EXr GUEST EDITORIAL 0
Isdrlnklng-water research really necessary? Without a doubt, drinking-water research is essential. But there are other basic questions to be answered: Who is going to support the research? How much research is necessary? To help answer the second question, we might look at what is being spent on other areas of research and at how much is being spent on water research abroad. The electric utility industry has a collective research budget in excess of $350 million. The gas utility industry sponsors a centralized research effort of $150 million. The Dutch water supply industry’s centralized research budget is $4 million. In the U.K., the collective effort is at the $17-million level. By comparison, the water supply industry of North America funds the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) at a level of $0.5 million. Does this mean that the gas and electric utilities have 300 to 700 times the number of problems of water utilities, or that the drinking-water problems in Holland and the U.K. are 8 to 34 times more complex than those here? The answer, obviously, is no. If we can assume that these other centers are funded correctly, then what can be said about the collective effort of the North American water industry? Before offering a solution, let’s examine the second issue, of who should do the research. The pat answer at one time was “let EPA do it”-but times have changed. Although EPA has always been forthright with its research and the resulting regulatory proposals, some water industry officials have been questioning whether there are enough checks and balances in federal research. There is also a growing belief that water utility representatives must be involved in all phases of the research if the agenda is going to have immediate and practical applicability to the industry. The water utilities are now in the first stages of implementing a voluntary assessment program to fund research through AWWARF. The idea is simple enough, and it parallels the gas and electric assessment programs. A small research assessment will be included in the water rates charged by each participating
utility. Even a small assessment, such as one-tenth of a cent per IO00 gallons, could produce a centralized research fund of more than $6 million. The assessment effort is being constructed around the existing AWWARF and is using as its base a coalition of organizations representing water utilities-the Water Utility Council of AWWA, the National Association of Water Companies, and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. The budget targeted for the invigorated A W A R F under the assessment program is an additional $1 million in 1986 and $2 million more in 1987. With the assessment in place in 1988, the targeted income will be $10 million. Even that may not be enough. but it would be a giant leap forward from the current situation. This program cannot be put in place without both direct and indirect support. Researchers must take an active role in program promotion by explaining the importance of research to representatives of water utilities. If necessary, researchers must make themselves and their arguments available to water utility managers, who will make the case for the assessment to the rate-governing boards. The water utility managers’ direct support is absolutely essential; there can be no debate about this. The expansion of the industry’s research program is a major and difficult step forward. The proposed assessment program merits serious consideration.
0013936x185/09194651$01.50/00 1985 American Chemical Society
‘
.,,:
! ~
,\,
i :
James E Manwaring is executive director of A W A R F in Denver, Colo. For more than 17years. he has been involved in the technical. administrative, planning. and management aspects of water suppiy, wastewater. and water resources activities of the federal government andprivate industT. Environ. Sci. Technol.. MI. 19.
NO.
8. 1985 661
