( SRFs ) – the nation’s premier programs for
financing water infrastructure – have an established SRF Project Pipeline to effectively and efficiently
deliver federal stimulus funding to thousands of communities across the nation . A national SRF Project
Pipeline, recently released by the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities (CIFA), includes more
than $73 billion in current and prospective water infrastructure projects in various stages of
development.

Increasing the volume and velocity of the SRF Project Pipeline will create high‐wage jobs across the
country and across the economy, including jobs in planning, design, engineering, manufacturing and
construction, which will help families rebuild their lives and livelihoodsiv.

6. Those jobs are key to equitable growth

Kane & Tomer 18 (Joseph, Senior Research Associate and Associate Fellow. Prior to Brookings, Kane
was an economist at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. He holds a master’s degree in urban and
environmental planning from the University of Virginia and a bachelor’s degree in economics and history
from the College of William and Mary. Adie, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and
leads the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative. His work focuses on metropolitan infrastructure usage
patterns, including personal and freight transportation, and the intersections between infrastructure
and technological development. Prior to his work at Brookings, Adie was a Senior Analyst at the New
York County District Attorney’s Office where he advised senior executives on policy-relevant matters. He
holds a master’s in Public Policy from American University and a B.A. from the University of Florida.
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institute. "Renewing the Water Workforce: Improving water
infrastructure and creating a pipeline to opportunity" June. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Brookings-Metro-Renewing-the-Water-Workforce-June-2018.pdf)

As the U.S. economy continues to grow, many communities are struggling to translate this growth into
more equitable and inclusive employment opportunities . Simultaneously, many of the nation’s water
infrastructure assets are in urgent need of repair, maintenance, and restoration. Yet the workers
capable of carrying out these efforts are in short supply due to an aging workforce eligible for retirement
and the lack of a pipeline for new talent.
However, addressing these two challenges together offers an enormous infrastructure and economic
opportunity. Constructing, operating, designing, and governing water infrastructure systems demands a
skilled workforce, and hiring a diverse workforce can support greater economic mobility . To unlock this
opportunity, local, state, and national leaders must work together to better understand current
workforce challenges and develop new techniques to hire, train, and retain water workers.

By analyzing occupational employment data, this report explores the water workforce in greater depth
to uncover the accessible, wellpaying opportunities in this sector. In particular, it finds:

A. In 2016, nearly 1.7 million workers were directly involved in designing, constructing, operating, and
governing U.S. water infrastructure, spanning a variety of industries and regions. Water utilities employ
many workers, but multiple other industries and establishments, including engineering firms and
construction contractors, are essential to the water sector too. Collectively, the water workforce fills 212
different occupations—from positions in the skilled trades like electricians and technicians to financial,
administrative, and management positions—that are found everywhere, from big metropolitan markets
to smaller rural areas.

B. Water occupations not only tend to pay more on average compared to all occupations nationally, but
also pay up to 50 percent more to workers at lower ends of the income scale. Water workers earn
hourly wages of $14.01 and $17.67 at the 10th and 25th percentiles, respectively, compared to the
hourly wages of $9.27 and $11.60 earned by all workers at these percentiles across the country.
Significantly, workers across 180 of the 212 water occupations—or more than 1.5 million workers— earn
higher wages at both of these percentiles, including many in positions that tend to require lower levels
of educational attainment.

7. Federal investment key to research and development of new water tech and pilot
projects- water utilities are risk averse so only direct funding solves innovation
Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

Create an R&D Program Supporting Innovation in the Water Sector Several factors inhibit the water
sector from dedicating significant resources to R&D. Primarily, underinvestment at the federal level
has meant that the water sector struggles to keep up with operations and maintenance, let alone
proactively invest. This is even more acute with smaller systems, which often do not have the staff,
financial resources, capacity, or economies of scale to test and adopt technological advancements.
Further, the risk-averse nature of the water sector leaves little room to test new technologies and
start pilot projects .

This program would have widespread benefits in every sector of the economy . Industrial, commercial,
and residential users alike could see a decrease in rates with increases in their efficiency. Public health
and the environment could benefit from simpler and more costeffective ways to meet regulatory
requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act. State and local governments
across the US would benefit from easier, more efficient, and more cost-effective ways to provide clean,
safe, reliable, and affordable water.

Legislative Action To encourage greater efficiencies and higher productivity in the water sector,
Congress should create and robustly fund a new program, Advanced Research Project AgencyWater,
ARPA-W, that supports research and development within the water sector to mitigate these challenges .
ARPA-W would be modeled after Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), housed at the Department of Energy and the Department
of Defense respectively, promoting and funding research and development of advanced energy and
defense technologies. ARPA-W would define R&D needs within the sector that are especially high-risk
and high-reward and award grants for solutions-oriented projects. Eligible entities could include water
agencies, universities, research facilities, and the private sector. ARPA-W should be a shared enterprise
between the EPA, USDA, and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to ensure regulatory
compliance across agencies on any new technology or method, as well as support a broad swath of
economic sectors. Finally, the program should include information-sharing to the thousands of existing
water utilities for adopting new technologies and methods.

8. Best models go aff, fully funding is great for the economy-

EBP 20 ( EBP—formally Economic Development Research (EDR) Group—is a firm dedicated to advancing the state-ofthe-art in economic evaluation and analysis to support planning and policy in the areas of
transportation, energy resources, urban development, and economic growth strategy. Since its founding in 1996, EBP has helped state and local governments make infrastructure investment and economic development decisions
that support broad-based job creation, income generation, and overall prosperity. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign contracted with EBP to conduct this study. The American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than
150,000 members of the civil engineering profession in 177 countries. Founded in 1852, ASCE is the nation’s oldest engineering society. ASCE stands at the forefront of a profession that plans, designs, constructs, and operates
society’s economic and social engine—the built environment—while protecting and restoring the natural environment. The Value of Water Campaign educates and inspires the nation about how water is essential, invaluable, and
in need of investment. Spearheaded by top leaders in the water industry, and coordinated by the US Water Alliance, the Value of Water Campaign is building public and political will for investment in the United States‘ water and
wastewater infrastructure through best-in-class communication tools, high-impact events, media activities, and robust research and publications. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign are grateful to an esteemed group of Value
of Water Campaign supporters and ASCE members for their expert review of the document, including: • Greg DiLoreto, P.E., retired, former CEO of Tualatin Valley Water District • Mami Hara, General Manager and CEO, Seattle
Public Utilities • John Kmiec, Deputy Water Director, Tucson Water • Kelley Neumann, P.E., Deputy Director, Planning and Engineering, Aurora Water • Darren Olson, P.E., Vice President, Assistant Department Head, Water
Resources, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. • Carolyn Peterson, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies • Larry Pierce, P.E., retired, San Diego region • Jim Schlaman, Director,
Planning and Water Resources, Black & Veatch • Amit Shah, Senior Manager, Evoqua • Joe Szafran, External Affairs Manager, American Water "The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure How a Failure to Act Would
Affect the US Economic Recovery" August 27. www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/The%20Economic%20Benefits%20of%20Investing%20in%20Water%20Infrastructure_final.pdf )

The cost of failing to invest in water infrastructure is tremendous. But if the United States proactively
invests in water infrastructure and closes the water infrastructure investment gap, the benefits to the
economy, trade, and public health will be enormous.

As in the previous section, the INFORUM model was used to generate economic projections using 2019
baseline data. These projections assume that the years, starting in and following 2020, meet 100
percent of capital and O&M water infrastructure needs. It should be noted that 2019 met only 37
percent of capital investment needs. Closing the gap would require spending $2.2 trillion above the
baseline projections over the next 20 years.

The study projected the impacts of a 100 percent investment scenario on employment, wages, business
sales, and exports. The LIFT model is dynamic, with the ability to show how changes in one industry
ripple across the entire economy. As a result, the numbers shown here are dramatically different from
earlier studies that used static economic multiplier models . In assessing the benefits of closing the
water infrastructure investment gap, three key findings emerged: • Business sales would increase, and
the US GDP would grow by $4.5 trillion . • The US trade balance would dramatically improve, making
exports more competitive . • Investment would create 800,000 jobs, and disposable income would
rise by over $2,000 per household.

Business sales would increase, and the US GDP would grow by $4.5 trillion. Under current investment
levels, the nation will spend $1.067 trillion on water infrastructure over the next 20 years, but the total
need over this time frame is over $3 trillion. To close the gap, the United States would need to increase
its investment in water infrastructure by $2.2 trillion over the next 20 years, or roughly $109 billion per
year.

Closing the investment gap would improve the condition and performance of water systems, leading to
supplyside and demand-side benefits to the economy. Improved reliability and water quality would
increase productivity and efficiency in other sectors and lead to higher capital investment and O&M
spending. Over the next 20 years, the national economy would stand to gain $4.5 trillion in GDP. The
economic gains from more reliable and efficient water systems would build over time; most would
accrue in the second decade as households and businesses reap the benefits of improved water
reliability. By 2039, business sales (gross output) would exceed $5.6 trillion.

The US trade balance would dramatically improve, making exports more competitive. As capital
infrastructure projects move forward and industrial productivity rises, US businesses would gain $225
billion in export value. Four commodities and service industries would see an increased export value of
$10 billion or more above the projected baseline: wholesale trade, motor vehicles, aerospace products
and parts, and other chemicals.

Investment would create 800,000 jobs, and disposable income would rise by $2,000 per household. Full
funding of water infrastructure needs would create nearly 800,000 new jobs by 2039. Of these new jobs,
61 percent would be in construction and professional services stimulated by the boost in infrastructure
spending. Increased reliability and water quality would also increase productivity and efficiency in other
sectors like manufacturing, leading to job gains. And wages would rise: US workers would earn more
than $2.8 trillion in additional disposable household income over 20 years, leading to an increase of over
$2,000 per household.

More reliable water services would also help US households avoid up to $7.7 billion in cumulative
medical costs over 20 years, $2.6 trillion in cumulative losses incurred from service disruptions and
overflows, and $1.4 trillion in cumulative disposable income loss.

While this model cannot generate public health predictions, wages and disposable income are part of a
web of interrelated factors that affect health over a lifetime.48 People with lower incomes tend to have
a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and other chronic disorders.49 Other studies have shown
that as jobs, wages, and other indicators of economic prosperity improve, so does public health.50 The
model shows that investing in water infrastructure has a positive effect on the economic conditions of
people at many income levels. Adequate investment in water infrastructure protects public health
directly by maintaining safe water quality and indirectly by creating economic conditions that enable
people to thrive.

Direct, Indirect, and Induced Impacts Both visions for the future evaluated in this study account for
direct, indirect, and induced impacts on the economy. • Direct impacts include the economic
implications for companies directly involved in designing, engineering, and constructing water
infrastructure. • Indirect impacts include the additional economic implications created by the actions of
firms directly involved in water infrastructure. Business to business purchases of goods and services, like
machinery for construction of a water infrastructure project, is an indirect impact. • Induced impacts
include the purchases in retail, medical, leisure, and other sectors dependent on the income earned by
workers in all sectors of the economy that are affected by infrastructure investments. The implications
of water infrastructure investment ripple through the US economy through induced impacts.

9. Condo is bad because straight turns are good-

a. Punishes bad negs- creates a cost to unprepared counterplans, non-
strategic 1NCs, and bad predictions about what the 2AC will do
b. Rewards smart affs- creates a benefit to thinking about how arguments
interact, predicting what the neg wants to go for, and determining the
strategic benefit of defense
c. It’s a voter- status is part of the counterplan which they don’t get to kick-
determined the 2ac because we can’t count on theory- also for
deterrence
 2ac – at: follow-on

State spending has expanded in the last 40 years and federal spending has decreased

Also, this makes no sense- if the states attempt to fill the funding gap, there will be
even less perceived urgency for federal action
 2ac – at: sin taxes

Sin taxes are regressive, doesn’t solve inequality

Povich 20 (Elaine S. Staff Wrtier, Stateline, Pew Trusts. Graduated from Cornell University and holds a
Master's Certificate in Multimedia Journalism from the University of Maryland. "‘Sin Taxes’ Could Help
States in Pandemic Budget Slump (at Least a Little Bit)" https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/06/26/sin-taxes-could-help-states-in-pandemic-budget-slump)

Gas tax revenue plummeted this spring, income taxes won’t rebound anytime soon and some states are
offering a property tax holiday because people can’t pay during the pandemic. But so-called sin taxes are
rolling in as liquor stores boom, marijuana sales continue, vapers vape and smokers smoke.

While not a huge portion of state tax revenue, sin taxes are a relative bright spot in a dark revenue
picture. And some states are considering increasing those levies to make up some of the lost pandemic
revenue.

Taxes on those items often are more politically palatable because they generally affect a smaller portion
of the population and the purchases are seen more as a choice than a necessity.

“It’s just easier politically to increase taxes on 12% of the population than on 80% of the population,”
said Ulrik Boesen, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes lower, broader-
based taxes.

But while sin taxes may be the “least bad option” for lawmakers looking to raise revenue, they tend to
disproportionately hurt poorer people, Boesen noted.

“People on the lower income levels are hurting already,” he said. “We may not want to put an extra
burden on them as they try to get back on their feet.”

Maryland approved a tobacco tax hike in March, and New Jersey is considering a cigarette tax hike that
would lift its rate to the highest in the nation at $4.35 a pack, tied with neighboring New York and
Connecticut. A tobacco tax is on the table in Georgia, a cigarette and vaping tax referendum is on its way
to voters in Colorado and the Michigan Senate passed a bill to impose vaping taxes that the House is
likely to approve.
States benefited from relatively stable alcohol and cigarette taxes during the pandemic because
consumers wanted and had access to the products, said Lucy Dadayan, a senior economist at the Urban
Institute. “Whereas in case of gas taxes, people were under lockdown in most states and so didn’t have
to commute to work or travel otherwise and therefore the consumption was dramatically down.”

For example, in Michigan, tax collections fell in every category in May but one: tobacco taxes, which
increased 1.6% to $73 million from a year ago. For the year through May, the level was steady at a 0.1%
increase. Tobacco taxes make up 4.5% of the state’s tax collections.

In Colorado, liquor tax collections went up from $3.4 million in February to $4.4 million in March,
topping March 2019’s $3.8 million. And tobacco tax receipts were up 5% in April and May to $11 million
compared with a year ago, according to Dadayan’s estimates.

The Colorado legislature earlier this month put on the November ballot a measure that would gradually
increase taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products and institute a new tax on vaping devices and
liquids. Under the legislation, a pack of cigarettes that now is taxed at 84 cents a pack would be taxed at
$2.64 by 2027.

The measure, if approved by voters, would generate an estimated $80 million in the first year, and
about $150 million annually by the last year of the increase, according to state Rep. Yadira Caraveo, a
Democrat and one of the main sponsors of the legislation.

Caraveo said the bill would not bring in enough revenue to make a big dent in the estimated $3.3 billion
budget hole caused by the pandemic “but it will certainly help.” And, she said, the tax hike has a decent
chance of being approved. It is one of the few tax increases that has some support in a state where a
statute prohibits raising taxes without a supermajority.

“Colorado has been a relatively anti-tax state,” she said in an interview. “The ones they tend to be more
open to are the so-called sin taxes.”

The Colorado Senate rejected a similar bill last year, in part because Democrats argued it was regressive
and hit poor people disproportionately hard. But a petition drive appeared to be on its way to putting an
immediate higher tax on the ballot, so the legislature along with industry lobbyists decided to design a
bill that would accomplish the goal over a longer timeline, analysts said. Voters will see the phase-in
plan on the November ballot.
Colorado Senate Democrats earlier this month moved to address part of the regressivity question by
including a provision that would direct some of the money raised by the tax to housing relief for lower-
income residents.

The Michigan Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, approved a six-bill package this month that
would impose an 18% tax on vaping liquid and allow adults 21 and up to buy it in flavors. The bill goes to
the House, where it is likely to pass.

Michigan State University economics professor Charles Ballard noted Republicans supported the tax
increase, which is unusual. “I think sin taxes are often a relatively easy target,” he said in a phone
interview.

“If you are a government and you are in a desperate fiscal situation, every penny helps, but $11 million
or $12 million is a drop in the bucket,” Ballard said of the bill. “I’m not saying I’m against it, but we
shouldn’t kid ourselves and say this is going to fix budget problems.” Michigan’s general fund is about
$10 billion.

Michigan Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich, a Democrat, testified in favor of the legislation, saying it
would give adults a choice about whether to use the products. His spokeswoman said he was too busy
to return phone calls.

Brian Sigritz, fiscal analyst for the National Association of State Budget Officers, said tax collections from
cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana across states have grown somewhat during the pandemic. Other
revenue sources, such as personal income taxes and sales taxes, have plummeted.

Tax revenue from casinos declined; many closed for the pandemic and some are starting to reopen. But
those closures also resulted in an uptick in instant lottery ticket sales, as money that would have been
spent on other types of gambling found its way to the lottery market, particularly in scratch-off ticket
sales.

Sin taxes followed similar patterns both in the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of
2007-09, according to the Tax Foundation’s Boesen.

“It is clear that excise taxes were less affected than income taxes during the Great Recession,” Boesen’s
research paper said. “While most of us reduce some spending during an economic downturn, there is
only so much we can — or are willing to — cut. For example, average spending on alcohol only declined
2.8 percent from 2007 to 2008. Spending on tobacco declined less than 2 percent.”
The same was true in the Great Depression, he said, though the tax system was quite different in the
decade prior to 1929 when the market crashed. Most states then relied on property and gas taxes.

The Great Depression reduced property tax revenue by almost 20%. This led to the development of a
number of consumption-based taxes that remain on the books.

Twenty-two states adopted general sales taxes during the Great Depression. By 1939, 48 states had
imposed liquor taxes and 21 had levied cigarette taxes, which proved a stable source of income until
smoking declined.
 2ac – at: consolidation plank
Consolidation doesn’t solve
Greer 20 (Robert, Associate Professor and Director of the Graduate Certificate in Public Management.
August 28. "A review of public water infrastructure financing in the United States"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wat2.1472?casa_token=WzvLDHWPdIAAAAAA
%3ALsWTk3Xc_JbfrNR0FXeyUWeVRWXp_X_h0rfZ6hAGYuVs63ZVtqTcobFptfWO3HAcpGZ8nqQ_zHiczibB
)

Reducing fragmentation and consolidating water systems has long been considered but remains
politically difficult. Sometimes referred to as “regionalization,” water system consolidation has been
proposed to take advantage of economies of scale and improve both equity and water quality (Grigg,
1989; Torres & Paul, 2006). In a study of water system consolidations, Hansen, Mullin, and Riggs (2019)
find that the utility financial model, capital intensity, infrastructure deferability, and physical constraints
of water service provision all contribute to risk in informal collaboration or contracting arrangements.
Additionally, they note that “The ability to defer investments in a water system increases the likelihood
of collaboration failure as information about poor infrastructure condition or regulatory noncompliance
gets revealed” (Hansen et al., 2019, p. 12). Both collaboration between water systems and actual system
consolidation often depends on both the fiscal capacity of the utilities and the state of existing
infrastructure.

At: consolidation cp- federal funding is key

USWA 19 (US Water Alliance. "Utility Strengthening through Consolidation: A Briefing Paper"
www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Consolidation%20Briefing
%20Paper_Final_021819.pdf)

Increase Financial Support All levels of government should provide financial incentives to encourage
systems to consolidate. Water utilities without the financial resources or ones that would take on
substantial financial liabilities are less likely to consolidate without incentives. Federal, state, regional,
and local funding can help with initial assessments and planning, capitalization to address system
infrastructure requirements, and a means to address affordability concerns. Examples of how
governments can provide financial support include: 1. Prioritize State Revolving Funds (SRF) for
consolidation projects and offer priority points when evaluating Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) applications. 2. Require SRF applicants to
assess consolidation and whether it would result in cost-savings or significant health benefits for
customers. 3. Subsidize consolidation through principle forgiveness, grants, and interest rate reduction.
Planning or regionalization grants catalyze consolidation and overcome resource gaps that make it
prohibitive. The grants could be reimbursed by the consolidating entity down the line. States may
provide supplemental SRF funds and grants for consolidation for planning and capital upgrades. They
may also buy down capital rates which lowers capital expenses and allows rates to more gradually
increase towards full-cost rates.
CP can’t solve
Hughes et al 10 (Jeff, Director, UNC Environmental Finance Center. Dadhika Fox, CEO, US Water
Alliance. This report was informed by an experienced set of water sector leaders. Thank you to all those
who took the time to be interviewed and provide feedback on this report, including: • C. Tad Bohannon,
Chief Executive Officer, Central Arkansas Water • Jesse Cain, City Manager, City of Colusa • Maureen
Duffy, Vice President, Communications and Federal Affairs, American Water • Jim LaPlant, Chief
Executive Office, Iowa Regional Utilities Association • Shelli Lovell, General Manager, Marshalltown
Water Works • Kenny Waldroup, Assistant Public Utilities Director, City of Raleigh • John Walton,
Director of Marketing, Logan Todd Regional Water Commission. "Strengthening Utilities Through
Consolidation: The Financial Impact"
www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Final_Utility%20Consolidation
%20Financial%20Impact%20Report_022019.pdf)

Up-Front Costs The initial financial consideration in utility consolidation is the high up-front
investment needed to move through the consolidation process and establish the consolidated
system. Planning, studies, and the staffing capacity to undertake this process can be expensive. In many
cases, infrastructure improvements , new projects, or physical interconnections between infrastructure
assets will also be needed .

Real and Perceived Unequal Distribution of Benefits One challenge related to consolidating utilities is
that the financial benefits cannot always be distributed equally. A region may experience aggregate
benefits from a less fragmented approach to water management while individual communities or
utilities may not experience any benefit. Some may even experience financial loss, and consolidation is
especially difficult in these cases. Even though financial savings for the larger region can look promising,
utility leaders typically make decisions with their individual utility or community in mind. Addressing
inconsistencies among customers and systems can be challenging and may require compromise and
commitment to solutions that ensure water services are affordable for all customers.

Savings Timeline Communities and their utilities can find ways to smooth out or accelerate anticipated
net savings or cost avoidance. Smoothing costs means reducing the burden of individual payments by
spreading them out over a longer timeframe. Smoothing net savings means realizing savings in smaller
increments over a longer timeframe, often with the goal of realizing some savings sooner. These can be
important considerations when utility decisions are made by elected leaders whose term limits are
shorter than the time it would take to realize savings. Often these officials hope to show ratepayers real
savings or cost avoidance during their term in office. Models and financial instruments that can make
savings accrue evenly over time or accelerate savings can encourage these leaders to support
consolidation. Models with high upfront costs may be politically difficult for elected leaders to support,
despite long-term savings. Restructuring existing debt to reduce costs can help in these cases.

Consolidation doesn’t solve the case- combined entities still have a backlog of
infrastructure projects that require funding
Hughes et al 10 (Jeff, Director, UNC Environmental Finance Center. Dadhika Fox, CEO, US Water
Alliance. This report was informed by an experienced set of water sector leaders. Thank you to all those
who took the time to be interviewed and provide feedback on this report, including: • C. Tad Bohannon,
Chief Executive Officer, Central Arkansas Water • Jesse Cain, City Manager, City of Colusa • Maureen
Duffy, Vice President, Communications and Federal Affairs, American Water • Jim LaPlant, Chief
Executive Office, Iowa Regional Utilities Association • Shelli Lovell, General Manager, Marshalltown
Water Works • Kenny Waldroup, Assistant Public Utilities Director, City of Raleigh • John Walton,
Director of Marketing, Logan Todd Regional Water Commission. "Strengthening Utilities Through
Consolidation: The Financial Impact"
www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Final_Utility%20Consolidation
%20Financial%20Impact%20Report_022019.pdf)

Consolidation can be a tool to create fewer, more independent, high-capacity utilities—potentially

benefiting ratepayers, local communities, and the broader water sector. However, communities need to
weigh the benefits with the challenges of consolidating utilities. For example, consolidation can trigger a
cascade of avoided future costs to a local utility, which can then be passed on to customers in the form
of savings. But, in the near-term, some communities will face increased costs to address regulatory
requirements and infrastructure investment backlogs. Communities need to look at financial factors
over time and in local context. In some cases, utility consolidation may have more to do with improving
service than reducing costs.
 2ac – at: interstate compact
Federal funding is a prerequisite to interstate compact success
Berry et al 21 ( Scott Berry, the US Water Alliance’s director of policy and government affairs, who led the writing and outreach for this report, and Mae Stevens, the Signal Group’s executive vice president
and water practice chair, for writing contributions and insights. The water experts who served as advisors and reviewers on this report are also greatly appreciated. They served in their individual capacity, and their assistance does
not necessarily reflect the endorsement from their organizations of the policy recommendations presented here. For giving time and insight, thank you: Margaret Bowman, Spring Point Partners Elizabeth Cisar, Joyce Foundation
Peter Colohan, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Martin Doyle, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University Maureen Duffy, American Water Steve Fleischli, Natural
Resources Defense Council Yvonne Forrest, Houston Water Nathan Gardner-Andrews, National Association of Clean Water Agencies Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Larry Levine, Natural Resources
Defense Council Tim Male, Environmental Policy Innovation Center Natalie Mamerow, American Society of Civil Engineers Oluwole “OJ” McFoy, Buffalo Sewer Authority Jonathan Nelson, Community Water Center Nathan Ohle,
Rural Community Assistance Partnership Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council Jim Proctor, McWane, Inc. Patrick Sabol, United for Infrastructure Eric Sapirstein, ENS Resources, Inc. Zachary Schafer, United for
Infrastructure Jennifer Sokolove, Water Foundation Ted Stiger, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Mae Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. US Water Alliance. "Recovering Strong: A Federal Policy Blueprint. Transforming
Water Management Post COVID-19" www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Recovering%20Stronger%20Federal%20Policy%20Blueprint.pdf)

Establish a National Internet of Water Network and Water Data Modernization Program Many of the
challenges the water sector faces are regional or multi-state in scopes, such as the use of
multijurisdictional aquifers in the West, interstate compacts for sharing and managing surface water
resources, catastrophic flooding in the Midwest, coastal restoration and resilience in the Gulf South, or
nutrient pollution caused by agriculture runoff in source water, such as in the Great Lakes or the
Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, too much of the data to track these challenges are in formats unique to
the entity collecting it—and frequently it exists in legacy IT systems developed in the early 2000s or even
the 1990s, usually in closed, hard-to-access proprietary formats. Some water data exists only on paper
and are still being collected with a pen and clipboard. Many utilities cannot keep up with the
technological changes necessary to meet the needs of the 21st century. The lack of online
clearinghouses of standardized waterrelated data, information, and resources, linked by simple internet
search technologies, hampers the ability of the sector to innovate and share best practices and learning
from industry-wide historical data.

Monitoring of COVID-19 in wastewater is one example of how an online platform sharing data and best
practices could bolster industry efforts. As the sector innovates in real time to respond to a public health
threat, it would undoubtedly benefit from more accessible and faster information-sharing capabilities.
Utilities in the energy sector report data to a centralized database under the Energy Information
Administration of the Department of Energy. While a centralized federal database for all public water
data would be impractical, the water sector will still benefit from a water data network that accounts for
the wide diversity of water data held across multiple jurisdictions in non-standard formats.

Executive Action The president should direct the EPA to create, fund, and maintain an Internet of Water
in partnership with the United States Geological Survey and major water management agencies to serve
as a network of clearinghouses for data, research, and best practices surrounding the sector’s toughest
challenges—current and emerging contaminants, equity, affordability, climate adaptation and
mitigation, integrated planning, public-private partnerships, regionalization, and more.

Legislative Action Building on the Secure Water Act of 2009, Congress should expand the Department of
Interior’s WaterSMART and Water Resources Research Institute grants to states, and EPA clean water
and drinking water grants and financing mechanisms to target water data modernization efforts
specifically. This would help states modernize their data on water quality, water availability, and water
use. As states modernize their legacy enterprise data systems, the legislation should include targeted
funding for states to use as technical assistance for utilities that need help to transition to new, modern
data reporting systems. In addition, the EPA should create a new program for direct grants to local
municipalities and utilities to help reduce the cost of collecting and reporting additional monitoring and
compliance data.
***disads
**politics
 2ac – infrastructure – plan popular

Plan sets a template for negotiations and spills over to broader infrastructure
cooperation
Mascaro & Freking 21 (Lisa, AP Chief Congressional Correspondent. Kevin, AP Congressional
Reporter. April 29. "Water bill may open spigot for Biden infrastructure plan"
https://apnews.com/article/business-bills-government-and-politics-
dc3d654f1502085300684435af03e90f)

Rarely has a routine water resources bill generated so much political buzz, but as senators hoisted the
measure to passage Thursday the bipartisan infrastructure legislation served as a potential template for
building consensus around President Joe Biden’s ambitious American Jobs Plan.

The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 authorizes about $35 billion over five
years to improve leaky pipes and upgrade facilities, and is widely supported by lawmakers and their
states back home. This time, though, it could be so much more — a building block in Biden’s broader
$2.3 trillion proposal to invest in roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

Senators overwhelmingly approved the measure, 89-2 , in what Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer, D-N.Y., called “a great example” of what’s possible in Congress.

Still, the day after Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress outlining his sweeping proposals to
reinvest in America infrastructure the path ahead is expected to be long and politically daunting.
 2ac – infrastructure – reconciliation turn

Plan is key to maintaining reconciliation as a back-up option

Fox 21 (Lauren, 4/29. CNN Congressional Correspondent. "Now, it's Congress' turn to pick up the baton
on Biden's agenda" https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/politics/congress-reaction-biden-agenda-
infrastructure-negotiations/index.html)

All of that said, infrastructure clearly was and has been one of the President's top agenda items . Yes, he
mentioned policing reform. Yes, he mentioned guns. Yes, he mentioned immigration. But, infrastructure
is the bill that Biden campaigned on that made him a transformative President for the economy. It's the
issue that the White House has felt is so important that they released their own blueprints of how it
should look and then spent weeks holding meetings with every corner of the Democratic caucus to try
and sell it. They've engaged with Republicans across the ideological spectrum and continue to spend
days consumed by the work it is going to take to pass this bill or bills. Congress can do more than one
thing at a time and they will, but the emphasis on infrastructure Wednesday night underscores just how
much is at stake if Congress cannot get it done.

How they will tackle this

There isn't a grand plan at the moment . But emerging is a parallel track approach that will give
Democrats and Republicans room to negotiate for a bit on the bipartisan pieces of infrastructure all
while the Senate Budget Committee begins work on a budget that will provide the path to pass
infrastructure with just Democratic votes if the bipartisan talks collapse .

Sanders said Wednesday his committee would begin that process when he returns in May. The
bipartisan talks are in their infancy and would need to pick up the pace rapidly if they are going to have
a major impact on the size and scope of an infrastructure package the President signs, but the White
House is engaged, and there is one line of thinking that Democrats and Republicans might be able to
agree on a modest infrastructure bill that included water , surface transportation and potentially even
legislation to make the US more competitive against China. Then, Democrats could come back and pass
a broader infrastructure bill with more of the social programs in it, through reconciliation later in the
summer. But none of it is decided. And it is important to underscore the form this ultimately takes is
going to shift multiple times before this all ends.
 1ar – infrastructure – reconciliation turn
Infrastructure negotiations are dual-track- plan preserves reconciliation
Mulero 6/10 (Eugene, Senior Reporter, Transport Topics. "Democrats Look to Budget, Bipartisan Bills
to Advance Biden’s Infrastructure Plan" https://www.ttnews.com/articles/democrats-look-budget-
bipartisan-bills-advance-bidens-infrastructure-plan)

After the White House and Senate Republicans ended negotiations on an infrastructure package,
congressional Democratic leaders announced their intention to rely on an intricate budget process to
pass a key piece of the president’s domestic agenda.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) expressed optimism that part of President Joe Biden’s
$1.7 trillion American Jobs Plan on infrastructure would be realized via arcane congressional procedures.

RELATED: Biden-Capito infrustructure talks break off

“It may well be that part of the bill that’ll pass will be bipartisan and part of it will be through [budget]
reconciliation,” Schumer recently told reporters. A reliance on certain budget rules would allow for
maneuvering provisions through the chamber by a simple majority. The Senate’s Democratic caucus,
consisting of 50 members, could essentially pass budget-centric infrastructure policy reflecting the
priorities of the White House without Republican votes.

House Democrats in the majority would be expected to sign off on a Senate Democratic package. For
those infrastructure provisions that do not meet congressional budgetary criteria, Schumer signaled the
potential for attaching some of them to bipartisan legislation, such as a multiyear highway policy bill,
stand-alone measures or the annual appropriations funding process.

Added Schumer: “ We’re not going to sacrifice the bigness and boldness in this [infrastructure] bill. We
will just pursue two paths and at some point they will join .”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito

Capito

Negotiations between the White House and Senate Republicans, led by West Virginia Sen. Shelley
Moore Capito, ended due to disagreements over certain climate change provisions, criteria for
infrastructure and the approach for funding such a massive policy package. The White House’s $1.7
trillion revised plan was met by a Senate Republican counteroffer of about $1 trillion. The White House
aims to increase the corporate tax rate to about 28%, while the Senate GOP proposes tapping unused
federal COVID-19 emergency aid.

“To ensure that the American Jobs Plan moves forward on a timely basis, the president spoke with
Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi to consult with her on efforts to move forward on a jobs package in the House
this month. In the same regard, the president also spoke with Senate Majority Leader Schumer to
discuss the need to commence work on the budget resolution process so that legislation to advance the
president’s economic priorities and tax reform plans could move to the Senate floor in July,” White
House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said June 8. “The president is committed to moving his economic
legislation through Congress this summer, and is pursuing multiple paths to get this done.”
In a statement ater the meetings with the White House, Capito explained disagreements between the
sides could not be resolved.

“Despite the progress we made in our negotiations, the president continued to respond with offers that
included tax increases as his pay-for, instead of several practical options that would have not been
harmful to individuals, families, and small businesses,” she said.

Problem Solvers Caucus Infrastructure Framework by Transport Topics on Scribd

Meanwhile, a small group of bipartisan senators indicated they intend to negotiate with Democratic
leaders on infrastructure matters. Separately, the 58-member bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus
unveiled a $1.25 trillion, eight-year infrastructure spending framework, meant to facilitate
bipartisanship.

“It’s critically important that we get a robust infrastructure package signed into law, and that we do it
with strong bipartisan support,” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), the group’s co-chairman. “The
Problem Solvers Caucus framework, ‘Building Bridges,’ does exactly that and tackles everything from
electric vehicles to clean water to fixing our crumbling bridges, tunnels, roads and rail.

“This is the model for how we should govern in Washington: Democrats and Republicans working
together to find common ground.”

“The time is now for Congress and the administration to reach across the aisle, unite and boost
investments in our surface transportation network that will move our transportation systems into the
21st century,” added Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), the caucus co-chairman.

Transportation policymakers in the House and Senate recently gave committee approval to multiyear
highway policy bills. Congressional Democratic leaders say they plan on considering fiscal 2022 funding
bills this month and pass aspects of Biden’s infrastructure plan by July 4.
 2ac – plan popular – Congress
Plan is popular- builds bridges that gets the rest of infrastructure through
Ooska 21 (OOSKANews. Water News. Water Intelligence. Water Insight. April 26. We are specialist,
independent publishers of international water sector news and intelligence, informing senior executives
who make policy and investment strategy decisions where timely water-related knowledge and insight
are critical. “OOSKA”?? - the word "OOSKA" is a phonetic spelling of the Gaelic word for water - “uisge”
in Scotland and "uisce" in Ireland! "Biden's First 100 Days Of Water From Lead Piping To Climate Change,
New Water Diplomacy At Home And Abroad" https://www.ooskanews.com/story/2021/04/bidens-first-
100-days-water)

Biden's first 100 days in office have served up wide-ranging implications for the water sector at home
and abroad. And while some aspects of his climate policy may be actionable by executive order, much
of his domestic investment in water infrastructure will require congressional approval. As his bridge-
building efforts with congress are likely to focus on those areas that are least contentious, water may
stand to benefit.
 2ac – plan popular – public
Plan is really popular
ASCE 20 (April 18. American Society of Civil Engineers. "Poll: Voters Overwhelmingly Support More
Investment in Water Infrastructure" https://infrastructurereportcard.org/poll-voters-overwhelmingly-
support-more-investment-in-water-infrastructure/amp/)

Poll: Voters Overwhelmingly Support More Investment in Water Infrastructure

If there is anything that can bridge the partisan gap between Americans, it’s reliable, safe, and high-
quality infrastructure. In fact, 80% of Americans support rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure more
than almost any other top issue facing the current Administration, according to the Value of Water’s
2020 National Survey on Public Opinion on Water Infrastructure, hot off the press today, April 28.

What does this 80% number mean? Americans support infrastructure investment more than reforming
our healthcare system (77%); increasing availability of high-quality childhood education (72%); and
ending the opioid crisis (72%). Nearly everyone (97%) said that America’s infrastructure is at least
somewhat important. Only strengthening the economy ranked slightly higher, at 81%.

This year marks the fifth annual VOW poll of over 1,000 American voters to better understand their
views regarding the state of our nation’s water infrastructure, priorities for action, and potential
solutions. A bipartisan research team of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz, and Associates (D) and New
Bridge Strategy (R) conducted the poll on behalf of VOW in between March 7 and 18, 2020, when the
initial social distancing measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic started ramping up across the
country—and around the time the stock market crashed. The economy and COVID-19 are at the top of
Americans’ minds, but the yearning for better water infrastructure has not receded.

Americans are worried about the future of our water infrastructure and want investment now before
it fails. Eighty-four percent of Americans support (with 47% strongly supporting) increasing federal
investment to rebuild our pipes, pumps, reservoirs, treatment plants, and other facilities – to ensure
safe, reliable water service for all communities. Three-quarters (73%) of Americans support investment
to ensure our drinking water and wastewater systems are resilient, even when climate change is
mentioned. This includes both Democrats and Republicans.

In fact, support for water infrastructure investment cuts across age, gender, party, geography, and
ideology. More than three in four Democrats and Republicans agree rebuilding America’s water
infrastructure should be a top priority for President Trump and Congress this year.

There is also a willingness to pay for better water. When informed that ratepayers would bear some
costs, 73% continue to support capital investments at the national, state, and local levels, even when
they’re told that investment carries a $1.2 trillion price tag. And – 62% of voters support a proactive
program to upgrade water infrastructure, versus fixing problems as they arise, or a pay-as-you-go
approach. Eighty percent of American voters say that what they pay for water and wastewater service is
affordable, and approximately two-thirds would be willing to pay a modest increase in local water rates
to fund improved service. However, the proportion of those who are “very willing” has decreased
slightly from 37% in 2018 to 29% in 2020. It’s critical the federal government step up to the plate so local
ratepayers don’t solely take the burden, making rate increase unaffordable and placing low income and
vulnerable communities at a growing disadvantage.

Finally, some American voters are concerned about water quality, but overall confidence remains high.
Sixty-seven percent of voters drink water from the tap – unfiltered or filtered. Seventy-eight percent say
they trust that their drinking water is safe. Nearly 80% (77% precisely) are concerned about
contaminates affecting their drinking water, but most voters are unfamiliar with per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS). PFAS are chemicals found in consumer products such as food packages, cookware,
textiles, plastics, and other household products that when accumulated over time can have negative
impacts on human health. Populations can be exposed to PFAS through contaminated groundwater,
drinking water, and soil. Three-quarters of Americans indicated they had not heard of PFAS, while 21
percent said they had. Fifteen percent had heard of PFAS and were concerned about them. Americans
are becoming increasingly concerned about the state of the nation’s water pipes and related
infrastructure: forty-nine percent believe it is in good condition, which is a 10-point drop since 2016.

This VOW poll coincides with the annual Water Week, a week of advocacy for our nation’s water
infrastructure. This year, Water Week events will be held virtually due to the COVDI-19 pandemic. ASCE
is a member of the VOW Campaign. See the full poll results here.

To keep the wheels moving on better water infrastructure, the Senate Environment & Public Works
Committee released a draft of their bipartisan Water Resources Reform Development Act (WRDA) bill—
the America’s Water Infrastructure (AWIA) Act of 2020, keeping Congress on track with the biennial
WRDA reauthorization schedule. Reauthorizing WRDA has been a constant legislative priority for ASCE .
This bill authorizes $17 billion in infrastructure projects and reauthorizes the EPA’s Clean Water State
Revolving Fund at increasing levels over the next three years. The Committee also released a draft of the
Drinking Water Act of 2020, which includes $2.5 billion in federal authorizations and reauthorizes
programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to provide resources and technical assistance to
communities to help meet their drinking water needs. While consideration of both bills in the full Senate
is currently unclear, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is developing their own
WRDA bill.

Passage of WRDA legislation is a critical important step in securing investment for our levees, dams,
inland waterways, and ports that protect hundreds of communities, support millions of American jobs,
and generate trillions of dollars of economic activity. However, many of these assets have reached the
end of their design life, and we must close the investment gap, which requires bold, robust investment
from the federal government. For a comprehensive summary of these bills and ASCE’s position, check
out our issue brief memo.

Plan’s popular
Goehl 19 (George, Director of People's Action. April 8. "Can the US's unsafe water crisis unite
Americans?" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/08/us-unsafe-water-crisis-unite-
americans)
People throughout the country are more concerned about water pollution than they have been in nearly 20 years. Urban or rural, Republican or Democrat, we all
want clean water . It’s one thing we can all agree on in this period of intense political division.

some of our biggest political movements and crises in recent years have centered around
It’s no surprise, then, that

water pollution. A couple of years ago, the US was riveted as Native Americans banded together at Standing Rock to protect the Missouri river from the Dakota Access pipeline.
The pipeline would carry 470,000 barrels of oil a day under the river. A leak would quickly destroy both water and food for the reservation and beyond.

Flint , Michigan, illustrated the vulnerability of our water supply. The heartbreaking stories
Around the same time, the disaster of lead-laden drinking water in

continued to unfold in the mostly African American community as public officials failed to act and people became ill.

Both those battles resonated across the country . When Barb Kalbach, an intensive care nurse in Iowa, heard about the water crisis in Flint, she was incensed. The
thought of children drinking unsafe water, or going without, outraged her. But she wasn’t surprised, because the same thing has been happening in her state, and in many others.

A fourth generation family farmer from Adair county, Kalbach knows what it’s like to question the safety of your water: Iowa has 750 impaired waterways. In most cases they were polluted by
manure and chemical fertilizers from the massive factory farms that have overrun the state.

There are more than 10,000 factory farms in Iowa now. The state is home to 26 million hogs that produce the equivalent waste of 65 million people. That waste has to go somewhere. So it
runs into waterways and eventually into the drinking water system. The city of Des Moines has the largest nitrate removal system in the world in an effort to keep the water drinkable – and its
residents foot the bill.

“You’d think you wouldn’t have to fight for legislation for clean drinking water,” says Kalbach, board president of the grassroots organization Iowa CCI Action Fund. “It’s such an obvious thing
that you’d want clean water for your children and your home. Yet at the end of the day it’s big money that stands between us and clean water”

At a time when the role of government is fiercely debated in America, one thing people agree on is that government must ensure the quality of our water

While the exact cause of water quality issues might differ from place to place – fracking, mining, pipelines, corporate agriculture, toxic dumping or lead pipes – ultimately, the source can
usually be traced back to corporate greed, lack of regulation and public disinvestment.

People throughout the country are more concerned about water pollution than they have been in nearly 20 years . At a
time when the role of government is fiercely debated in America, one thing people agree on is that
government must ensure the quality of our water.

While it was the water crisis and injustice in Flint that got much of the country to tune in to the issue of water, 21 million Americans are getting water from
systems that violate health standards.

“When it comes to everyday people, water brings together urban and rural, Democrats and Republicans . Though that sometimes breaks down
when it comes to politicians,” says Pastor Greg Timmons, the executive director of Flint Recovery for Flint Calvary United Methodist church. When asked why, Timmons says: “It’s about
money. All about money.

“Clean air and water are things we can all unite around because when it’s not clean it affects every part of our lives,” says Timmons.

When members of my own organization survey folks at their front doors, clean water always shows up as a top concern, in cities, suburbs or rural areas.

Hope can be found in the Water Act of 2019 – legislation introduced in Congress last month by Representatives Brenda Lawrence and Ro Khanna and Senator Bernie Sanders offers solutions
and provides $35bn in funding to assure access to clean, safe water. It also provides for good, green jobs to do that work.

Dave Metz, Partner and President of the California based public opinion firm, FM3 Research, has conducted extensive research on public opinion on
water issues . “As a pollster, I’m struck by how often today it seems like Democrats and Republicans are living on different planets. Water is different – it’s one of the
few issues where Democrats, Republicans and independents express equal concern about the issue and equal
support for investments to address it.”
Americans also agree that the corporations responsible for poisoning our water should pay to clean it up. Corporations get away with spraying, spilling, and dumping pesticides,
petrochemicals, and other toxins into our environment whenever and wherever it suits their business plans – until they are discovered. Sometimes, as in Flint, with disastrous results. Then
they close up, take away jobs, and leave behind a community in shambles, and unprepared local governments to clean it up.

It’s true that we live in a divided country. It’s also true that there are issues that we can all get behind – clean and safe drinking water is one of those issues. Leaders who want
to bring the country together might look to water as an issue that can do just that.

As Kalbach says, “ There’s no red water or blue water – it’s clean or it’s dirty. And no matter where you come from, you know the difference”
 2ac – infrastructure – aff solves

Water infrastructure is comparatively the most important part of the bill

Yglesias 21 (Matt, blogger and journalist who writes about economics and politics.[2][3] Yglesias has
written columns and articles for publications such as The American Prospect, The Atlantic, and Slate.
April 15. "Fix the lead pipes" https://www.slowboring.com/p/lead-pipes)

I’ve written about the not-really-infrastructure part of Biden’s Jobs Plan and also about the
transportation element. But I’m inclined to think that the best and most important parts of the Biden
program are the ones that fall into neither of those buckets — infrastructure construction projects that
aren’t about transportation .

High on this list is a proposed $111 billion injection of funds into projects designed to address the needs
of municipal water systems . The most concrete chunk of that is an ambitious $45 billion investment in
eliminating lead pipes. But there’s also a mix of grants and loans to address other water systems and
clean water needs, including a $10 billion program to address something called PFAS.

The case for an infusion of funds into this area strikes me as very compelling . These are goods the public
cannot buy on its own and that local officials struggle to get the necessary financing for. And on lead in
particular, the evidence of large benefits not just to the people directly impacted but to the public at
large seems really strong.

America is full of lead pipes

Back in chemistry class, I used to wonder why the chemical symbol for lead is Pb. It turns out the reason
is the Latin word for it is “plumbum” which is also the etymological root of “plumbing” because even
way back in the day, lead had properties that made it a good material for water pipes.

The key advantage is that unlike iron, it’s relatively easy to bend a lead pipe while maintaining its
integrity as a water-tight vessel. Since water systems generally need to bend a lot, that’s very useful.
Unfortunately, lead is also a powerful neurotoxin.

And it seems that people have been broadly aware of the health risks associated with lead for a long
time. Here’s an article that ran in the British Medical Journal by Alfred Swann back in 1889:

It has fallen to my lot to observe many cases of plumbism, and its relation to sterility and abortion only
touches the very fringe of a vast subject. The influence of lead on the nervous, vascular, muscular,
lymphatic, and digestive systems merits greater consideration than has hitherto been devoted to it.

To suppose that plumbism means only wrist-drop and paralysis of the extensors of the forearms seems
to me to be illogical. I believe that in plumbism, neuritis is not confined to any particular set of nerves. Is
not lead colic due to paralysis of the nerves regulating the muscular coats of the intestines? What is the
meaning in cases of lead-poisoning of the tense pulse, the liability to epileptiform seizure, to cerebral
and other haemorrhages, to gout and uric acid, and to albuminuria and rheumatic pains? Surely these
point to both nervous, vascular, and metabolic derangements which open up a wide field of inquiry for
those who are interested in our food and water supply, and in public health generally.
Well, we probably should have listened to Alfred Swann! Instead, in the United States, we kept putting
lead pipes everywhere for a generation. Starting in the 1920s you had pushback, and its use in water
pipes was reduced.

But at the same time, as Beth Gardiner recounts in her excellent book “Choked,” the pressure was on to
expand the use of lead. One idea was that since it’s poisonous, you could use it as a chemical weapon to
kill Germans. That didn’t work out, so instead they put it in gasoline:

A Yale physiologist named Yandell Henderson had tested tetraethyl lead as a potential nerve agent
during World War I, and when GM asked his thoughts on putting it into gasoline [in 1921], he replied
with alarm. “Widespread lead poisoning was almost certain to result,” he warned. Later he deemed it
the “single greatest question in the field of public health that has ever faced the American public.”

The science was clear: Lead is a powerful neurotoxin. The threat was vividly demonstrated at a New
Jersey refinery whose tetraethyl lead operation was known as “the loony gas building” because of its
workers’ bizarre behavior — stumbling, memory loss, explosions of rage. After an accident, dozens
collapsed, suffering seizures and hallucinations; more than 30 were hospitalized and 5 died.

The Lead Industries Association was formed in 1928 to push back against state and local bans on lead
pipes, advocate for leaded gasoline, and promote the use of lead paint. Eventually this lobbying effort
failed, with lead paint banned in the 1970s, leaded gasoline phased out in the 1980s, other kinds of
leaded fuel phased out later, and lead water pipes not definitively banned until 1986.

Conceptually, the issue we keep having with lead is this — it’s like smoking cigarettes, in which light
users don’t suffer as much as heavy users, but nobody’s lungs go unharmed when you inhale a bunch of
burning tobacco. Instead of acknowledging this, the policy quest for over 100 years has been to try to
determine some threshold at which lead poisoning (Swann’s “plumbism”) sets in and then say that it’s
fine to have less lead than that. So maybe we don’t build any new lead pipes, but it would be really
annoying to dig up all the old ones, and maybe it’s not so bad to just leave them there.

There’s lots of old lead

My understanding is that the most generally dangerous lead problem in America is not in the pipes but
in the soil. All the old lead that was sent into the atmosphere in leaded gasoline didn’t vanish. Instead, it
returned to earth as lead dust and it sits there mixed in with dirt. Across the majority of the country, it’s
not such a big issue. But any place where lots of people were driving cars in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s is full of lead. And unfortunately, though residential patterns have changed since those days,
they haven’t changed all that much. Most of the land in America is pretty empty and doesn’t have much
lead. But tons of people live in central cities, small towns, or inner-ring suburbs that were densely
populated in the post-WWII generation, and there’s just all kinds of lead lying around.

The problem is particularly bad in former industrial areas, but it’s really very widespread. So much so
that policymakers seem to be somewhat paralyzed in the face of the scope and somewhat ill-defined
nature of the problem. It’s challenging to even get a credible cost estimate for what cleanup would look
like. And actually, I find that when you try to describe it to people, the mind sort of rebels at the idea
that there’s toxic dust lurking all around.
Pipes, by contrast, are a big issue but also a well-defined one. Lots of places have lead service pipes but
most do not. We know more or less where they are and what it costs to replace them. Big replacement
projects have been done before. And there are even existing federal funding streams for them.

But in the past, instead of ponying up what it costs, America has repeatedly tried band-aids. A lot of
people know the story of Flint, but we had a huge lead crisis when I was new to D.C. back in 2004. D.C. is
full of lead pipes, but instead of replacing them all, a number of remediation efforts were made to stop
corrosion and allow unsafe pipes to carry safe drinking water. Then suddenly this happened:

Tap water in thousands of District houses has recently tested above the federal limit for lead
contamination, a new phenomenon that has baffled the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority and forced the
agency to begin replacing service pipes.

Two-thirds of the 6,118 residences that WASA tested last summer, or 4,075 homes, had water that
exceeded the lead limit of 15 parts per billion set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1991. This
is the first time the city's water has shown significant lead contamination since the late 1980s, officials
said.

The culprit appears to have been a decision to switch from the use of chlorine to chloramine as a
treatment chemical. Apparently, chloramine generates fewer harmful byproducts than chlorine but also
corrodes lead pipes more. The immediate crisis was addressed by adding some anti-corrosion chemicals
into the chloramine mix. But the fact that this kind of snafu happens is an illustration of the danger of
just letting the pipes sit around and hoping for the best.

I also note that the EPA sets this action trigger threshold, but it’s arbitrary — there is no safe amount of
lead . We see this in the monitoring of blood lead concentrations for children. The CDC recommends
intervention when kids have more than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. That’s lead
poisoning, and mercifully, it is rare these days. Some public health agencies have pushed the threshold
down to the five μg/dL mark, where about 2% of kids count as lead poisoned. And the really bad news is
that to the extent that scientists are able to measure lower concentrations, they just continue to find
evidence of harm. Indeed, when Nigg et al. studied a population with blood levels “slightly below United
States and Western Europe population exposure averages” (emphasis added), they still found that
higher levels of lead are associated with more ADHD diagnoses. Just to repeat that, kids with below-
average levels of lead exposure seem to be suffering quantifiable cognitive harms .

Now obviously when we’re talking about small levels of lead, we are talking about small effect sizes. But
the fact that even tiny amounts of lead are harmful combined with the fact that anti-lead systems suffer
from occasional catastrophic failures (as we saw in DC 15 years ago or Flint more recently) makes me
think that total elimination of the lead water pipes is the right goal.

Biden’s plan — get the lead out

The Jobs Act policy proposal on this is pretty simple to the point where the full paragraph from the fact
sheet is worth quoting:

Replace 100 percent of the nation’s lead pipes and service lines. According to the CDC, there is no safe
level of lead exposure for children. Lead can slow development and cause learning, behavior, and
hearing problems in children, as well as lasting kidney and brain damage. President Biden believes that
no American family should still be receiving drinking water through lead pipes and service lines. To
eliminate all lead pipes and service lines in the country, he is calling on Congress to invest $45 billion in
the Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and in Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) grants. In addition to reducing lead exposure in homes, this
investment also will reduce lead exposure in 400,000 schools and childcare facilities.

It’s not totally clear that $45 billion is the right figure here, but it’s in the right universe. When I looked
into this in 2019, the best estimate I could find was from Fitch, which rates municipal bonds and
therefore knows a lot about water systems. They say it would cost “from a few billion to $50 billion.”

If anything, I think the biggest question about this policy is how quickly you could do it. As things stand
today, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund spends about $1 billion a year, and WIIN is much smaller
than that. To do $45 billion in the normal 10-year horizon, you’d be talking about expanding these
programs five-fold. I’m all for it if that’s genuinely doable, but I suspect we may run into some resource
constraints on the real (rather than financial) side of the equation since this is the kind of thing where
you need some specialized skills and licenses to do the work (I tried to ask the White House for more
detail on this but so far, no response).

Flint, which is 54% Black, put this on the map as a racial justice issue. And it’s certainly true that a lot of
older and poorer cities with large African American populations like Detroit and Jackson have big lead
problems. On the other hand, the water is much freer of lead in heavily Black Birmingham than it is in
Omaha, which is whiter than America and Los Angeles, which is plurality Latin.1 These problems just pop
up in different places. And as we saw in the D.C. case, the corrosion situation can be fine until suddenly
it’s not fine. At the time that my household water supply was heavily contaminated with lead, I was a
young single person and I reassured myself that it’s really only a problem for kids and pregnant women.
But that’s not really true (see the loony gas building episode); it’s just that it’s a more serious problem
for young developing brains. The truth, as we have apparently known since the late 19th century but
just chosen not to act on, is that getting your drinking water from lead pipes is never genuinely okay.

Of course water is infrastructure

Tacking a $400 billion elder care initiative onto what’s primarily an infrastructure plan was weird, and
it’s easy to see why Republicans are complaining about it.

But the idea promoted by many GOP politicians that water pipes aren’t infrastructure is bizarre, and
indeed some of the people leveling this critique have referred to water systems as infrastructure in the
past.

Twitter avatar for @atrupar

Aaron Rupar

@atrupar

Pete Buttigieg: "I heard the governor of South Dakota recently saying, 'this isn't infrastructure -- it's got
money for pipes.' Well, we believe that pipes are infrastructure, because you need water to live. And too
many families now live with the threat of lead poisoning." Image

April 4th 2021

2,854 Retweets13,966 Likes

I did a Twitter Spaces with Karl Smith last week and he suggested that the real question of what is and
isn’t infrastructure is what kind of economic return you can expect from it. The interstate highway
system, he said, raised productivity and GDP a lot. That’s what infrastructure is all about.

I’d say that lead removal easily meets that test. You’ve probably heard of the link between lead and
crime. But what’s interesting is that the mechanism is the link between lead and general cognitive
ability, both in terms of IQ and self-control. That’s what makes lead removal especially valuable. You’re
moving millions of people into at least slightly better cognitive functioning , and that actually helps
everyone in society. Garrett Jones has a whole book — “Hive Mind” — about this, showing that while
being a little bit smarter than someone else is only a little bit valuable, living in a whole society of
smarter people is extremely valuable . And as much as digging up tons of old pipes and replacing them
is a pain in the ass, it’s also completely doable. Really good preschools seem to have cognitive benefits,
but it’s not clear that anyone actually knows how to create really good preschools for millions of
children all across the country. But we really do know how to replace lead pipes.

Aff creates an infrastructure workforce that sustains infrastructure broadly

Kane & Tomer 18 (Joseph, Senior Research Associate and Associate Fellow. Prior to Brookings, Kane
was an economist at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. He holds a master’s degree in urban and
environmental planning from the University of Virginia and a bachelor’s degree in economics and history
from the College of William and Mary. Adie, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and
leads the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative. His work focuses on metropolitan infrastructure usage
patterns, including personal and freight transportation, and the intersections between infrastructure
and technological development. Prior to his work at Brookings, Adie was a Senior Analyst at the New
York County District Attorney’s Office where he advised senior executives on policy-relevant matters. He
holds a master’s in Public Policy from American University and a B.A. from the University of Florida.
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institute. "Renewing the Water Workforce: Improving water
infrastructure and creating a pipeline to opportunity" June. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Brookings-Metro-Renewing-the-Water-Workforce-June-2018.pdf)

WATER OCCUPATIONS SHARE SIMILAR EXPERTISE WITH OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE OCCUPATIONS BOX A
Work in the water industry requires a wide range of hard and soft skills; whether employed as
carpenters and plumbers or as managers and budget analysts, water workers are often familiar with
customer service, public safety, and administration, to name only a few content areas. Significantly,
water workers possess higher levels of knowledge in many of the same content areas that other
infrastructure workers do, who are employed in transportation, energy, and related industries.65 By
examining data in greater depth from O*NET—an information resource sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration— it becomes easy to see how similar
the water workforce and broader infrastructure workforce can be when it comes to their specific
knowledge and skills development. And this similarity has significant and positive implications for shared
workforce development ambitions.

Through a series of worker questionnaires, the O*NET database ranks the extent to which occupations
require knowledge across 33 different categories on a scale from 0 (minimum) to 7 (maximum). Relative
to all occupations nationally, infrastructure occupations score above average in 11 of these knowledge
categories.66 Previous Brookings analyses exploring infrastructure occupations have shown how many
of these workers—from railroad conductors to ship captains to power line installers—are involved in the
long-term operation and maintenance of the country’s roads, waterways, and power plants. Not
surprisingly, as illustrated in Table 4 below, they require especially high levels of transportation,
mechanical, and public safety knowledge, among numerous other content areas.67

Critically, the water workforce tends to boast relatively high knowledge scores in the same categories
as other infrastructure occupations . For instance, environmental engineers, civil engineering
technicians, and electrical and electronics repairers tend to have extensive knowledge in many of these
content areas, including mechanical, construction, and design knowledge.

Such knowledge correlations create a promising situation where water workers possess advanced
skills that will often translate well across multiple infrastructurerelated industries . Considering the
14.5 million jobs across the entire infrastructure supersector, this presents a national opportunity to
create a shared workforce development platform covering common knowledge requirements, leaving
only specialized trainings within specified occupations. The potential economies of scale—combined
with the durable pathways to opportunity infrastructure jobs offer—make this a critical area for
workforce development innovation.
**dedev
 2ac – at: dedev
Growth is sustainable—tech
Pyka and Prettner, 18—Institute of Economics, University of Hohenheim (Andreas and Klaus,
“Economic Growth, Development, and Innovation: The Transformation Towards a Knowledge-Based
Bioeconomy,” Bioeconomy pp 331-342, springer, dml)
The alternative approach of neo-Schumpeterian economics (e.g., Hanusch and Pyka 2007) challenges this quantitative orientation and instead emphasizes the importance of qualitative aspects, which make fundamental changes of

economic structures over longer periods visible. Without the consideration of the qualitative levels of economic growth, the
quantitative figures cannot tell much about the massive technological and socioeconomic
developments . The neo-Schumpeterian approach highlights that innovations , market forces , structural change , and urban ways
of life are both part of the problem and part of the solution to the sustainability problem. Innovation-triggered
development generates both quantitative , i.e., income-increasing growth, and qualitative , i.e.,
structure-changing development. Only the creative solutions characteristic for capitalistic-organized
economies will enable to reform our future economy in the sense of sustainability, thereby supporting the UN’s
sustainability goals and simultaneously ensuring growth and development (Mazzucato and Perez 2015). The central role
of innovation in neo-Schumpeterian economics highlights that abstinence in the sense of economic downscaling is neither the first nor
the only solution . This does not mean that all ideas of the proponents of the camp are rejected: in perfect accordance, certain past patterns like the high energy intensity of production because of too low oil
prices not covering the total environmental costs or so-called planned obsolescence in consumption require urgent adjustments. Especially concepts resulting in a more intensive
use of goods and therefore contributing to the economization of resources like the sharing economy or
displacing physical goods by digital goods are promising . The same applies for closed-loop material
cycles, recycling systems, and intelligent waste avoidance and treatment. These concepts are perfectly applicable to foster
behavioral changes on the supply and the demand side . The core idea of neo-Schumpeterian economics, however, is the supply of and demand for
learning and

different goods and services are produced and

new technological solutions within a comprehensive economic transformation process (Geels 2002), i.e.,

demanded in different, namely, sustainable ways. Exploring and exploiting the technological possibilities of the
bioeconomy not only creates new investment opportunities but is also the condition sine qua non for the required socioeconomic and

cultural changes. The consumers’ acceptance of bio-based products and their demand are indispensable for a
successful transformation . Innovations and changed consumer attitudes are complementary conditions for the creation of a sustainable production system. Change can be
either of an incremental type in terms of small improvements step-by-step along well-known technological trajectories, or it can be
fundamental, leading to structural changes and the emergence of new and the disappearance of old
industries. To simplify, we assume in this chapter that incremental technological changes are based on existing technological solutions, whereas radical technological changes question major existing production
processes. They might lead to massive upheaval in the global production system in the sense of creative destruction (Schumpeter 1943). Because this chapter deals with the fundamental transformation of current production

systems, radical technological innovations are in the spotlight which encompass the overcoming of the
lock-in situation in fossil fuels (Unruh 2000) and the establishment of a knowledge-based bioeconomy (Pyka 2017; Pyka
and Buchmann 2016). Without doubt this transformation process is radical , qualitative , and long term . It was already in Business Cycles, published in
1939, when Schumpeter revitalized Kondratieff’s theory of long waves in order to explain such processes as regular processes in long-term economic development. His illustration of the discontinuous nature of economic
development is famous: “Add successively as many mail coaches as you please, you will never get a railway thereby” (Schumpeter 1934, p. 64). So far, the literature highlights five long waves: The beginning industrialization around
the year 1800 represented the first long wave and was fueled by the steam engine and by cotton processing. Then, starting around the year 1850, the widespread availability of steel and the diffusion of railways constituted a
second long wave. Again, in the early twentieth century, this Kondratieff cycle was replaced by electricity and chemicals. In the postwar period, the third long wave gained momentum by mass production and the automobile as
well as the petrochemical industries. Since then, manufacturing activities built on oil as a second fossil fuel apart from coal. From the 1980s, one refers to the fifth long wave, which is reflected in the fast and ubiquitous diffusion

and application of information and communication technology. Now , at the beginning of the twenty-first century, another paradigmatic
change is in the air , being characterized, however, by one major difference to previous situations of radical change: whereas previous cycles were driven by technological
bottlenecks and their overcoming, in the twenty-first century, we face the vital question of how to restore environmental sustainability of economic activities. The knowledge-based
bioeconomy plays a key role in this transformation process which, of course, like previous radical changes, still is confronted by fundamental uncertainty (Knight 1921). The literature provides many alternative
terms for the massive change, shaking global production systems: Freeman (1991) and Dosi (1982) call them techno-economic paradigm changes; Sahal (1985) uses cartographic analogies and refers to technological guideposts that
are pointing to technological avenues. All authors highlight the confrontation with profound changes economic systems are faced with over longer periods of time, which question all established production approaches. Not a single
technology is responsible for this phenomenon but several complementary developments that include, apart from a package of mutually dependent technologies (e.g., combustion engine, petrochemistry, assembly line
production), numerous infrastructural developments (e.g., road structure, filling station network), behavioral changes (e.g., suburbs and commuter flow, shopping malls outside the city centers), as well as institutional changes (e.g.,
spatial planning and commuter allowance, etc.). The old paradigm will not be replaced by the new one until all these elements interact. The neo-Schumpeterian approach provides us with crucial hints on the process of the

forthcoming change. For this purpose, we discuss in the following section how innovations are supported by the discovery and successful
diffusion of new knowledge. Knowledge-based economies organize innovation systems composed of different actors which establish a creative environment for mutual learning and knowledge
creation. No innovation would have ever been established if it had not attracted consumers’ interest and if
it had not been leveraged by their purchasing power . We will focus on these questions in Sect. 11.3. Knowledge-based societies consider new concepts in the sense
of responsible innovation that are decisive in bringing an entire economy on a new sustainable path-shaping

growth and development. Section 11.4 deals with the massive economic impacts originating from these technological and knowledge-driven changes. It requires, besides technological change, also
institutional change in a coevolutionary fashion, if new sustainable technologies are to achieve the aspired transformation of the economic system. 11.2 Innovation Systems and Knowledge Neo-Schumpeterian scholars (e.g., Dosi
et al. 1988; Lundvall 1992, 1998; Nelson 1993) strongly emphasize the systemic character of innovation processes. So-called innovation systems are composed of different actors (companies, research institutions, political actors,
consumers, etc.) and linkages between these actors (flows of goods, R&D cooperation, knowledge transfer relationships, user-producer relationships, etc.). These linkages are required to ensure mutual learning and common
knowledge development to solve complex innovation challenges. Such systems are characterized by their dynamic and coevolutionary nature and are thus enormously complex, as both actors and their knowledge and linkages and
interactions between actors may change over time. Dosi (1982) takes this systemic conception as a starting point in defining technological paradigms as “[…] set of procedures, or a definition of the ‘relevant’ problems and of the
specific knowledge related to their solution.” Transferred to the knowledge-based bioeconomy, the core idea is substitution, i.e., replacing carbon-based materials and energy with bio-based materials and energy. This can only be
achieved by applying a variety of technological processes in the entire breadth and depth of the value-added chain. In this process the exploration of economic complementarities in terms of cross-fertilization of different
knowledge fields matters. For example, to a large extent, digitalization allows for an extension of value chains by increasing the added value in new sustainable production sectors in a CO2-neutral way (e.g., by electric mobility
based on renewables, by establishing so-called smart grids, etc.). The concept of technological paradigms also illustrates that a paradigm shift is not possible at any time. A window of opportunity will only occasionally be opened
and allow for a paradigm shift when several interconnected technologies are established and the creation of conducive demand side and institutional conditions happens simultaneously. This, of course, also holds for the
emergence of a new bioeconomic innovation system and requires a sound balance of the various actors and their activities. For this reason, we introduce the notion of a dedicated innovation system. The theory of industrial life
cycles, which emphasizes the strong dynamics in the emergence and decline of industries, gives a first hint on the meaning of the development of a dedicated innovation system supporting the transformation towards a knowledge-
based bioeconomy. Typically, industrial development is divided into four stages: (1) a development phase (new knowledge creates prerequisites for innovation), (2) an entrepreneurial and growth phase (many market entries of
smaller innovative firms), (3) a saturation and consolidation phase (formation of industrial standards, mergers, and acquisitions as well as market exits), and (4) a downturn phase (oligopolistic competition in only less innovative
industries) (e.g., Audretsch and Feldman 1996). Although the bioeconomy does not represent a well-defined industrial sector, understanding the theory of industrial life cycles is of crucial importance to govern the transformation

process towards the knowledge-based bioeconomy. Without doubt, the bioeconomy has to be characterized as cross sectional. On the one hand, several new sectors will emerge ,
e.g., in the fields of bioplastic , waste management , or biorefineries . On the other hand, already existing sectors
in the fields of vehicle construction , battery technology , pharmaceuticals , etc. will gain new
momentum by the arrival of bioeconomic approaches . Therefore, we argue that new sectors will emerge by establishing bioeconomic technologies and
development dynamics of some already existing industries will receive new impetus at the same time. Adjustments of old and development of new institutions
(e.g., in Germany the Renewable Energy Act, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Law, etc.), adjustments of consumer habits , and the emergence of
new educational opportunities in terms of coevolution will accompany these processes and establish the institutional, the industrial,
and the consumer pillars of a dedicated innovation system . The patterns and nature of new businesses in the bioeconomy are thus strongly influenced by national institutions and
organizations (Casper et al. 1999; Whitley 1999). Institutions are defined as “a set of rules, formal or informal, that actors generally follow, whether for normative, cognitive, or material reasons.” “Organizations are durable entities
with formally recognized members, whose rules also contribute to the institutions of the political economy” (North 1990; Hall and Soskice 2001). In this interplay between organizations and institutions, the knowledge base of an
economy is created by the education and research system and represents one of the most important prerequisites for the transformation towards a bioeconomic production system (Geels 2002). This automatically relates to a high
level of uncertainty in particular concerning the required future competences. In this complex process, numerous individual knowledge fields are potentially relevant for the transformation and are already identified, e.g., synthetic
chemistry, process engineering, genetic engineering, food technology, or informatics. It is decisive to understand the dynamics of these knowledge fields and the possibilities of their recombination with other knowledge fields and
adequate actors in order to create an innovation system. In many cases, linkages of different knowledge fields (cross-fertilization) are responsible for the emergence of extensive technological opportunities: for instance, a
complete new industry, bioinformatics, has been initiated by the fusion of two so far unrelated knowledge fields, database technology and molecular biology. Because linking different knowledge fields is highly uncertain, private
actors might not start and governmental innovation policies matter. Knowledge about future potentials, therefore, is essential for supporting research and innovation policies: the analysis of knowledge and network dynamics
allows for the identification of development trajectories showing sectors requiring public attention and support concerning research and development in order to close existing knowledge gaps and build bridges between various
knowledge domains (Burt 2004; Zaheer and Bell 2005). 11.3 Innovation in Knowledge-Based Societies It has already been mentioned that also consumer knowledge plays an important role for the development and establishment of
sustainable consumption patterns in a knowledge-based bioeconomy (Geels 2002). Therefore, the analysis of the transformation process has to include the interaction of technological development, demand, and acceptance of
innovative solutions as well as sociological variables. The latter include education, age, income, and gender. All are important explanatory factors determining attention and readiness to deal with bioeconomic issues. A
bioeconomic innovation will only be successful when consumers accept it. The direction of the transformation process is, comparable to the importance of the policy realm, determined by consumers, i.e., an important question
has to address consumers’ openness to the bioeconomy and its products. Finally, (real and virtual) social networks matter for the establishment of new consumption patterns. They can contribute significantly to a diffusion of
consumers’ behavioral patterns and values (Robertson et al. 1996; Valente 1996; Nyblom et al. 2003; Deffuant et al. 2005). Recent studies show that attitudes are substantial for the development of social relationships and that, in
turn, social relationships considerably influence behavior and attitudes. In the field of renewable energies, for example, the initiative of municipal utilities’ customers has led in many cases to a “green” orientation of regional power
supply. In some cases, citizens’ networks finally transformed to investment companies that are engaged in wind farms. Critical issues are to be dealt with in democratic processes in order to be widely accepted. Not everything that
is technically possible is also socially desirable. In the field of the bioeconomy, this may, for instance, include the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture. In fact, these organisms promise efficiency advantages with
regard to the consumption of land and water, etc., but their long-term health and environmental risks cannot be completely (as with any new technology) anticipated. Accordingly, technological developments require consumers’
acceptance and thus depend on the level of education in an economy. This raises the question of a society’s openness towards innovations that are fundamentally associated with uncertainty. The concept of responsible innovation
summarizes the future-oriented organization of development and is currently discussed with a high priority by European policy makers and institutions. A comprehensive working definition has been developed by Von Schomberg
(2011). He describes responsible innovation as “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and
societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society).” This means that innovations are not exclusively evaluated by
their economic efficiency, but different aspects (e.g., consumer protection or ecological aspects; see Schlaile et al. 2017) also matter and are to be evaluated. Discussions on biofuels (“fuel vs. food”) show that both a pure economic
and a one-dimensional ethical perspective are not sufficient. The quality of these discussions depends on the discussants’ mutual understanding which in turn depends on the participants’ level of knowledge. Modern plant
breeding and production of seeds are bioeconomy fields of innovation in which issues of responsibility are discussed frequently and controversially. German consumers are skeptical about interference with the genome of food
crops, but individual points of criticism remain unclear. New breeding techniques introduced, e.g., genome editing, enable scientists to selectively modify DNA strands of crop plants. These techniques are considered innovative as
they may allow breeding of potentially efficient plants in fast and cheap ways. Species developed this way hardly differ from those of conventional breeding. The Central Advisory Committee for Biological Safety does not classify
these techniques as genetic engineering, especially because no new combinations of genetic material are made. As the Genetic Engineering Act does not explicitly address these techniques, legal clarification is still necessary as to
whether these techniques are classified as genetic engineering at all. Dissemination potential and acceptance are influenced by this result. Here again, the necessity to include education and information policies becomes evident to
support the transformation towards a knowledge-based bioeconomy. The concept of social innovation (e.g., Hanusch and Pyka 2013) emphasizes the importance of active citizenship in innovation. Thus, according to the
understanding of the European Commission, this term includes innovations that are social, both in relation to their objective and their instruments. In particular, this includes innovations referring to the development and the
application of new ideas (for products, services, and models), covering at the same time social demand and creating new social relationships or collaborations. The whole society should benefit and contribute to generate new
impetus for improvement. Social innovations can make a major contribution to rural development and promote economic resilience in these regions by strengthening cooperative behavior. Rural cooperatives (e.g., regional
producer and marketing associations, winegrowers’ cooperatives, tourism associations, etc.) can help to develop regional competitiveness considering ecological and social aspects. As a consequence, within the framework of a
bioeconomy, rural regions that are notably affected by the already imminent demographic change and subsequent depopulation receive new opportunities for economic development. 11.4 The Economics of Change The sections
above illustrate that a transformation of the prevailing economic system towards a bioeconomy is an extremely complex process. Various different actors participating in different roles are contributing different pieces of

knowledge. In this process, innovative adjustments in already existing industries as well as the emergence of new and
the disappearance of mature industries can be observed simultaneously . In addition to the substitutive relations of new bio-based
industries to traditional oil-based industries, there are numerous essential complementary relations giving further momentum
for the transformation process. First and foremost, there are the possibilities and application fields of
digitalization . Digitalization allows to replace many oil-based products and energy-intensive services
simply by bits and bytes. Simultaneously, digitalization offers a wide range of opportunities by coordinating
decentralized and very detailed bioeconomic technologies and processes such as energy production and
distribution. This affects the composition of individual sectors where a coexistence of large diversified companies and small high-specialized technology
companies is a likely solution. Finally, digitalization also offers consumer platforms to efficiently organize “ sharing economy ”
approaches. Finally, successful knowledge generation and diffusion of relevant bioeconomic knowledge depends on dynamic innovation networks (Pyka 2002) in which different actors jointly share and create new
knowledge. The consumers, represented, for example, by consumer associations or politics, will play a key role in these innovation networks and will help to establish networks in early stages of technology development. In a

knowledge-based bioeconomy, investment and economic growth still represent a crucial element for employment, international competitiveness,
and income generation. The bioeconomy can make important contributions to accelerate investments by providing new investment opportunities generated by
fundamental innovations and thereby bringing currently available large quantities of liquidity to a
productive use. This, in turn, accelerates the technological paradigm shift (Pérez 2010). The time path of the
transformation process represents another critical component and has been explored only partially so far. On the one hand, it is
high time to reduce carbon-based production methods . On the other hand, there will be frictions in
the transformation process being caused , for example, by a lack of specialists and required competences. In this context, the so-called sailing ship
effects (Howells 2002), frequently observed with radical innovations, could be made of good use . In the middle of the nineteenth century, when the existence of the established sailing ship
technology was threatened by the arrival of new steam ships, shipbuilders—not having changed their technologies for many decades, if not centuries—began to innovate again. Due to the threat of
innovative technologies , adjustment reactions in predecessor technologies can be observed with the
aim to prevent the ancient technologies to be quickly replaced . Such adjustment reactions are, for
example, fuel-efficient combustion engines and hybrid technologies as a reaction to the emergence of electric vehicles. These
adjustments are advantageous since they pursue the same environmental objectives (e.g., inner-city fine dust and noise
reduction, etc.) and thus provide more time to develop new technologies . Accordingly, the transformation process will for longer periods of time feature a
coexistence of traditional and bio-based industries. Furthermore, it will be important to concurrently steer the relevant innovation
processes in traditional technologies. This coexistence further increases complexity. At the same time, innovation policy is given room for maneuver and yet insufficiently developed
technologies are prevented from being introduced prematurely which might cause promising approaches to fail.

No mindset shift
Buch-Hansen 18 — Hubert Buch-Hansen (Department of Business and Politics, Copenhagen Business
School), “The Prerequisites for a Degrowth Paradigm Shift: Insights from Critical Political Economy,”
Ecological Economics Volume 146, April 2018, Pages 157-163, dml)

Political projects do not become hegemonic just because they embody good ideas . For a project to
become hegemonic , (organic) intellectuals first need to develop the project and a constellation of social forces with
sufficient power and resources to implement it then needs to find it appealing and struggle for it . In this

context, it is worth noting that degrowth, as a social movement, has been gaining momentum for some time, not least in Southern Europe. Countless grassroots' initiatives (e.g., D'Alisa et al., 2013) are the most visible manifestations that degrowth is on the rise. Intellectuals – including
founders of ecological economics such as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly, and more recently degrowth scholars such as Serge Latouche and Giorgos Kallis – have played a major role in developing and disseminating the ideas underpinning the project. A growing interest in

degrowth in academia, as well as well-attended biennial international degrowth conferences, also indicate that an increasing number of people embrace such ideas. Still, the degrowth project is nowhere near
enjoying the degree and type of support it needs if its policies are to be implemented through democratic processes. The number of political parties , labour

unions , business associations and international organisations that have so far embraced degrowth is
modest to say the least . Economic and political elites, including social democratic parties and most of the trade union
movement, are united in the belief that economic growth is necessary and desirable . This consensus finds support in the prevailing

type of economic theory and underpins the main contenders in the neoliberal project, such as centre-left and nationalist projects. In spite of the world's multidimensional crisis , a pro-
growth discourse in other words continues to be hegemonic : it is widely considered a matter of common sense
that continued economic growth is required . It is also noteworthy that economic and political elites , to a large extent ,
continue to support the neoliberal project, even in the face of its evident shortcomings . Indeed, the 2008
crisis did not result in the weakening of transnational financial capital that could have paved the
financial

way for a paradigm shift. Instead of coming to an end, neoliberal capitalism has arguably entered a
more authoritarian phase It is a
(Bruff, 2014). The main reason the power of the pre-crisis coalition remains intact is that governments stepped in and saved the dominant fraction by means of massive bailouts.

foregone conclusion that this fraction and the wider coalition behind the neoliberal paradigm (transnational industrial capital, the middle classes and

segments of organized labour) will consider the degrowth paradigm unattractive and that such social forces will
vehemently oppose the implementation of degrowth policies (see also Rees, 2014: 97). While degrowth advocates envision a future in which market forces play a less prominent

role than they do today, degrowth is not an anti-market project. As such, it can attract support from certain types of market actors. In particular, it is worth noting that social enterprises, such as cooperatives (Restakis, 2010), play a major role in the degrowth vision. Such enterprises are
defined by being ‘organisations involved at least to some extent in the market, with a clear social, cultural and/or environmental purpose, rooted in and serving primarily the local community and ideally having a local and/or democratic ownership structure’ (Johanisova et al., 2013: 11).
Social enterprises currently exist at the margins of a system, in which the dominant type of business entity is profit-oriented, shareholder-owned corporations. The further dissemination of social enterprises, which is crucial to the transitions to degrowth societies, is – in many cases –
blocked or delayed as a result of the centrifugal forces of global competition (Wigger and Buch-Hansen, 2013). Overall, social enterprises thus (still) constitute a social force with modest power. Ougaard (2016: 467) notes that one of the major dividing lines in the contemporary
transnational capitalist class is between capitalists who have a material interest in the carbon-based economy and capitalists who have a material interest in decarbonisation. The latter group, for instance, includes manufacturers of equipment for the production of renewable energy
(ibid.: 467). As mentioned above, degrowth advocates have singled out renewable energy as one of the sectors that needs to grow in the future. As such, it seems likely that the owners of national and transnational companies operating in this sector would be more positively inclined
towards the degrowth project than would capitalists with a stake in the carbon-based economy. Still, the prospect of the “green sector” emerging as a driving force behind degrowth currently appears meagre. Being under the control of transnational capital (Harris, 2010), such companies

In addition to support
generally embrace the “green growth” discourse, which ‘is deeply embedded in neoliberal capitalism’ and indeed serves to adjust this form of capitalism ‘to crises arising from contradictions within itself’ (Wanner, 2015: 23).

from social forces

the engendered by the production process, a political project ‘also needs the political ability to mobilize
majorities in parliamentary democracies, and a sufficient measure of at least passive consent ’ (van Apeldoorn and Overbeek, 2012: 5–6) if it is to become hegemonic. As

mentioned, degrowth enjoys little support in parliaments, and certainly the pro-growth discourse is
hegemonic among parties in government With capital accumulation being the most important driving .5

force in capitalist societies, political decision-makers are generally eager to create conditions
conducive to production and the accumulation of capital (Lindblom, 1977: 172). Capitalist states and international
organisations are thus “ programmed ” to facilitate capital accumulation, and do as such constitute a
strategically selective terrain that works to the disadvantage of the degrowth project. The main
advocates of the degrowth project are grassroots , small fractions of left-wing parties and labour unions as well as
academics and other citizens who are concerned about social injustice and the environmentally unsustainable nature of societies in the rich parts of the world. The project is thus ideationally driven in the sense that

support for it is not so much rooted in the material circumstances or short-term self-interests of specific groups or classes

as it is rooted in the conviction that degrowth is necessary While there is if current and future generations across the globe are to be able to lead a good life.

no shortage of enthusiasts and creative ideas in the degrowth movement, it has only modest resources
compared to other political projects . To put it bluntly, the advocates of degrowth do not possess instruments that
enable them to force political decision-makers to listen to – let alone comply with – their views . As such,

they are in a weaker position than the labour union movement was in its heyday, and they are in a far
weaker position than the owners and managers of large corporations are today (on the structural power of transnational corporations, see Gill

and Law, 1989). 6. Consent It is also safe to say that degrowth enjoys no “passive consent” from the majority of the population . For

the time being, degrowth remains unknown to most people . Yet, if it were to become generally known, most
people would probably not find the vision of a smaller economic system appealing . This is not just a matter of degrowth being ‘a missile

for many, the

word that backfires’ because it triggers negative feelings in people when they first hear it (Drews and Antal, 2016). It is also a matter of the actual content of the degrowth project. Two issues in particular should be mentioned in this context. First,

anti-capitalist sentiments embodied in the degrowth project will inevitably be a difficult pill to swallow .

Today, the vast majority of people find it almost impossible to conceive of a world without capitalism. There
is a ‘ widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system , but
also that it is now impossible to even imagine a coherent alternative to it ’ (Fisher, 2009: 2). As Jameson (2003) famously observed, it is, in a sense, easier to

not only is degrowth up against the challenge that most

imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. However, – like other anti-capitalist projects –

people consider capitalism the only system that can function it speaks against ; it is also up against the additional challenge that

economic growth in a world where the desirability of growth is considered common sense . Second,
degrowth is incompatible with the lifestyles to which many of us who live in rich countries have
become accustomed. Economic growth in the Western world is premised on , to no small extent, the existence of consumer societies and an associated

consumer culture most of us find it difficult to completely escape . In this culture, social status, happiness, well-being and identity are linked to consumption (Jackson,

2009). Indeed, it is widely considered a natural right to lead an environmentally unsustainable lifestyle – a lifestyle that includes

car ownership, air travel, spacious accommodations, fashionable clothing, an omnivorous diet and all sorts of electronic gadgets. This Western norm of consumption has increasingly
been exported to other parts of the world If , the result being that never before have so many people taken part in consumption patterns that used to be reserved for elites (Koch, 2012).

degrowth were to be institutionalised, many citizens in the rich countries would have to adapt to a
materially lower standard of living many
. That is, while the basic needs of the global population can be met in a non-growing economy, not all wants and preferences can be fulfilled (Koch et al., 2017). Undoubtedly,

people in the rich countries would experience various limitations on their consumption opportunities as
a violent encroachment on their personal freedom whereas many recognize that contemporary . Indeed,

consumer societies are environmentally unsustainable, few er are prepared to actually change their
own lifestyles to reverse/address this. At present, then, the degrowth project is in its “deconstructive phase”, i.e., the phase in which its advocates are able to present a powerful critique of the prevailing neoliberal

project and point to alternative solutions to crisis. At this stage, not enough support has been mobilised behind the degrowth project for it to be elevated to the phases of “construction” and “consolidation”. It is conceivable that at
some point , enough people will become sufficiently discontent with the existing economic system and
push for something radically different . Reasons for doing so could be the failure of the system to satisfy human needs and/or its inability to resolve the multidimensional crisis confronting humanity. Yet,
various material and ideational path-dependencies currently stand in the way of such a development ,
particularly in countries with large middle-classes. Even if it were to happen that the majority wanted a
break with the current system, it is far from given that a system based on the ideas of degrowth is what they would
demand .

Solving political polarization key to climate change

Ferner 16 (Matt, National Reporter for HuffPost. January 25.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/noam-chomsky-gop_us_56a66febe4b0d8cc109aec78)

Noam Chomsky, the noted radical and MIT professor emeritus, said the Republican Party has become so
extreme in its rhetoric and policies that it poses a “ serious danger to human survival .”

“Today, the Republican Party has drifted off the rails,” Chomsky, a frequent critic of both parties, said in
an interview Monday with The Huffington Post. “It’s become what the respected conservative political
analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein call ‘a radical insurgency’ that has pretty much abandoned
parliamentary politics.”

Chomsky cited a 2013 article by Mann and Ornstein published in Daedalus, the journal of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, analyzing the polarization of the parties . The authors write that the GOP
has become “ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy
of its political opposition.”

Chomsky said the GOP and its presidential candidates are “ literally a serious danger to decent human
survival ” and cited Republicans’ rejection of measures to deal with climate change, which he called a
“looming environmental catastrophe.” All of the top Republican presidential  candidates are either
outright deniers, doubt its seriousness or insist no action should be taken — “dooming our
grandchildren,” Chomsky said.
“I am not a believer,” Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said recently. “Unless
somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather.”

Trump isn’t alone. Although 97 percent of climate scientists insist climate change is real and caused by
human actions, more than half of Republicans in Congress deny mankind has anything to do with global
warming.

“What they are saying is, let’s destroy the world. Is that worth voting against? Yeah,” Chomsky said in a
recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera English’s “UpFront.”

The policies that the GOP presidential candidates and its representatives in Congress support, Chomsky
argued, are in “abject service to private wealth and power,” despite “rhetorical posturing” of some,
including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). GOP proposals would effectively raise taxes on lower-
income Americans and reduce them for the wealthy. 
 1ar – inequality turns the disad
Inequality turns the disad
Dorling 17 (Danny, Mackinder professor of human geography at Oxford University. "Is inequality bad
for the environment?" https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jul/04/is-inequality-bad-for-the-
environment)

That equality matters in terms of health and happiness has been clear for some years. But it is also
better for the environment. The evidence (which is still emerging) suggests the most unequal affluent
countries contribute more to climate change via pollution than their more equal counterparts.

A large section of their people may suffer more, too. A new report predicts the United States will see its
levels of economic inequality increase due to the uneven geographical effects of climate change –
resulting in “the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the country’s history”, according
the study’s lead author.

In a 2016 report, Oxfam found that the greatest polluters of all were the most affluent 10% of US
households: each emitted, on average, 50 tonnes of CO2 per household member per year. Canada’s top
10% were the next most polluting, followed by the British, Russian and South African elites.

In more equitable affluent countries such as South Korea, Japan, France, Italy and Germany, the rich
don’t just pollute less; the average pollution is lower too, because the bottom half of these populations
pollute less than the bottom half in the US, Canada or Britain, despite being better off.

In short, people in more equal rich countries consume less, produce less waste and emit less carbon , on
average. Indeed, almost everything associated with the environment improves when economic
equality is greater .
 1ar – growth sustainable

Growth is sustainable AND good — tech

Bailey 16 – December 16, 2016 Ronald Bailey is a science correspondent at Reason magazine, Ronald
Bailey, B.A. Philosophy, B.A. Economics, University of Virginia, science correspondent at Reason
Magazine, formerly served as an adjunct analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Is Economic
Growth Environmentally Sustainable?” http://reason.com/archives/2016/12/16/is-economic-growth-
environmentally-sust1

rising incomes (GDP per capita)

GDP growth—increases in the monetary value of all finished goods and services—is a crude measure for improvements in human well-being. Nevertheless,

correlate with lots of good things that nearly everybody wants, including access to more and better food, longer and healthier lives,
more educational opportunities, and greater scope for life choices . Ward and his colleagues are clearly right that there is only so much physical stuff on
the Earth, but even they know that wealth is not created simply by using more stuff. Where they go wrong (as so many Malthusians do) is by implicitly assuming that there are limits to human creativity. Interestingly, Ward and his

they cite the limits to photosynthesis, which will limit the amount of food
colleagues, like Malthus before them, focus on the supposed limits to agricultural productivity. For example,

that humanity can produce. But as they acknowledge, human population may not continue to increase . In fact, global fertility rates have

been decelerating for many decades now, and demographer Wolfgang Lutz calculates that world population will peak after the
middle of this century and begin falling. Since the number of mouths to feed will stabilize and people can eat only so much,
it is unlikely that the biophysical limits of agriculture on Earth will be exceeded. But it gets even better.
Agricultural productivity is improving. Consider the biophysical limit on photosynthesis cited by the study. In fact, researchers are already making
progress on installing more efficient C-4 photosynthesis into rice and wheat, which would boost yields
by as much as 50 percent. British researchers just announced that they had figured out how to boost photosynthetic efficiency to create a super-wheat would increase yields by 20 percent. In a 2015
article for the Breakthrough Journal, "The Return of Nature: How Technology Liberates the Environment," Jesse H. Ausubel of Rockefeller University reviews how humanity is already decoupling in many ways from the natural

'decouplings' is occurring, so that our economy no longer advances in tandem with exploitation
world. "A series of

of land, forests, water, and minerals," he writes. "American use of almost everything except information seems to be peaking." He notes that agricultural
applications of fertilizer and water in the U.S. peaked in the 1980s while yields continued to increase . Thanks
to increasing agricultural productivity, humanity is already at "peak farmland"; as a result, "an area the size of India or of the United States east of the Mississippi could be released globally from agriculture over the next 50 years or

so." Ward is worried about biophysical limits on water use. But as Ausubel notes, U.S. water use has peaked and has declined below the level of 1970.
What about meat? Ausubel notes the greater efficiency with which chickens and cultivated fish turn grains and plant matter into meat. In any event, the future of farming is not fields but factories. Innovators are already seeking to

many countries
replace the entire dairy industry with milk, yogurt, and cheeses made by genetically modified bacteria grown in tanks. Others are figuring how to culture meat in vat. Ausubel also notes that

have already been through or are about to enter the "forest transition ," in which forests begin to expand. Roger
Sedjo, a forest economist at Resources of the Future, has projected that by the middle of this century most of world's industrial wood will be

produced from planted forests covering a remarkably small land area, perhaps only 5 to 10 percent of the extent of today's global forest.
Shrinking farms and ranches and expanding forests will do a lot toward turning around the alarming
global reduction in wildlife. How about unsubstitutable stuff? Are we running out of that? Ausubel notes that the U.S. has apparently already
achieved absolute decoupling —call it peak stuff—for a lot of materials, including plastics, paper, timber,
phosphate, aluminum, steel, and copper. And he reports relative decoupling for 53 other commodities, all of which are likely heading toward absolute decoupling. Additive
manufacturing is also known as 3-D printing, in which machines build up new items one layer at a time. The Advanced Manufacturing Office suggested that additive manufacturing can reduce

material needs and costs by up to 90 percent. And instead of the replacement of worn-out items, their
material can simply be recycled through a printer to return it to good-as-new condition using only 2 to 25 percent of the energy
required to make new parts . 3-D printing on demand will also eliminate storage and inventory costs, and will significantly cut transportation costs. Nanomanufacturing—
building atom-by-atom—will likely engender a fourth industrial revolution by spurring exponential economic growth while reducing human demands for

material resources. Ward and company project that Australians will be using 250 percent more energy by 2100. Is there an upper limit to energy production that implies unsustainability? In their analysis, the
ecological economists apparently assume that energy supplies are limited. Why this is not clear, unless their model implicitly assumes a growing consumption of fossil fuels (and even then, the world is not close to running out of

If demand for primary energy were to

those). But there is a source of energy that, for all practical purposes, is limitless and has few deleterious environmental effects: nuclear power.

double by 2050, a back-of-the-envelope calculation finds that the entire world's energy needs could be
supplied by 6,000 conventional nuclear power plants. The deployment of fast reactors would supply "renewable" energy for thousands of years. The
development of thorium reactors could also supply thousands of years of energy. And both could do so
without harming the environment . (Waste heat at that scale would not be much of a problem.) Such power sources are in any relevant sense
decoupled" from the natural world, since their fuel cycles produce little pollution. Recall that GDP measures the monetary value of all finished goods and services.
"
Finished goods will become a shrinking part of the world's economy as more people gain access to food, clothing, housing, transportation, and so forth. Already, services account for 80 percent of U.S. GDP and 80 percent of civilian

As technological progress enables economic growth, people

employment. Instead of stuff, people will want to spend time creating and enjoying themselves.

will consume more pixels and less petroleum, more massages and less mortar, more handicrafts and less
hardwood. Ultimately, Ward and his colleagues make the same mistake as Malthus and the Limits to Growth folks: They extrapolate trends without taking adequate account of human ingenuity. Will it be possible to
grow the economy 7-fold over this century while reducing resource consumption and restoring the natural world? Yes.
 1ar – no mindset shift
No mindset shift- degrowth doesn’t have the power or resources required to succeed
AND has NO elite support which means political decision makers wont listen BUT,
even if they do, degrowth is incompatible with lifestyles in America who think
capitalism is the only system—that’s buch hanson

No mindset shift AND transition war

Heinberg, 15—Senior Fellow-in-Residence of the Post Carbon Institute (Richard, “The Anthropocene: It’s
Not All About Us”, http://www.postcarbon.org/the-anthropocene-its-not-all-about-us/, dml)

It’s hard to convince people to voluntarily reduce consumption and curb reproduction. That’s not because humans are
unusually pushy, greedy creatures; all living organisms tend to maximize their population size and rate of collective
energy use . Inject a colony of bacteria into a suitable growth medium in a petri dish and watch what happens. Hummingbirds, mice, leopards, oarfish,
redwood trees, or giraffes: in
each instance the principle remains inviolate —every species maximizes population
and energy consumption within nature’s limits . Systems ecologist Howard T. Odum called this rule the Maximum Power Principle:
throughout nature, “system designs develop and prevail that maximize power intake, energy transformation, and those uses that reinforce production and

efficiency.” In addition to our innate propensity to maximize population and consumption, we humans also have difficulty making
sacrifices in the present in order to reduce future costs. We’re genetically hardwired to respond to
immediate threats with fight-or-flight responses, while distant hazards matter much less to us. It’s not that
we don’t think about the future at all; rather, we
unconsciously apply a discount rate based on the amount of time
likely to elapse before a menace has to be faced . True, there is some variation in future-anticipating behavior among individual humans.
A small percentage of the population may change behavior now to reduce risks to forthcoming
generations, while the great majority is less likely to do so . If that small percentage could oversee our
collective future planning, we might have much less to worry about. But that’s tough to arrange in
democracies, where people, politicians, corporations, and even nonprofit organizations get ahead by promising immediate
rewards, usually in the form of more economic growth. If none of these can organize a proactive
response to long-range threats like climate change, the actions of a few individuals and communities may not be so
effective at mitigating the hazard. This pessimistic expectation is borne out by experience . The general
outlines of the 21st century ecological crisis have been apparent since the 1970s . Yet not much has actually
been accomplished through efforts to avert that crisis. It is possible to point to hundreds, thousands,
perhaps even millions of imaginative, courageous programs to reduce, recycle, and reuse—yet the overall
trajectory of industrial civilization remains relatively unchanged .
**spending
 2ac – spending disad – top level

1. The aff’s spending is good- labor shortages are temporary and don’t spillover
but more stimulus is key to equitable economic recovery
Bivens & Shierholz 21 (Josh, director of research at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Prior to becoming director of
research, Bivens was a research economist at EPI. Before coming to EPI, he was an assistant professor of economics at
Roosevelt University and provided consulting services to Oxfam America. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the New School for
Social Research and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Maryland at College Park. Heidi, Senior Economist and Director
of Policy, Economic Policy Institute. Shierholz was an economist at EPI from 2007 to 2014 and she rejoined EPI in 2017. From
2014 to 2017, she served the Obama administration as chief economist at the Department of Labor. Prior to joining EPI in 2007,
Shierholz was assistant professor of economics at the University of Toronto. Ph.D., Economics, University of Michigan M.A.,
Economics, University of Michigan M.S., Statistics, Iowa State University B.A., Mathematics, Grinnell College. May 11.
"Restaurant labor shortages show little sign of going economywide" https://www.epi.org/blog/restaurant-labor-shortages-
show-little-sign-of-going-economywide-policymakers-must-not-rein-in-stimulus-or-unemployment-benefits/)

Recent economic data suggest labor shortages in leisure and hospitality have popped up—but there is
little reason to worry about spillover into the rest of the economy and no reason to change policy
course.

Yes, last week’s jobs report was disappointing, with employment growth slowing significantly from the
months before. It would be a mistake, however, to make too much of a single month’s data—the
monthly jobs report data are notoriously volatile, and there are still excellent reasons to believe that
coming months will see very strong job gains. Further, as disappointing as last week’s report was, there
is nothing in it that demands a reorientation of the general policy stance taken by the federal
government. The relief and recovery aid already passed (including the boosts to unemployment
insurance) should be continued, and proposed packages (like the American Families Plan and the
American Jobs Plan) should be passed.

The argument that last week’s report demands a rethink of today’s policy orientation rests on claims
that it contained clear evidence of damaging labor shortages induced by either too-extensive stimulus or
too-generous unemployment insurance (UI).

There is not compelling evidence of either of these . In fact, nothing in last week’s jobs report calls for
a wholesale change of policy course from the federal government. The key takeaways from the data
are:

Labor shortages—which we would define by a large acceleration of wage growth to a rate that would be
hard to sustain over the next year—do seem to have popped up in the leisure and hospitality sector. But
unless this dynamic threatens to spill over into other sectors or reduce growth within the leisure and
hospitality sector enough to change aggregate trends, a short-term sectoral labor shortage does not
come close to being sufficient justification for changing national policy priorities .

There is very little reason to worry that labor shortages in leisure and hospitality will soon spill over into
other sectors and drive economywide “overheating.”

The leisure and hospitality labor market is highly segmented off from other sectors, and wage pressures
—upward or downward—have typically not spilled over from it to other sectors.
For example, jobs in leisure and hospitality have notably low wages and fewer hours compared with
other sectors. Weekly wages of production and nonsupervisory workers in leisure and hospitality now
equate to annual earnings of just $20,628, and total wages in leisure and hospitality account for just 4%
of total private wages in the U.S. economy. All of these facts make it highly unlikely to meaningfully
change the wage trajectory of other sectors.

The labor shortages in leisure and hospitality so far do not seem to be dragging sharply on growth even
within this sector—the sub-sectors within leisure and hospitality saw by far the most rapid employment
growth in the last month.

Any signs that the more generous UI benefits included as part of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) are
driving wages higher in this sector are very faint—far too faint to justify a scaling back of these benefits
or to justify state-level policymakers depriving their own workers of a needed boost to the safety net.
For example:

Low-wage sectors—where UI benefits should be a more binding constraint on labor supply—saw

notably faster job growth than others.

Evidence strongly suggests that continued caregiving responsibilities are impinging on the labor supply
of women and constitute the primary labor supply bottleneck. Cutting back on pandemic UI provisions
will not increase the labor supply of those who cannot work because of COVID-related caregiving
responsibilities.

For example, the disappointing net job gains this month were not due to a slowdown in gross inflows
into employment; instead, they were due to a large pickup in outflows out of employment. The uptick in
transitions out of employment in April were dominated by women.

Labor force participation rose rapidly last month, but more than 100% of the gains were accounted for
by men.

Further, millions of Americans continue to cite health concerns as a reason for reluctance to return to
work—as further evidence of this, vaccination rates correlate positively with increased employment
across states.

Cutting pandemic UI benefits now, as some states have done or are considering, will not just hurt
workers who are depending on federal benefits while they cannot find work or are unable to work, it
will also drag on the economy, as those benefits are supporting spending.

Finally, even if overall growth were constrained by voluntary labor supply decisions made by workers,
this would be far less damaging to human welfare than growth that was constrained by too-slack
aggregate demand. The goal of economic policy should not be to chase as many adults into paid work as
possible; it should be to provide good options and economic security for all . The current policy
orientation does that far better than an alternative one that reeled back on relief and recovery
measures.

There is evidence of labor shortages driving wage acceleration, but only at the sectoral level

Wage growth accelerated markedly in the leisure and hospitality sector in April (a sector that includes
arts, entertainment, and leisure as well as accommodations and food services). Taking the last three-
month average of wages and comparing it with the previous three months, we find wage growth
running at an annualized rate of nearly 18%. It seems clear that in April, customers were coming back to
leisure and hospitality establishments faster than employers were able to staff up to serve them at the
going wages that recently prevailed in this sector.

But the rapid wage growth of the past three months is exactly what is supposed to happen when there
is a sectoral imbalance between supply and demand. Such wage accelerations only become worrisome
to economywide performance if the imbalance seems poised to spill over into other sectors and cause
widespread economic overheating (wage and price growth that is unsustainably faster), or if sectoral
wages are not rising fast enough and supply constraints are markedly impinging on growth in the sector.

There is very little evidence that the leisure and hospitality sector’s hot labor market is about to catch
the rest of the economy on fire. This sector seems notably segmented off from much of the rest of the
economy. For example, a striking feature of the COVID-19 economic shock was just how insulated other
sectors in the economy were from the extreme labor market distress felt by face-to-face services like
leisure and hospitality. Essentially half of the 14.4 million workers in the accommodations and food
services sector in February 2020 lost their jobs in the following two months, and even as of March 2021,
employment in that sector was down by more than 15% relative to pre-COVID times. Wage growth in
the sector predictably tanked due to this extreme labor market shock. Yet very little of this sectoral
distress spilled over into wage growth in other sectors, which saw only the smallest dip in wage growth
trends.

If workers outside of face-to-face services did not have their wage growth damaged by the employment
disaster in face-to-face services over the past year, it seems hard to see why they would have their wage
growth boosted significantly by a recovery in these sectors. To put it bluntly, why would, say, blue-collar
factory workers in manufacturing or white-collar workers in professional services all of the sudden be
able to demand notably higher raises because restaurant workers (still overwhelmingly part-time) have
seen uncommonly fast wage growth—but growth that essentially just leaves their wages where they
would have been based on pre-COVID trends?

Getting back on pre-COVID trends for leisure and hospitality workers means returning to wages that are
still far lower than what prevail in other sectors, and hence unlikely to create pressure. For example,
weekly pay for production and nonsupervisory workers in leisure and hospitality is consistent with
annual earnings of just $20,628. Crucially, because of low average hours and low hourly pay, the
accommodations and food service sector—as large as it is in employment terms (more than 14 million
workers pre-COVID)—accounts for barely 4% of all labor costs in the U.S. economy currently. Labor
shortages leading to wage acceleration in this sector just are not working with a long enough lever to
push up wages across the board.

Additionally, the rapid wage growth seems to have worked in keeping the shortage from measurably
impinging on growth. In fact, the leisure and hospitality sector was an outlier in last week’s report in
how fast jobs were created. Figure A below shows each industry’s share of the remaining 8.2 million jobs
gap relative to February 2020, and then each industry’s share of job growth last month. The leisure and
hospitality sectors are punching far above their weight, with their share of April job growth far
exceeding their share of the remaining jobs gap. In fact, if other sectors had matched the pace of job
growth scaled to remaining employment gaps that leisure and hospitality saw, job growth for the month
would have been closer to 800,000—a perfectly respectable figure under current economic conditions.
Unless this very recent sectoral labor shortage spills over into other sectors or threatens to markedly
throttle off growth within its own sector, there is very little reason why national policy priorities should
change. Why should policymakers do anything (say, cut off UI benefits or reel back in macroeconomic
stimulus) that would reduce economic security or job-finding prospects for (say) the million workers still
laid off from state and local governments, just because restaurant owners actually had to raise wages in
order to staff back up following the COVID shock?

Finally, any recovery from an economic downturn requires a period of labor shortage and accelerating
wage growth, unless policymakers are willing to allow recessions to inflict permanent damage on the
wage levels of U.S. workers. Wage growth slows during recessions and, to get back on pre-recession
trends, there must be a period of above-normal growth unless one wants to allow recession-induced
scarring to become permanent. In April, this normal period of wage acceleration in one sector was
clearly rapid and will be hard to sustain for too long. But some degree of wage acceleration was clearly
necessary.

Very little evidence that enhanced unemployment insurance benefits created sectoral labor shortages

While the wage acceleration in leisure and hospitality is unlikely to cause economywide overheating, it
has been used to call for the scaling back of enhanced UI benefits. However, the data fingerprints
supporting the case that UI is a primary impingement on labor supply to sectors like leisure and
hospitality are faint.

For one, UI benefits should put more downward pressure on labor supply in low-wage sectors (as they
replace a higher percent of wages in these sectors). Yet low-wage sectors saw the fastest job growth in
April by a substantial margin.

Second, the disappointing net job growth number for April was actually not driven by a decline of flows
into employment (a decline in people getting hired after being unemployed or out of the labor force), as
one might expect if workers choosing to live happily on UI instead of searching for jobs were the drivers
of these trends. As Figure B shows, flows into employment increased in April by 252,000 relative to the
average of the previous three months. Instead, the net job growth number was held down by an
atypically large uptick in flows out of employment (an increase in people being laid off or otherwise
separated from a job and becoming unemployed or leaving the labor force).

It’s not shown in Figure B but crucially, while all transitions out of employment in April increased by
331,000 relative to the previous month, women accounted for 392,000 such transitions—more than
100%. Related, labor force participation actually grew quite strongly in the month, but more than 100%
of the gain in the labor force was accounted for by men. These last two data points are consistent with
caregiving responsibilities—which still fall far more heavily on women—being a key bottleneck for labor
supply.

It remains the case that more than a quarter of school districts are not fully open, and this likely puts a
large barrier in front of many parents returning to normal working schedules. There is a very good case
to be made that we won’t have a serious read on the underlying state of U.S. labor supply until
September, when a near-universal reopening of schools seems likely.

Labor supply is also likely being held back by legitimate health concerns from workers about returning to
jobs. The Household Pulse Survey of the Census Bureau showed that, as of late April, there were still
roughly 4.2 million Americans indicating that health concerns were keeping them from looking for a job.
Further, Aaron Sojourner has found a robust positive relationship between employment status and
vaccinations, with one obvious potential causal link running from vaccinations to people feeling more
confident in looking for work safely. Until vaccinations are near universal among the willing, this may
pinch a bit on labor supply growth.

In today’s economy, labor supply constraints on growth are not as damaging

Finally, we should be clear that if economic growth is constrained because workers make voluntary
decisions to not accept jobs at the going rate (that is, growth is constrained by labor supply ), this is far
less damaging to human welfare than economic growth that is constrained because workers who would
be eager to work at today’s wage just can’t find any job offer ( demand-constrained growth).

Policymakers currently face a choice of guarding against growth constraints driven by demand or driven
by supply. The Biden administration has chosen to zealously guard against demand shortfalls, even at
the risk of running into some supply constraints in the near term. If policymakers change this orientation
and reel back macroeconomic stimulus and cut off UI benefits, they will be making the other choice—
guarding zealously against supply-constrained growth and being willing to risk growth running into
demand constraints. This would be a huge mistake for human welfare, even if it were true that some
workers were choosing to pass on available jobs due to enhanced UI benefits. A worker who is jobless
because they have voluntarily decided that they’d rather wait out the next month or two on enhanced
UI benefits—rather than throwing their caregiving responsibilities into disarray by taking on work in the
face of continued school closures or braving a job they feel might be unsafe for them—suffers far less
than a worker desperate for work who just can’t find it because the economy is unnecessarily running at
too cool a pace.

2. No impact uniqueness
a. Lead and polarization makes everything worse
b. Equitable recovery outweighs the impact- distributed economic activity is
comparatively a better internal link than higher GDP that’s more
concentrated

3. Stimulus won’t cause inflationary spirals, no risk of Fed overreaction, and it

expands trade which is a better internal link to their impact- err on the side of
doing too much
Ferrara 21 (Laurent, Professeur d’Economie Internationale, SKEMA Business School. March 10. "Will
Joe Biden’s stimulus plan cause the US economy to overheat?" https://theconversation.com/will-joe-
bidens-stimulus-plan-cause-the-us-economy-to-overheat-156782)

American GDP figures published on January 28 show that the country’s economy continued to grow in
Q4 2020 at an annualised rate of 4% compared to the previous quarter. This figure follows on from Q3
2020’s mechanically highly elevated growth figure of 33.4%, which was a result of the collapse in
economic activity in Q2.
This positive sequence has already led observers such UC San Diego’s James Hamilton to announce that
the Covid recession is over. A specialist in recessions, Hamilton asserts that the recovery in the second
half of 2020 was strong enough that, if another recession occurs in 2021, it will be classified as a new
phase (we describe this as a double-dip recession).

In other words, if the Covid recession turns out to be over, it will have been short (two quarters) but
extremely sharp. This would make it the most severe recession since World War II.

Running slow long-term

So can we say that the US economy has recovered? Beyond knowing that recessions delimit phases of
positive growth and phases of negative growth, given the unprecedented nature and size of this
recession we also need to take into account its hysteresis effects.

A useful concept for economists is the output gap, which measures the difference between the actual
GDP generated by an economy and its potential GDP. This is used in numerous calculations, for example
to assess inflationary pressure or the optimal level of policy interest rates .

Output gap is difficult to measure in real time because it requires a precise evaluation of an economy’s
potential. In the United States, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is responsible for carrying out
independent evaluations of the impact of budgetary policy and producing forecasts for the associated
variables.

Figure 1: actual GDP (blue), potential GDP (grey) and GDP forecasts (orange) from the Congressional
Budget Office. CBO, CC BY-SA

Figure 1 shows the most recent GDP and potential GDP forecasts published by the CBO on February 1,
2021 (excluding the effect of any budgetary measures). It is clear that the CBO predicts a negative
output gap until at least the end of 2023.

In particular, this gap represents 3% of potential GDP in Q4 2020 and 2.3% in Q1 2021. Cumulatively,
between 2021 and 2023, the loss is expected to be equal to around $2.67 trillion (presented in constant
2012 dollars). This forecast obviously carries a high level of uncertainty, because the economy is
dominated by health conditions.

Similarly, if we look at the US employment situation, nonfarm payroll figures show that the number of
people employed fell from 152.5 million at the peak of the cycle in February 2020 to 130.2 million in
April. Despite the rebound that followed, the number of people employed reached a plateau just above
142 million in October and has been stable since. This means that around 10 million Americans lost their
jobs during the crisis and are still unemployed.

For more details about the American labor market situation, we recommend the work of Jason Furman
from the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Could the economy overheat?

In this cyclical context, the US Congress approved a $900 billion support package on 21 December 2020.
It was signed into law by the White House on December 27. The current debate concerns President Joe
Biden’s planned stimulus package unveiled in mid-January and worth around $1.9 trillion, which would
bring the size of the budget impact to around 13% of GDP.
While it seems clear that the American economy still needs support, economists are divided regarding
the size of the Biden plan and the balance of risks associated with a support package of this magnitude.

The main danger, as highlighted by Larry Summers and Olivier Blanchard, is that the stimulus could be
too powerful, pushing the economy to overheat against a backdrop of loose financial conditions, a high
level of excess household savings (estimated at around $1.6 trillion), a growing budget deficit
(approaching 15% of GDP in 2020) and high growth forecasts (+5.1% in 2021 according to the IMF).

During this overheating phase, there would be a risk that inflation would spiral upwards, pushing the
Federal Reserve (known as the Fed) to tighten monetary policy, thereby causing the economy to slow
once again. According to Summers, past experience suggests there is even a risk that spiralling inflation
could prove difficult to control.

But in trying to evaluate the impact of this massive budget shock, we have to take into account
numerous unknowns. First, the macroeconomic effects depend heavily on the budget multipliers used in
the calculations. Estimates of the multiplier effect of public spending on investment are generally close
to one, but with a high level of uncertainty. However, if we consider that in the Biden plan this spending
primarily takes the form of transfers to households and businesses the multiplier is estimated to be
much lower.

Another crucial element of this assessment is the effect of economic activity on inflation, as shown by
the Phillips curve. Academic studies demonstrate that the Phillips curve has flattened over recent
years: inflation is extremely stable and reacts only very slightly to fluctuations in GDP. This empirical
fact has been demonstrated for most advanced economies .

Positive effects… for the global economy

Even if this budget shock did cause inflation to increase, it would be fairly well tolerated by the Fed,
which has been seeking to raise below-target inflation for several years. In its recent monetary policy
review, the Fed committed to keeping deviations from its goal symmetric, with the 2% target now
viewed as a long-term average.

Beyond its domestic impact, the global economy would also welcome this US budget stimulus. Working
with Eurosystem researchers, we showed that an increase in US government spending tends to cause
the dollar to rise and the US trade balance to fall. This is because the United States is considered as the
world economy’s consumer of last resort, and therefore absorbs almost single-handedly the trade
surpluses of the euro zone, China and Japan. Consequently, the global economy could benefit from this
massive stimulus plan via an increase in American imports.

The Biden administration could use the normalizing of relations with other countries after four chaotic
years under the Trump administration as an opportunity to promote this international aspect of the
package.

Beyond the cyclical indicators, the Covid crisis has also profoundly affected structural aspects of the US
economy by increasing gender and intergenerational inequalities, raising the poverty rate, etc.

Lastly, US government debt does not appear to be at risk: in spite of a recent surge related to
expectations of the Biden’s plan, sovereign interest rates are at their lowest levels for 40 years and
government bonds are at present a textbook example of the kind of safe, liquid asset that financial
markets love.

In conclusion, the balance of risks linked to the size of the Biden plan remains difficult to assess
accurately and it is right that there should be a debate. But in the face of an unprecedented health crisis,
it is perhaps best to take the risk of doing too much rather than not enough.

4. No risk of overheating- their output gap measurements are wrong, their ev

doesn’t assume our internal links, and effective fed policy solves escalation-
macroeconomic benefits outweigh their internal links
Center for Equitable Growth 21 (The Washington Center for Equitable Growth, also known simply
as "Equitable Growth", is a research and grantmaking organization founded in 2013 and "housed at the
Center for American Progress".[22] Equitable Growth funds academic research in economics and other
social sciences, with a particular interest in government's role in the distribution of economic growth
and the role of public perceptions of fairness in shaping government policy. "Overheating is not a
concern for the U.S. economy" April 26. https://equitablegrowth.org/overheating-is-not-a-concern-for-
the-u-s-economy/)

Critics of President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and further public investments
financed through a combination of tax increases and deficit spending—such as his administration’s
proposed American Jobs Plan, at roughly $2 trillion, and the forthcoming American Families Plan—often
argue that the U.S. economy will “overheat” if policymakers pump too much support into the U.S.
economy too quickly.

Overheating is not a concern for the U.S. economy

Yet plans for further public investments should be judged primarily on the merits of those investments.
Arguments that the U.S. economy will overheat ignore the need for additional investments in the
economy and rely on the possibility of future policy errors to argue against needed investments today.

This factsheet explains how economists and policymakers colloquially use the term overheating, why it’s
not really a concern, and why it distracts from the more important debate about the kind of investments
required to create a more equitable and sustainable economic recovery coming out of the coronavirus
recession.

What is overheating?

The term overheating refers to an economy in which the actual level of goods or services produced, or
the Gross Domestic Product, exceeds potential GDP.

What is potential GDP?

Potential GDP is a theoretical quantity. It is the estimated amount of output that would be produced
assuming full utilization of inputs. In this situation, unemployment is low and reflects only transitions
between jobs or new entrants to the labor force.

Importantly, potential GDP is a theoretical quantity that cannot be directly observed. Economists can
estimate potential GDP, but they will never know with certainty what it is. As a result, policymakers
never know for sure whether GDP is above or below potential. One part of the debate about whether
the Biden administration’s policies could cause overheating is a debate about what potential GDP is.

Why is potential GDP important?

The Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of potential GDP are highly influential, but critics argue,
with substantial justification, that CBO analysts have been unduly pessimistic about the capacity of the
economy in recent years, and thus overstate the risk of overheating .

As economists Adam Hersh at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Political Economy Research
Institute and Mark Paul at the new College of Florida point out, these estimates also include
assumptions that embed racial disparities into their forecasts of the “natural rate of unemployment ,”
which is an estimate of the level of unemployment where potential GDP is reached. The C ongressional
Budget Office, for example, estimates that the “natural rate” of unemployment for Black workers, at 10
percent, is more than double that of White workers (4.4 percent), and the “natural rate” of
unemployment for Latinx workers (6 percent) is more than one-third higher than that of White workers.

Can potential GDP be misleading?

The implications of the Congressional Budget Office’s assumptions about potential GDP and the natural
rate of unemployment can be misleading. These assumptions would mean that the Black unemployment
rate—which reached a record low of 5.5 percent in August 2019 without any inflationary consequences
—would never be expected to fall below the overall peak unemployment rate during the Great
Recession, at 10 percent. Moreover, these assumptions would also mean that the Latinx unemployment
rate—which reached a record low of 4 percent in September 2019, again without any inflationary
consequences—would never be expected to fall below 6 percent.

Notably, the CBO’s baseline deficit projections assume that current law is unchanged , just as CBO’s
estimates of potential GDP assume current law and regulation. But changes in law and regulation can
change potential GDP. This is particularly important when evaluating policies that aim to invest in the
productive capacity of the economy in the future, including investments in people or physical
infrastructure.

What is the likelihood of overheating?

The U.S. economy has 10 million fewer jobs today than it likely would absent the coronavirus pandemic
and resulting recession. This is why now is not the time for concern about overheating . The prominence
of the concern, in fact, reflects the scale of the policy response to the pandemic and the recession,
especially the recently enacted $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

Even so, it is difficult to state with confidence how the actual level of GDP will compare to potential GDP
in the near future. Wendy Edelberg and Louise Sheiner of The Brookings Institution estimate that
legislation of approximately the scale of the American Rescue Plan would restore actual GDP to potential
GDP after the third quarter of 2021, cause GDP to exceed potential GDP temporarily by a modest 1
percent in the fourth quarter of 2021, and then allow GDP to roughly match its potential path in the
middle of 2022.
If potential GDP is higher than Edelberg and Sheiner estimate or the American Rescue Plan causes less
spending than they project, then the U.S. economy will be less likely to overheat. If potential GDP is
lower or the American Rescue Plan causes more spending, the economy would be more likely to
overheat.

Then, there are the two forthcoming public investment packages from the Biden administration. The
president’s American Families Plan will be unveiled later this week, but there are enough details about
his American Jobs Plan for some early analysis. A projection by Mark Zandi and Bernard Yaros of
Moody’s Analytics implies the American Jobs Plan may set the real GDP (after accounting for inflation)
on a path that modestly exceeds the Congressional Budget Office’s pre-pandemic projections for
potential GDP. Yet the general macroeconomic benefits—such as long-term employment gains and
fully recovered labor force participation among women and workers of color—significantly outweigh
any concern for possible overheating.

What happens if the economy overheats?

From many perspectives, an overheated economy is a strong economy. Unemployment is very low, and
it becomes much easier for workers to find jobs, and especially better-paying jobs. It is harder for
employers to discriminate and may have disproportional positive effects on traditionally excluded
workers such as Black Americans. Low unemployment may also create wage pressures, especially for
low-wage workers who generally face much greater competition for jobs .

Concerns about an overheated economy typically focus on a set of potential consequences that could
arise if it remains overheated for a long time. If an economy remains overheated for many years, then
that could lead to higher inflation. If the Federal Reserve, in response to that inflation, pushes the U.S.
economy into recession by pushing up interest rates, then that could cause widespread harm.

Yet this concern is less about overheating specifically, and more about extended overheating
followed by a bad policy response . There is no obvious reason to believe that a short period during
which GDP exceeds potential GDP will lead to this set of outcomes . This is the case because concerns
about overheating often rely on analyses of what has happened in prior periods of U.S. economy history,
such as the inflationary years of the 1970s, which were followed by the disinflation and recessions
engineered by then-Fed Chair Paul Volcker. But there are important ways in which the economy has
changed since then.

Indeed, the rise of economic inequality over the past six decades makes the experience of the 1970s less
relevant for forecasting the future. There also is no compelling reason to view narrowing the scope of
policy ambition now as a superior approach to avoiding these theoretically adverse outcomes before
they might possibly happen. A better approach is for the Fed to change the nature of its response down
the road or for Congress to change its fiscal policy response if inflation were to emerge.

5. Passing the plan now is key to the economy and the link is bidirectional- failure
to do it tanks the economy, acting now nets trillions
EBP 20 ( EBP—formally Economic Development Research (EDR) Group—is a firm dedicated to advancing the state-ofthe-art in economic evaluation and analysis to support planning and policy in the areas of
transportation, energy resources, urban development, and economic growth strategy. Since its founding in 1996, EBP has helped state and local governments make infrastructure investment and economic development decisions
that support broad-based job creation, income generation, and overall prosperity. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign contracted with EBP to conduct this study. The American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than
150,000 members of the civil engineering profession in 177 countries. Founded in 1852, ASCE is the nation’s oldest engineering society. ASCE stands at the forefront of a profession that plans, designs, constructs, and operates
society’s economic and social engine—the built environment—while protecting and restoring the natural environment. The Value of Water Campaign educates and inspires the nation about how water is essential, invaluable, and
in need of investment. Spearheaded by top leaders in the water industry, and coordinated by the US Water Alliance, the Value of Water Campaign is building public and political will for investment in the United States‘ water and
wastewater infrastructure through best-in-class communication tools, high-impact events, media activities, and robust research and publications. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign are grateful to an esteemed group of Value
of Water Campaign supporters and ASCE members for their expert review of the document, including: • Greg DiLoreto, P.E., retired, former CEO of Tualatin Valley Water District • Mami Hara, General Manager and CEO, Seattle
Public Utilities • John Kmiec, Deputy Water Director, Tucson Water • Kelley Neumann, P.E., Deputy Director, Planning and Engineering, Aurora Water • Darren Olson, P.E., Vice President, Assistant Department Head, Water
Resources, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. • Carolyn Peterson, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies • Larry Pierce, P.E., retired, San Diego region • Jim Schlaman, Director,
Planning and Water Resources, Black & Veatch • Amit Shah, Senior Manager, Evoqua • Joe Szafran, External Affairs Manager, American Water "The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure How a Failure to Act Would
Affect the US Economic Recovery" August 27. www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/The%20Economic%20Benefits%20of%20Investing%20in%20Water%20Infrastructure_final.pdf )

Water and wastewater infrastructure are interwoven into every aspect of the US economy. Reliable
water service is an enabling force for economic growth and prosperity. Unreliable water service and
deteriorating infrastructure, on the other hand, will put the nation’s communities and economy at risk.

As the United States confronts a widening gap between capital and O&M spending and investment
needs, it faces two possible directions . If chronic underinvestment in the water infrastructure
continues, the overall economy will suffer; by 2039, GDP will decline by $2.9 trillion. Families would pay
for deferred maintenance—costs incurred by households would be seven times higher in 2040 than they
are today. Inaction is a threat to a safe and secure water future. The COVID-19 pandemic only intensifies
the need to act and invest across all levels of government. Failing to act now will lead the country into
a prolonged era of economic and public health vulnerability .

Conversely, if the United States closes the spending gap, the national economy will stand to gain $4.5
trillion in GDP by 2039. All can rise to the challenge. In the 20th century, large investments in water
infrastructure spurred economic growth and led to tremendous gains in public health, setting the stage
for generations of prosperity. Leaders at all levels must step up and explore policy and funding solutions
that will move the nation in the right direction. Local, state, and federal action to increase investment in
these critical systems today will lead to a resilient, efficient, and reliable water future and protect the
public health of generations to come.

6. Plan solves in the short-term and prevents long-term collapse

EBP 20 ( EBP—formally Economic Development Research (EDR) Group—is a firm dedicated to advancing the state-ofthe-art in economic evaluation and analysis to support planning and policy in the areas of
transportation, energy resources, urban development, and economic growth strategy. Since its founding in 1996, EBP has helped state and local governments make infrastructure investment and economic development decisions
that support broad-based job creation, income generation, and overall prosperity. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign contracted with EBP to conduct this study. The American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than
150,000 members of the civil engineering profession in 177 countries. Founded in 1852, ASCE is the nation’s oldest engineering society. ASCE stands at the forefront of a profession that plans, designs, constructs, and operates
society’s economic and social engine—the built environment—while protecting and restoring the natural environment. The Value of Water Campaign educates and inspires the nation about how water is essential, invaluable, and
in need of investment. Spearheaded by top leaders in the water industry, and coordinated by the US Water Alliance, the Value of Water Campaign is building public and political will for investment in the United States‘ water and
wastewater infrastructure through best-in-class communication tools, high-impact events, media activities, and robust research and publications. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign are grateful to an esteemed group of Value
of Water Campaign supporters and ASCE members for their expert review of the document, including: • Greg DiLoreto, P.E., retired, former CEO of Tualatin Valley Water District • Mami Hara, General Manager and CEO, Seattle
Public Utilities • John Kmiec, Deputy Water Director, Tucson Water • Kelley Neumann, P.E., Deputy Director, Planning and Engineering, Aurora Water • Darren Olson, P.E., Vice President, Assistant Department Head, Water
Resources, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. • Carolyn Peterson, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies • Larry Pierce, P.E., retired, San Diego region • Jim Schlaman, Director,
Planning and Water Resources, Black & Veatch • Amit Shah, Senior Manager, Evoqua • Joe Szafran, External Affairs Manager, American Water "The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure How a Failure to Act Would
Affect the US Economic Recovery" August 27. www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/The%20Economic%20Benefits%20of%20Investing%20in%20Water%20Infrastructure_final.pdf )

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Value of Water Campaign release this report at a
time when the COVID-19 public health crisis is causing economic disruption at an unprecedented speed
and scale in the United States. Workers are losing jobs by the millions as consumer confidence, retail
sales, and gross domestic product plummet. It is clear that the nation’s economic recovery will be long
and difficult. In the coming months and years, public officials at every level of government will consider
policies and investments to jumpstart economic recovery. Investment in the nation’s aging water
infrastructure —composed of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems— can spark a new
era of job creation and economic growth while protecting public health and improving the quality of
life for families across the United States.

Water is essential to every aspect of household and community life and the economy. Dozens of
industries, like mining, manufacturing, and health care, rely directly on water and wastewater services
to function. If they lost access to clean water supplies, the economic impact would be acute . Meanwhile,
the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that the public health benefits from safe drinking water and
wastewater treatment are immeasurable. Much of the nation’s vast water infrastructure is buried
underground or out-of-sight, but it is hard to overstate how vital these systems are for people’s health
and the economy.

Like so much else in the US economy, water utilities have been affected by the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic. Tourism and convention activities have canceled, sports arenas have closed, hotels and
schools have emptied, and many restaurants and bars have been operating at less than maximum
capacity—all of which translates to reductions in water consumption and rate revenues. It is uncertain
when full economic activity will return. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) estimate that drinking water utilities will
experience a negative aggregate financial impact of $13.9 billion— or 16.9 percent—by 2021, due to
revenue losses and increased operational costs during the pandemic.1 The National Association of Clean
Water Agencies (NACWA) estimates that the resulting financial impact on wastewater utilities will be
even higher, around $16.8 billion, including a 20 percent drop in sewer revenues.2

The financial challenges water utilities face as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are layered onto
chronic, longterm, and insufficient investment in the nation’s water infrastructure. Billions of dollars are
needed each year to renew and replace outdated pipes, pumps, storage facilities, and treatment plants
that ensure clean water delivers to homes and businesses across the nation, carry away and safely treat
sewage and stormwater, and return treated water to rivers, streams, and other water bodies. Local,
state, and federal funding is meeting a fraction of the current need. If this trend continues, the nation’s
water systems will become less reliable, breaks and failures will become more common, vulnerabilities
to disruptions will compound, and the nation will public health and the economy at risk.

This report details the cost to the nation’s economy if current investment trends in the nation’s water
infrastructure continue, and it explores the massive economic benefits people would realize from fully
funding the nation’s water infrastructure needs. The report is organized in the following manner: • The
US Water Infrastructure Investment Gap section summarizes the mismatch between the current
spending levels and funding needs. • The Costs of Inaction section analyzes the impact on gross
domestic product (GDP), businesses, households, and public health if current investment trends in water
infrastructure continue for the next 20 years. • The Economic Benefits section describes the economic
gains that could be realized over the next 20 years if the water infrastructure investment gap were
closed and spending needs fully funded.

1. The U nited S tates is entering what may be the deepest economic contraction since the Great
Depression.3 As such, the policy and investment decisions that public officials make will have
enormous consequences on the pace of economic recovery. This analysis presents two very
different futures. If current underinvestment in water continues, businesses will become less
competitive, household costs will increase, GDP will shrink, and public health may be at greater
risk. If the U nited S tates acts boldly and closes the water infrastructure investment gap, we will
boost economic recovery, create jobs, fuel business activity across a wide range of sectors,
improve public health, and protect the environment
 1ar – at: overheating

The economy is not overheating, no risk of runaway inflation, and the federal reserve
won’t panic
Delong 21 (J. Bradford, Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a
research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was Deputy Assistant US Treasury
Secretary during the Clinton Administration. "Is the US Economy Recovering or Overheating?" May 4.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-inflation-shows-economy-is-reshuffling-and-
recovering-by-j-bradford-delong-2021-05)

The fact that core inflation is rising on the back of substantial GDP growth and declining unemployment
should not come as a surprise. Those who are wringing their hands about economic "overheating"
should remember that an absence of price increases would reflect an economy that is still struggling.

BERKELEY – The financial and economic news in the United States lately has been dominated by
concerns about inflation. “Runaway inflation is the biggest risk facing investors, Leuthold’s Jim Paulsen
warns,” according to the cable news channel CNBC. As a potential hedge against inflation, “Bitcoin’s
time to shine is fast approaching,” reports Fortune’s Robert Hackett. According to US News and World
Report, “There is a lot of talk about inflation in 2021 as fears of high government spending creep in and
the recent rebound in prices from pandemic-related levels has some investors worried that the trend
will continue for some time.”

And yet, one also reads that “US Treasury yields hold ground even as inflation picks up.” After growing at
an annualized rate of 33.4% in the third quarter of 2020, 4.3% in the fourth quarter, and 6.4% in the first
quarter of this year, the US economy is on track for a full recovery. The second-quarter growth rate is
expected to be at least 8%, and perhaps significantly higher, which means that the US economy, in
aggregate, will have fully returned to its pre-pandemic production level by the third or fourth quarter of
this year.

In this context, it is no surprise that core inflation (which excludes food and energy prices) rose 0.4
percentage points over the past month. That rate implies nearly a 5% annual inflation rate. But looking
back over the past 12 months, the core inflation rate (as measured by the consumer price index) was
2.3%, which is in keeping with the US Federal Reserve’s 2-2.5% target.

The question is not whether there will be some inflation this year, but whether it will represent
“overheating” of the economy as a whole. Most likely, it will not. The amount by which economic
output in 2021 exceeds potential output will be less than zero. And as the Fed makes clear with every
statement it issues, it will not allow a transient wage-price spiral to become embedded in inflation
expectations. The outlook for 2021 and beyond is that inflation will hover around the Fed’s target,
rather than consistently falling short, as it has for the past 13 years.

Moreover, the US economy is emerging from the pandemic recession with a fundamentally altered
inter-sectoral balance. Spending on durable goods currently accounts for an additional 1.7 percentage
points of GDP, relative to its 2019 level, and spending on housing construction is running at 0.5 points
above its 2019 share. At the same time, business spending on structures and consumer spending on
energy are both running at 0.5 points below their 2019 shares, and spending on services (hospitality,
recreation, and transportation) is 2.2 points below its 2019 share.

These sectoral dynamics will be the most important determinants of inflation this year. By the end of
2021, some 4% of all workers will have moved not only to new jobs but to entirely different sectors. In
an economy where businesses very rarely cut nominal wages, the pull of workers from sectors where
demand is relatively slack to sectors where it is more intense will require firms to offer wage increases to
encourage workers to make the jump.

But we cannot know how much inflation this reshuffling will cause, because we have not really seen
anything like it before. Economists will have a lot to learn this year about the short-term intersectoral
elasticity of employment supply.

One thing that should be clear, however, is that an uptick of inflation this year is nothing to be upset
about. After all, wage and price increases are an essential part of rebalancing the economy. Real
production, real wages, and real asset values will all be higher as a result of this year’s inflation, whereas
the price level will remain far below what it would have been had the Fed managed to hit its inflation
targets in the years since the Great Recession following the 2008 global financial crisis.

While some commentators worry that we may be returning to the 1970s, this is highly unlikely. That
decade’s stagflationary conditions followed from a perfect storm of shocks, and were exacerbated by
the Fed’s conflicted and confused response under then-Chair Arthur Burns. Today’s Fed leadership is
very different, and there is no perfect storm of repeated shocks to match the effects of the Yom Kippur
War, Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the 1970s productivity-growth slowdown, and so forth.

Burning rubber to rejoin highway traffic is not the same thing as overheating the engine.
 1ar – at: labor shortages

We control wage inflation uniqueness- it’s too low, which is why there’s both high
unemployment and large number of openings- people want work, but wages need to
increase and companies can afford it
Leonhardt 21 (David, NYT Business Reporter. May 20. "The Myth of Labor Shortages"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/briefing/labor-shortages-covid-wages.html)

The chief executive of Domino’s Pizza has complained that the company can’t hire enough drivers. Lyft
and Uber claim to have a similar problem. A McDonald’s franchise in Florida offered $50 to anybody
willing to show up for an interview. And some fast-food outlets have hung signs in their windows saying,
“No one wants to work anymore.”

The idea that the United States suffers from a labor shortage is fast becoming conventional wisdom. But
before you accept the idea, it’s worth taking a few minutes to think it through.

Once you do, you may realize that the labor shortage is more myth than reality.

Econ 101

Let’s start with some basic economics. The U.S. is a capitalist country, and one of the beauties of
capitalism is its mechanism for dealing with shortages. In a communist system, people must wait in long
lines when there is more demand than supply for an item. That’s an actual shortage. In a capitalist
economy, however, there is a ready solution.

The company or person providing the item raises its price. Doing so causes other providers to see an
opportunity for profit and enter the market, increasing supply. To take a hypothetical example, a
shortage of baguettes in a town will lead to higher prices, which will in turn cause more local bakeries to
begin making their own baguettes (and also cause some families to choose other forms of starch).
Suddenly, the baguette shortage is no more.

Human labor is not the same thing as a baguette, but the fundamental idea is similar: In a market
economy, both labor and baguettes are products with fluctuating prices.

When a company is struggling to find enough labor, it can solve the problem by offering to pay a higher
price for that labor — also known as higher wages. More workers will then enter the labor market.
Suddenly, the labor shortage will be no more.

One of the few ways to have a true labor shortage in a capitalist economy is for workers to be
demanding wages so high that businesses cannot stay afloat while paying those wages. But there is a lot
of evidence to suggest that the U.S. economy does not suffer from that problem .

If anything, wages today are historically low. They have been growing slowly for decades for every
income group other than the affluent. As a share of g ross d omestic p roduct, worker compensation is
lower than at any point in the second half of the 20th century. Two main causes are corporate
consolidation and shrinking labor unions, which together have given employers more workplace power
and employees less of it.

Just as telling as the wage data, the share of working-age Americans who are in fact working has
declined in recent decades. The country now has the equivalent of a large group of bakeries that are not
making baguettes but would do so if it were more lucrative — a pool of would-be workers, sitting on the
sidelines of the labor market.

Corporate profits, on the other hand, have been rising rapidly and now make up a larger share of G.D.P.
than in previous decades. As a result, most companies can afford to respond to a growing economy by
raising wages and continuing to make profits, albeit perhaps not the unusually generous profits they
have been enjoying.

Sure enough, some companies have responded to the alleged labor shortage by doing exactly this. Bank
of America announced Tuesday that it would raise its minimum hourly wage to $25 and insist that
contractors pay at least $15 an hour. Other companies that have recently announced pay increases
include Amazon, Chipotle, Costco, McDonald’s, Walmart, J.P. Morgan Chase and Sheetz convenience
stores.

Low wages seem normal

Why the continuing complaints about a labor shortage, then?

They are not totally misguided. For one thing, some Americans appear to have temporarily dropped out
of the labor force because of Covid-19. Some high-skill industries may also be suffering from a true lack
of qualified workers, and some small businesses may not be able to absorb higher wages. Finally, there
is a rollicking partisan debate about whether expanded jobless benefits during the pandemic have
caused workers to opt out.

For now, some combination of these forces — together with a rebounding economy — has created the
impression of labor shortages. But companies have an easy way to solve the problem: Pay more.

That so many are complaining about the situation is not a sign that something is wrong with the
American economy. It is a sign that corporate executives have grown so accustomed to a low-wage
economy that many believe anything else is unnatura l.

It doesn’t spur higher prices- and only a risk overheating is good right now
White 21 (Martha, NBC News contributor who writes about business, finance and the economy. May
11. "Amid worker shortages, businesses face double whammy of rising costs and wage pressure"
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/amid-worker-shortages-businesses-face-double-
whammy-rising-costs-wage-n1267032)

Steering an economy as diverse as that of the United States back onto a path of sustainable growth was
bound to mean hitting a few potholes along the way. Analysts say the political blame game over
unemployment insurance and price pressures misidentifies the real culprits creating asymmetries in the
economic recovery.

In a labor market with a record-high number of job openings, businesses say they want to hire but can’t
find workers. Labor Department data released Tuesday found that the number of open jobs hit a record
8.1 million in March on an increase of nearly 600,000 from the previous month. Jobs website
Indeed.com found that listings for open positions as of May 7 were 23.4 percent higher than the
baseline metric in February 2020, before the pandemic’s effects hit the U.S. economy.

“Labor demand is clearly up. We’ve seen a big increase in job postings on our site,” said Jed Kolko, chief
economist at Indeed.com. “There's lots of demand for workers, and we see that both in the sectors that
did fairly well during the pandemic like construction, manufacturing and warehouse jobs — the sectors
that really helped support the stay-at-home economy — but we’re also seeing job postings rise in
sectors that slowed or shut down and are reopening,” he said.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses, a small-business trade group, reported that a
record 44 percent of small businesses — which contribute the majority of jobs in the U.S. labor market
— have openings they’re trying to fill. The group noted that April was the third consecutive record high.
“The small business labor market is still a huge challenge for many employers who are looking to fill
open positions,” said Holly Wade, executive director of the NFIB Research Center.

Numerous business groups and Republican lawmakers have blamed the worker shortage on expanded
unemployment benefits, an additional $300 a week that, for the lowest-wage workers in some states,
can equal or exceed the amount they could earn from a job. Governors in a growing number of GOP-led
states have said they will discontinue those increased benefits in order to combat labor shortages in
their states — but economists say that blame is largely misplaced.

“Right now, there are several other factors that are also holding back labor supply,” Kolko said. “Parents,
especially mothers, are still struggling with the added burden of child care, with schools and day cares
not being fully open in many places. People are still concerned about the risk of catching or spreading
the virus at work… Even with the rise in vaccinations, he said, “It’s not complete and it is many regions
still lower than it needs to be for people to feel fully comfortable.”

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said the big increase jobs at places like restaurants
and casinos last month undercuts the Republican argument against higher benefits for jobless workers.
“If unemployment insurance was that big a deal, we wouldn't have seen 331,000 jobs in leisure and
hospitality,” he said. Expanded hiring at places like hotels and restaurants was offset by losses in other
sectors, bringing the total number of new jobs to 266,000, about 25 percent of the 1 million experts had
predicted.

In remarks on Monday, President Joe Biden rejected the notion that the supplemental unemployment
payments were the primary hurdle to both job growth and employers’ hiring difficulties. He said his
administration will make sure that unemployment insurance rules prohibiting people from collecting
benefits if they reject a “suitable” job — although he added the Covid-19 related health and safety
concerns still must be accommodated. “No one should be allowed to game the system and we’ll insist
the law is followed, but let’s not take our eye off the ball,” Biden said.

Another sign of the recovery’s growing pains: Anecdotally, prices paid by consumers are ticking up.
Economists say the reasons behind this, too, are complicated: Business owners across a wide swath of
sectors face spiraling input costs, with supply chains pinched just as demand for raw materials is
booming, and fuel prices climbing on top of mounting wage pressure, especially for lower-wage and
lower-skill work.
The NFIB found that business owners are paying more to fill their open positions. “We also saw a bit of
inflation on Main Street,” Wade said. A net 31 percent of NFIB survey respondents said they raised
compensation, the highest reading in the past year, and another net 20 percent say they will raise
compensation in the next three months.

“We could see accelerating wage growth, and some firms have announced that they're raising their
starting or minimum wage, but it’s too soon to say how much of that might be temporary until supply
and demand are a bit more in sync, or whether that’s going to be a more enduring shift,” Kolko said.

The big question is if, when — and, crucially, why — companies raise prices. Economists say it is, at best,
tricky to tease out the respective roles of rising costs for labor, or for components such as raw materials
and fuel, are leading some companies to raise prices. “We do know that it is a mix. Many owners are
experiencing both of these challenges at the same time, which is creating a very stressful situation,”
Wade said. “The challenge that they face going forward is managing price increases due to these added
cost measures they’re having to absorb... It’s multi-faceted, it's a challenge and it’s likely to continue to
be a challenge in the near term,” she said.

Zandi said that singling out higher labor costs, though, is incorrect. “Wage growth is firm, but so is
productivity growth, so unit labor costs aren’t rising to a significant degree,” he said. “That suggested
there is no wage pressure on prices ."

"The price increases are coming from disruptions in the global supply chain, which is causing shortages
in various commodities,” Zandi said, adding that a slightly hotter economy might not be a bad thing.

“Inflation has been almost uncomfortably low. We want some acceleration.”

 1ar – no runaway inflation
No risk of runaway inflation
La Monica 21 (Paul, digital correspondent for CNN Business. He writes daily about the markets and
blue chip companies. May 20. "The Fed needs to get real about inflation"
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/20/investing/inflation-stocks-economy-federal-reserve/index.html)]

But does the Fed risk losing Wall Street credibility if Powell continues to put on blinders and stick his
fingers in his ears whenever someone mentions inflation? Not necessarily.

"How much inflation actually sticks?" Foster wondered. She noted that many companies are using more
automation and are spending to boost productivity. That could be an "antidote to runaway inflation."

Companies managing cost pressures for now

Even as top US companies like Walmart (WMT)boost their minimum wages, which should be
inflationary, there are other ways for businesses to keep a lid on prices.

"We'll navigate the supply chain challenges and inflationary pressures, whether that's in cost of goods or
wages," said Walmart CEO Doug McMillon on an earnings call with investors this week. "We'll monitor
our price gaps and adjust as appropriate."

Both McMillon and Walmart US president John Furner repeatedly referred to "levers" that Walmart
could pull to make sure the retailer won't have to dramatically raise prices.

In other words, major American companies are going to do what they can to eat some of the rising labor
and commodity costs instead of passing them on to consumers.

One market expert also pointed out that the hyper-focus on inflation could be a good thing. Investors
are often spooked by problems they don't anticipate, the proverbial black swans. Inflation fears are
hardly that. At this point, inflation fears are about as common as cats and dogs.

"It's great that everybody is talking about inflation. The market can't really be shocked by it anymore,"
said Linda Duessel, senior equity strategist at Federated Hermes.
 1ar – disruptions turn
Disruptions have cascading economic effects- investment now is key to keeping costs
low- hidden threshold means need to act now, breaks are increasing
EBP 20 ( EBP—formally Economic Development Research (EDR) Group—is a firm dedicated to advancing the state-ofthe-art in economic evaluation and analysis to support planning and policy in the areas of
transportation, energy resources, urban development, and economic growth strategy. Since its founding in 1996, EBP has helped state and local governments make infrastructure investment and economic development decisions
that support broad-based job creation, income generation, and overall prosperity. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign contracted with EBP to conduct this study. The American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than
150,000 members of the civil engineering profession in 177 countries. Founded in 1852, ASCE is the nation’s oldest engineering society. ASCE stands at the forefront of a profession that plans, designs, constructs, and operates
society’s economic and social engine—the built environment—while protecting and restoring the natural environment. The Value of Water Campaign educates and inspires the nation about how water is essential, invaluable, and
in need of investment. Spearheaded by top leaders in the water industry, and coordinated by the US Water Alliance, the Value of Water Campaign is building public and political will for investment in the United States‘ water and
wastewater infrastructure through best-in-class communication tools, high-impact events, media activities, and robust research and publications. ASCE and the Value of Water Campaign are grateful to an esteemed group of Value
of Water Campaign supporters and ASCE members for their expert review of the document, including: • Greg DiLoreto, P.E., retired, former CEO of Tualatin Valley Water District • Mami Hara, General Manager and CEO, Seattle
Public Utilities • John Kmiec, Deputy Water Director, Tucson Water • Kelley Neumann, P.E., Deputy Director, Planning and Engineering, Aurora Water • Darren Olson, P.E., Vice President, Assistant Department Head, Water
Resources, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. • Carolyn Peterson, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies • Larry Pierce, P.E., retired, San Diego region • Jim Schlaman, Director,
Planning and Water Resources, Black & Veatch • Amit Shah, Senior Manager, Evoqua • Joe Szafran, External Affairs Manager, American Water "The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure How a Failure to Act Would
Affect the US Economic Recovery" August 27. www.uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/The%20Economic%20Benefits%20of%20Investing%20in%20Water%20Infrastructure_final.pdf )

As water infrastructure deteriorates and ruptures, street flooding, shutdowns, and damage from storms
would increase. These interruptions would increase production costs for businesses, and prices for
consumers would climb. This would lead to a reduction in domestic and possibly foreign demand for
manufactured products, which would reduce global competitiveness and produce a domino effect
across almost every indicator of economic wellbeing in the United States . By 2039, the cumulative
impact on the gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to be a decline of 1.2 percent, translating to a
loss of $2.9 trillion. Moreover, more than $732 billion in business sales (output) would be lost over the
next 10 years. By 2039, that number will exceed $4.5 trillion.

As production volumes decline, workers would see reductions in wages and disposable income. By 2039,
636,000 jobs would be lost annually. It is important to note that the number of jobs is not always the
best indicator of industry health. In some sectors, employment levels do not directly correlate to
production volumes, and they may require just as many employees for lower production. Even so, they
will lose jobs, ultimately harming workers, industries, and the US economy.

Due to higher costs resulting from unreliable water services, US manufacturing is expected to lose about
89,000 jobs over the next 20 years, about half of them concentrated in fabricated metal industries,
machinery, computer and electronics, and motor vehicles. Health care, construction, accommodations,
and food services will lose jobs as disposable household income and disposable spending decline. These
impacts would radiate through the economy, affecting both low- and high-wage jobs.

As water systems continue to age, water loss will accelerate. Leaks and pipe breaks will be more
frequent, wasting more treated water. Leaking pipes lost the equivalent of $7.6 billion worth of treated
water in 2019, and this loss is projected to more than double over the next 20 years, reaching $16.7
billion in 2039.
 1ar – geographic inequality outweighs
Geographic inequality means there won’t be runaway inflation
Irwin 21 (Neil, senior economics correspondent for The New York Times, where he writes for The
Upshot, a Times site for analysis of politics, economics and more. May 5. "Can the Biden Agenda Fix
Middle America’s Deepest Problem?" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/upshot/biden-agenda-
middle-america.html)

Last week, the Census Bureau said the last decade’s population growth was the slowest in generations.
Also last week, President Biden addressed Congress and laid out a wide-ranging, multi-trillion dollar
economic agenda.

The two developments are tightly related.

For much of the United States, a demographic crisis and an economic crisis are two sides of the same
coin. In many cities and regions, a shrinking population reduces the tax base, leading to
underinvestment and deterioration of the physical environment and public services, causing even more
jobs and people to go elsewhere.

Part of the aspiration of Bidenism — a through-line in the pandemic rescue plan already enacted, and in
major proposals for spending on infrastructure and family support — is to break that cycle. Mayors and
others focused on the development of places that have experienced economic and demographic
languishing see a distinct opportunity to use federal money to fix problems long in the making.

There are inherent tensions. Spending money in places with a fast-growing population typically offers a
surer economic return than spending it in those that are contracting.

The economic case for investing in places that have lagged in the modern economy relies on the
possibility of reversing those negative trends and unlocking new growth. Many of those directly involved
in that effort are downright giddy with the possibility that they can seize this moment to prepare their
cities and towns for the future.

“If you spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years, it sounds like an awful lot of money,”
said Steve Williams, the mayor of Huntington, W.Va., a city of 45,000 people — down from 50,000 in
2010. But after what he views as decades of underinvestment, and considering the potential long-term
payoff, “it’s just a pittance,” he said.

“We’re talking about investments that will last for 50 years and prove to be transformative to our
communities,” Mayor Williams said. He is particularly enthusiastic about efforts to invest in highways,
clean water infrastructure, and broadband in Huntington and across Appalachia.

Even assuming the Biden proposals make it through a narrowly divided Congress, there is no assurance
of success. The long-declining communities face a complex web of problems, some of them a result of
powerful economic forces — like outsize rewards for technologically savvy workers who congregate in
large cities — that aren’t going away.

“I’m going to give the Biden administration high marks for a lot of the individual tactical things they’re
proposing,” said John Lettieri, president of the Economic Innovation Group, a Washington think tank
that aims to encourage more economic dynamism in lagging parts of the country. “I worry that
everything they’re doing will be helpful incidentally and on the margins, but that we need more
aggressive and robust strategy and not tactics.”

Moreover, there is a risk that even with trillions of dollars being spent, bureaucratic kludge makes the
dollars less effective than they might be. Dozens of agencies are involved, and there is no certainty that
the money will be spent efficiently and in ways that maximize the chances that struggling places stabilize
themselves.

“This administration may be more concerned about declining cities and places than any since the Great
Society, maybe the Great Depression,” said Mark Muro, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s
Metropolitan Policy Program. “At some point they will need to braid all of this together and manage
how these programs interact with each other.”

The administration’s emphasis partly reflects President Biden’s own longstanding instincts. He often
invokes growing up in Scranton, Pa.— where the population was in steep decline throughout the second
half of the 20th century — as formative in his economic thinking.

But it also reflects evolution among economists and development specialists. Once the predominant
thinking was that economically lagging regions and more successful ones would converge over time, and
that the government should focus on helping people navigate a changing economy rather than try to
save faltering communities.

It has become increasingly apparent that there are big problems when a handful of superstar cities
thrive and much of the country struggles. It means vast human potential goes untapped and lots of
capital — existing cities and towns — goes underutilized. And it can fuel political polarization and
damage democracy, as people in declining regions feel less connected to their more prosperous
countrymen.

The debate is often framed as between “people” (policies to help individuals affected by economic
change) and “places” (policies aimed at communities that are languishing).

“I don’t think we can ignore the role of place in public policy any longer and just allocate investments to
people,” said Ross DeVol, president of Heartland Forward, a think tank based in Bentonville, Ark.
“Because that creates a hollowing out in places that affects the entire country negatively.

“We can’t as a nation continue to advance our competitive position by concentrating more knowledge-
based industries and research just on the coasts.”

This results, Mr. DeVol said, in soaring real estate prices in those coastal markets, as well as underused
physical infrastructure and a lack of opportunity in the places left behind.

Federal policy in recent decades has arguably reinforced the disparity.

The federal government itself is based in one of the high-growth coastal metropolises. Nearly half of
federal research and development spending in 2018 went to five states — California, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York and Virginia — and Washington, D.C., according to analysis of federal data by
Brookings.

The Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan incorporates ideas from the bipartisan “Endless Frontier
Act,” which, among other things, seeks to spend billions to create regional innovation hubs. The idea is
to invest in cutting-edge research with potential for commercial spinoffs, worker training and other
steps to create the kinds of virtuous cycles of innovation and jobs that already occur in places like
Boston.

That could be a boon to places like Lincoln, Neb.

Its population has grown slowly but steadily in recent years; investments in things like high-speed
internet have helped it avoid the cycle of decline affecting many other smaller cities in the Midwest. It is
home to the University of Nebraska, which has strong programs in computer science and engineering,
and it has a vibrant agribusiness sector.

But Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird says the city still loses young talent to opportunities in bigger cities. She
says several elements of the Biden plan could improve things.

A proposed $12 billion in community college spending should help ensure the city has the work force
employers are looking for, she said. Plans to build broadband across rural communities could better
connect Lincoln and its job opportunities with the rest of Nebraska.

And the financial help for cities and states included in the American Rescue Plan, enacted in March,
should allow more basic investments to make the city appealing to young families.

The city has been slowly replacing lead water lines so residents can be confident of safe drinking water,
she said, and it now has the prospect of being able to complete that work faster.

“I think there was a sigh of collective relief among mayors of cities this size you could hear around the
country” when the American Rescue Plan passed with money for local governments, Mayor Gaylor Baird
said. “Everything about this moment feels like it has the potential to be transformational.”

Mr. Williams, the Huntington mayor, also cast this as a moment with long-lasting implications. His city, a
onetime industrial hub, features a low cost of living and lots of natural beauty, and is the home of
Marshall University. It could appeal to workers who see an opportunity to work remotely and are tired
of the stresses of bigger cities.

“The growth is going to occur where there is a community that is functional,” Mayor Williams said.
“Covid was a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, but it’s also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity as people realize
they can work remotely if they have access to broadband and clean water and a safe and solid
community.”

The infrastructure legislation, he said, could be the jolt that assures people that the city can offer both
jobs and amenities — and that it is reversing population loss and economic decline.

“Sadly, when you look at our population losses, individuals have left just because they haven’t felt like
they had a lot of choice,” he said. “My job is to give them a choice.”
**kritiks
**generic
 2ac – generic

1. Framework—evaluate the plan’s desirability—key to clash because it’s the locus of

aff offense and there are infinite arbitrary neg frameworks- ALTs must be textually
and functionally competitive – we should get to perm claims made in speeches –
vague alts are a voting issue, jacks ground and means they can’t solve

2. Perm do both
3. Perm vote for the plan as a consequence of the alt
4. Perm vote for the plan and any combination of neg args
5. Perm vote for the plan and the alt card

6. Perm solves- the aff is a heuristic necessary for effective social change
Rosati 18 (Clayton, Professor, School of Media and Communication, Bowling Green State University.
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 2018, VOL. 13, NO. 2. "Development as freedom after Flint:
a geographical approach to capabilities and antipoverty communication")

The force of this paradigmatic intervention has even reverberated through the traditional institutions of
development in new commitments to sustainability, poverty eradication, transparency, empowerment
and shared prosperity. Further still, the UN’s 2015 sustainable development goals (SDGs) signal the development project’s
increasingly holistic outlook against an older and myopic ‘economism’ (Melkote and Steeves 2015). Institutions,
activism and research in communication for development and social change have also taken this shift
seriously with participatory, culture-centered, dialogical approaches to replace the top-down projects of not so long ago. Yet, despite Sen’s positive influence,
the disasters of development recur, even in wealthy industrialized nations. One need not look further

than the USA’s healthcare crisis, its infrastructure crisis , its opiate addictions and deaths, its child poverty and – tying many of these together –
its water crises, which the humanitarian disaster in the City of Flint, USA particularly brought to wider
attention. After switching water sources for cost purposes, the new more corrosive and improperly treated water caused
mass lead poisoning, Legionnaire’s disease, and ongoing irregularities in maternity and child development. Access to clean water is one of
the 15 SDGs and a foundational capability in Sen’s terms, crucial for individual and social well-being. Flint’s ordeal, levels of government

incompetence, indifference, institutional cover-ups and subsequent prosecutions , reveals the

tremendous work ahead in pursuit of Sen’s vision, among countries wealthy and poor. So, what is this quagmire in which
development/economic social change is stuck, despite widespread internalization of Sen’s new paradigm?
Is it possible that Sen’s paradigm, itself, is stuck in a quagmire? Or, what makes Sen so easy to ignore? Martha Nussbaum suggests – referring to sex equality – the
capabilities approach will supply definite and useful guidance, and prove an ally … only if we formulate a definite list of the most central capabilities … using
capabilities so defined to elaborate a partial account of social justice, a set of basic entitlements without which no society can lay claim to justice. (2003, 36) On the
10th anniversary of DAF, Denis O’Hearn (2009) pushed further: ‘there are deeply troubling elements in Sen’s basic assumptions about the nature of people and his
lack of a feasible prescription for reaching his stated goals that make [DAF] not just misguided but even rather dangerous’ (9). This article argues, too, for specifics
and ‘feasible prescription’ in the reading of Sen’s work, but it pushes that Sen’s approach is not specific enough in its analytical frameworks for the causes of key
forms of poverty, or what he calls ‘capabilities deprivation’. As a remedy, I argue we look at this important text’s problems and opportunities, specifically from a
geographical perspective. Primarily, this paper engages a gap in development communication’s focus on the ‘developing’ countries while neglecting ‘developing
country-like problems’ in developed countries (see Melkote and Steeves 2015; Schindler 2014). The UN’s Human Rights office of the High Commissioner’s special
report on extreme poverty and human rights in the USA recently drew attention to this omission and apparent contradiction: The United States is one of the world’s
richest, most powerful and technologically innovative countries; but neither its wealth nor its power nor its technology is being harnessed to address the situation in
which 40 million people continue to live in poverty. (Alston 2017) This is not a call to switch emphases but to push the
analytical tools beyond a linear model of progress, and an exploration of the problems of poverty beyond a narrow national model, of which
Sen’s work is also guilty. I do this in the context of the City of Flint in Michigan State, USA’s politically made and ongoing
water disaster as a heuristic (and to keep us thinking about it) for imagining how parts of the
geographical tradition can push DAF into more rigorous territory . The work of geographers and spatial thinkers
like Henry Lefebvre, Erica Schoenberger, David Harvey, and others who theorize the interconnectedness of urban systems, as

well as activist organizations like We the People of Detroit who use maps and geographical analyses to communicate
development problems, will be building blocks for this geographical perspective on Flint, and answer
some key questions along the way. How does Flint reveal the geographical nature of capabilities deprivation ?
How can a geographical critique of poverty enhance the communicative aspects of Sen’s approach? And, what new

directives become necessary for an understanding of DAF when considering geography and communication together? This interrogation must be

part of the job of what has been called ‘Development Communication’ or ‘Communication for Development and Social
Change’, to push their theory and practice beyond a problematic national model. The dialogical project
demands digging deeper into the nature of a problem than how it appears on the surface. It is only by
deepening our analytics and communicating better about them that we can create popular
movements for holistic antipoverty . In particular, this paper encourages an engagement with the spaces,
places and geographies of development communication, focused on urban systems for a more liberated
discourse of social change . The article begins with Flint, a quintessential case of Sen’s capabilities
deprivation but located in the wealthy, global north.

7. Alt fails- the 1AC generates necessary contextual understandings of urban systems
that they can’t access- water management solutions are key to global liberatory
politics
Rosati 18 (Clayton, Professor, School of Media and Communication, Bowling Green State University.
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 2018, VOL. 13, NO. 2. "Development as freedom after Flint:
a geographical approach to capabilities and antipoverty communication")

One of the paradigm-shifting aspects of Sen’s approach is his dismissal of previously celebrated proxies
to freedom, predominantly GNP and income . Sen explains: The gap between … an exclusive concentration on
economic wealth and a broader focus on the lives we can lead … is a major issue in conceptualizing
development. … [I]ncome and wealth are desirable for their own sake, but because, typically, they are admirable generalpurpose means for having more
freedom to lead the kind of lives we have reason to value. […] An adequate conception of development must go much beyond the accumulation of wealth and the
growth of gross national product and other income-related variables. Without ignoring the importance of economic growth, we must look well beyond it. (2000, 14)
In the best case, Sen urges us to seek
choices that can be made in the present world, but to do so by looking past
‘means’ to freedom and focusing instead directly on ‘ends’, substantive freedoms themselves . But, the
logistics of this approach are contentious and require fleshing out in the context of the
democratization of capitalist poverty, so as to engage in a more rigorous theory and method of
antipoverty practices . Nussbaum, for instance, explains: The basic idea of my version of the capabilities approach, in Women and Human
Development, is that we begin with a conception of the dignity of the human being, and of a life that is worthy of that dignity – a life that has available in it ‘truly
human functioning,’ in the sense described by Marx in his 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. With this basic idea as a starting point, I then attempt to
justify a list of ten capabilities as central requirements of a life with dignity. (2003, 40) For Nussbaum, the specific freedoms must be clear and upheld universally:
But in some form all are part of a minimum account of social justice: a society that does not guarantee these to all its citizens, at some appropriate threshold level,
falls short of being a fully just society, whatever its level of opulence. Moreover, the capabilities are held to be important for each and every person: each person is
treated as an end, and none as a mere adjunct or means to the ends of others. David Harvey extends this discussion, explaining that the meaningful description of
such forms of freedom require an understanding of their geographical process and underpinnings: Clearly, the starting point of this is some sense of what
the individual must be liberated from (and Marx’s comment that human freedom begins when the realm of material necessity and physical dependency is left
behind is a suggestive beginning). But, this
liberated process can never take place outside of space and time, outside
of place-making, and without engagement with the dialectics of socio-natural relations. (Harvey 2009, 260) Sen’s
focus on states and localities in isolation presents poverty as a problem internal to an absolute geography of independent places and misses the deep relationality of
a globalized world system. Further, Sen’s analysis lacks an analysis of the instrumental, material, environmental conditions, which society builds to produce
capabilities and freedoms. The theoretical limits of this, however, create a lack of geographical dynamism and specificity that sets the capabilities approach up for
failure in many ways.

As Harvey’s urging above indicates, the

capabilities approach demands an understanding of urbanization and urban
systems, much like what Henri Lefebvre proposed 40 years ago, as an expanding system of social production through the
production of geographies of everyday life. In this sense, the urban fabric forms an evolving global network,
encompasses agricultural production and the countryside, and forms the conditions of self-production
in contemporary society (Harvey 2009; Smith 1992). In The Urban Revolution, Lefebvre suggests, ‘we must define the “urban” not
as an accomplished reality […] but […] as a horizon, an illuminating virtuality. It is the possible, defined
by a direction, that moves toward [complete urbanization] as the culmination of its journey’ (1970/2003, 16–7). The urbanization of social
life has, Lefebvre explains, ‘ceased to be a municipal problem and has become national and global’, which given
the proper political project can liberate society from ‘repressive and banal urbanism or […] the
limitations of national development programs’ (1970/2003, 148). The moment when ‘the search for solutions
and modalities unique to urban society are foremost’ , Lefebvre argues ‘[t ]he urban problematic becomes a
global phenomenon’ (1970/2003, 5, 15).
In this sense, any reading of DAF and its use in communication for development requires ‘a proper social theory of space, which can apprehend social space as built,
fought for, seized, invested in, maintained, lost, mourned, renovated or altered irrevocably’ (Chari and Gidwani 2005, 268). Linking us back to Marx’s myth of
primitive accumulation and blaming the behavior of the poor for their poverty as ‘lazy rascals’, the traditional longterm programs for ‘behavioral and social change’
advocated by mainstream agencies (e.g. UNICEF) present a problem for antipoverty work if left unqualified. They must instead seek to understand that project

within a theorization of social life built on and through the production of spaces and places, an urban fabric.5 To think of behavior alone is to
treat space and geography in a problematically fixed and static way . And, further, to think of capabilities in
this abstract and isolated way precludes an engagement with what Lefebvre (and many after him) called the ‘right to the
city’, and how to make concrete ‘the right not to be excluded from centrality and its movement’ (1970/2003,
150). ‘Freedom’ in this context demands a geographical understanding not just of isolated capacities but of

the larger urban system of capacities and a principled commitment to a right of all to (or at least a public and
rigorous debate about who should) be included in that global urban process. In other words, an understanding of the

urban nature of capabilities is crucial to the denaturalization of capabilities.

3.1. Capabilities and ‘the Urban’ Lefebvre’s (1970) argument, which is similar to the capabilities approach in many ways, is this: We
depend on the
urban system, it makes us, and therefore we should have a right to be central to its movement, its
products, and its transformation, which is our own transformation (Attoh 2011, Harvey 2013; Mitchell 2003).
Understanding the urban process allows us to consider capabilities in terms of how ‘resources are
managed across space and time … [which are] transfers of economic wealth (surplus) from one place to
another’ (Schoenberger and Walker 2017, 936). Further, it helps us understand the concrete existing urban forms as
active agents in our social self-production . Cities are more than passive spatial containers for people
and firms undertaking market transactions and realizing economies of agglomeration. Cities are
physical objects (‘built environments’) and living systems (‘urban ecologies’) that have causal powers in their own
right . Urban environments/ecologies can pose challenges to city dwellers that demand solutions in
order that the usability and viability of urban systems be maintained. (Schoenberger and Walker 2017, 936) In this sense,
any discussion of a politics of capabilities must also be a politics of the production of urban forms.
That is to say, capabilities are composed of spatial interdependencies .

Flint’s drinking water, as a poignant if obvious example, depends on Detroit’s infrastructure and
flows of resources between places . In this sense, access to capabilities is geographically distributed,
shared, and the lifeline of multiple populations . Depicted in Figure 1, a map reflecting research by the activist organization, We the
People of Detroit, the extensive development of water infrastructure in Detroit serves capabilities in Flint , shown
in the most northwestern connection. In this map, a viewer can visualize part of the larger urban process in an accessible way. It brings into view the large area
dependent upon this infrastructure, though it misses the different intensities based on population size and needs that vary by location. But, this
urban
process works in an opposing way as well, vis-à-vis the interdependencies implicit in uneven
development, in exploitation, and the unequal flows of resources. These aspects of city environments
and urban growth require an understanding beyond simple exchange and the agglomeration of
markets and market practices (Schoenberger and Walker 2017). Flint, as part of the urban process demands an
adaptation of Sen’s approach to ‘means’ and ‘ends’, as the urban is always both, means and ends. Flint’s
water infrastructure is a ‘socio-nature’ that reveals a politics of productive capacity and forces
consideration of what capabilities are available to the people who depend on that capacity . But, it also demands
that we consider what is externalized (as costs or burdens), wasted, undeveloped and developed in debilitating directions.

8. Links to the neg---they used the same reps, voting issue---if they sever, so can we
or it disproves subject-formation

9. No impact- it’s empirically denied, long time-frame, and perm solves

10. Only the aff can solve weaponized austerity- it combines social death with physical
death and is a distinct order of terrorism that requires collective resistance to
sufficiently overcome- we aren’t ignoring other forms of state violence, the aff
serves to contextualize failure to invest in water infrastructure within the broader
narrative of domestic terror- we aren’t affirming the state “as is”, the 1AC is an
imagination of a democracy worth struggling for, which is the only way to
successfully counteract austerity politics within the context of rising
authoritarianism
Giroux 16 (Henry, McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and
Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy.
"Poisoned City: Flint and the Specter of Domestic Terrorism" March 3.
https://truthout.org/articles/poisoned-city-flint-and-the-specter-of-domestic-terrorism/)
Flint, Michigan, also represents this different order of terrorism and tragedy. Whereas Katrina unleashed images of dead bodies uncollected on porches, in
hospitals, in nursing homes and in collapsed houses in New Orleans, Flint unleashed inconceivable reports that thousands of children had

been subjected to lead poisoning because of austerity measures sanctioned by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and imposed by Ed Kurtz, the then-
unelected emergency manager of Flint. The poor Black populations of both New Orleans and Flint share the experience of

disenfranchisement, and of potential exclusion from the institutional decisions that drastically affect
peoples’ lives . They live the consequences of neoliberal policies that relegate them to zones of
abandonment elevated beyond the sphere of democratic governance and accountability. Both populations suffer from a
machinery of domestic terrorism in which state violence was waged upon precarious populations considered unknowable, ungovernable, unworthy and devoid of human rights. Such populations have

become all too frequent in the United States and suffer from what Richard Sennett has called a “specter of uselessness,” one
that renders disposable those individuals and groups who are most vulnerable to exploitation, expulsion
and state violence.

In New Orleans, state violence took the form of a refusal by the Bush administration to invest
financially in infrastructure designed to protect against floods, a decision that was as much about saving money as it was about allegiance to a violent, racist logic,
cloaked in the discourse of austerity and willfully indifferent to the needs of the powerless and underserved in Black communities. In Flint, austerity as a weapon of race and
class warfare played out in a similar way. With the imposition of unelected emergency managers in 2011, democratically elected officials were displaced in predominantly Black
cities such as Detroit and Flint and rendered powerless to influence important policy decisions and their implementation. The recent deployment of emergency managers reflects the frontline shock troops of casino capitalism who
represent a new mode of authoritarian rule wrapped in the discourse of financial exigency. As the editors of Third Coast Conspiracy observe:

For more than [a] decade now, Michigan governors have been appointing so-called “emergency managers” (EMs) to run school districts and cities for which a “state of financial emergency” has been declared. These unelected
administrators rule by fiat – they can override local elected officials, break union contracts, and sell off public assets and privatize public functions at will. It’s not incidental that the vast majority of the people who have lived under
emergency management are black. Flint, whose population was 55.6% black as of the2010 census(in a state whosepopulationis 14.2% black overall), was under emergency management from December 2011 to April 2015.
[Moreover] it was during that period that the decision was made to stop purchasing water from Detroit and start drawing water directly from the Flint River.

Rather than invest in cities such as Flint and Detroit, Governor Snyder decided to downsize the budgets of these
predominantly Black cities. For instance, according to a Socialist Worker article by Dorian Bon, in Detroit, “Snyder’s appointed manager decided to push Detroit into bankruptcy … and gain the
necessary legal footing to obliterate pensions, social assistance, public schools and other bottom-line city structures.” In Flint, emergency manager Kurtz followed the

austerity playbook to downsize Flint’s budget and put into play a water crisis of devastating proportions .
Under the claim of fiscal responsibility, a succession of emergency managers succeeded in privatizing parks and garbage collection, and in conjunction with the Snyder administration aggressively pushed to privatize the water
supply. Claire McClinton, a Flint resident, summed up the larger political issue well. She told Democracy Now!: “And that’s the untold story about the problem we have here. We don’t have just a water problem. We’ve got a
democracy problem. We’ve got a dictatorship problem. We’ve got a problem of being stripped of our democracy as we’ve known it over the years.”

The backdrop to the Flint water crisis is the restructuring of the global economy, the deindustrialization
of manufacturing cities like Flint and the departure of the auto industry, all of which greatly reduced the
city’s revenues. Yet, these oft-repeated events only constitute part of the story. As Jacob Lederman points out, Flint’s ongoing economic and environmental
crisis is the consequence of years of destructive free-market reforms .
According to the Michigan Municipal League, between 2003-2013, Flint lost close to $60 million in revenue sharing from the state, tied to the sales tax, which increased over the same decade. During this period, the city cut its
police force in half while violent crime doubled, from 12.2 per 1000 people in 2003, to 23.4 in 2011. Such a loss of revenue is larger than the entire 2015 Flint general fund budget. In fact, cuts to Michigan cities like Flint and Detroit
have occurred as state authorities raided so-called statutory revenue sharing funds to balance their own budgets and pay for cuts in business taxes. Unlike “constitutional” revenue sharing in Michigan, state authorities could divert
these resources at their discretion. It is estimated that between 2003-2013 the state withheld over $6 billion from Michigan cities. And cuts to revenue sharing increased in line with the state’s political turn.

These policy changes and reforms provided a rationale for the apostles of neoliberalism to use
calamitous budget deficits of their own design to impose severe austerity policies, gut public funding and cut benefits for
autoworkers. As General Motors relocated jobs to the South in order to increase its profits, its workforce in Flint went from 80,000 in the 1970s to its current number of 8,000. These festering economic conditions were worsened

Under
under the Snyder administration, which was hell-bent on imposing its neoliberal game plan on Michigan, with the worse effects being visited on cities inhabited largely by poor Black people and immigrants.

strict austerity measures imposed by the Snyder administration, public services were reduced and poverty ballooned to over 40 percent
of the population. Meanwhile, schools deteriorated (with many closing), grocery stores vanished and entire neighborhoods fell into disrepair.

Through the rubric of a financial crisis, intensified by neoliberal policies aimed at destroying any vestige
of the social contract and a civic culture, the Snyder administration appointed a series of emergency
managers to undermine and sidestep democratic governance in a number of cities , including Flint. In this instance, a criminal
economy produced in Flint an egregious form of environmental racism that was part of a broader neoliberal rationality designed to punish poor and underserved Black communities while diverting resources to the financial coffers

neoliberal slash-and-burn policies was a politics that transformed cities such as Flint into
of the rich and corporations. What emerged from such

zones of social and economic abandonment. Michael Moore sums up the practice at work in Flint succinctly:
When Governor Snyder took office in 2011, one of the first things he did was to get a multi-billion-dollar tax break passed by the Republican legislature for the wealthy and for corporations. But with less tax revenues, that meant
he had to start cutting costs. So, many things – schools, pensions, welfare, safe drinking water – were slashed. Then he invoked an executive privilege to take over cities (all of them majority black) by firing the mayors and city
councils whom the local people had elected, and installing his cronies to act as “dictators” over these cities. Their mission? Cut services to save money so he could give the rich even more breaks. That’s where the idea of switching
Flint to river water came from. To save $15 million! It was easy. Suspend democracy. Cut taxes for the rich. Make the poor drink toxic river water. And everybody’s happy. Except those who were poisoned in the process. All
102,000 of them. In the richest country in the world.

appointed officials proceeded to promote neoliberal economic policies that

In spite of the dire consequences of such practices, Snyder’s

exacerbated Flint’s crumbling infrastructure, its high levels of violence, and its corroding and underfunded public school system. Similar policies followed in Detroit, where the schools
were so bad that teachers and students reported conditions frankly impossible to imagine. For instance, Wisdom Morales, a student at one of Detroit’s public schools, told journalist Amy Goodman, “I’ve gotten used to seeing rats
everywhere. I’ve gotten used to seeing the dead bugs…. I want to be able to go to school and not have to worry about being bitten by mice, being knocked out by the gases, being cold in the rooms.” In a New York Times article,
titled “Crumbling, Destitute Schools Threaten Detroit’s Recovery,” Julie Bosman further highlights the rancid conditions of Detroit’s destitute schools:

In Kathy Aaron’s decrepit public school, the heat fills the air with a moldy, rancid odor. Cockroaches, some three inches long, scuttle about until they are squashed by a student who volunteers for the task. Water drips from a leaky
roof onto the gymnasium floor. ‘We have rodents out in the middle of the day,’ said Ms. Aaron, a teacher of 18 years. ‘Like they’re coming to class.’ Detroit’s public schools are a daily shock to the senses, run down after years of
neglect and mismanagement, while failing academically and teetering on the edge of financial collapse.

Under Snyder, “emergency management” laws gave authoritarian powers to unelected officials in cities that have Black majorities who were also made objects of devastating forms of environmental racism and economic terrorism.

the Black and immigrant population not only became more

As Flint’s economy was hollowed out and held ransom by the financial elite,

vulnerable to a host of deprivations but also more disposable. They lost control not only of their
material possessions but also the sanctity of their bodies and their health to the necessities of surviving
on a daily basis. In this instance, exchange value became the only value that counted and one outcome
was that institutions and policies meant to eliminate human suffering, protect the environment and
provide social provisions were transformed into mechanisms of state terror . In both cities, poor Black populations experienced a threshold
of disappearance as a consequence of a systematic dismantling of the state’s political machinery, regulatory agencies and political institutions whose first priority had been to serve residents rather than corporations and the
financial elite.

Both Katrina and Flint laid bare a new kind of politics in which entire populations, even children, are considered disposable.

This particular confluence of market forces and right-wing politics that privileges private financial gain over human needs and public values took a drastic and dangerous turn in Flint. As a cost-saving measure, Darnell Earley, the
emergency manager appointed by Snyder, and in charge of Flint in April 2014, went ahead and allowed the switch of Flint’s water supply from Lake Huron, which was treated at the Detroit water plant and had supplied Flint’s water
for 50 years. The switch was done in spite of the fact that the Flint River had long been contaminated, having served as an industrial waste dumping ground, particularly for the auto industry. Via this switch, the state expected to
save about $19 million over eight years. In short, peanuts for city budgets.

As part of the cost-saving efforts, the Snyder administration refused to add an anti-corrosive additive used to seal the lead in the pipes and prevent the toxin from entering the water supply. The cost of such a measure was only “a
$100 a day for three months.” Yet the refusal to do so had catastrophic consequences as the Flint water supply was soon poisoned with lead and other contaminants leaching from corroded pipes.

As soon as the switch began in 2014, Flint residents noticed that the water was discolored, tasted bad and had a horrible smell. Many residents who bathed in the water developed severe rashes, some lost their hair and others
experienced a range of other health symptoms. The water was so corrosive and toxic that it leached lead from the city’s aging pipe infrastructure. Soon afterwards a host of problems emerged. As Amy Goodman points out,

First, the water was infested with bacteria. Then it had cancerous chemicals called trihalomethanes, or TTHMs. A deadly outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, which is caused by a water-borne bacteria, spread throughout the city,
killing 10 people. And quietly, underground, the Flint River water was corroding the city’s aging pipes, poisoning the drinking water with lead, which can cause permanent developmental delays and neurological impairment,
especially in children.

It gets worse. The genesis of the Flint water crisis reveals the disturbing degree to which the political economy of neoliberalism is deeply wedded to deceit and radiates violence. In the early stages of the crisis, according to Daniel
Dale of the Toronto Star, people showed up at meetings “with brown gunk from their taps … LeeAnne Walter’s 4-year old son, Gavin was diagnosed with lead poisoning” and yet the Snyder administration stated repeatedly that the
water was safe. Dale argues that the Snyder administration poisoned the people of Flint and that “they were deceived for a year and a half,” not only exposed to disposable waste, but also being made into an extension of
disposable waste.

For more than a year, the Snyder administration dismissed the complaints of parents, residents and health officials who insisted that the water was unsafe to drink and constituted a major health hazard. The crisis grew dire
especially for children. The horror of this act of purposive poisoning and its effects on the Flint population, both children and adults, is echoed in the words of Melissa Mays who was asked by Amy Goodman if she had been affected
by the toxic water. She responded with a sense of utter despair and urgency:

Well, all three of my sons are anemic now. They have bone pain every single day. They miss a lot of school because they’re constantly sick. Their immune systems are compromised. Myself, I have seizures. I have diverticulosis now.
I have to go in February 25th for a consultation on a liver biopsy. Almost every system of our bodies have been damaged. And I know that we’re not the only one. I’m getting calls from people that are so sick, and they don’t know
what to do.

The health effects of lead poisoning can affect children for their entire lives and the financial cost can be incalculable – to say nothing of the emotional cost to families. According to David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz, “As little as a
few specks of lead [when] ingested can change the course of a life. The amount of lead dust that covers a thumbnail is enough to send a child into a coma or into convulsions leading to death … cause IQ loss, hearing loss, or
behavioral problems like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “No safe blood lead level in children has been identified.”

Unmournable Bodies

In spite of a number of dire warnings from a range of experts about the risks that lead poisoning posed for young children, the Snyder administration refused to act even when repeated concerns were aired about the poisoned
water. But there is more at work here on the part of Michigan officials than an obstinate refusal to acknowledge scientific facts or an unwillingness to suspend their cruel indifference to a major crisis and the appropriate
governmental action. Those who complained about the water crisis and the effects it was having on the city’s children and adults were met initially with a “persistent tone of scorn and derision.” When a local physician, Dr. Mona
Hanna-Attisha, reported elevated levels of lead in the blood of Flint’s children, she was dismissed as a quack and “attacked for sowing hysteria.” When the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warned that the state was
“testing the water in a way that could profoundly understate the lead levels,” they were met with silence.

War and terror as a form of state violence are part of the regime of cruelty let loose upon the children and adults of Flint.

The New York Times added fuel to the fire engulfing key government officials by noting that “a top aide to Michigan’s governor referred to people raising questions about the quality of Flint’s water as an ‘anti-everything group.’
Other critics were accused of turning complaints about water into a ‘political football.’ And worrisome findings about lead by a concerned pediatrician were dismissed as ‘data,’ in quotes.” As a last straw, government officials
blamed both landlords and tenants for neglecting to service lead-laden pipes that ran through most of the city. What they failed to mention was that the state’s attempt to save money by refusing to add an anti-corrosive chemical
to the water is what caused the pipes to leach lead. Many states have lead-laden pipes but the water supplies are treated in order to prevent corrosion and toxic contamination.

Comparably, Hurricane Katrina revealed what right-wing Republicans and Democrats never wanted the public to see: the needless suffering and deaths of poor residents, the elderly, the homeless and others who were the most
vulnerable and powerless to fight against the ravages of a political and economic system that considered them redundant, a drain on the economic system and ultimately disposable. Flint imposed a different order of misery – and
one more consciously malevolent – creating a generation of children with developmental disabilities for whom there will more than likely be no adequate services, either at present or when they become adults. These are the
populations the Republicans and some right-wing Democrats since the 1980s have been teaching us to disdain and view as undeserving of the social, political and personal rights accorded to middle-class and ruling elites.

Both Katrina and Flint laid bare a new kind of politics in which entire populations, even children, are
considered disposable, an unnecessary burden on state coffers, and consigned to fend for themselves .
In the case of Flint, children were knowingly poisoned while people who were warning the Snyder administration and Flint residents about the dangerous levels of lead in the water were derided and shamed. Also laid
bare was the neoliberal mantra that government services are wasteful and that market forces can
take care of everything. This is a profit-driven politics that strips government of its civic functions,
gives rise to massive inequality and makes clear a three-decades-long official policy of benign neglect
being systemically transformed into a deadly form of criminal malfeasance .

while Snyder eventually admitted to the crisis in Flint, he not only tried to blame the usual
How else to explain that

suspect, inefficient government, but also once again made clear that the culture of cruelty underlying his
neoliberal policies is alive and well? This was evident in his decision to charge residents extremely high
bills for poisoned water and his decision to continue sending shutoff notices to past-due accounts
despite widespread popular condemnation. At stake here is a politics of disposability, one that views
an expanding number of individuals and groups as redundant, superfluous and unworthy of care,
help and social provisions . The poor Black residents of Flint and countless other cities in the United States
now represent disposable populations that do not present an ethical dilemma for the financial elite and
the politically corrupt. Social death now works in tandem with physical death as social provisions
necessary to enable people to live with dignity, decency and good health are taken away, regardless
of the misery and suffering that results .

As democracy enters a twilight existence, organized and collective resistance is a necessity.

The confluence of finance, militarization and corporate power has not only destroyed essential collective
structures in support of the public good, but such forces have destroyed democracy itself in the United
States. In a society in which it is more profitable to poison children rather than give them a decent life ,
incarcerate people rather than educate them and replace a pernicious species of self-interest for any vestige of morality and social responsibility, politics is emptied out ,

thoughtlessness prevails and the commanding institutions of society become saturated with violence.
Americans are now living in an age of forgetting, an age in which a flight from responsibility is measured in increasing acts of corruption, violence, trauma and the struggle to survive.

poisoned water and the imposition of emergency managers on cities largely populated by poor Black people represent more than “the
Decaying schools,

catastrophe of indifference” described by psychoanalyst Stephen Grosz: There is also a systemic, conscious act of criminality and
lawlessness in which people of color and poor people no longer count and are rendered expendable . The
Flint water crisis is not an isolated incident. Nor is it a function of an anarchic lawlessness administered by
blundering politicians and administrators. Rather, it is a corporate lawlessness that thrives on and underwrites the power and corruption of the financial elite. Such lawlessness owes
its dismal life to a failure of conscience and a politics of disposability in the service of a “political economy which has become a criminal economy.”

Flint is symptomatic of a mode of politics and governance in which the categories of citizens and
democratic representation, once integral to a functioning polity, are no longer recognized, and vast
populations are subject to conditions that confer upon them the status of the living dead. Under the
auspices of life-threatening austerity policies, not only are public goods defunded and the commons
devalued , but the very notion of what it means to be a citizen is reduced to narrow forms of
consumerism. At the same time, politics is hijacked by corporate power and the ultra-rich. As Wendy Brown writes in Undoing the Demos, this makes politics “unappealing and toxic – full of ranting and posturing,
emptied of intellectual seriousness, and pandering to an uneducated and manipulable electorate and a celebrity-and-scandal-hungry corporate media.” Nowhere is this better exemplified than in Donald Trump’s rise to political
power in the United States.

the Flint
What happened in Flint is not about the failure of electoral politics, nor can it be attributed to bureaucratic mishaps or the bungling of an incompetent administration. As Third Coast Conspiracy points out,

crisis is necessarily understood through the lens of disposability, one that makes visible new modes of
governance for those populations, particularly low-income groups, that are “rendered permanently
superfluous to the needs of capital, and are expelled from the labor process, waged employment, and,
increasingly, from what remains of the welfare state .” These are raced populations – poor Black and Brown people who are not simply the victims of prejudice, but
subject to “systems that orchestrate the siphoning of resources away from some populations and
redirect them toward others. These systems do more than just define which lives matter and which lives
don’t – they materially make some lives matter by killing others more ,” according to Third Coast Conspiracy.

powerful forms of social exclusion and social homelessness organized at the

As democratic institutions are hollowed out,

intersection of race and poverty come into play . In Identity: Conversations With Benedetto Vecchi, Zygmunt Bauman discusses how these forms of
social exclusion produce without apology “the most conspicuous cases of social polarization, of
deepening inequality, and of rising volumes of human poverty, misery and humiliation.” How else to
explain the criminal inaction on the part of the Snyder administration once they learned that Flint’s residential drinking water was contaminated
by lead and other toxic chemicals?
Cruel Hypocrisy

A number of emails from various administration officials later revealed that Snyder had received quite a few signs that the city’s water was contaminated and unsafe to drink long before he made a decision to switch back to the
Detroit water system. Unfortunately, he acted in bad faith by not taking any action. A few months after the initial water switch, General Motors discovered that the water from the Flint River was causing their car parts to erode and
negotiated with the state to have the water supply at their corporate offices switched back to the Detroit water system. Similarly, a Flint hospital noticed that the water was damaging its instruments and decided to set up its own
private filtering system. A local university did the same thing.

Flint is a wake-up call to make the power of the financial elite and their political lackeys both visible and accountable.

David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz observed that “10 months before the administration of Governor Snyder admitted that Flint’s water was unsafe to drink, the state had already begun trucking water into that city and setting up
water coolers next to drinking fountains in state buildings” in order for state workers to be able to drink a safe alternative to the Flint water. And Dorian Bon notes that at the beginning of 2015, “an Environmental Protection
Agency official had notified the state about lead contamination, only to be ignored by the Snyder administration and taken off the investigation by his EPA superiors.”

It was only after a lead scientist from the EPA and a volunteer team of researchers from Virginia Tech University conducted a study of Flint’s water supply and concluded that it was unsafe that the Snyder administration came clean
about the poisoned water supply – but not before the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality had tried to discredit the research findings of the group. As one of the volunteers, Siddhartha Roy, pointed out in an interview
with Sonali Kolhatkar, “we were surprised and shocked to see [the government] downplaying the effects of lead in water, ridiculing the results that all of us had released, and even questioning the results of a local Flint pediatrician.
They tried to discredit us researchers.” But it was too late. The scientists may have been vindicated, but not before close to 9,000 children under the age of 6 had been poisoned.

Historical Memory and the Politics of Disappearance

These acts of state-sponsored violence have reinforced the claim by the Black Lives Matter movement that Snyder’s actions represent a racist act and that it is part of “systemic, structurally based brutality” and that “the water
crisis would never have happened in more affluent, white communities like Grand Rapids or Grosse Pointe,” as Susan J. Douglas has pointed out. Poor people of color suffer the most from such practices of environmental racism,
and poor Black and Brown children in particular suffer needlessly, not just in Flint, but also in cities all over the United States. This is a crisis that rarely receives national attention because most of the children it affects are Black,
Brown, poor and powerless. Some health experts have called lead poisoning a form of “state-sponsored child abuse” and a “silent epidemic in America.” As Nicholas Kristof makes clear:

In Flint, 4.9 percent of children tested for lead turned out to have elevated levels. That’s inexcusable. But in 2014 in New York State outside of New York City, the figure was 6.7 percent. In Pennsylvania, 8.5 percent. On the west
side of Detroit, one-fifth of the children tested in 2014 had lead poisoning. In Iowa for 2012, the most recent year available, an astonishing 32 percent of children tested had elevated lead levels. (I calculated most of these numbers

We are indeed all Flint,” says Dr. Philip Landrigan, a professor of preventive medicine at
from C.D.C. data.). Across America, 535,000 children ages 1 through 5 suffer lead poisoning, by C.D.C. estimates. “

the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “ Lead poisoning continues to be a silent epidemic in the United States.”

This is a manufactured crisis parading as a cost-cutting measure under Republican and Democratic
parties that supported neoliberal-inspired austerity measures and aggressive deregulation . For instance,
Congress in 2012 slashed funding for lead programs at the CDC by 93 percent; in addition, lobbyists for the chemical industry have worked assiduously to prevent their
corporate polluters from being regulated.

The United States has a long history of reckless endangerment of the environment, producing toxic consumer goods such as lead paint, lead gasoline and cigarettes, and other pollutants produced and sold for profit. Moreover, it
has an equally long history of scientists both studying and calling for prevention, but who have been too often unsuccessful in their efforts to fight the corporate machineries of death with their armies of lobbyists defending the
industry polluters. Contemporary lead poisoning is not simply about a failure of governance, deregulation and corporate malfeasance; it is also the toxic byproduct of a form of predatory neoliberal capitalism that places profits
above all human needs and social costs.

As Rosner and Markowitz argue, the poisoning of Black and Latino children represents a broader political and economic crisis fed by a “mix of racism and corporate greed that have put lead and other pollutants into millions of
homes in the United States.” But pointing to a mix of racism and corporate greed does not tell the entire story either about the crisis in Flint or the broader crisis of environmental racism. And solutions demand more than fixing the
nation’s infrastructure, replacing the country’s lead pipes, curbing the power of polluting corporations or making visible what amounts nationally to a public health crisis. Flint suffers from a much broader crisis of politics, agency,
memory and democracy that now haunts the future of the United States with the threat of an impending authoritarianism.

The Politics of Domestic Terrorism

Snyder’s decision to keep quiet for over a year about the contaminated water was comparable in my view to an act of domestic terrorism – a form of systemic intimidation and violence done by the state against powerless people.
Historical memory might serve us well here. After the 9/11 attacks, various environmental protection and intelligence agencies warned that “water supplied to U.S. communities is potentially vulnerable to terrorist attacks,”
according to an essay in Threats to Global Water Security by J. Anthony A. Jones titled “Population Growth, Terrorism, Climate Change, or Commercialization?” Jones writes, “The possibility of attack is of considerable concern [and]
these agents … inserted at a critical point in the system … could cause a larger number of casualties.”

the poisoning of Flint’s water supply represents a

If we expand the definition of terrorism to include instances in which the state inflicts suffering on its own populations,

form of domestic terrorism. Rev. William J. Barber is right in arguing that we need a new language for understanding terrorism . Not
only is terror one of the United States’ chief exports, but it is also a part of a long legacy that extends from the genocide of indigenous

peoples and the violence of slavery to “racist police shootings of unarmed black adults and youth and
males and females in Chicago … Charlotte, and New York .”
Economics cannot drive politics, violence cannot be the organizing principle of the state and markets
cannot define the present and future .

What is happening in Flint is an expression of a broader narrative , ideology, set of policies and values
bound up with a politics of disposability that has become one of the distinctive features of neoliberal
capitalism. Disposability has a long history in the United States but it has taken on a greater significance
under neoliberalism and has become an organizing principle of the authoritarian state, one that has
intensified and expanded the dynamics of class and racial warfare. Privatization, commodification and
deregulation are now merged with what historian David Harvey has called the process of “accumulation by dispossession. '”
Extracting capital, labor, time, land and profits from the poor and powerless is now a central feature of austerity in the age of precarity, and has become a first principle of casino capitalism. How else to interpret the right-wing call
to impose higher tax rates on the poor while subsidizing tax breaks for megacorporations, force poor people to pay for poisoned water, refuse to invest in repairing crumbling schools in poor Black neighborhoods, allow CEOs to
make 350 times as much as their workers, bail out corrupt banks but impose huge debts through student loans on young people or allow 250,000 people to die each year from poverty – more than from heart attacks, strokes and
lung cancer combined?

Disposability and unnecessary human suffering now engulf large swaths of the American people, often pushing them into situations that are not merely tragic but also life threatening. According to Paul Buchheit, the top .01
percent of Americans, approximately 16,000 of the richest families, “now own the same as the total wealth of 256,000,000 people.” Buchheit rightly labels the ultra-rich in the United States as “the real terrorists” who buy off
politicians and lobbyists responsible for making poor children disposable, gutting the welfare state, enabling billionaires to hide their wealth in offshore accounts, corrupting politics, militarizing the police and producing a war
culture. In addition, they fund populist movements that embrace hate, racism, militarism, Islamophobia, ignorance, xenophobia and a close affinity to the racial politics of fascism. War and terror as a form of state violence are part
of the regime of cruelty let loose upon the children and adults of Flint, revealing all too clearly how in an authoritarian state the move from justice to violence becomes normalized, without apology.

What the Flint catastrophe reveals is a survival-of-the-fittest ethic that replaces any reasonable notion of solidarity, social responsibility and compassion for the other. Flint makes clear that rather than considering children its most
valuable resource, contemporary neoliberal society considers them surplus and disposable in the unflagging pursuit of profits, power and the accumulation of capital. Chris Hedges is right in stating, “The crisis in Flint is far more
ominous than lead-contaminated water. It is symptomatic of the collapse of our democracy. Corporate power is not held accountable for its crimes. Everything is up for sale, including children.” Flint points to a dangerous threat to
US democracy in which a neoliberal capitalism no longer simply throws away goods, but also human beings who do not fit into the script of a militarized, market-driven social order.

As we have learned from the scandalous condition of the public schools in Detroit and in many other collapsing public institutions in the United States, the victims are mostly children who inhabit immense pockets of poverty,

The characteristics of this new regime of disposability

attend broken-down schools with rats and other infestations, and live in environments filled with toxins.

are all around us: the rise of finance capital, the elimination of the welfare state, the emergence of the punishing state, escalating police brutality against Black people, the
expansion of the war machine, the selling off of public goods to private and corporate interests, the refusal to address

the nation’s crumbling infrastructure , the increasing impoverishment of larger segments of the
population, environmental racism, unemployment for large numbers of young people as well as low-skill
jobs, and skyrocketing debt.

At work here is a systemic attempt to eliminate public spheres and the common good whose first
allegiance is to democratic values rather than the conversion of every human need, aspiration and
social relationship into a profitable investment and entrepreneurial enterprise . But there is more. Neoliberal capitalism thrives on
producing subjects, identities, values and social relations that mimic the logic of the market and in doing so it undermines the public’s desire for democracy. It works through a notion of common sense and a language that views
people primarily as consumers, atomized and depoliticized individuals who are led to believe that they have to face the world alone and that all relationships are subordinated to self-promotion, self-interest and self-
aggrandizement.

The ultra-rich and financial elite now dominate all aspects of American life, and their ideological toxicity finds expression in the language of hate, policies of disenfranchisement, assault on the planet and the elevation of greed,
possessive individualism and flight from reason to heights we have never seen before or could have imagined. Flint is just one fault line that registers new forms of domestic terrorism that have emerged due to the death of politics
in the United States. As Jean and John Comaroff observe in their essay on “Millennial Capitalism” in Public Culture:

There is a strong argument to be made that neoliberal capitalism in its millennial moment, portends the
death of politics by hiding its own ideological underpinnings in the dictates of economic efficiency: in the
fetishism of the free market, in the inexorable, expanding needs of business, in the imperatives of
science and technology. Or, if it does not conduce to the death of politics, it tends to reduce them to the pursuit of pure interest, individual or collective.

The deliberate policies that led to the poisoning of the Flint waterways and the untold damage to its children and other members of the
community point to the disintegration of public values , the hardening of the culture and the emergence of a

kind of self-righteous brutalism that takes delight in the suffering of others . What Flint exemplifies is that the U nited
S tates is awash in a culture of cruelty fueled by a pathological disdain for community, public values and
the common good, all of which readily capitulate to the characteristics assigned to domestic terrorism . As
Zygmunt Bauman points out in The Individualized Society, under such circumstances, public and historical memory withers, only to be

matched by “a weakening of democratic pressures , a growing inability to act politically, [ and] a massive
exit from politics and from responsible citizenship.”
Rather than inform the social imagination, memory under the reign of neoliberalism has become an
obstacle to power, a liability that is constantly under assault by the anti-public intellectuals and cultural
apparatuses that fuel what I have called the disimagination machines that dominate US culture . Memory
must once again become the contested activity of self-criticism, renewal and collective struggle .
Resistance is no longer simply an option in an age when the language of politics has morphed into the
narrow discourse of the market . The promise of shared rule has been eclipsed and given way to the
promise of a large stock portfolio for some and the despair and anxiety of facing daily the challenge of
simply trying to survive for hundreds of millions more . One consequence is that a market economy is transformed into a market society, making it easier to normalize
the notion that capitalism and democracy are synonymous. As democracy enters a twilight existence and the drumbeat of

authoritarianism becomes louder and more menacing, organized and collective resistance is a necessity .

Flint reveals the omissions, lies and deceptions at the core of this neoliberal public pedagogy and
provides an opening to mobilize and harness a developing sense of injustice and moral outrage against
neoliberal common sense and its predatory policies . Doing so is a crucial part of a sustained struggle to
democratize the economy and society. Flint is a wake-up call to make the power of the financial elite and
their political lackeys both visible and accountable. Moral outrage over the poisoning of the children and
adults of Flint must draw upon history to make visible the long list of acts of violence and domestic terrorism that
has come to mark the last three decades of neoliberal governance and corruption . Flint speaks to both a
moral crisis and a political crisis of legitimation . Democracy has lost its ability to breathe and must be brought back to life. The tragedy of Flint
provides a space of intervention , and we are seeing glimpses of it in the reaction of Black youth all over
the United States who are organizing to connect acts of violence to widespread structural and
ideological motivations. Flint offers us a time of temporal reflection, a rupture in common sense and a
recognition that with shared convictions, hopes and collective struggle, history can be ruptured and
opened to new possibilities .

Flint calls out not only for resistance, but also for the search for an alternative to an economic system
whose means and ends are used to discipline and punish both the general public and its most powerless
populations. Today we are witnessing a new kind of fidelity to a distinctively radical politics . What young people such as
those backing Bernie Sanders and those in the Black Lives Matter movement are making clear is that economics cannot drive politics, violence cannot be the

organizing principle of the state and markets cannot define the present and future .

There has never been a more important time to rethink the meaning of politics, justice, struggle,
collective action and the development of new political parties and social movements. The Flint crisis
demands a new language for developing modes of creative and long-term resistance, a wider
understanding of politics and a new urgency to develop modes of collective struggles rooted in wider
social formations. At a time when democracy seems to have disappeared and all facets of everyday life
are defined by a toxic economic rationality, Americans need a new discourse to resuscitate historical
memories of resistance and address the connections among the destruction of the environment,
poverty, inequality, mass incarceration and the poisoning of children in the United States .

But most importantly, if the ideals and practices of democratic governance are not to be lost, educators ,
artists, intellectuals, young people and emerging political formations such as the Black Lives Matter movement need to
continue producing the critical formative cultures capable of building new social, collective and political
institutions that can both fight against the impending authoritarianism in the U nited S tates and
imagine a society in which democracy is viewed no longer as a remnant of the past but rather as an
ideal that is worthy of continuous struggle .
 2ac – at: water reps
Our water framing is necessary for public mobilization
Healey 11 (Thomas, senior fellow at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Georgetown
Public Policy Review. 16 Geo. Public Pol'y Rev. 63. Spring. "The Global Water Crisis Is Too Big to Ignore"
l/n)

Over the long-term, the most potent tool in reversing the world's growing water deficit may be a concerted
campaign to raise public awareness and promote water use behavior change. Most people in the
developed world do not suffer from a lack of drinkable water or infectious diseases from contaminated
water. Consequently, they discount, or simply fail to see, the urgency of the global water shortage , and
continue to free ride off the efforts of more informed consumers. Any campaign to change behavior could build a strong
public case on the multitude of shocking statistics regarding water use and waste throughout the world .
While some academics have begun to publicly discuss the severity of the global water shortage, high-profile celebrities and politicians have
tended to rally around global warming. Educationaloutreach aimed at informing the public about the scarcity of
water, and those at risk about the potential for contracting diseases through unsanitary water, has been
conspicuous by its absence. Brown et al. (2008) put forth that the small body of knowledge surrounding the
causes and consequences of the developing global [*71] water crisis, as compared to climate change, may be
partially to blame. The authors then suggest that a global roundtable for analyzing the causes and possible future
consequences of water scarcity could help to bridge the information gap and serve as a rallying point for
advocates worldwide, achieving what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did for global warming. Through this type of
conclave, both the scientific and policy communities could gain a better understanding of the global drivers of the water crisis and begin to
muster the tools and choices needed to directly address them. Clearly, international dialogue
and debate with the intensity of what is
now taking place around global warming will be needed to give the crisis the exposure and sense of urgency it
needs to trigger meaningful change. Due to the overlapping nature of water and climate change problems, advocates for
clean water would be well advised to build on the success of the climate change movement and make
smart water policy a highly visible component of solutions to mitigate the impact of global warming.
Such dialogue must begin in developed countries and spread throughout the world through political and
celebrity advocates, intense press and media coverage, and high-profile academic and government-sponsored forums. As experience
has shown, once these efforts begin to accelerate due to coordination and cooperation across international
borders, the ripple effects are felt everywhere.
 2ac – violence impact
Neglecting water infrastructure is a form of violence
Pulido 16 (Laura, Professor & Ethnic Studies Department Head, University of Oregon. "Flint,
Environmental Racism, and Racial Capitalism" Journal Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 27, 2016 -
Issue 3)

In reality, the Flint poisoning episode was only partly due to the industrial contamination of the Flint
River. It was also due to deteriorating infrastructure. As contaminated water passed through crumbling
pipes, the lead was leached into the city’s water. This is a crucial point that cannot be taken for granted
or simply accepted without close scrutiny . Any analysis of racial capitalism requires attention to the
past and how wealth, power, and poverty have historically been created
(Ranganathan 2016Ranganathan, Malini. 2016. “Thinking With Flint: Racial Liberalism and the Roots of
an American Water Tragedy.” Capitalism Nature Socialism. doi:10.1080/10455752.2016.1206583.[Taylor
& Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]). In this case, infrastructure is the manifestation of past wealth
and capacity, and its eroding status, which is actively being produced in the present, signifies the
politics of abandonment (Gilmore 2008Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. 2008. “Forgotten Places and the Seeds of
Grassroots Planning.” In Engaging Contradictions: Theory, Politics, and Methods of Activist Scholarship,
edited by Charles Hale, 31–61. Berkeley: University of California. [Google Scholar];
Harvey 1989Harvey, David. 1989. The Limits to Capital. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google
Scholar], 303). Crumbling infrastructure is where past economic regimes meet the present . Gilmore
(2002Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. 2002. “Fatal Couplings of Power and Difference: Notes on Racism and
Geography.” The Professional Geographer54 (1): 15–24. doi: 10.1111/0033-0124.00310[Taylor & Francis
Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]), among others, has argued that the neoliberal state is
characterized by heightened capacity in some arenas, such as security and policing, and reduced
capacity in others, like welfare and social investment more generally . Infrastructure maintenance is a
form of social investment . The decision to neglect infrastructure so that it becomes toxic must be seen
as a form of violence against those who are considered disposable. This is the politics of
abandonment.
 1ar – at: water reps
Ignoring the global water crisis is a manifestation of callous geographic privilege
Barry and Hughes 8 (Michele, M.D., & James, M.D. Aug 21. “Talking Dirty- The Politics of Clean
Water and Sanitation”. The New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0804650)

Most U.S. residents turn on their faucets feeling confident that they won't contract a waterborne
disease. Many people in the developing world have access to only 5 liters of water per day, whereas the
average American uses 10 times that amount merely to flush the toilet each day and 80 times that
amount for all daily activities combined.2 Hurricane Katrina reminded us, however, that our privileged status can be threatened
by natural disasters that lead to contaminated drinking water and make waste removal difficult, which can trigger illness. Disasters that
temporarily require a population to defecate in plastic bags, buckets, open pits, agricultural fields, and public areas for want of a hygienic
alternative remind us that 2.6 billion people live this way every day.1,2 Global
health issues have captured the attention of
governments, global funds, and foundations. Yet most of this attention and the consequent investment
have focused on diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and AIDS, which kill a fraction of the number of people who
die from water-related diseases. The necessary political will has not been mustered to address the water
and sanitation crisis, among the most neglected of the United Nations' millennium development goals . A
recent cost–benefit analysis reported by the World Health Organization makes a strong case for investment in this sector, and, at its Tokyo
summit meeting in July, the Group of Eight reaffirmed its commitment to addressing concerns about water.5 Political
support is
urgently needed at all levels for the development and implementation of evidence-based
recommendations to improve access to safe water, for the enhanced surveillance of water-related
diseases, for the financial support of relevant epidemiologic and laboratory research, and for the
development of accessible educational materials. Clearly, we need to start talking dirty water .
 1ar – alt fails
Partnering with scientists is key to challenging austerity politics- the alternative would
still have Flint drinking contaminated water
Krings et al 18 (Amy, Loyola University. Dan Kornberg & Erin Lane, University of Michigan. "Organizing
Under Austerity: How Residents’ Concerns Became the Flint Water Crisis" Critical Sociology)

What might it take for politically marginalized residents to challenge cuts in public spending that
threaten to harm their health and wellbeing? Specifically, how did residents of Flint, Michigan
contribute to the decision of an austerity regime, which was not accountable to them, to spend millions
to switch to a safe water source? Relying on evidence from key interviews and newspaper accounts, we
examine the influence and limitations of residents and grassroots groups during the 18-month period
between April 2014 and October 2015 when the city drew its water from the Flint River. We find that
citizen complaints alone were not sufficiently able to convince city officials or national media of
widespread illness caused by the water. However, their efforts resulted in partnerships with
researchers whose evidence bolstered their claims , thus inspiring a large contribution from a local
foundation to support the switch to a clean water source. Thus, before the crisis gained national media
attention, and despite significant constraints, residents’ sustained organization—coupled with scientific
evidence that credentialed local claims—motivated the return to the Detroit water system. The Flint
case suggests that residents seeking redress under severe austerity conditions may require partnerships
with external scientific elites.

Introduction On April 25, 2014, after nearly 50 years of purchasing Lake Huron water from the City of
Detroit, Michigan, the City of Flint, Michigan, began to pump inadequately treated water from the Flint
River into residents’ homes. The results, as we know now, were disastrous. Residents immediately
noticed discolored and foul-smelling liquid coming from their taps. Reports of rashes, hair loss, and
respiratory illnesses soon followed, and later blood lead levels in children spiked. The decision to switch
to the Flint River water was made while the city was controlled by an austerity-driven emergency
manager (EM) who was mandated to cut city expenses and had the political power to dispense with
elected city leadership, which severely limited Flint residents’ recourse when their water quality
dramatically declined. While local media covered residents’ concerns, the national media did not
provide sustained attention until late 2015, following the switch back to the Detroit system.

How did Flint residents and grassroots groups contribute to a switch back to the safer, yet more
expensive, Detroit water system 18 months later in October 2015? Within this economically and
politically constrained context, Flint residents —a majority of whom were poor and African American—
questioned officials, protested, and organized themselves while officials discredited, minimized, and
ignored their claims. However, local efforts led to support from credible institutions with the capacity to
document and disseminate evidence of the contaminated water and its dangerous health effects. This
scientific evidence led to a large donation from a local philanthropic institution and, ultimately, the
switch back to the Detroit water system. The Flint water case moves studies of austerity politics beyond
locating the character and impacts of neoliberal policies to understanding how they might be contested
by attracting resources that are perceived as credible by neoliberal austerity regimes .
 1ar – at: state bad

Allocating responsibility for the water crisis in Flint generates understanding of scalar
relationships that structure state-level violence- understanding the vulnerability to
water crises created by changes in water management is a prerequisite to the alt- the
production of place determines the effectiveness of social struggles and individual
agency
Rosati 18 (Clayton, Professor, School of Media and Communication, Bowling Green State University.
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 2018, VOL. 13, NO. 2. "Development as freedom after Flint:
a geographical approach to capabilities and antipoverty communication")
Yet, Marston, Jones, and Woodward (2005) suggest that after years of misuse as a topdown determinant of social life (e.g. global capitalism causes local neoliberalism), scholars should forsake
the concept of scale altogether, replacing it instead with a commitment to flat, and non-hierarchical geographies. Marston, et al.’s critique and non-hierarchical commitments are shared in the

one must also consider what is lost when the scale of social relationships is ignored. Leitner and Miller
present work. But,

one such casualty of abandoning scale is the loss of attention to nested relationships between
(2007) suggest that

spaces, which create ‘differential opportunities and constraints for practices of individual and collective
agents’ (119). In this regard, scale is crucial to understanding the complex of power relations built onto and across
the social landscape. The struggle over racial integration in the USA, and in the State of Michigan particularly, helps illustrate how social struggles
produce and are produced by the social construction of scale. As suburbanization created, what officials called a ‘white noose’ around
Detroit, the suburb of Warren refused to comply with federal anti-discrimination mandates and eventually, in 1970, voted to drop a funded urban renewal program instead of complying with

while this was a struggle at one level over borders, it was

racial integration requirements (Darden and Thomas 2013). For instance,

likewise a struggle over how particular types of spaces would produce certain capabilities for some (i.e.
Whites) and deprive them for (i.e. Blacks) others through the production of place Leitner and Miller (2007) point to the
social-material institutional arrangements of the state as an important instance: ‘Responsibilities and
capacities of different state levels, as well as relationships among these levels, are reconstituted on
an on-going basis. Indeed, the scalar restructuring of state responsibilities and capacities has been
one of the hallmarks of neoliberal globalization’ (120). In this sense, social movements inside and outside
mainstream politics, like those reactionary political forces that brought venture capitalist Rick Snyder to
the Governor’s office in Michigan two years after Barak Obama’s historic presidential victory, revealed
how the mobilization and occupation of key institutional power relations by interests from the White
suburbs and rural areas produced severe forms of deprivation and injury in urban communities of color
(Leitner and Miller 2007, 122).

Scale is a way of describing how we think of the spatial nature of social processes. The subjection of
water to emergency management represents a change in the scale of controlling that piece of the urban
system. And, to a large extent, it represents White revanchism scaled ‘up’, thinking of it as a statewide
matter, and no longer municipal. Scale is, on one hand, a matter of understanding and defining the
socio-ecology of specific capabilities. And, on the other hand, it is a matter of different geographically defined
struggles over shared group interests and the power to actualize those interests across space and time .
Decision-making processes imply geographical scale; who (in what places) has the power to
determine the quality of life in other places, under what authority, with what geographical
conceptualization of the common good? The Flint water tragedy can be seen in parallel to sectarian
violence, i.e. state-level politics which have tended to be home to violence against minorities and the
poor (e.g. Jim Crow laws in contradistinction to Brown vs. the Board of Education, 1954). The ‘Financial Accountability Act’ referred to earlier
with respect to Flint, is another example of this, extending a century or more of conflict over the racial
distribution of social resources through the spatial relations of democratic institutions and their
mediation of expansive circuits of capital. Some of the earliest epidemiology dealt with water and cholera in nineteenth-century London, using maps to
analyze and communicate the location of infected wells and assess the scope of the response to the health problem (Newsom 2006; Schoenberger and Walker 2017). And, the difference

between London and Flint is instructive: whereasproviding healthy access to water in London was important because an empire of industrial production and
distribution depended on it, America’s Rust Belt – the deindustrializing Northern and Midwestern regions – in which

Flint is located, is a very different situation. The cities in this region no longer necessarily produce
material wealth to be distributed to the world outside, they are now seen in some cases as a financial
drain on the surrounding areas. Understandings of the public good have changed, as have whom those goods are meant to serve. Flint may
represent indifference to some of these earliest lessons of urban planning/development (one geographical problem)
or it represents a kind of ignorance of geographical knowledge amongst its governing regimes (a different geographical problem). In either case, however, we see the reduction of
geographical knowledge of the deserving public and the public good into merely monetary flows, revenues and fiscal matters. Figure 2 illustrates the regional shift in

power over the metropolitan water system as a new ‘Great Lakes Water Authority’ is implemented and
imposed over the region as part of the emergency plan. This is a shift in scale and in the interest groups
represented at the management table, cutting the number of Detroit City representatives in half and including one temporarily from Flint. Here the issues of
population size, vulnerability to water crisis , and other capabilities deprivation should be seen to overlap with how the scale

of water governance is determined .

 1ar – perm solves – at: reps
The alternative ignores the severely curtailed public sphere under austerity- only
creating allies and providing sufficient evidence deemed credible by the state allows
for effectively challenging state power in this instance
Krings et al 18 (Amy, Loyola University. Dan Kornberg & Erin Lane, University of Michigan. "Organizing
Under Austerity: How Residents’ Concerns Became the Flint Water Crisis" Critical Sociology)

Sustained grassroots pressure eventually contributed to the switch back to Detroit’s safe water supply,
but public concerns alone were insufficient due to the severely curtailed public sphere . Ultimately,
residents like LeeAnne Walters and grassroots groups such as the DDL had to ally themselves with
national activists, government employees, academics, and scientists in order to amass evidence of their
grievances that would be deemed credible by government institutions. This was necessary in order to
counter claims of the state power structure, including the EM and MDEQ, who sought to reassure the
public while discrediting their concerns. Living under an austerity regime that would allow for neither
additional municipal spending nor democratic opposition meant that concerns about the water’s safety
were both deprioritized and delegitimized. Consequently, residents and private actors became
responsible for documenting and responding to a burgeoning public health crisis.
**capitalism
 2ac – cap cards
Perm solves- net benefit to the perm is climate mitigation and adaptation- rejection
fails
Castree & Christpher 15 (Noel, Dep't of Geography and Sustainable Communities, University of
Wollongong, and Geography, SEED, Manchester University. Brett, Institute for Housing and Urban
Research, Uppsala University. "Banking Spatially on the Future: Capital Switching, Infrastructure, and the
Ecological Fix" Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(2) 2015, pp. 378–386. Published
online, January 28)

Since the onset of the global economic crisis, financiers and the institutions regulating their behavior
have been subject to far-reaching criticism. At the same time, leading geo-scientists have been insisting
that future environmental change might be far more profound than previously anticipated. Finance
capital has long been a crucial mechanism for melting present solidities into air to create different
futures . This article asks what the prospects are for the switching of credit money into green
infrastructures—a switching increasingly recognized as necessary for climate change mitigation and
(especially) adaptation . Most research into geographies of finance has ignored ecological questions and
few contemporary society–nature researchers examine major fixed-capital investments. Unlike those
geographers who criticize capitalism without offering feasible alternatives , we take a pragmatic view
underpinned by democratic socioenvironmental values and attempt to identify leverage points for
meaningful change. This programmatic article identifies reasons and examples to be cautiously hopeful
that liquidity can be fixed in less ecologically harmful future infrastructures, thereby addressing
crucial extraeconomic challenges for the century ahead.

Alt fails- climate change coming, need capital to adapt, alt can’t solve capital switch-
calling for public funding is critical
Castree & Christpher 15 (Noel, Dep't of Geography and Sustainable Communities, University of
Wollongong, and Geography, SEED, Manchester University. Brett, Institute for Housing and Urban
Research, Uppsala University. "Banking Spatially on the Future: Capital Switching, Infrastructure, and the
Ecological Fix" Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(2) 2015, pp. 378–386. Published
online, January 28)

Given the inherent unknowability of the future, foreseeing its socioecological parameters and
possibilities is a challenging task at the best of times. Notwithstanding all of the future uncertainties
with we which we must deal, however, two things are increasingly clear. The first is that anthropogenic
climate change is occurring and to a degree likely to prove game changing for most countries worldwide.
The second is that such change will necessitate significant, proactive socioeconomic reconfigurations
that both respect and yet also help to write the new rules of the ecological game. One such vector of
reconfiguration, and the one considered in this article, pertains to the built environment—that is, those
longlasting, expensive-to-construct physical infrastructures that both enable and constrain the quotidian
activities involved in reproducing social life.

In what specific senses does anthropogenic climate change call for such reconfiguration? For several
years analysts and policymakers have talked incessantly about mitigation and adaptation strategies.
With respect to infrastructural changes, Pacala and Socolow (2004) have argued influentially that a rapid
reconfiguration of the existing built environment—prioritizing “efficient buildings”—can contribute
substantially to limiting future atmospheric warming. Given the relative failure of most national
governments to pursue mitigation strategies aggressively, however, adaptation is now at least as vital
thinking ahead. The recent (fifth) assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(2014) indicates with high certainty that an average atmospheric temperature rise of as much as 4C by
century’s end is possible. In this light, it is hard to disagree with Sayre’s (2010) contention that “a rapid
and comprehensive reconfiguration of the built environment is imperative if we are to ... adapt to global
warming” (95). Sayre then goes on to identify what we agree is a pivotal question: that of how, and by
whom, a comprehensive remaking of built environments might be financed.

Drawing on Harvey’s (1982) seminal work on the distinctive political economy of major fixed-capital
investment, Sayre (2010) reminds us that the built environment “depends heavily on financial
instruments and institutions that permit large-scale borrowing and long-term amortization” (102).
Recognizing such economic distinctiveness, our article’s contribution to the imagination of
socioecological futures is to explore how, in principle, the financing of major new infrastructure might
work and to consider how likely such financing is to eventuate soon. Notwithstanding the tarnished
image financiers have because of the global financial crisis and its fallout (plus various highprofile
scandals), their decisions will be crucial in determining the road humanity will travel in the decades to
come. There is a need for analysts and policymakers not only to understand these decisions but to shape
them to realize important noneconomic goals. In effect, the financial sector is an unelected government
whose power is such that it needs to be carefully governed through a set of endogenous and exogenous
norms, rules, and institutions. With respect to infrastructure, one might say that (some) financiers are
the ultimate geographers, literally graphing the face of the Earth as they translate liquidity into enduring
fixed assets essential to our shared future. To use another metaphor, in designing the arteries through
which future capital will flow, these financiers stand to determine the future health not only of the
economy but of the bodies social and ecological too.

Normatively, and contrary to much geographical research into human–environment relationships, our
explicit aim is to offer an even-handed appraisal of the possibilities capitalism offers for enabling
humanity— or significant parts of humanity—to cope with what is likely to be an ecologically challenging
future. Consider here differing uses of the word fix, which completes our article’s title. For many critical
geographers (and we consider ourselves such), the word usually has negative, even pejorative,
connotations over and above its explanatory meanings. In the context of our current political economy,
a fix is typically seen as capitalism trying to negotiate its inherent crisis tendencies to reproduce itself in
perennially iniquitous forms. Thus, for Swyngedouw (2010, 222), capitalist enthusiasm for eco-
technologies like smart energy meters is essentially about “producing a socio-ecological fix to make sure
nothing really changes. Stabilizing the climate seems to be a condition for capitalist life as we know it to
continue.” We do not diminish such concerns. But here we use the word fix differently to denote the
possibility of an ecologically and socially progressive reconfiguration of existing built environments. Such
a fix can never be problem-free, and what counts as progressive is relative to be sure. Moreover, na€ıve
optimism should never substitute for reasoned and realistic hope that certain specific varieties of
capitalism can deliver wider socioecological benefits for more than just a few. But equally, as Gibson-
Graham has argued consistently (e.g., Gibson-Graham 2008), such hope is absent when critics see
capitalism as little more than a malign and impregnable force that disadvantages the majority of
humanity. In sum, this is a programmatic article intended to highlight real-world issues pertaining to
future infrastructure financing and to inspire thought among geographers about how they choose to
examine these issues looking ahead.

Anthropogenic Climate Change and Capital Switching In 2012 the British government, in the shape of the
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, published the first of its new five-yearly Climate
Change Risk Assessment reports (Defra 2012). Among other things, the document was notable for
highlighting perceived “priorities for adaptation” under five headings, one of which was Buildings &
Infrastructure. This identification of the need for built environment renewal reflects increasingly
widespread consensus, not only in the United Kingdom but internationally, regarding the centrality of
infrastructure upgrade to what Defra calls “climate resilience” (flooding and overheating of buildings
being seen as the most significant risks in the British case). But there is also, as already intimated, a
perceived role in climate change mitigation. Defra’s conviction that building a “new low carbon
infrastructure” that can assist in “the transition to a low carbon economy” is underpinned by the fact
that, in Sayre’s (2010) words, the existing built environment “mediates economic production, exchange
and consumption in ways that both presuppose and reinforce high rates of greenhouse gas emissions”
(95).

Given the growing acceptance that our infrastructures need to be substantially redesigned and
renewed, planners and other experts are turning their attention to the critical question of what more
resilient and energy-efficient ones might look like. This is not the place to consider this question in any
detail. Suffice to say that the proposals that are now beginning to emerge share two main attributes.
First, there is a strong emphasis on coastal regions, where the impact of rising sea levels will be most
pronounced. Second, there is an emphasis on cities, reflecting the fact that the world’s built
environment is primarily urban. Stone’s (2012) The City and the Coming Climate is a good example: It
makes concrete proposals for new energy, residential, and transport infrastructures under the “coming”
climate and associated physical geography.

Alongside such envisionings of future built environments, we are also seeing tentative appraisals of the
potential costs thereof. Such costs, needless to say, will be colossal, and their quantification at this
juncture is challenging. For example, a recent report (Hallegatte et al. 2013), assuming a mean sea level
rise of 0.2 to 0.4 m by 2050 and seeking to quantify the impact of flooding on the world’s 136 largest
coastal cities, estimated necessary infrastructure adaptation costs at a cumulative US$50 billion per
annum. The authors stress, however, that although such figures might sound high, they are “far below
[their] estimate of aggregate damage losses per year in the absence of adaptation” (Hallegatte et al.
2013, 805). This qualifier echoes the now famous conclusion of the Stern Review (Stern 2006) that the
relative economic costs of inaction vastly outweigh those of acting meaningfully now.

All of this tells us that the redesigning and rebuilding of infrastructures will require a long-lasting
diversion of financial investment from existing uses. Global society, in other words, will have to effect a
massive capital switch. Harvey (1978) conceptualized this as the process whereby investment is
rerouted from one circuit of capital to another. He was most interested in the case where the switch is
from the primary circuit of productive capital (investment in the wage-labor– based production of goods
and services for sale on the market) to the secondary circuit of investment in the (re)construction of
built environments (e.g., roads and factories). This begins to explain the appeal of the capital switch
optic for us here. It refers to large-scale, temporally concentrated diversions of investment that serve to
alter systematically the historically contingent forms that capitalism assumes. It is just such diversions
that are pivotal to global attempts to cope with future climate change.

Such switches have certainly happened before— indeed, Harvey regards them as part of capitalism’s
metaphorical DNA. As such, the general dynamics of the ecological switch envisioned in this article
would not be unprecedented, even if its magnitude might be. Such a switch would involve protecting
existing natural capital (e.g., large areas of forest, today reframed as providers of ecosystem services),
creating green infrastructure en masse, and fabricating built environments designed to cope with higher
sea levels, warmer temperatures, and so on. Yet, as theorized by Harvey and examined by scholars using
his theoretical lens, capital switching is ultimately a function of short-term capitalist profit-seeking. It is,
at heart, a response to an immediate crisis of economic capital (specifically, a crisis of overaccumulation
and thus of surplus capital in search of a home). At best, it also provides a temporary fix to the crisis
tendencies necessitating it. This being so, how can we foresee a switch necessitated in large part for
ecological reasons and with the long-term viability of biophysical goods and services as a key
motivation? If not from an acute dearth of current opportunities for profitable investment in the
productive circuit, and thus for ongoing economic growth, where will the impetus to switching come
from (and over what timescale)? Additionally, how enduring will the infrastructural products of such a
switch, should it and they eventuate, prove to be?

We do not pretend to know the answers. On several accounts, though, the theory and historical reality
of capital switching suggest that the fix envisioned here is not unimaginable. First, if Harvey is right,
capital switching occurs necessarily—it happens regardless of the extra-economic reasons that may be
used to encourage, or justify, such a switch. Second, when extra-economic factors come to have serious
economic consequences, they become internalized within the logic of capitalism. To quote Sayre (2010)
once more on infrastructure, “By a fortuitous paradox, these [fixed capital] investments are threatened
with devaluation whether or not we act to stabilize atmospheric GHG [green house gas] concentrations;
in highly uneven, unpredictable, and potentially abrupt ways, global warming will make our current built
environment increasingly untenable and uneconomical” (95). This is a reminder that capital functions in
a world that never was, nor will ever be, designed to meet the changing needs of this mode of
production. Third, financial institutions have long been accustomed to translating short-term money-
making opportunities into the sort of long-term commitments needed to build and maintain something
like a nuclear power facility. Given the right incentives by governments, financiers are well capable of
crafting investment vehicles to help decarbonize the world’s current infrastructural assets.

Fourth, and relatedly, although global capitalism remains broadly neoliberal, national governments
retain the power to radically alter the regulatory conditions that define rational and permissible financial
activities. They also, of course, can be direct participants in a capital switch by choosing to make large
public investments. Even “night watchman” states have some more than nominal sense of the public
interest, not least because civil society actors force them to look beyond the immediate needs of
business. In the present case, an increasingly large and vocal community of geoscientists is urging
governments to take global environmental change far more seriously than heretofore. Alarmed by the
so-far weak attempts to decarbonize the world economy, these geoscientists are sounding a drumbeat
of alarm intended to be heard by leading politicians (see, e.g., Nobel Laureates 2011). Their concerns are
echoed by leading nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and charities and are part of a wider
questioning of contemporary capitalism that precedes the recent financial meltdown. The fact that none
of this is at all new—indeed, it is all too familiar—helps to create the material preconditions for the sort
of policy shift that will be one “form of appearance” of the causal necessity Harvey’s switching idea
identifies. In short, if capital switching can never be a purely economic affair, there are general reasons
to believe causal necessity and contingent causality might fortuitously combine to reconfigure
capitalism’s operating “hardware” along more ecofriendly lines. These reasons might not be sufficient to
win any argument on the subject, but neither should they be dismissed.

Of course, should such a reconfiguration occur, two important distributional questions arise. First,
because the scope and scale of contemporary capitalism is unprecedented, the infrastructural
transformation being envisaged here could not simply be regional in scale. It would have to be global,
raising this question: How feasible is this? Second, as several commentators have shown (e.g., Graham
and Marvin 2001), many contemporary infrastructures offer declining “public goods” functions as they
are increasingly targeted to privileged social groups. In this regard it is clearly not hard to imagine a
bleak future in which new ecologically resilient infrastructures serve—and generate economic growth
for—only those few who can pay for them. This therefore begs a further question: Can a different future
eventuate?

Again, there are general reasons to believe that this question can be answered in the affirmative. First,
unless capitalism were to deglobalize through force of circumstance, its future trajectory virtually
requires the coincident alteration of infrastructures across continental boundaries. The time–space
compression that is one of capitalism’s hallmarks typically forges built environments conducive to
commodity circulation on the largest possible scale at any one historical moment. Barriers to circulation
are typically overcome because they are both opportunities for and drags on productive investment.
Second, although in many places future infrastructures will likely not bring benefits to a great many
citizens (see the next section for more on this), in many other cases a grassroots Polanyian
countermovement against such exclusion is conceivable. In still other cases, nonneoliberal governments
might have strong public interest agendas; we should remember, too, that capital ultimately suffers
(indeed, faces the crises that trigger switches) if too few people consume the things it commodifies.

Let us now move away from these general considerations toward a more focused examination of how
ripe finance capital is to effect the switch we have been discussing. The central investment issues, as we
see them, are threefold and intimately connected. The remainder of the article proceeds with this
generic outlining of future financing possibilities as background: 1. Source of funds. Here the question is
a nominally simple one: Who would pay? Although funding could, of course, come from many different
sources, the key generic distinction is between private and public finance. Would the rebuilding of our
built environments be financed by private, commercial interests or by the state (and thus, ultimately,
various taxpayers)? Although some of the new infrastructure would be privately owned and revenue
generative, much of it— transportation infrastructures (without tolls or other user fees), coastal
defenses, and so forth—could not and would not be. In the latter case, it is more difficult—although
clearly not impossible—to envision a significant role for private capital. 2. Nature of funds. Would the
capital being invested be cash or credit? That is to say, would it be derived from actually existing
financial assets without matching liabilities, or would the funding entity be required to borrow to make
the investment? An example of the former would be a pension fund or sovereign wealth fund (SWF). An
example of the latter, at least in most Western countries, would be the state—as we are only too well
aware, few Western governments today have the luxury of spending without borrowing first. Borrowing
is likely to be essential to one degree or another. 3. Form of investment of funds. Where the
infrastructure investor and owner are not one and the same, would capital be invested as debt or as
equity? To put it another way, to what types of returns would the investor be entitled—interest and
principal repayments (debt) or payments tied to the market value of the investment (equity)? The latter
is only conceivable in instances where ownership of the infrastructure is wholly or partly private and
thus would be likely to be relatively limited. This has significant implications, with debt and equity
investments typically characterized by different risk profiles and attractive to investors with different risk
appetites.

Barriers to Realization For all our desire to present a balanced outlook on the need and possibility of
effecting an ecological fix underpinned by new societal infrastructures, we are mindful of the necessity
to acknowledge the many reasons to be skeptical. In this section we enumerate some of the more
important of these. To be clear, our concern here is not with technical barriers but with the obstacles
that existing configurations of finance capital pose and with ominous ongoing dynamics in and around
current (financial) political economy. We identify five related sets of challenges in this sphere: 1. Given
that much of the new infrastructure will not be designed to be revenue generative, and will be publicly
owned and controlled, it is difficult to imagine that it can be financed without a significant contribution
from public sources. Yet we stand at a moment in history where, certainly in the Global North, public
finances are under— or, at least, are seen and asserted to be under— exceptional pressure. The timing,
in other words, is anything but propitious: In a milieu where the political and public appetite for taking
on more long-term public debt is virtually nonexistent and, moreover, where the appetite for higher
taxes (the other “unmentionable” mechanism for raising funds) is equally limited, it is hard to see public
financing as solving the problem in toto or even in large part. Witness, for instance, the situation in the
United States, where plans for a national infrastructure bank using federal funds remain stalled despite
backing from President Barack Obama and numerous influential senators.

2. There is also something of a philosophical—as opposed to a political–economic—barrier to the notion

of public financing of major infrastructure renewal. As O’Neill (2013) has shown, a major trend of the
late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has been toward privatization of the ownership,
financing, and operation of infrastructure. In the resulting ideological-discursive environment, where
“state responsibility for infrastructure and public acceptance for its finance and delivery” are “no longer
intrinsic to Western capitalist ideology” (O’Neill 2013, 3) in the way they once were, the challenges
confronting future public financing of built environment reconstruction loom larger still.

3. If the necessary means to finance reconstruction publicly are neither readily available nor perhaps
readily justifiable, a different set of obstacles threatens the viability of private financing. Perhaps the
biggest concerns the question of whether investment in such reconstruction would be deemed
sufficiently attractive (i.e., profitable). The fact that much of the new infrastructure would not be
revenue generative is certainly part of the problem, although private sources could, in theory, fund
public, nonrevenue-generative infrastructure if, for example, invested as debt rather than equity. Yet
two hurdles would still remain. First, as Clark et al. (2012) have noted, short-termism continues to
dominate institutional investment, even among investors who can (as infrastructure requires) invest
over intergenerational time spans. Second, private investment of all types remains, for the most part,
profit-maximizing above other considerations, whereas investment in public infrastructures with a
climate change mitigation and adaptation remit would, by its very nature, need to be constituted as low
risk and low reward. This tension is already writ large in the fact that private, ecologically oriented
infrastructure financing has yet to substantively materialize. As Zadek (2013) notes, if a significant switch
is not happening now—“mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund are struggling to get off the ground,
and have yet to offer a vision for unlocking capital at scale,” as major institutional investors continue to
invest heavily in nonrenewable fossil fuel industries, remaining, collectively, “resolutely brown and
dirty”—even with “the low cost of capital and the need to stimulate the global economy,” it is arguably
hard to see when it will.

4. The lack of substantive progress on the private financing front is probably also explicable in part by
the fourth important obstacle requiring recognition: namely, active resistance (broadly defined). Sayre
(2010) regards one form thereof as particularly important: resistance from existing owners of current
built environments to the devaluation that would necessarily accompany such capital’s redesign, disuse,
and rebuilding. (Although, as Sayre also remarks, this capital will be devalued regardless, by climate
change, if not by proactive social decision making; but who says the owners of capital are rational?).
Resistance also emanates from other influential sources. One is the oil and gas sector, with its
entrenched power. Another, equally powerful, is the financial services sector. As Zadek (2013) explains,
a prerequisite for major long-term private financing of built environment reconstruction is meaningful
reform in and reregulation of financial markets. Such reforms are not even close to happening, though,
stymied as regulators are by “a fierce headwind of lobbying by financial firms” deeply invested in
existing institutional configurations of risk and reward.

5. Last but not least, there is a pivotal geographical dimension to the financial challenge that lies ahead
and one closely bound up in complex ways with the distributional issues identified in the previous
section. Put simply, there is marked geographical unevenness internationally both in the need to
upgrade infrastructures and in the financial wherewithal to do so, rendering the geopolitical and
geofinancial consensus and collectivity that is likely to be a necessary condition of success all the more
difficult to achieve. Climate change, as Davis (2010, 37) writes, “will produce dramatically unequal
impacts across regions,” in the process “inflicting the greatest damage upon poor countries with the
fewest resources for meaningful adaptation” and in a way that may “undermine ... pro-active solidarity.”
Put this concern alongside the more pointed fear that any climate change–related financial transfer
from Global North to South “would be so firmly ring-fenced with conditionalities that it would auction
away the sovereignty of African nations at the altar of ‘Green Capitalism’” (Tandon 2011, 141), and the
daunting difficulties of achieving a global capital-switchcum-ecological-fix are clear.

Grounds for Cautious Optimism With all of this said, it is not in our view sufficient—conceptually,
empirically, or politically—to leave things there: to bemoan, effectively, that capital is capital and the
future thus constrained by the inertia built into the current historical–geographic conjuncture. Amidst
the undoubted grounds for skepticism, we see three main reasons for believing that finance capital can
potentially facilitate the type of investment and rebuilding that is needed in the near future. These
particular reasons can be added to the four very general ones described earlier in the article.

First, and in many ways least significantly, there are signs of potentially promising developments on the
ground. In its recent report on cities and what it calls “infrastructure transitions,” the United Nations’
International Resource Panel (IRP 2013) included thirty case studies of “innovative approaches to
sustainable infrastructure change across a broad range of urban contexts.” Wholesale infrastructure
renewal is not just a theory, in other words. One city often mentioned in this context, by way of
example, is Chicago. The Chicago Infrastructure Trust (CIT) was established in 2012 to incentivize both
debt- and equity-based private financing of a range of infrastructure projects. Chicago is also the leader
of the international Sustainable Infrastructure Finance Network, which is a collective initiative, also
launched in early 2012, by the socalled C40 group of cities.

Although there does not appear to be anything particularly revolutionary about the financing models
used in the aforementioned cases—Citibank and JP Morgan are both actively involved in the CIT—it is
vital to appreciate, second, that different types of financial entities, with the potential to embrace
different financing rationales, do exist and are, in many cases, extremely well capitalized. “Insurance
companies, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowments, foundations and family offices,” note
Clark et al. (2012, 104), “all have the ability to invest over inter-generational spans” and in “long-term,
illiquid assets”—in, most notably, infrastructure assets. Such investors—which Oulton (2012), in the
context of the funding of a low-carbon future, describes collectively as constituting “patient capital”—
were reported as having had $27 trillion in assets under management in 2011 (Clark et al. 2012, 104).

SWFs appear to represent an especially encouraging investor type. For one thing, they occupy a “unique
position” among investors insofar as they are “not constrained by liabilities” or “subject to increasing
solvency requirements.” Furthermore, they typically have “greater discretion over tactical and strategic
asset allocation,” which explains why they are often described as “unconstrained investors” (Clark,
Dixon, and Monk 2013, 8–9). Of special interest in relation to our own hypothesized capital switch and
the alternative rewards profile that financing thereof would be likely to exhibit—lower financial returns
but higher socialcollectivist, nonmonetary ones—is the moralist SWF subcategory identified by Clark,
Dixon, and Monk (2013). Such funds include, inter alia, Australia’s Future Fund and Norway’s
Government Pension FundGlobal. The former has an obligation to ensure that its investments are
sustainable in the sense of not harming the prospects of future generations; the latter represents “an
expression of Norway’s commitment to global justice” (64, 68). Both would seem, at least from the
outside, possible participants in a broadly based ecological-fix financing initiative.

Third, finally, and perhaps most significantly of all, it is possible to identify precedents for socially
progressive, large-scale, infrastructure-oriented capital switches. In other words, it has—sort of—been
done before, even if not on the same scale, and even if not with specifically environmental ends. One
such precedent is discussed briefly now; we think others are equally pertinent, but space constraints
preclude their elaboration.1 Our aim here is not to advance particular financing models to be replicated
but to highlight a historical–geographical achievement—of political will as much as financial innovation
—in the face of socioeconomic need from which we can hopefully learn.

This particular example is somewhat ironic in this context, given the environmental implications it
ultimately had, but it is instructive nonetheless. It is a case very much of market failure. When the
massmarket provision of electricity was rolled out in the United States in the 1910s and 1920s, rural
areas were largely neglected: The economics of building out infrastructure to dwellings and farms not
clustered together could not be made to work from the service providers’ perspective, meaning that
only those end users able to advance the necessary financing themselves were initially connected. The
result was that by 1930 only approximately 10 percent of U.S. farms had electricity, whereas rural
electrification levels had reached in excess of 50 percent in countries including Czechoslovakia, France,
and Germany (Brown 1980).

The Great Depression put ambitions for rural electrification on hold, but from 1934 renewed impetus
was provided by two men in particular: President Franklin D. Roosevelt (who had been an outspoken
advocate of rural electrification as Governor of New York) and the engineer Morris Cooke, both of whom
recognized the importance of electrification to rural economic and social life. The latter was the author
of a hugely influential report that estimated the cost of comprehensive rural electrification and made
proposals for how it could be financed—a report that Cooke later referred to as “the detonating force
which started rural electrification” (Brown 1980, 42).

In 1935, the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) was established. In time, the specific financing
model used would come to be seen as critical to the program’s success. The REA was, effectively, a
funding agency. It did not procure and install infrastructure itself—instead, it provided loans to those
who did, among whom were both private companies and, most significantly, cooperatives, which were
formed (on a strictly not-for-profit basis) by rural residents to build distribution systems and provide
their own electrical services. The REA’s loans, toward which Congress in 1936 made available a
maximum of $410 million over ten years, featured three key (connected) components: federal
subsidization; low (since subsidized) interest rates; and repayment schedules designed to match, in
temporal terms, the time frame (decades rather than years or months) over which the “returns” on
investment would be realized by borrowers.

What was the outcome of the REA? As early as 1939, it had 417 cooperatives serving 268,000 rural
households. After this initial burst of borrowing and investment, the pace of uptake slackened off during
wartime before then picking up again from 1945. By 1953, “over 2.5 million farms were connected to
REA and for all practical purposes, all American farmers had electricity, whether through REA or
otherwise” (Schurr 1990, 234; and Brown 1980, x), bringing the story up to the end of the 1970s,
reported a default rate on REA loans since the agency’s genesis of less than 1 percent.

Conclusion: From Bad Debt to Healthy Credit, From Present Liquidity to Future Solidities It must be
admitted that now is a particularly challenging time to be arguing for the positive potential of finance
capital in making alternative socioecological futures. It goes against the grain of the bulk of writing on
environmental questions in critical human– environment geography. Moreover, debt has gotten a
particularly bad name in the past five years in governmental and public spheres.

But finance capital, including credit creation, will be crucial to enabling us to adapt to a changing
biophysical world and to mitigating some of that change. In particular, and in line with the focus of this
article, built environments will need to be substantially reformatted and constituted afresh. Unless
capitalism is replaced by another mode of production altogether (and, on some accounts, even if it is),
this cannot be done without putting finance capital to work. Granted, such capital is in many of its forms
centrally bound up with capitalism’s most exploitative and ecologically harmful circuits. We refuse to
accept, however, that it must always be so or at least to the degree some critics suggest. We
acknowledge that there are significant obstacles to an ecologically and socially progressive mobilization
in the service of the capital switch envisioned here, yet we see signs of hope, not least in historical (and
contemporary) examples of finance being put to extraeconomic ends.

The often sweeping condemnation of finance capital, and debt in particular, therefore needs revisiting.
In recent years, few books have done more to give debt its bad name than Graeber’s (2011) eponymous
history. As such, we conclude by citing from a review of this weighty monograph that, although
recognizing its many merits, calls for research and thinking about “healthy credit” alongside “bad debt.”
It is a sentiment, in the context of socioecological futures, with which we fully concur: This hefty treatise
on bad debt shows the need for further work on healthy credit. ... [We can denounce] capitalist
“gambling.” Yet all investment in future facilities involves an element of uncertainty and a claim on
resources. Governments can conjure the needed money out of thin air if those investments turn out to
meet a genuine and effective social need. Capitalists are often not very good at spotting and sponsoring
necessary social innovations, especially those which require large-scale and complementary
infrastructure. Public enterprise— carried out on a broad and varied canvas—is the vital missing
ingredient in a world dogged by indebtedness, weak demand, climate catastrophe, poverty, crumbling
infrastructure and counter-productive austerity. (Blackburn 2013, 150)

In this light, we might hope that leading governments that help finance capital realize its profound
potential to remake the arteries through which capital flows and that are the lifeblood of the biological
and social reproduction of most of contemporary humanity. Indeed, we need far-sighted state action
because, in most parts of the world, we lack collective agents capable of forcing the hand of (often
unwilling or hamstrung) governments. We might hope, too, that more social scientists, including many
human geographers, can be generative of transformative ideas, evidence, and proposals geared to
creating a future we would like our successors to inherit. To help change the world for the better we
might, as O’Brien (2013) recently opined, have to change our own modus operandi. A critical geography
of finance capital and infrastructural transformation clearly cannot and should not be a Polyanna, but
neither can it afford to remain analytically skeptical or normatively gloomy about the prospects for a
greener and more socially just capitalism.
**settler-colonialism
 2ac – framework
Framework
Arsenault et al 18 (Rachel Arsenault , Department of Indigenous Relations, Laurentian University.
Sibyl Diver, Department of Earth System Science, Stanford. Deborah McGregor, Osgoode Hall Law
School, York University. Aaron Witham, Environmental Bio-Detection Products Incorporated. Carrie
Bourassa, Indigenous & Northern Health, Health Sciences North Research Institute. "Shifting the
Framework of Canadian Water Governance through Indigenous Research Methods: Acknowledging the
Past with an Eye on the Future" Transdisciplinarity and Knowledge Co-production: Reflections from
Water Governance. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/1/49/htm)

In addition to causing severe public health issues, the lack of clean water for Indigenous communities
also eliminates the spiritual connections and cultural uses of water that are equally essential to many
First Nations. Departing from a worldview that treats water as a resource or commodity, many
Indigenous peoples maintain a spiritual relationship with the land and water, and in many cases, water is
understood to be an animate being. Indigenous water relations have been described in multiple
contexts, which alternately emphasize interdependency, reciprocity, respectful conduct, and the
aliveness of water [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Loss of clean water threatens the ability of First Nations to
maintain their relationships with the land, animals, plants and water as an important component of
cultural identity [24,25,26,27].

This paper examines a gap in our understanding of how Indigenous research methodologies can be
applied to Indigenous water governance problems. Our work applies decolonizing research approaches
to water governance, and requires critical applications of Indigenous research methodologies based on
Indigenous knowledge [28,29]. In Decolonizing Methodologies, Linda Tuhiwai Smith describes the
process of “decolonizing” as a process which includes an in depth understanding of imperial and colonial
impacts on Indigenous peoples. To decolonize, one must “draw upon the notion of authenticity” drawn
from enduring practices of Indigenous self-determination, which persist despite ongoing colonial
legacies [28] (p. 25).

This work is unfolding in the context of a Canada-based partnership on Sustainable Water Governance
and Indigenous Law, an eight-year, community-based research initiative that aims to create prototypes
(both technical and governance in scope), which support Indigenous-led water monitoring programs
rooted in Indigenous legal traditions (www.decolonizingwater.ca). The authors of this paper have
connected through the partnership’s Indigenous Research Methods Working Group (IRMWG), and are
seeking to understand and develop innovative methods for collaborative research on Indigenous water
governance.

Our working group members are both Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars and practitioners who
are following the philosophy of “two-eyed seeing” as an approach to linking innovative Indigenous
research methodologies and western approaches [30,31]. We see our work as acknowledging the past
with an eye on the future in order to address current water governance challenges. To be clear, our
approach is not calling for an integration of knowledge systems—an approach that has been widely
criticized, since Indigenous knowledges do not currently carry the same weight as western scientific
knowledge in conventional water/environmental governance regimes. We are also not intending to limit
the types of interacting knowledge systems to a binary of Western and Indigenous knowledge
[15,32,33]. Rather, we recognize that there are multiple knowledge systems being co-produced within
an uneven political context affecting water relations.

For the purposes of this paper, we use the term Indigenous knowledge systems in a broad sense to
mean knowledge created and/or mobilized by Indigenous peoples that may include traditional
knowledge and scientific knowledge frameworks [34,35]. We also use the term traditional knowledge to
discuss longstanding knowledges, practices, and beliefs, developed from experience gained over the
centuries and adapted to the local culture and environment, which are handed down through the
generations. This includes traditional ecological knowledge regarding the relationship of living beings
(including humans) with one another and with their environment, as well as traditional social knowledge
[36,37]. Following the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we refer to
Indigenous self-determination as the right of Indigenous peoples to “freely determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” [38]. We acknowledge the
diversity of Indigenous knowledge systems, which differ within and among communities, across regions,
languages and cultures.

Following a discussion of Indigenous research methodologies and the multitude of issues that First
Nations face when accessing clean water, our analysis begins by presenting a theoretical framework for
understanding Indigenous water relations, an essential starting point for water policy interventions and
our broader decolonizing water project. We then present three case studies that demonstrate how
Indigenous research methodologies are being critically applied to current water governance challenges
in Canada. These findings are intended to speak to a wide range of water governance issues concerning
First Nations communities in Canada, including climate change, water allocation, and industrial impacts
on water sources, among others.

Our case analyses trace a set of pathways connecting concepts to practice. These cases include (1) an
Indigenous Community-Based Health Research Lab, based on the philosophy of two-eyed seeing
(Saskatchewan); (2) water policy research that uses knowledge sharing frameworks to facilitate
knowledge sharing conversations between Elders and traditional knowledge holders (Ontario); and (3) a
long-term community-based research initiative founded on the principles of reciprocal learning and
decolonizing methodologies (British Columbia, Alberta).

Two-eyed seeing perm

Arsenault et al 18 (Rachel Arsenault , Department of Indigenous Relations, Laurentian University.
Sibyl Diver, Department of Earth System Science, Stanford. Deborah McGregor, Osgoode Hall Law
School, York University. Aaron Witham, Environmental Bio-Detection Products Incorporated. Carrie
Bourassa, Indigenous & Northern Health, Health Sciences North Research Institute. "Shifting the
Framework of Canadian Water Governance through Indigenous Research Methods: Acknowledging the
Past with an Eye on the Future" Transdisciplinarity and Knowledge Co-production: Reflections from
Water Governance. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/1/49/htm)

Some Indigenous health researchers follow principles of two-eyed seeing, which means to learn from
one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with
the strengths of western knowledges and ways of knowing [28,43,44]. This approach recognizes that
Indigenous ways of knowing have been undermined for centuries and must be central to the inquiry, yet
it does not reject western scientific knowledge. Following these protocols and principles within the
context of trust-based relationships requires sustained commitment to effective, reciprocal dialogue and
to building relationships that acknowledge the complicated and ambivalent history of colonial research
[14,28,29,39,45,46].

In addition, Indigenous research methodologies seek “to make positive differences in the condition or
lives of people” [28] (p. 130) and understand that “research exists within a system of power” [28] (p.
226). In Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies (2012), she writes that Indigenous
researchers need to take their culture into consideration. She also advocates for Indigenous researchers
to “think critically and address structural relations of power and build cultural values and systems and
contribute research back to communities that is transformative” [28] (p. 214). She stresses the
importance of Indigenous communities “talking up to” or “talking back to” power [28]. These ideals are
important for non-Indigenous researchers to consider in order to understand what First Nations
communities are looking for in research partnerships.

Perm solves
Arsenault et al 18 (Rachel Arsenault , Department of Indigenous Relations, Laurentian University.
Sibyl Diver, Department of Earth System Science, Stanford. Deborah McGregor, Osgoode Hall Law
School, York University. Aaron Witham, Environmental Bio-Detection Products Incorporated. Carrie
Bourassa, Indigenous & Northern Health, Health Sciences North Research Institute. "Shifting the
Framework of Canadian Water Governance through Indigenous Research Methods: Acknowledging the
Past with an Eye on the Future" Transdisciplinarity and Knowledge Co-production: Reflections from
Water Governance. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/1/49/htm)

The lab practices the philosophy of two-eyed seeing and reciprocal learning, discussed above, which
draws from the strengths of both Indigenous and western knowledges and ways of knowing [28,43,44].
One example of the successful interplay between knowledge systems is the Indigenous Storytelling
methodology, often referred to as the conversational method on Indigenous Research Methodology
(IRM), that is used by Dr. Margaret Kovach [69]. This approach can be seen as a way of gathering
knowledge in the oral storytelling tradition within IRM [69]. As one example in the lab, data is collected
from participants using storytelling methodology. The group then works in the student training lab to
employ NVivo qualitative analysis software for the initial data coding. Afterward, the entire research
team uses the community lab for second and third level coding, where the group uses Indigenous
methods to collectively analyze the data, an approach that is referred to as the Collective Consensual
Data Analytic Procedure (CCDAP) [70].

The lab space emphasizes critical mentorship of emerging health researchers. The lab group practices a
mentorship model that is based on respect, responsibility, reciprocity and relevance, as core values of
Indigenous research [47]. The student training lab fosters a team environment for undergraduate,
graduate and postdoctoral trainees, supervised by Dr. Bourassa and her academic group. Elders are
actively involved in guiding every research project, and are always available to the student trainees.
Mentorship in the lab happens not only between academic supervisor/student, but also between
students, as well as between Elders and students, community members and students, and especially
between community members and academics. Academic team members often remark how much they
learn from the Elders and community members in this setting.
One of the most important outcomes from this work is the facilitation of mentorship—not only amongst
and between student and community trainees, but also amongst and between student/community
trainees and research team members. Research teams may include academic leads, Elders/Knowledge
Keepers, community leads/co-leads, physicians, nurses, clinicians, policy makers, and this is what makes
our approach so powerful. We have heard many testimonials from students and our diverse team
members explaining how much they have learned through this reciprocal learning process. It is a process
that opens up new avenues for individuals to explore and develop new methodologies, new
epistemologies, and new ways of thinking and collaborating. Recently, the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation recognized this important work by naming one of our students and our lab as part of the
#IAmInnovation Campaign. By developing an innovative research process, team members create new
pathways for research applications, including new approaches to solving water governance problems.

Decontextualization sustains settler-colonialism-

Snelgrove et al 14 (Corey Snelgrove, University of British Columbia. Rita Kaur Dhamoon, University of
Victoria. Jeff Corntassel, University of Victoria. "Unsettling settler colonialism:The discourse and politics
of settlers, and solidaritywith Indigenous nations" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & SocietyVol.
3, No. 2, 2014. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/21166/17970)

Decontextualized conceptions of set tler col onial studies, ‘settler’, and solidarity risk further
eschewing Indigenous peoples and thereby reifying the stolen land each of the above is founded upon .
Perhaps, most centrally, this is done through de-centering Indigenous peoples own articulations of
Indigenous-settler relations, their governance, legal, and diplomatic orders, and the transformative
visions entailed within Indigenous political thought. Such de-centering has the potential to present
settler colonialism as complete or transhistorical, as inevitable, rather than conditioned and
contingent . This failure to attend to the conditions and contingency of settler colonialism can also be
traced to the marginalization of how colonization actually proceeds across time and space. That is, as
entangled with other relations of domination, and not only through structures, but also practices that
serve as, what Paige Raibmon (2008) refers to, “microtechniques of dispossession.” Those who critique
settler colonialism through transhistorical representations are then able to feel good and satisfied about
their criticisms, despite their ahistoricism and decontextualization, and thus their own role in actually
sustaining colonial power by failing to attend to its conditions and contingency.
 2ac – perm
The 1AC as a research object effectively challenges the universalizing discourses of
modern water
Meehan et al 20 (Katie Meehan Wendy Jepson Leila M. Harris Amber Wutich Melissa Beresford
Amanda Fencl Jonathan London Gregory Pierce Lucero Radonic Christian Wells Nicole J. Wilson Ellis
Adjei Adams Rachel Arsenault Alexandra Brewis Victoria Harrington Yanna Lambrinidou Deborah
McGregor Robert Patrick Benjamin Pauli Amber L. Pearson Sameer Shah Dacotah Splichalova
Cassandra Workman Sera Young. "Exposing the myths of household water insecurity in the global north:
A critical review" WIREs Water, Volume 7, Issue 6. November/December 2020.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wat2.1486)

4 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH AND ACTION

Citizen action and emerging research have begun to chip away at the persistent myths and
universalizing discourses of modern water. If water insecurity implies the lack of water for a thriving
life (Jepson et al., 2017), then the scholarship reviewed here draws attention to the hidden trends,
devalued communities, and institutionalized failures that have produced insecure water conditions in
Canada and the United States—a stepping stone for research in other high‐income countries. Looking
forward, we outline a set of five research priorities to shape future scholarship and practice. Taken
together, these lines of inquiry should be paired with critical analytics, methodologies, and modes of
knowledge coproduction that work toward more equitable water futures.

First, research should continue to clarify the legal, political, and socioeconomic dynamics that
produce and maintain conditions of water insecurity . The household does not stop at the front door .
In taking a relational approach, research should target the array of water supply organizations (WSOs)—
from community‐level providers to large municipal utilities— and identify how organizations and actors
reproduce practices that may perpetuate water insecurities. For example, too little is known about the
relationship between small water operators and household water insecurity, in part due to inconsistent
or absent data, reporting, or monitoring requirements (McFarlane & Harris, 2018). Small operators
supply water to many low‐income communities, yet they lack capital to improve infrastructure, draw
from a limited workforce, and charge higher‐than average water rates for less reliable service.

Legal and property rights—so often the focus of water resources research—play a role in
perpetuating household water insecurity (Jepson, 2012). For example, the legal mechanisms that are
used to resolve water disputes—such as Indian water settlements in the Navajo country—are often the
very same perpetrators of water injustice (Curley, 2019). Taking a cue from scholarship from/of the
global South, the role of informality—as a modality or “idiom” of development (Roy, 2015)—is
underexplored in the North. The presumption is that informal water development is an anomaly in the
highly regulated landscapes of infrastructure in the global North. But what happens when, as
Ranganathan (2016) has written about in the case of Flint, housing foreclosures force lower‐income
residents into informal and extractive arrangements with landlords or banks? At the same time, how
might we conceptualize informality as a site of struggle, as in the case of California water activists who
use so‐called “illegal” or informal plumbing tactics to circumvent modernist water regulations (Meehan,
2012)? Greater attention to the legal geographies and contested spaces of water governance will
offer grounded insights on how state –society interactions shape water insecurity, in ways that
potentially transcend North–South binaries and open up new opportunities for analytical comparison
and insight (Jepson, 2012; Perramond, 2020; Winkler & Flowers, 2017).

Second, a critical political‐economic perspective is essential to understand how households are

leveraged by WSOs in ways that influence or possibly exacerbate water insecurity. Financialization—the
adoption of new tools of extracting rent in monopolistic systems like municipal water provision— is
arguably one of the principal techniques for WSOs to squeeze new kinds of revenue out of households
and infrastructure systems (Loftus & March, 2016, 2019; Loftus, March, & Nash, 2016; Loftus, March, &
Purcell, 2019). These shifts imply a new set of accumulation logics and relational dynamics, in which
WSOs have insulated ownership from day‐to‐day management to mitigate investment risks (March &
Purcell, 2014) and households have become a guaranteed revenue source for financialized utilities
(Loftus et al., 2016; Loftus, March, & Purcell, 2019). The question remains: what are the impacts of
financialized modes of accumulation on water affordability, access, and service delivery for citizens and
communities? At the same time, a number of formerly private water systems are moving back under
public control as part of re‐municipalization agendas (McDonald, 2018). What are the implications of
these shifts for household provision and water security? Who bears the burdens and who enjoys the
benefits of a new political economy of water ?

Third, water access and disconnection must be conceptualized as a gradient or continuum: from
“unplumbed” households to those with reliable and secure networked service. Along this spectrum,
problems of disconnection, interruption, and water‐shutoffs are prominent in popular media, but only
recently have been a focus of scholarly inquiry (Swain, McKinney, & Susskind, 2020). Residents of mobile
homes, for example, have nearly 20% higher odds of suffering from unreliable water service (shutoffs)
than the general population; similarly, odds of experiencing chronic water service interruption are three
times higher among mobile home occupants than those living in single‐family dwellings (Pierce &
Jimenez, 2015). Precarious or intermittent water lead to adaptations that include various forms of
informal water provision and water sharing that often go unreported or overlooked. Homelessness is
the ultimate form of water disconnection, and further research is urgently needed to address the
complex experiences of chronic disconnection and housing precarity (DeMyers et al., 2017; Meehan et
al., 2020; Speer, 2016). The politics of disconnection also open new questions for hydrosocial relations
and water security. How do so‐called “off‐grid” or informal systems—such as rainwater harvesting,
micro‐grids, or private well systems—enable households to secure water in ways that perhaps augment
household resilience? (Leker & MacDonald Gibson, 2018; Meehan & Moore, 2014; Molden, Khanal, &
Pradhan, 2018; Radonic, 2019; Stillo, Bruine de Bruin, Zimmer, & Gibson, 2019). How and why do people
disconnect from the network? What trade‐offs emerge in hybrid or mixed‐infrastructure systems? What
policies or governance regulations enable or prevent disconnection ?

A fourth area of concern is the relationship between contamination, regulation, expertise, and trust.
More research is needed to elicit the story of household water insecurity and contamination—whether
by microorganisms, organophosphates, or heavy metals. Efforts should trace the socio‐environmental
pathways from source to tap, and pay particular attention to the political and economic relations
produce conditions of pollution, community response, and impacts on human health and wellbeing.
Only recently, researchers have begun to clarify how environmental regulatory regimes contribute to
insecure water in terms of water quality (Jepson & Brown, 2014). Evidence suggests that inadequacy of
existing “expert” approaches to regulation often compound contamination challenges. Mistrust is
exacerbated, in part, because political and scientific authorities marginalize communities in governance
and reporting processes. American Indian and First Nations communities' limited capital resources and
technical expertise constrain their capacities to self‐manage water quality to address perpetual water's
degradation in ways that align with state‐mandated standards (Baijius & Patrick, 2019; Norman, 2019;
Perlinger et al., 2018). Further work should map the intersections of expertise, power, and water quality
in ways that open new visions of how visible and invisible water contamination can be described,
understood, and governed for public health and wellbeing.

Finally, water affordability is perhaps the most understudied dimension of household water insecurity,
despite the leadership of activists and organizations across Canada and the United States. A research
agenda would examine water affordability in relation to other essential needs (e.g., sanitation, energy,
housing) and in relation to race, ethnicity, immigration status, and other structural disadvantages.
Metrics that effectively evaluate and monitor water affordability are a critical area of research. In
addition to improved techniques to measure affordability across space (Teodoro, 2018), natural
experiments can use the existing range of water affordability programs to examine variables such as
eligibility requirements, utility size, geographic location, and ownership (Mirosa, 2015; Pierce, Chow, &
DeShazo, 2020). Metrics should also assess tradeoffs, opportunity costs, and non‐economic dimensions
of water affordability. More information about household coping strategies in response to unaffordable
water are needed and could serve as a vital site of comparison and theory‐building across North–South
settings. For example, recent scholarship points to the negative physical and mental health effects of the
tradeoffs people make when water is unaffordable (Rosinger, 2020), but additional studies are needed
to understand the extent and scope of these impacts. Key questions remain: what are the best
normative and critical ways to define and measure affordability? What policy tools exacerbate (or
mitigate) costs for households and augment insecurity ?
 2ac – aff outweighs
Ethical obligation goes aff- lack of formal status leads to more comparative
vulnerability for undocumented immigrants in settler-colonial nations
Achiume 19 (E. Tendayi, Assistant Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She is also a Research Associate with the African Centre for
Migration and Society at the University of Witwatersrand. The current focus of her work is the global governance of racism and xenophobia;
and the legal and ethical implications of colonialism for contemporary international migration. More generally, her research and teaching
interests lie in international human rights law, international refugee law, international migration, and property. In November 2017, the United
Nations Human Rights Council appointed Professor Achiume the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, making her the first woman to serve in this role since its creation in 1993. In 2016, she was
appointed to co-chair the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (ASIL), and she is currently the co-chair of the ASIL
Migration Law Interest Group. In 2018, she was named an Emerging Scholar by Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. Professor Achiume earned
her B.A. from Yale University and her J.D. from Yale Law School. She also earned a Graduate Certificate in Development Studies from Yale.
Professor Achiume clerked for Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke and Justice Yvonne Mokgoro on the Constitutional Court of South Africa.
Following her clerkships, she was awarded the Bernstein International Human Rights Fellowship to work for the Refugee and Migrant Rights
Project unit at Lawyers for Human Rights in Johannesburg. Professor Achiume also taught on the faculty of the International Human Rights
Exchange Programme based at the University of the Witwatersrand. She then joined the New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as a
litigation associate. Immediately prior to her current appointment she was the second recipient of Binder Clinical Teaching Fellowship at UCLA
School of Law. "Migration as Decolonization" 71 Stan. L. Rev. Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series. Research Paper No. 19-05.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3330353)

What about the de-colonial obligations of settler colonial nations , such as the United States, which
achieved independence from their colonizers but which are founded on the colonial extermination and
subordination of sovereign indigenous peoples, who remain present within these settler colonial
territories? For peoples of the Fourth World209—Indigenous peoples and nations—the de-colonial
arguments made in this paper may be moot to the extent that my emphasis is political inclusion and
equality through First World citizenship. They are moot for members of indigenous nations that hold the
formal citizenship status of the respective settler colonial nation-state,210 but they apply where
members of indigenous nations are denied formal recognition as citizens. Of course, the subordinate
status of many Fourth World peoples who are formal First World citizens speaks to the fundamental
substantive inequality that is compatible with formal citizenship status .211 But the higher
comparative vulnerability to marginalization and subordination of a non-white Third World person
willing to risk her life for an undocumented life in a First World nation-state, relative to that of a
Fourth World person with formal First World citizenship status, underscores (if imperfectly so) the
de-colonial value of citizenship .212

212. My point here is simply that formal citizenship status is more protective of human rights than
undocumented status where documented status is a prerequisite for vindication of human rights.
Consider also the fact that naturalized Third World persons bearing First World citizenship are today
among the most vulnerable to racial, ethnic, national origin and other forms of discrimination that
characterize the internal inequality of most First World states. See Bernd Reiter, Framing Non-Whites
and Producing Second-Class Citizens in France and Portugal, 38 J. ETHNIC & MIGRATION STUD. 1067,
1069-70 (2012) (describing how ethnonationalism in western Europe means that non-white citizens are
subject to discrimination on account of their race and ethnicity). For a discussion of the differing rights
and duties assigned to natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens, see Henio Hoyo, “Citizenship,
Equality and Naturalization in a Comparative Perspective,” General Conference of the European
Consortium for Political Research. Prague: Charles University (Sept. 10, 2016) at 2.
With respect to Third World migration to settler colonial nation states such as the United States, the
nature of neocolonial empire also suggests the absence of a right to exclude . This is because settler
colonial nations, including the United States, are all central beneficiaries of neocolonial empire, wielding
power and influence within and through neocolonial transnational economic and political institutions to
their benefit, and at the expense of the Third World. I will argue shortly that a country such as China—
which can be seen as an ascendant global imperial power—does not have de-colonial obligations within
neocolonial empire. This is because the structural allocation of benefit within neocolonial empire, which
is largely in keeping with colonial logics of benefit and exploitation, does not favor non-First World
countries.213 The case of the United States is different, and looking to history surfaces the deliberate
actions through which this country consolidated its status as beneficiary of neocolonial empire.
Following the Second World War, the United States’ hegemonic ascent included a strategic action
calculated to ensure that its political and economic interests would be advanced and preserved across
the Third World, including through colonial structures.214 Historians Roger Louis and Ronald Robinson,
in arguing the United States’ consolidation of its imperial enterprise during and through formal
decolonization note: “Since 1957, British and American officials had agreed that the African
dependencies must evolve ‘towards stable self-government or independence’ as rapidly as possible ‘in
such a way that these [successor] governments are willing and able to preserve their economic and
political ties with the West.’” 215 This goal was arguably achieved and the extent of the advantage and
benefit that the United States enjoys within neocolonial empire216 entails de-colonial obligations. As a
sovereign or super-sovereign within neocolonial empire, I posit that the United States has no right to
exclude Third World migrants.
 2ac – alt fails
Rejecting the aff sustains anti-blackness and settler-colonialism-
Mays 16 (Kyle, Black/Saginaw Anishinaabe historian of urban history, Afro-Indigenous studies, and
Indigenous studies. He is currently a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of History at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. January 20. "The #FlintWaterCrisis is Not just a Black Issue it is also an
Indigenous Issue" https://decolonization.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/the-flintwatercrisis-is-not-just-a-
black-issue-it-is-also-an-indigenous-issue/)

I write this piece with anger, outrage, and a love for humanity. I am angry because Governor Rick Snyder should be prosecuted as a criminal to the
fullest extent that the law allows. I mean that. I am outraged because the people of Flint don’t have access to a basic human right: clean water. In spite of it all, I am
also more in love with humanity because people on the ground are helping out where their state has failed them. I want to repeat: Governor Rick Snyder should

face criminal prosecution. Flint is a majority Black city and the lack of clean water is a blatant form of
environmental rascism . Period.

However, two perspectives that I have seen in my social media disturb me. First, Native folks passively
dismissing the #FlintWaterCrisis by saying things that amount to: “Well, Native people have dealt with
the lack of water rights and the poisoning of our land for decades, so this is not new.” For instance, the
Navajo Nation in the Southwest of Turtle Island has its own water crisis , with 40% lacking access to clean, running water.
The lack of clean water goes back to World War II, when the U.S. engaged in practice bombings near Navajo Land . This past

summer, the Gold King Mine released some 3 million gallons of contaminated water into a river that led to

three states, including New Mexico, in which a part of the Navajo Nation resides.Therefore, I can understand why some Native

people would argue that the issues facing Black residents in Flint are not new, and that everyone should
pay closer attention to Native water issues on Native land. I am equally disturbed by how Black folks
continue participating in the discourses of settler colonialism by rarely, if ever, acknowledging that Flint
(and other places) is still Indigenous land, essentially stating, “this issue is anti-black because white folks
like Governor Snyder is racist.” Both points are true, but the framing is unnecessarily limiting. Given my
positionality as a Black/Anishinaabe person, I have a duty of sorts, to speak on the issue .
Brief History of Flint, Michigan

Flint, Michigan is about 60 plus miles (106 KM) northwest of Detroit. Flint
was one of a few stopping points along the Saginaw
Trail, which connected Detroit to Saginaw. This trails was the beginning of the first streets and highways
in Detroit. Native groups once dominated Flint , like all cities in the U.S. I am not a historian of Flint, but surely the People of the
Three Fires (Odawa, Potawatomi, Ojibwe) lived in the area . As my Métis niijii and colleague Dylan Miner notes, the
Anishinaabeg called Flint “Muscatawing,” and used the area for a variety of purposes, including farming
and hunting. The 1819 Treaty of Saginaw renamed the land “Grand Traverse,” and “deeded allotments
to eleven Anishinaabeg indivdals” who were later removed.

Today, according to the U.S. Census, Native people make up .05% of the entire Flint population (It is important to note that how
the census and Native people in cities consider who is Native is always drastically different; Native people are generally much more inclusive). So, the

#FlintWaterCrisis is not just a Black issue, but also a Native issue . Of course one might respond, “well, isn’t this a white
issue? Aren’t other people affected?” Yes, indeed they are. But that does not resolve the issue that Black folks are disproportionately

impacted (and that this isn’t happening in the wealthy, surrounding suburbs!) and that all of this is
happening on occupied Indigenous land, with Native people still living there.
The history of 20th century Flint is also interesting. William C. Durant founded General Motors in the first decade of the 20th century. Flint became a car-making
hub for decades. I won’t recount that history in full, but do check out Michael Moore’s documentary, Roger and Me and how the closing of General Motors, and the
sending of factories overseas, devastated Flint’s economy; the city never recovered. Massive unemployment and crime still persists. As a result, Flint is often on the
FBI’s “murder capital of the U.S.” or “most dangerous cities” lists. When people are poor, have very few options, and are continually dehumanized, some internalize
that feeling of hopelessness and take it out on those near them because they can’t see where the actual problem resides.

Natives/Blacks and Blacks/Natives: Can’t We All Just Get Along or Nah?

I understand the outrage of Native people. And you’re right: Black folks rarely acknowledge that they live on occupied land and benefit from (settler) colonialism; we

have and continue to suffer under the grip of colonialism. But to frame the #FlintWaterCrisis in terms of “we have it worse
than you” is to miss the point. I hate to say it, but this framing could be read as anti-Black and anti-urban-
Indigenous . I’m not necessarily saying that (some) Native people are being anti-Black; nor am I necessarily saying that people are acting as culture cops,
essentially saying that “real Indians” live on the reserve/ation. But I’m not going to dismiss those possibilities either. I know that anti-blackness exists in

Indian Country; ask me how many times my family and I have been called niggers by Native people and how other Native folks have always questioned us
because we were not “traditional” enough because we grew up in cities. Last time I checked, even cities used to be occupied, Indigenous land. Cities and

Indigenous people did not develop separately . To frame the #FlintWaterCrisis only within the context of
reserve/ation communities or simply a Black issue is not only harmful but dismissive of the urban Indigenous
experience, which, in the case of Flint, is linked with the problems facing Black citizens .
Black folks must stop ignoring Native issues and realities. Black Americans ignoring Native people in their analysis is not new. But to ignore history, and Native
people’s experience is problematic in a big-picture-sort-of-way. Flint was (and is) Anishinaabe land, and Indigenous people still
live there. Black folks in America need to recognize that the world does not exist only in black and white,
even if a white supremacist society has taught us this way of thinking of the world. Native people live in Flint, too,
and have dealt with the poisoning of their water and taking of their land since settlers came and dispossessed Native people. The culprit today, again,

is Governor Rick Snyder, a settler with power. This fundamental point must be made: Native people still
exist, and some of us live right next to you, in cities throughout this country; sometimes, even, in the
hood.

Water rights are a Black issue and a Native issue and a human rights issue . We may be denied our humanity by colonialism
and white supremacy, but we don’t need to do that to one another. Black folks need to engage with the fact that they benefit from settler colonialism. READ THIS
SENTENCE ALOUD: I am not saying that Black folks don’t deal with oppression or that Native people have it worse. I am not dismissing the legacy of enslavement.
Black folks are not settlers like European Americans are, but they can also benefit from colonialism. Native
folks need to remember that the
reserve/ation is not the dominant experience of most Native people these days. Most of us in the U.S.
live in cities like Flint. And that’s okay.

Multiple Forms of Oppression Can Exist at the Same Time

It sounds absurd to have to point this out these days, given how Black, Latinx, and Indigenous feminists
have discussed intersectionality in many forms over the years, but I’ll reiterate it : two or more forms of
oppression can exist simultaneously. Why it is so difficult for some to understand this is beyond me . But
the poisoning of Native land and water and further eroding of their sovereignty can exist side-by-side
with the poisoning of Black people in Flint . In short, colonialism and white supremacy can run in parallel;
well, run us over at the same time. Until we acknowledge this, from both sides, we aren’t actually
going to end any form of oppression .

Set-col bad and alt can’t solve

Snelgrove et al 14 (Corey Snelgrove, University of British Columbia. Rita Kaur Dhamoon, University of
Victoria. Jeff Corntassel, University of Victoria. "Unsettling settler colonialism:The discourse and politics
of settlers, and solidaritywith Indigenous nations" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & SocietyVol.
3, No. 2, 2014. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/21166/17970)
In the tradition of critical approaches, scholars of (or engaging with) set tler col onialism have also
identified several challenges or weaknesses of this burgeoning field of study. Joanne Barker (2011), on
the blog Tequila Sovereign, questioned the specificity of settler colonialism. Drawing on the etymological
origins of “settle” as ‘to reconcile’, as well as in light of settler state apologies, Barker warns that settler
colonialism may signal a nation-state that has moved “beyond its own tragically imperial and colonial
history to be something else, still albeit colonial, but not quite entirely colonial.” Second, Macoun and
Strakosch (2013) note that set tler col onial theory “is primarily a settler framework” that is largely about
settler intentions to think through colonial relations (p. 427). This in itself may not be a problem, but as
Macoun and Strakosch warn, settler colonial studies can re-empower non-Indigenous academic voices
while marginalizing Indigenous resistance (2013, p. 436). Third, while settler colonialism is posited as
both a condition of possibility (Rifkin, 2013) and a site of potential hope (Barker, 2012), there is an
underlying “colonial fatalism” (Macoun and Strakosch, 2013, p. 435) that posits a structural inevitability
to settler colonial relations. Macoun and Strakosch (2013) in particular note that settler colonialism is
unable to transcend itself precisely because it is conceptualized as a structure , where the only polarizing
choices available to Indigenous peoples are either to be coopted or hold a position of
resistance/sovereign, while anti-colonial action by settlers is foreclosed . Fourth, the framework of
settler colonialism has fostered over-characterizations of binary positions. Saranillio (2013), for instance,
notes two common charges against settler colonial studies: that it affirms a binary of Indigenous and
non-Indigenous, and that it leads to a neo-racist form of politics that requires non-Natives leave
Indigenous territories (arguments that Sarinillo rejects). Moreover, we note that this binary, at times,
has the effect of treating set tler col onialism as a meta-structure, thus erasing both its contingency and
the dynamics that coconstitute racist, patriarchal, homonationalist, ablest, and capitalist set tler
col onialism.

The institutionalization of settler colonial studies is quite remarkable. While some Indigenous journals
have struggled to receive institutional support and funding, the journal Settler Colonial Studies – first
published in 2011 in an open access format (entirely run on volunteer labour) to bring together critical
scholarship on settler colonialism as a distinct social, cultural and historical formation with ongoing
political effects (Edmonds and Carey, 2013, p. 2) – moved to a large academic publishing house, Taylor &
Francis, within two years of being established. This institutionalization has been coupled with a
proliferation of academic conferences, workshops, courses, and has also moved beyond academic
confines through blogs, websites, workshops and teach-ins.

The institutionalization of settler colonial studies (rather than Indigenous studies) is on the one hand a
significant shift in the academy. On the other hand, as de Leeuw, Greenwood, and Lindsay (2013) rightly
argue, even when (and perhaps because) there are good intentions to decolonize and to “cultivate a
culture of ‘doing the right thing,’” there are no “fundamental shifts in power imbalances between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples or the systems within which we operate” (p. 386). Settler
colonialism and the study of settler colonialism , in other words, cannot be decolonized because of
good intentions . Following this, paradoxically and in deeply troubling ways, set tler col onial studies can
displace, overshadow, or even mask over Indigenous studies (for example, see Veracini, 2013) and
variations within Indigenous studies, especially feminist and queer Indigenous work that is centred on
Indigenous resurgence. Indeed the link between Indigenous studies and settler colonial studies is still in
process. The synergies between the literature by/on two-spirited Indigenous identities, queer theory,
Indigenous studies more broadly, and settler colonial studies are notable in their interwoven
conversations across fields of study. But at times, Indigenous peoples and issues are de-centred in
settler colonial studies (for example, Rifkin, 2013, p. 323). Furthermore, while Rifkin is right to argue that
settler colonial practices and processes operate in everyday ways, are these practices really in the
“background” (2013, p. 331), and for whom? Is set tler col onialism “largely invisible”, as Barker (2012)
claims?

Yes, settler colonialism is naturalized, pervasive, and not just state-centred, but for whom is settler
colonialism in the background and invisible? These kinds of claims seem to presume white settler
subjectivity as the monolithic lens through which to examine settler colonialism and dispossession, both
in the context of whites and people of colour, in ways that obscures differentials of power. For
Indigenous peoples, settler colonialism may not be the primary lens of living or theorizing, but it is also
neither in the background or invisible.
 2ac – at: incommensurability
Perm solves- incommensurability doesn’t mean incompatibility
Snelgrove et al 14 (Corey Snelgrove, University of British Columbia. Rita Kaur Dhamoon, University of
Victoria. Jeff Corntassel, University of Victoria. "Unsettling settler colonialism:The discourse and politics
of settlers, and solidaritywith Indigenous nations" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & SocietyVol.
3, No. 2, 2014. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/21166/17970)

Rita: So what settler colonial studies does do, is help us relocate to locality, which is helpful. You mention the HBC. I wonder what was the
relationship between the Hudson Bay Company in Canada and the East India Company or the East Africa Company? If we’re thinking about set tler

col onialism as a structure, how is it related to other modalities of gendered and sexualized white
supremacy? How are the logics of State sovereignty and authority over nonwhite bodies connected? If we’re
thinking about it, as non-Indigenous peoples being ‘in solidarity’, part of that is locating, attacking the whole

structure of imperialism that is deeply gendered and homonationalist, that depends on neo-liberal
projects of prioritizing able-bodied workers who can serve capitalism .

Corey: Part of this, I think, what we’ve been discussing here, relates to what I sometimes see as the framing of ‘settler’ as event,
rather than structure – where we are perhaps overly focused on the question of ‘who’ at the expense of
the ‘how’. If we don’t understand how settlers are produced we run the risk of representing settlers as
some sort of transhistorical subject with transhistorical practices . So I’m worried that while in one moment the term ‘settler’
denaturalizes our – that is all non-Indigenous peoples – presence on Indigenous lands, in the next, and through this construction of the

‘settler’ as transhistorical, we renaturalize it . In short, we go from a disavowal of colonization, to its

representation as inevitable. Here is where I think a historical materialist or genealogical approach to the production
of settler subjects may be useful in showing how this production is conditioned by but also contingent
on a number of factors – white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, capitalism, colonization, the eschewal of
Indigenous governance and legal orders, environmental degradation, etc. Now this is also not to say that the binary of
Indigenous/Settler isn’t accurate. I think its fundamental. Rather, I think it is possible and important to recognize that there have

been, and are, individuals (or even collectives) that might be referred to as something other than
settlers by Indigenous peoples, perhaps as cousins. Or in a similar vein, that there have been and are practices by
settlers that aren’t colonial (and here is where centering Indigenous peoples’ accounts of Indigenous-settler relations, as well as their own
governance, legal and diplomatic orders is crucial). But I think it’s just as important to recognize that these relations have and do not occur despite settler colonial
and imperial logics, and thus outside of the binary. Rather, such relations occur in the face of it. The binary then is fundamental as the logics that uphold the binary
cannot be ignored due to the existence of possiblly good relations as the logics that uphold the binary threaten those relations through the pursuit of the
elimination of Indigenous peoples.

Rita: Yet, how do we act in light of these entanglements, and with, rather than overcoming differences ?

Corey: Tuckand Yang (2012) had this really great article, “Decolonization is not a Metaphor.” In it, they talk about the importance of an
ethics of incommensurability – a recognition of how anti-racist and anti-capitalist struggles are
incommensurable with decolonization . But what I’ve been thinking about recently is whether these
struggles are incompatible . For example, in the Indigenous resurgence literature, there is a turn away, but
it’s also not an outright rejection . It also demands settlers to change. Yet recognizing that settlers are (re)produced,
the change demanded is not just an individual transformation, but one connected to broader social,
economic, and political justice. There are then, it seems, potential lines of affinity between
decolonization and others, though incommensurable, struggles . And in order to sustain this
compatibility in the face of incommensurability, relationships are essential in order to maintain
accountability and to resist repeating colonial and other relations of domination, as well as, in very
strategic terms, in supporting each other’s resistance .

Rita: As some anti-racist and Indigenous feminists have long argued, it’s not possible for people of colour to confront different racisms without thinking about

sexism, capitalist
exploitation, homophobia and transphobia, Indigenous struggles – they are tied to one another. There is
an affinity between decolonization and other struggles . Differently positioned people of colour and Indigenous
peoples are not operating with the same kinds or degrees of authority as whites or each other, but nonetheless we are not outside of these relations
and forces of power.
 1ar – perm solves/alt fails

The perm solves- rejection undermines Indigenous resurgence that relies on alliances
with settler society to construct alternatives to settler-colonialism- you should give us
leeway on what we can perm as long as the aff is compatible with indigenous
resitsance- means if this isn’t the alt then it’s a disad to the alt because they sideline
Indigenous studies
Snelgrove et al 14 (Corey Snelgrove, University of British Columbia. Rita Kaur Dhamoon, University of
Victoria. Jeff Corntassel, University of Victoria. "Unsettling settler colonialism:The discourse and politics
of settlers, and solidaritywith Indigenous nations" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & SocietyVol.
3, No. 2, 2014. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/21166/17970)

Above, Jeff discussed the importance of re-centering the discussion and actions of solidarity back into
communities and a transformation of Indigenous-settler relationships. This reflects a broader trend in
Indigenous studies, particularly within the Indigenous resurgence paradigm. Indigenous resurgence is
not a new phenomenon; as Leanne Simpson writes, it is Indigenous peoples’ “original instruction” (2011,
p. 66). In recent years though, Indigenous resurgence emerged to signal the importance of a turn away
from dominant settler institutions, values, and ethics towards Indigenous institutions, values and ethics
of “interdependency, cycles of change, balance, struggle, and rootedness” (Alfred, 2009, pp. 110, 250;
Coulthard, 2008, 2013; Simpson, 2011, p. 17; Corntassel, 2012, p. 91). This simultaneous ‘turn away and
turn to’ reflects Jeff’s call for a re-centering of community in both discussion and action. Yet, there is
much more to Indigenous resurgence than a ‘turn away’ from settler society. Since Indigenous
resurgence is inherently in contention with settler society, it also has explicit and implicit demands of
that which is being contended with – namely, settler society and its dominant values. Theorists of
Indigenous resurgence, such as Taiaiake Alfred and Leanne Simpson, among others, also express the
possibility for settler society listening, learning, and acting, with respect to one’s position in relation to
the colonial difference, in accordance with and for what is being articulated; in short, the possibility of
settlers being transformed through anti-colonial resistance (see, for instance, Alfred, 2009, p. 35;
Arvin, Tuck & Morill, 2013; Coulthard, 2013; Simpson, 2008 2011). Indigenous resurgence is ultimately
about reframing the conversation around decolonization in order to re-center and reinvigorate
Indigenous nationhood.

Recognizing how settler colonialism works through other forms of power, Indigenous theorists have also
stressed the importance of dismantling other power structures for Indigenous liberation. For instance,
Alfred states that “the end goal of our Wasáse – our warrior’s dance” is the “transform[ation of] the
whole of society,” and a “remak[ing of] the entire landscape of power,” to ultimately “reflect a truly
post-imperial vision” (2009, p. 27); Arvin, Tuck and Morrill (2013) note how, “Native feminist theories
offer new and reclaimed ways of thinking through not only how settler colonialism has impacted
Indigenous and settler communities, but also how feminist theories can imagine and realize different
modes of nationalism and alliances in the future” (p. 9); Coulthard (2013) definitively states that, “for
Indigenous nations to live, capitalism must die”; Simpson (2011) writes that Indigenous resurgence,
“requires a disruption of the capitalist industrial complex and the colonial gender systems (and a
multitude of other institutions and systems) within settler nations” (p. 87); and Smith (2005) notes how
sexual, gendered, and racial power works to naturalize hierarchies that effect both Indigenous and
settler peoples (though, of course, in different ways), subsequently undermining alternatives to settler
colonialism.

It seems clear to us that these explicit and implicit demands expressed through Indigenous resurgence,
also provide important alternative and transformative visions articulated for Indigenous peoples
and/with settlers. As Smith (2005) writes, “when we do not presume that [ set tler col onial states]
should or will always continue to exist, we create the space to reflect on what might be more just forms
of governance, not only for Native peoples, but for the rest of the world” (p. 311). This is because,
“Indigenous sovereignty and nationhood are predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility” rather
than hypermasculine configurations of sovereignty and self based on a rejection of interdependency and
projection of impermeability (p. 311). At the same time, following Coulthard (2014), centering the
colonial relation corrects an “excessively temporal framing of [primitive accumulation]” (p. 58), resists
“becoming complicit in the very structures and processes of domination that [critical theory] ought to
oppose” through, for instance, blanket calls to reclaim the commons (p. 61), and, echoing Smith above,
prevents “overlooking what could prove to be invaluable glimpses into the ethical practices and
preconditions required of a more humane and sustainable world order” (p. 61).

In our collective discussion, we consider the question of solidarity in relation to the challenges and
alternatives articulated above, specifically looking at some of the temporal and spatial aspects of
solidarity building and how these relationships unfold.
**anti-blackness
 2ac – perm

Perm solves- water is uniquely effective at revealing the machineries of anti-

blackness- imagining better water infrastructure management generates social life
even in social death and is a prerequisite to the alt
Nemser 19 (Dan, Spanish and colonial Latin American studies at the University of Michigan. He is the author of Infrastructures of Race:
Concentration and Biopolitics in Colonial Mexico (University of Texas Press, 2017), which won the Latin American Studies Association's Mexico
Humanities Book Award in 2018. My research focuses on colonial Latin America, with a special interest in questions of race, materiality, political
economy, and indigenous studies/Nahuatl. My first book, Infrastructures of Race: Concentration and Biopolitics in Colonial Mexico (2017),
traces a genealogy of the forms and practices of spatial concentration as a technique of colonial governance. It argues that the sites at which
specific bodies and objects were brought together for particular ends constitute the condition of possibility for the emergence and
consolidation of new racial categories, racialized subjectivities, and theories of race. One of the key questions it considers is the relation
between these social formations and specific spatial orders or infrastructures, such as centralized towns, disciplinary institutions, segregated
neighborhoods, and general collections. "Against Racial Capitalism, from Occupy to the Present" February 13. Social Text)

similar at the level of theory. The book helpfully

If Carceral Capitalism sheds light on this shift at the level of political practice, it does something

brings together what are in many ways divergent theoretical currents— Afro-pessimism and Marxism—
in order to clarify the complex relation between capitalism and racism. But reading the chapters chronologically reveals a subtle shift
of emphasis. In “Against Innocence,” Wang leans heavily on the work of Afro-pessimist thinker Frank B. Wilderson III to

foreground a critique of analyses that reduce anti-black racism to a function of capitalism and thereby
ignore “forms of gratuitous violence that cannot be attributed solely to economic forces.” Wilderson argues that
the black subject is structurally excluded from Marxist categories like work, which is coded as white. Building on these arguments, Wang suggests in this essay
that even Marxist approaches that attempt to look beyond the wage relation, like value-form theory, fall into a similar trap, since their focus on “social life” outside the

workplace falls short when considering the relations of “social death” that constitute blackness .

The book’s more recent essays alsostress the importance of grappling with the economic “irrationality” of gratuitous
violence and the “sadistic pleasure” of racism . But now it is the accumulation of capital that takes center stage. While cautioning against
reductionism, for example, Wang also observes that Afro-pessimist thinkers sometimes reduce Marxist analyses of racial

capitalism to “caricatures.” She takes up the problem of racism’s “irrationality” through the “Marxist-inflected” work of W. E. B. Du Bois instead of Wilderson. When
Wilderson’s work does show up, it is framed in a debate with the political theorist Michael C. Dawson, who counters Wilderson’s claim that black people “were never meant to be workers…
[but] to be accumulated and die” by insisting that this is “fundamentally wrong: we were brought here to work, and to die.” And Wang draws on reformulations of Marx’s concept of primitive
accumulation by critics like Rosa Luxemburg, David Harvey, Nancy Fraser, and Iyko Day to characterize the contemporary debt economy, from student loans to subprime mortgages, as a form

these essays tack toward political economy without sidelining racialization

of “racialized accumulation by dispossession.” Overall,

and anti-blackness, and aim to address how racial capitalism works through logics of both disposability
and exploitability/expropriability.

What can we learn from reading Carceral Capitalism as a history of the political present? Wang’s early critique of the politics of innocence that marked the Occupy movement
also anticipated the nationwide struggles that would erupt three years later in Ferguson, which underscored the specificity of anti-black racism and

the inseparability of policing and white supremacy . Yet Wang also makes clear that, from the start, capital was at the center
of BLM’s analysis as well. The Ferguson rebellion forced the D epartment o f J ustice to investigate the city’s police
force, and as Wang discusses at length, the DOJ report revealed that the city was balancing the budget by using the police
and courts to extract fees and fines from its black, poor residents . The particular form of black
disposability that was made spectacularly visible by the police killing of Michael Brown is part of the everyday
machineries of racialized plunder . For Wang, in other words, Ferguson is the paradigm of racial capitalism today.

to resolve the impasse of liberalism that Wang identified in “Against Innocence,” and gives concrete form to the
Centering Ferguson helps

“abolitionist imagination” that she sketches in the book’s poetic conclusion. But abolition means more than dismantling the
machineries of racialized state violence, like police and prisons–it also requires building another world . In this sense, it may
Flint highlights more clearly than Ferguson the challenges of the project of abolition today. Wang briefly discusses the
be that

the city’s so-called emergency manager condemned its predominantly black residents to
Flint water crisis, in which

lead poisoning to save money, as an example of a mode of parasitic governance she calls the “financial
state of exception .” Where capital, the state, and the built environment itself conspire in the
production of premature death, abolition will have to involve the construction of collective social
relations and infrastructures of mutual aid that sustain and reproduce life–that are engaged, in other words,
in the work of what Marxist feminists call social reproduction . At the level of both practice and theory , across the passage from Occupy to
BLM and beyond, what is at stake in these struggles is the production of social life even in spaces of social
death .
 1ar – perm solves
Water starting point is good for challenging broader structures of racism-
Pulido 16 (Laura, Professor & Ethnic Studies Department Head, University of Oregon. "Flint,
Environmental Racism, and Racial Capitalism" Journal Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 27, 2016 -
Issue 3)

In this essay, I argue that the recent poisoning in Flint, Michigan, is a powerful example of both
environmental racism and the everyday functioning of racial capitalism. As a journal devoted to left and
radical thought, I believe that CNS (Capitalism Nature Socialism) needs to adopt a more intersectional
conception of capitalism in which its deeply racialized nature is fully recognized (see also
Ranganathan 2016Ranganathan, Malini. 2016. “Thinking With Flint: Racial Liberalism and the Roots of an
American Water Tragedy.” Capitalism Nature Socialism. doi:10.1080/10455752.2016.1206583.[Taylor &
Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]). The Flint case is especially interesting because the immediate source
of the problem is not a reckless emitter or a polluter cutting costs – the typical drivers of environmental
injustice. Instead, the Flint disaster is the result of the local state acting within the context of
neoliberalism. Specifically, Flint has been operating under austerity politics due to its abandonment by
capital. As such, the case highlights the larger historical, political, and economic context in which
vulnerability, contamination, and death are produced.

As has been well publicized, a central cause of the poisoning was an austerity measure imposed by the
municipal Emergency Fiscal Manager (EFM). The EFM, of course, was imposed by Michigan’s governor in
response to Flint’s financial crisis. The story is significant not only because of what happened but also
because it attracted widespread attention (Craven and Tynes 2016Craven, J., and T. Tynes. 2016. “The
Racist Roots Of Flint’s Water Crisis.” Huffington Post, February 3. Accessed May 5,
2016.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/racist-roots-of-flints-water-
crisis_us_56b12953e4b04f9b57d7b118. [Google Scholar]). It is one of those rare moments when the
larger public can actually “see” the structural nature of environmental racism, which, in turn, offers us a
chance to move beyond highly contracted conceptions of racism that have characterized the liberal and
neoliberal eras (López 2014López, Ian Haney. 2014. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Appeals have
Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar];
Melamed 2006Melamed, Jodi. 2006. “The Spirit of Neoliberalism: From Racial Liberalism to Neoliberal
Multiculturalism.” Social Text24 (4): 1–24. doi: 10.1215/01642472-2006-009[Crossref], , [Google
Scholar]).
 2ac – aff = prerequisite
Challenging lack of water access is key to broader antiracist struggle
Pulido 16 (Laura, Professor & Ethnic Studies Department Head, University of Oregon. "Flint,
Environmental Racism, and Racial Capitalism" Journal Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 27, 2016 -
Issue 3)
Collard and Dempsey (2016Collard, Rosemary-Claire, and Jessica Dempsey. 2016. “Capitalist Natures in Five Orientations.” Capitalism Nature Socialism.
doi:10.1080/10455752.2016.1202294.[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]) have developed a
typology that describes how various
forms of nature are valued by capital. Though their schema centers on nonhuman nature, it is helpful in understanding Flint.
Utilizing their framework, Flint’s Black residents can be seen as embodying at least three distinct forms of surplus:

“Outcast Surplus,” “The Underground,” and “Threat .” Outcast Surplus refers to the widely held idea that surplus is of no value to
capital. This position has been implicit throughout this essay and will not be elaborated on. However, I believe that Flint’s relationship to capital is more complex
than Outcast Surplus suggests.

“TheUnderground” refers to both human and nonhuman nature that perform services for capital but
which are not recognized or valued. Examples include unpaid domestic work or ecosystem services (Collard and Dempsey, 2016Collard,
Rosemary-Claire, and Jessica Dempsey. 2016. “Capitalist Natures in Five Orientations.” Capitalism Nature Socialism. doi:10.1080/10455752.2016.1202294.[Taylor &
Francis Online], , [Google Scholar]). I argue that Flint
is performing unpaid labor for capital by preparing the larger society
for increased struggles over basic reproduction, including such necessities as water. It is inconceivable
that a wealthy or even a middle-class neighborhood in the US (of any color) would deliberately be given
poisoned water. Yet, it is entirely conceivable that such a thing could happen in a poor, nonwhite place.
Places like Flint are where crisis is being “worked out” and the newest tools and practices of
neoliberalism are being fashioned. Flint is a training ground for “disciplining” places by finance
capital. What is happening in Flint today, the rest of us can expect in the coming years: the continued
devaluation of life and the sacredness of bonds.
Of course, this is not new. This is what happened in the Global South in the 1980s through austerity, debt, and structural readjustment (George 1990George, Susan.
1990. A Fate Worse than Debt. New York: Grove Press. [Google Scholar]). One Flint resident actually said that the community felt like a “Third World Country” (ACLU
of Michigan 2016American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. 2016. “Here’s to Flint: Documentary on Flint Water Crisis.” March 8. Accessed June 5,
2016.http://www.aclumich.org/herestoflint. [Google Scholar]). Did she know how accurate this was? Flint’s water disaster signals the inability to provide a hallmark
of the “first world” to its surplus residents: clean, tap water. As President Obama stated,

I will not rest … until every drop of water that flows to your homes is safe to drink, and safe to cook with, and safe to bathe in, because that’s part of the basic
responsibility of a government in the United States of America. (Pearce 2016Pearce, Matt. 2016. “In Michigan, it’s Crisis After Crisis.” Los Angeles Times, May 5, p.
A8. [Google Scholar], A8, emphasis added)

It is difficult to overemphasize the significance of potable water to the US’s sense of self . While I was growing up,
the jokes about Mexico’s drinking water were legendary, “Don’t drink the water!” Water was both a symbolic and material manifestation of Mexican economic,
political, and social inferiority. Mexico, as a “third world” country, was incapable of providing safe tap water, while in the US, this was taken for granted (Salzman
2012Salzman, James. 2012. Drinking Water: A History. New York: Overlook. [Google Scholar]). Though there have been moments when potable water was
temporarily unavailable in the US, increasingly
poor Black, Brown, and indigenous communities are unable to
consistently access sufficient, clean water (Jennings 2016Jennings, Angel. 2016. “Murky Water at School Elicits Worries.” Los Angeles Times,
May 12, B1, B6. [Google Scholar]; Marcum 2014Marcum, Diana. 2014. “Carrying a Town’s Water.” Los Angeles Times, September 18, A1, A12. [Google Scholar]).
This is a singular moment in US history as we confront our downward mobility .

The final relationship that Flint has to capital is as “Threat.” Marx largely dismissed the revolutionary
potential of surplus populations, arguing that they lacked the proper consciousness and discipline. While it is
true that surplus populations may have different forms of consciousness than workers, many theorists have overlooked the revolutionary

potential of nonwhite populations, in particular, how materialist demands have been incorporated into
antiracist struggle . Too often these are seen as “racial” issues, devoid of economic content . This is a
misreading, particularly of Black history, which is filled with poor Black people fighting for both
economic and racial justice (Georgakas and Surkin 1975Georgakas, Dan, and MarvinSurkin. 1975. Detroit: I Do Mind Dying: A Study in Urban
Revolution. London: St. Martin’s Press. [Google Scholar]; Kelley 1990Kelley, Robin. 1990. Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. [Google Scholar]; Quizar 2014Quizar, Jessi. 2014. “Who Cares for Detroit? Urban Agriculture, Self-Determination, and
Struggles over Urban Space.” Ph.D diss., University of Southern California. [Google Scholar]; Woods 1998Woods, Clyde. 1998. Development Arrested: The Blues and
Plantation Power in the Mississippi Delta. New York: Verso. [Google Scholar]). Robinson
has dubbed this powerful revolutionary
consciousness and history the Black Radical Tradition (BRT). It is “an accretion, over generations, of
collective intelligence gathered from struggle  … in its most militant manifestation … the purpose of the
struggles informed by the tradition became the overthrow of the whole race-based structure ” (2000Robinson,
Cedric. 2000. Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. [Google Scholar], xxx–xxxi). This does not mean
that all Black people are poised for revolution. But it does acknowledge that a
powerful tradition exists among the Black diaspora
that can be drawn upon. The class struggles of white workers have only rarely included the fight against racial capitalism. Not only have most whites
been partially pacified by their privileged status, but the “wages of whiteness” (Roediger 1990Roediger, David. 1990. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making
of the American Working Class. New York: Verso. [Google Scholar]) have enabled capital to extract greater levels of surplus than would otherwise be possible. In
contrast, Black people have been forced to struggle against racism, class exploitation, and gendered oppression for centuries – often directly against the white
working class. Evidence
of the BRT can be seen in its role in ending slavery as well as current efforts to
dismantle the prison industrial complex .

In many ways, the BRT has been the great engine of social change in the US . As activist Anne Braden explained in reference to the
1960s,

When African Americans began to organize … the foundation moved and the whole building shook. That is why people were able to organize against the war. That’s
why women were able to organize. All that happened because of the black movement. (Rostan 2001Rostan, June. 2001. “Inside-Out and Upside-Down: An Interview
with Anne Braden.” Colorlines. Accessed June 10, 2016.http://www.colorlines.com/articles/inside-out-and-upside-down-interviw-anne-braden. [Google Scholar])

Accordingly, Black people in Flint , in addition to serving as Outcast Surplus and the Underground, may
also represent a Threat . Indeed, the BRT is readily apparent in abandoned places like Detroit, where
residents are forging new possibilities (Quizar 2014Quizar, Jessi. 2014. “Who Cares for Detroit? Urban Agriculture, Self-Determination, and
Struggles over Urban Space.” Ph.D diss., University of Southern California. [Google Scholar]; Newman et al., forthcomingNewman, Andrew, LindaCampbell, Sara
Safransky, and Tim Stallmann. Forthcoming. Detroit: A People’s Atlas. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. [Google Scholar]; Boggs 2011Boggs, Grace Lee.
2011. The Next American Revolution: Sustainable Activism for the Twenty-First Century. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]). The BRT
must be recognized as a great asset in the fight against neoliberalism and capitalism’s complete
domination of people, places, and nature .
 2ac – alt fails

K can’t solve- racism insufficient in the context of the aff- water poisoning is a product
of racially differentiated spatialization-
Pulido 16 (Laura, Professor & Ethnic Studies Department Head, University of Oregon. "Flint,
Environmental Racism, and Racial Capitalism" Journal Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 27, 2016 -
Issue 3)

So why is this catastrophy the result of racial capitalism versus plain capitalism? Moreover, what does
such an analysis offer? It is a story of racial capitalism because a nonracial materialist analysis does not
fully explain this tragedy, nor could racism alone . Racial capitalism, according to Robinson
(2000Robinson, Cedric. 2000. Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina. [Google Scholar]), insists that racism is a constituent logic of
capitalism. This challenges conventional Marxist and left thinking in several ways. For one, it refutes the
idea that racism can be reduced to class (Omi and Winant 1986Omi, Michael,
and HowardWinant. 1986. Racial Formation in the United States. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar];
Roediger 2008Roediger, David. 2008. How Race Survived US History: From Settlement and Slavery to the
Obama Phenomenon. New York: Verso. [Google Scholar]). In addition, Robinson challenges the idea that
racism began with colonization. He shows that it actually predates it, which is important in affirming that
racism does not always conform to the needs and desires of capital and elites. Conceptualizing racism as
a material/discursive formation that produces differential human value and is embedded in the global
landscape, is quite distinct from conceptualizing it as additive. Racial difference, similar to gender
inequality (Mies 1998Mies, Maria. 1998. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale. London: Zed
Books. [Google Scholar]; Wright 2006Wright, Melissa. 2006. Disposable Women and Other Myths of
Global Capitalism. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]), creates a variegated landscape that cultures
and capital can exploit to create enhanced power and profits (McIntryre and
Nast 2011McIntryre, Michael, and Heidi Nast. 2011. “Bio(necro)polis: Marx, Surplus Populations, and the
Spatial Dialectics of Reproduction and ‘Race’.” Antipode 43 (5): 1465–1488. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8330.2011.00906.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]). Just as the spatial fix is
fundamental to capitalism, so too is human difference. As Melamed has argued,

Capital can only be capital when it is accumulating, and it can only accumulate by producing and moving
through relations of severe inequality among human groups – capitalists with the means of
production/workers without the means of subsistence, creditors/debtors, conquerors of land made
property/the dispossessed and removed. These antinomies of accumulation require loss, disposability,
and the unequal differentiation of human value, and racism enshrines the inequalities that capitalism
requires. (2015Melamed, Jodi. 2015. “Racial Capitalism.” Critical Ethnic Studies 1 (1): 76–85.
doi: 10.5749/jcritethnstud.1.1.0076[Crossref], , [Google Scholar], 77)

Essential to grasping the racialized nature of capitalism is appreciating capitalism’s precedents and early
forms. These structures and processes not only produced particular distributions of wealth and power,
but also inform the structures, ideologies, and cultural practices of today. While Marxism has generally
collapsed such processes under primitive accumulation and seen race as derivative (San Juan 1992San
Juan, E. 1992. Racial Formations/Critical Transformations. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities
Press. [Google Scholar], Chap. 3), other scholars, including predecessors of contemporary critical ethnic
studies, have developed sophisticated analyses of the racial dimensions of colonization
(Fanon 1965Fanon, Franz. 1965. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press. [Google Scholar];
Galeano 1973Galeano, Eduardo. 1973. Open Veins of Latin America. New York: Monthly Review.
[Crossref], , [Google Scholar]; Said 1979Said, Edward. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage. [Google
Scholar]), slavery (Hudson 2016Hudson, Peter James. 2016. “The Racist Dawn of Capitalism.” Boston
Review, March 14. Accessed June 7, 2016.https://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/peter-james-hudson-
slavery-capitalism. [Google Scholar]; Johnson 2013Johnson, Walter. 2013. River of Dark Dreams: Slavery
and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. [Google Scholar]), unfree labor
(Resendez 2016Resendez, Andres. 2016. The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian
Enslavement. New York: Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar]; Smith 2013Smith, Stacey. 2013. Freedom’s
Frontier: California and the Struggle over Unfree Labor, Emancipation, and Reconstruction. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina. [Google Scholar]), genocide (Madley 2016Madley, Benjamin. 2016. An
American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846–1873. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]), land access
(Almaguer 1994Almaguer, Tomás. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in
California. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]; Saxton 1995Saxton, Alexander.
[1971] 1995. The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in
California. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]), and racially differentiated labor
markets (Barrera 1979Barrera, Mario. 1979. Race and Class in the Southwest. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. [Google Scholar];
Marable 1983Marable, Manning. 1983. How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black
America. Boston, MA: South End Press. [Google Scholar]; Roediger and Esch 2012Roediger, David,
and Elizabeth Esch. 2012. The Production of Difference: Race and the Management of Labor in US
History. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]; Wilson 1992Wilson, Bobby. 1992.
“Structural Imperatives Behind Racial Change in Birmingham, Alabama.” Antipode 24 (3): 171–202.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.1992.tb00440.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]). While not
every structure and practice is overtly racist, meta-economic, and political processes in the US are
saturated with racial meaning and consequences.

Care must be taken in how racism is conceptualized in the contemporary period. Racism and white
supremacy are not stagnant and evolve over time (López 2014López, Ian Haney. 2014. Dog Whistle
Politics: How Coded Appeals have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. New York: Oxford
University Press. [Google Scholar]; Melamed 2011Melamed, Jodi. 2011. Represent and Destroy:
Rationalizing Violence in the New Racial Capitalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
[Crossref], , [Google Scholar]; Winant 2001Winant, Howard. 2001. The World is a Ghetto: Race and
Democracy Since World War II. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]). Though various nonwhite
groups, especially the poor of color, continue to subsidize the well-being of whites and the wealthy of all
colors, class distinctions within racial categories are increasingly significant
(Melamed 2006Melamed, Jodi. 2006. “The Spirit of Neoliberalism: From Racial Liberalism to Neoliberal
Multiculturalism.” Social Text24 (4): 1–24. doi: 10.1215/01642472-2006-009[Crossref], , [Google
Scholar]). A hallmark of neoliberalism, no longer is the color line black/white, or hard and fast
(Bonilla-Silva 2004Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2004. “From Bi-Racial to Tri-Racial: Towards a New System of
Racial Stratification in the USA.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27 (6): 931–950.
doi: 10.1080/0141987042000268530[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]).
Through the civil rights movement, the development of state anti-racisms
(Melamed 2011Melamed, Jodi. 2011. Represent and Destroy: Rationalizing Violence in the New Racial
Capitalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.[Crossref], , [Google Scholar]), and economic
polarization (Wilson 1980Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The Declining Significance of
Race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. [Google Scholar]), the US now has a Black president and
escalating white poverty. Growing white poverty, however, does not mean the demise of racism, but
rather its new deployments.33 As I write, overt racism is growing as the white working class experiences
downward mobility, and is partially fueled by the Trump campaign. View all notes Though elites of color
are still subject to discrimination, they do not experience the hardship and suffering of poor people of
color and/or poor native peoples. Poor, segregated, people of color, whether on a reservation, el
campo, or in the inner city, experience a distinct, brutal reality that is key to the accumulation of power
and profits for elites.44 Though indigenous people share many similarities with other communities of
color in terms of environmental injustice, their conditions and experiences are also distinct as nations
fighting against colonization (see, e.g. Simpson 2014Simpson, Audra. 2014. Mohawk Interruptus:
Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.[Crossref], , [Google
Scholar]).View all notes Their “value,” if one can call it that, is in their general expendability
(Márquez 2013Márquez, John. 2013. Black-Brown Solidarity: Racial Politics in the New Gulf
South. Austin: University of Texas Press. [Google Scholar]). This disposability allows both capital and
the state to pursue policies and practices that are catastrophic to the planet and its many life forms
because much of the cost is borne by “surplus” people and places (Gilmore 2008Gilmore, Ruth
Wilson. 2008. “Forgotten Places and the Seeds of Grassroots Planning.” In Engaging Contradictions:
Theory, Politics, and Methods of Activist Scholarship, edited by Charles Hale, 31–61. Berkeley: University
of California. [Google Scholar]; Harvey 1989Harvey, David. 1989. The Limits to
Capital. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar], 303). McIntryre and Nast
(2011McIntryre, Michael, and Heidi Nast. 2011. “Bio(necro)polis: Marx, Surplus Populations, and the
Spatial Dialectics of Reproduction and ‘Race’.” Antipode 43 (5): 1465–1488. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8330.2011.00906.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]) refer to such concentrations of
disposable people as a necropolis, which exists in relation to the biopolis – places where the well-being
and reproduction of subjects matter.

Some may argue that racism is not relevant in Flint because white people were also hurt. Such logic
refuses to grasp how racism operates as an ideological process. Flint is considered disposable by virtue
of being predominantly poor and Black. Here, racism is a process that shapes places, and in this case,
produces a racially devalued place. Accordingly, the white people who live there, most of whom are
poor, are forced to live under circumstances similar to that of Black residents. White people living in a
Black space find that their whiteness is of only limited utility in escaping the devaluation associated with
poor Black people and places. This also explains the converse – why white segregation enables the
maximum exploitation of white privilege (see Lipsitz 1998).

This is not a new argument. Gilmore has documented how anti-prison activists reached a similar
conclusion when trying to understand the discriminatory nature of incarceration. Activists concluded
that, “You have to be White to be prosecuted under white law, but you do not have to be Black to be
prosecuted under black law” (Gilmore 1999, 22). Flint is a spatialization of this process. It embodies the
value inherent in differing laws and practices. The local state, completely engulfed in the culture of
neoliberalism and austerity, chose to respond to an urban fiscal crisis by poisoning its people. It felt it
had the latitude to do so because its residents simply do not matter – they are disposable.
 1ar – alt fails

Alt fails- it isn’t just a result of racism- analyzing material processes is key to
contextual understanding
Pulido 16 (Laura, Professor & Ethnic Studies Department Head, University of Oregon. "Flint,
Environmental Racism, and Racial Capitalism" Journal Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 27, 2016 -
Issue 3)

I have argued for the need to rethink capitalism as racial capitalism. Specifically, I have tried to show
that the Flint water disaster cannot be understood solely as a result of capitalism, nor as the result of
racism. Social science’s core concepts of “race and class” are often insufficient in illuminating the
various ways in which racism can be used to expand the power and profits of capitalists and other elites.
Most importantly, their very formulation assumes that capitalism is not racialized. While the case of Flint
focuses on African Americans, it is essential to remember that racial processes also produce the
environmental landscapes of white people as well (Park and Pellow 2011Park, Lisa,
and DavidPellow. 2011. The Slums of Aspen. New York: New York University Press. [Google Scholar];
Pulido 2000Pulido, Laura. 2000. “Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban
Development in Southern California.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90 (1): 12–40.
doi: 10.1111/0004-5608.00182[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]).
Analyzing racial capitalism requires that we shift our lens to consider how both ideology and history
inform and are shaped by material processes – just because a situation is not popularly  recognized as a
racial one does not mean that it is not. As Linebaugh reminds us,
***topicality
**protection of water resources
 2ac – cessation of use
We meet- preventing water leaks from crumbling infrastructure protects water
resources by decreasing use by 18%
Festing et al 13 (Harriet Festing, Director • Danielle Gallet, Project Manager • Haisi Liu, Ben Shorofsky, Research • Sofia Becker, Ryan Kilpatrick, Kathrine Nichols, Report Editing + Layout. Center for
Neighborhood Technology. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) is an award-winning innovations laboratory for urban sustainability. Since 1978, CNT has shown urban communities in Chicago and across the country how
to develop more sustainably. CNT promotes the better and more efficient use of the undervalued resources and inherent advantages of the built and natural systems that comprise the urban environment. As a creative think-and-
do tank, CNT researches, promotes, and implements innovative solutions to improve the economy and the environment, make good use of existing resources and community assets, restore the health of natural systems, and
increase the wealth and well-being of people—now and in the future. CNT’s unique approach combines cutting edge research and analysis, public policy advocacy, the creation of web-based information tools for transparency and
accountability, and the advancement of economic development social ventures to address those problems in innovative ways. CNT works in four areas: transportation and community development, water, energy and climate. CNT
has two affiliates, CNT Energy and Alternative Transportation for Chicagoland. CNT is a recipient of the 2009 MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions.
https://www.cnt.org/sites/default/files/publications/CNT_CaseforFixingtheLeaks.pdf)

Across America, water utilities and water consumers – basically, all of us – are watching money go down the drain. Every
single day,
nearly six billion gallons of expensive, treated water is simply lost . Why? Crumbling infrastructure. Leaky,
aging pipes and outdated systems are wasting an estimated 14 to 18 percent of our nation’s daily water
use.

Water loss from failing infrastructure, faulty metering, and flat-out theft costs money, and can mean lost revenue
for utilities and higher rates for water users. With increasing demand, maintenance and energy costs within the water industry, rates are
already rising. Between 1996 and 2010, the
cost of water services in the US rose by nearly 90 percent. Given this
increase it is essential that we quickly adopt effective water loss control practices .
The Great Lakes region is a perfect place to start. The Great Lakes states are stewards of the world’s largest available source of fresh water, and
represent nearly 30 percent of our nation’s gross domestic product and 60 percent of manufacturing. Controlling water loss is a
smart investment that will ease burdens on utilities and consumers, drive innovation and economic development, protect human health,
preserve water resource s, and set a national standard for responsible governance and resource protection.

Counter-interp- topical affs must either increase technical and financial assistance to
help communities build sewage and drinking water infrastructure OR regulate water
pollution
Cody et al 17 (Betsy A., Specialist in Natural Resources Policy. Judy Schneider, Specialist on the
Congress. Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy. Congressional Research Service. May 24.
"Selected Federal Water Activities: Agencies, Authorities, and Congressional Committees"
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42653.pdf)

Report Organization The following tables describe federal water-related activities and programs in the U nited
S tates and identify the primary administering federal agency(ies), primary authorities,3 and examples of congressional committees of jurisdiction for each
agency activity or program.4 The tables are arranged under broad areas, subtopics, and topic terms. The four areas covered by the report are as follows: 

Water Resources Development, Management, and Use ;  Water Quality, Protection, and Restoration; 
Water Rights and Allocation; and  Research and Planning.
Each thematic area begins with a brief introduction and is followed by a table(s) of relevant agencies, activities and programs, and House and Senate committees of
jurisdiction.5 Each table covers
more focused areas of water issues—subtopics—based on agency function and
the historical development of federal water programs . In organizing these tables, a series of topic terms was
developed under which both members of the general public and those more familiar with water
policy might categorize federal water-related activities. These topic terms were determined by the
CRS analysts and legislative attorneys involved in developing the report .
The “Water Resources Development,
Management, and Use” theme includes subtopics that relate to supply and reservoir
development, drought and flood management, hydropower, and navigation . The “Water Quality,
Protection, and Restoration” theme addresses issues relating to water quality and aquatic resources protection
and management, including selected regional aquatic ecosystem restoration authorities . The “Water
Rights and Allocation” theme addresses water allocation and interstate compacts, river basin commissions,
federal reserved water rights, and tribal water rights . The “Research and Planning” theme includes subtopics
related to research and data collection, such as water cycle and climate change research, water-related
technologies, and watershed planning.

Significant overlaps occur both within and among the different categories . This analysis generally excludes marine or ocean issues
and international and boundary water issues, except for jointly managed dams at the U.S.-Mexican
border and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs along the U.S.-Mexican border .
Additionally, Congress has established various economic development programs that include water
supply and/or treatment projects among the categories of purposes eligible for federal assistance;
however, this report does not include programs for which water-related activities are not the major
focus. Also excluded are broad environmental remediation or waste management statutes, such as the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Water activities affecting
Indian tribes are also not uniformly addressed in the accompanying tables but instead are covered
where they are known to interact with broader federal agency water-related programs and activities,
such as water supply development and water quality infrastructure. Because federal environmental laws, such as the
Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, 6 apply to all federal agencies, federal agency activities under those laws are not identified in
this report.

Appendix A discusses considerations in determining House and Senate committee jurisdictions and provides an example of the complexity in water topics and
jurisdictional coverage. Appendix
B and Appendix C present the official language from House Rule X and Senate Rule XXV,
respectively, as indicators of congressional jurisdiction over water resources . Both the House and the Senate tables also
address subcommittee jurisdiction, and the Senate table provides information on executive branch nominations handled by Senate committees. Appendix D
provides a glossary of abbreviations for federal agencies and House and Senate committees. Program abbreviations generally are spelled out where they first occur
in each table.

In sum, the nine tables that make up the body of the report define water based on the topic terms
determined by CRS. These tables underscore the intricacy of the federal programs affecting water
resource development, management, protection, and use in the United States . As apparent throughout the tables,
numerous standing committees in the House and Senate have jurisdiction over various components of federal water policy; moreover, committees listed here
generally exclude the extensive responsibilities of the appropriations committees in both chambers, as well as the direct and indirect activities of other committees
in the relevant chambers that deal with banking, taxes, and finance issues.

Water Resources Development, Management, and Use Historically, the federal government played a large role in development of
the nation’s water resources—in particular constructing large water resource infrastructure projects (e.g., canals, locks,

levees, and dams)—for navigation, flood damage reduction, and irrigation water supply in the West. The largest
federal dams typically serve multiple purposes, including those noted above, as well as producing hydropower and providing water supplies for municipal and
industrial uses. More recently, Congress has authorized activities
and programs to augment water supplies via water
conservation programs, including groundwater recharge (aquifer storage and recovery), and water
reclamation and reuse programs, including desalination .

This section focuses on federal activities related to waterresource development, management, and use and includes three
tables: Table 1 lists activities related to water supply and reservoir development and includes topic areas such as dams and dam

safety; general water supply development; groundwater supply; irrigation assistance; rural water supply;
water conservation; and water reclamation, reuse and desalination. Table 2 lists activities related to drought and
flood management and includes topic areas such as drought planning, mitigation, and response; emergency flood
response; flood damage reduction; and flood mitigation . Table 3 lists activities related to hydropower and navigation
and includes topic areas such as federal hydropower development; nonfederal hydropower development; and

navigation.

Water Quality, Protection, and Restoration Federal efforts to protect and improve water quality and water resources range from
technical and financial assistance programs to help communities build sewage treatment and drinking
water treatment works, to regulatory programs for preventing or controlling water pollution . Most
federal programs focus on surface water quality , while states have a dominant role in matters related to groundwater protection. One
exception is where Congress has authorized EPA to regulate the underground injection of fluids to protect underground sources of drinking water.

Solves limits and ground- it allows two topical mechanisms with sufficient room for
specification beyond that to allow aff innovation- regulation and funding both have
tons of neg ground

Precision and predictability- our interpretation was written by water policy analysts
and legislative attorneys to reflect both common understandings and water policy
expertise- it’s both inclusive and exclusive with tons of examples and delineates
explicitly between protection and development, management, and use
 1ar – protection =/= cessation of use
Protection does not require total cessation of use
Ede 2 (Keala, J.D. candidate, University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), 2002; B.A.,
Occidental College, 2000. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAW:He
Kanawai Pono no ka Wai (A Just Law for Water): The Application and Implications of the Public Trust
Doctrine in In re Water Use Permit Applications, 29 Ecology L.Q. 283. l/n) *The Commission is the Hawaii
State Commission on Water Resource Management, issuing an opinion interpreting what protection of
water resources means in the Hawaiian Constitution

The Commission declared that the protection of all fresh water resources , including ground water, is a
primary duty of the state under the PTD. 6 More specifically, the Commission found windward O"ahu
ground water and streams, as well as Kane"ohe Bay, to be part of the public trust and therefore subject
to review under the State's public trust responsibility. 69 Nevertheless, the Commission also stated that
this does not always mean that offstream uses must cease, or that new offstream uses are not
permissible . 70 [Wai<mac a>hole, 9 P.3d at 425-26 (""The duty to protect [public water resources] does
not necessarily or in every case mean that all offstream uses must cease, that no new uses may be
made, or that all waters must be returned to a state of nature before even the first Hawaiians arrived in
these islands and diverted stream water to grow taro.'") (citing COLs at 11).] Instead, although the public
trust duty remains primary, the particular level of protection may vary depending on the
circumstances . 71
 1ar – at: non-point source pollution is bad for the neg

It’s totally fine for the neg- seems large but the mechanism of regulation has tons of neg ground. It gets
crushed by incentives, or reg-neg, or states and has great links to disads. Those affs don’t have defenses
of the mechanism. Limiting the topic to two contestible mechanisms serves as a functional limit on the
topic and encourages the neg to focus on areas where direct regulation would be winnable and cut
specific strats.

Nonpoint source regulation isn’t currently authorized- affs generate uniqueness for a
pretty big expansion of regulatory authority which means they’d get disads and the
incentives CP- or the aff would lose to the water resource PIC out of nonpoint source
water pollution and regulate it as something else
EPA No Date ("Introduction to the Clean Water Act" Section 319: Nonpoint Source Program.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/moduleFrame.cfm?parent_object_id=2788)

Atmospheric deposition also is a form of nonpoint source according to the CWA and EPA regulations:
pollutants discharged into the air and returned directly or indirectly to surface waters in rainfall and
snow, as well as so-called dry deposition between precipitation events. Of course, “smokestack
industries” such as fossil-fueled electric generating plants could be considered “point sources of air
pollution.” But the diffuse deposition of pollutants emitted by such facilities is a form of nonpoint source
in the context of water pollution. The reason that precipitation-induced runoff is treated as a point
source rather than nonpoint has to do with channelization. Channelization is a key characteristic of a
point source. Diffuse stormwater runoff, which is not channelized, is not regulated and is a nonpoint
source.

Pollutants commonly associated with NPS include nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), pathogens,
clean sediments, oil and grease, salt, and pesticides.

Congress chose not to address nonpoint sources through a regulatory approach, unlike its actions with
“point” sources. Rather, when it added Section 319 to the CWA in 1987, it created a federal grant
program that provides money to states, tribes, and territories for developing and implementing NPS
management programs.

Under the Clean Water Act section 319, states, territories, and delegated tribes are required to develop
nonpoint source pollution management programs (if they wish to receive 319 funds). Once it has
approved a state’s nonpoint source program, EPA provides grants to these entities to implement NPS
management programs under section 319(h). Section 319 is a significant source of funding for
implementing NPS management programs, but there are other federal (e.g., Farm Bill), state, local, and
private programs.

Congressional appropriations for the CWA section 319 program peaked at $230 million in 2002, but have
averaged about $200 million in recent years. Recipients of CWA section 319 grand funds must provide a
40 percent match, either in dollars or in-kind services. States and territories “pass on” a substantial
fraction of the 319 funds they receive from EPA to support local nonpoint source pollution management
efforts. Depending on the state or territory, a “local match” may be required.
Though there is no CWA federal regulatory authority over nonpoint sources of pollution and the act
does not require states to develop their own regulatory programs to obtain 319 grants, states,
territories, and tribes may, at their discretion, use 319 funds to develop their own NPS regulatory
programs. To date, however, few have done so.
 1ar – we meet
We meet
Festing et al 13 (Harriet Festing, Director • Danielle Gallet, Project Manager • Haisi Liu, Ben Shorofsky, Research • Sofia Becker, Ryan Kilpatrick, Kathrine Nichols, Report Editing + Layout. Center for
Neighborhood Technology. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) is an award-winning innovations laboratory for urban sustainability. Since 1978, CNT has shown urban communities in Chicago and across the country how
to develop more sustainably. CNT promotes the better and more efficient use of the undervalued resources and inherent advantages of the built and natural systems that comprise the urban environment. As a creative think-and-
do tank, CNT researches, promotes, and implements innovative solutions to improve the economy and the environment, make good use of existing resources and community assets, restore the health of natural systems, and
increase the wealth and well-being of people—now and in the future. CNT’s unique approach combines cutting edge research and analysis, public policy advocacy, the creation of web-based information tools for transparency and
accountability, and the advancement of economic development social ventures to address those problems in innovative ways. CNT works in four areas: transportation and community development, water, energy and climate. CNT
has two affiliates, CNT Energy and Alternative Transportation for Chicagoland. CNT is a recipient of the 2009 MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions.
https://www.cnt.org/sites/default/files/publications/CNT_CaseforFixingtheLeaks.pdf)

The logical response to our infrastructure woes is to fix the leaks. Fortunately, a suite of cost-effective
approaches to reducing water loss and providing smart, responsible water service to customers is now
available. Best practices include state-of-the-art auditing methods, leak detection monitoring, targeted
repairs or upgrades, pressure management, and better metering technologies . By adopting such
practices, water service providers can save themselves and their communities money in the long run,
while protect ing water resources and generating economic growth.
 1ar – infrastructure = protection
We meet the counter-interp- funding infrastructure is water quality protection- it’s
the consensus of every level of government- we literally protect all the physical water
in the United States from threats- this can also be extended as a new counter-interp in
the 1ar
GLRC 5 (Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. Federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, Council of Great Lakes
Governors, Great Lakes Cities Initiative, Native American Tribes, and Great Lakes Congressional Task Force signed a Declaration
and agreed to a Framework Document that signified the convening of the Collaboration in December 2004. A framework was developed to
guide the collaboration process designed to develop, by consensus, a strategy and action plan to restore and protect
the Great Lakes. https://www.gsgp.org/media/1847/glrc_strategy.pdf)

5) Use the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to improve drinking water infrastructure and support source
water protection. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) should be fully funded and increased
flexibility should be given in how the funds may be used by the states and local municipalities for water infrastructure
improvements. States and local public water supply systems to implement and enforce infrastructure improvement plans that include
security measures to address resource/facility vulnerabilities and critical infrastructure facilities governed under the Bioterrorism Act.

Rationale: Protection of drinking water quality by public and private water supply systems throughout the Great Lakes
basin must be improved. In addition to effective implementation and enforcement of existing Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
requirements by U.S. EPA and the states, this action requires a combination of enhanced federal policy requirements to include
full federal funding and greater flexibility in how State Revolving Funds may be used to upgrade drinking water
infrastructure, systems, and implementation of water infrastructure improvement plans with security
measures for vulnerable resources/facilities to reduce chemical contaminant and bioterrorism risks to drinking
water supplies. Cost: Fully-fund the DWSRF at levels authorized by the SDWA ($260 million to the Great Lakes States) through 2010.

Funding water infrastructure is the core of the topic and key to ground and education-
their interp isn’t exclusive of ours, so you can always add our aff to their case list to
solve their limits offense
Horton et al 21 (Michelle, interview with Rosemary Knight, professor of geophysics in the Stanford
School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, Newsha Ajami, director of urban water policy with
Stanford’s Water in the West program, and Felicia Marcus, Visiting Fellow at Water in the West. "Q&A:
Stanford water experts outline how the Biden administration can secure safe drinking water for all"
https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2021/03/23/future-americas-drinking-water/)

It’s no surprise then that the Biden-Harris administration has identified safe drinking water as one of the
nation’s top priorities. Below, Stanford water experts Rosemary Knight, Newsha Ajami and Felicia Marcus discuss
safeguarding drinking water ; emphasizing a modern approach to infrastructure
from climate-driven disasters

investments; and focusing on watershed and water source protection . Knight is a professor of geophysics in the Stanford
School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth); Ajami is director of urban water policy with Stanford’s Water in the West program; and Marcus
is the William C. Landreth Visiting Fellow at Water in the West.

Whether it’s floods, fires, storms, droughts or sea level rise, climate impacts have a direct influence on water supplies. What types of climate mitigation
policies should the Biden team enact to protect drinking water ?
Marcus: Grants and low-cost financing for community preparedness, especially for underserved communities, to adapt and plan for climate impacts would

make a tremendous difference. The federal government should be doing leading-edge research,
technology development and dispersion for
lower-cost sensor and treatment systems for drinking water. Finally, the
administration can explicitly make drinking water its
highest priority for research and development, funding, and updating regulations based upon science .

Ajami: Water
has to be the central part of both climate mitigation and adaptation discussions. Today we are facing many
challenges that are the consequence of our approach to securing water and energy resources over the
20th century, building infrastructure networks under the assumption of abundance and overlooking
inherent environmental interlinks . Source protection, demand management and public engagement strategies should be at the center of any
climate policy.

News stories, such as the lead

contamination of Flint, Michigan’s water in 2014, have shown failing or poorly managed
infrastructure is at the heart of the potable water crisis . What types of infrastructure investments are key
to ensuring access to safe water ? What should the Biden team do to spur change?

Ajami: Thereare multiple challenges at play here: aging infrastructure, lack of infrastructure, cost of
service, infrastructure operation and maintenance costs, and navigating impacts of climate change . The new
administration has the opportunity to address many of these challenges through a holistic effort and having a systems-level approach by investing in water
diversification strategies, multi-benefit and decentralized infrastructure (including green infrastructure, stormwater capture and reuse), and data and governance
systems for innovative infrastructure solutions.

Marcus: A short list would include upper watershed protection to protect source waters; better treatment systems all along a watercourse, as communities take out

and then return water through wastewater systems and natural treatment systems; basic financing for communities that can’t afford
adequate drinking water systems; and support for changing out lead piping and faucets in schools and homes.
Funding, better regulation and communication can make a world of difference.
 1ar – we increase
Increasing funding for water infrastructure increases protection
Surfus 20 (Krisina, Managing Director, Government Affairs, National Association of Clean Water
Agencies. "Recovering from Coronavirus Mitigating the Economic Cost of Maintaining Water and
Wastewater Service in the Midst of a Global Pandemic and National Economic Shut‐Down"
https://www.nacwa.org/docs/default-source/resources---public/water-sector-covid-19-financial-
impacts.pdf?sfvrsn=98f9ff61_2)

Revitalizing the Economy Safe, secure and sustainable water is the foundation of a healthy environment,
thriving communities, and a robust economy. Investing in water infrastructure will increase protection
for the public health and the environment while creating high‐wage jobs to help the economy rebound
from the global coronavirus pandemic.
**other topic words
 2ac – substantial
We meet- we’re a substantial increase in funding
Walton 21 (Brett, writes about agriculture, energy, infrastructure, and the politics and economics of water in the United States. He also
writes the Federal Water Tap, Circle of Blue’s weekly digest of U.S. government water news. He is the winner of two Society of Environmental
Journalists reporting awards, one of the top honors in American environmental journalism: first place for explanatory reporting for a series on
septic system pollution in the United States(2016) and third place for beat reporting in a small market (2014). He received the Sierra Club's
Distinguished Service Award in 2018. "In Broad Strokes, Biden Infrastructure Plan Sketches a Future for Federal Water Spending"
https://www.circleofblue.org/2021/world/in-broad-strokes-biden-infrastructure-plan-sketches-a-future-for-federal-water-spending/)

“Specifically, we deeply appreciate the

plan’s comprehensive approach to investing much needed federal resources
towards our nation’s aging water infrastructure, protecting vulnerable populations, and supporting our rural and regional
economies,” Ohle wrote to Circle of Blue in an email.

Notably for water and public health, the administration proposes substantial funding to eliminate lead
service lines that are a source of the brain-damaging chemical .