(WWJ) A new report from the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) is sounding an alarm on the state of Michigan’s water infrastructure.
The findings outline a staggering price tag, revealing that Michigan could require up to $85 billion over the next 20 years to maintain and modernize its drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems.
GLWA Chief Executive Officer Sue Coffey joined WWJ Newsradio 950's Jackie Paige to break down the report, explaining where the $85 billion figure originates and what steps state and local leaders must take to address the funding gap.
The scope of the problem
The $85 billion figure stems from a study conducted by the US Water Alliance, which analyzed hundreds of reports regarding Michigan's infrastructure needs over the years.
According to Coffey, the multi-billion-dollar estimate represents a funding gap—the difference between currently funded projects and what is actually required to keep systems operational over the next two decades.
The needed investments cover three main categories:
- Drinking water infrastructure
- Wastewater systems
- Stormwater management
"It is the gap between that which is currently funded and could expect to be currently funded with how we have rates structured now, and that which is needed in the system over the next 20 years," Coffey said. "It's water on the drinking water side, it's wastewater also, and stormwater. So it's all three of those categories because there's kind of a continuum in many of our systems between wastewater and stormwater."
Why current water rates aren't enough
With water rates already having increased by roughly 24% in Michigan over the last five years, many residents may wonder why current billing structures cannot cover these long-term system updates.
Coffey explained that routine utility rates are only designed to cover day-to-day operations and maintenance, not the full replacement of end-of-life infrastructure.
"The rates are really designed to handle the operational and maintenance costs of today," Coffey noted. "They weren't really designed to do wholesale replacement of infrastructure when it comes to end of life."
Much of the infrastructure managed by GLWA was installed nearly a century ago, creating a urgent need for widespread renewal.
"GLWA had a huge amount of their assets installed in the 1920s, and the next big group in the 1960s," Coffey stated. "So we're approaching that we should be fully replacing... as the pipes get to be about 60 years old, they begin to age more rapidly."
The risks of delay are significant. When large-diameter transmission pipes fail, the consequences affect massive populations and local economies.
"When one of our large-diameter pipes breaks, it affects multiple communities, typically hundreds of thousands of people," Coffey said. "We even had to issue a boil water advisory once for over a million people because these big pipes, when they break... there's a lot of human suffering and business interruption that happens."
Seeking solutions with lawmakers
When asked how the required funds would be secured and whether projects would require ballot initiatives, Coffey emphasized that multiple options remain on the table. The primary purpose of GLWA's report is to serve as a concrete starting point for discussions with state and federal lawmakers.
"We talk to legislators at the state level and the federal level many times a year, and the number one question is, 'How big is the problem?'" Coffey said. "The next question is, 'What can we do about it?'"
Coffey highlighted what she said is a discrepancy in how state funding is currently allocated toward transportation versus water infrastructure.
"The state invests, for every dollar it invests on roads right now in its budget, four cents we get for water infrastructure," she said. "So we would want to see something that is specifically identified and earmarked or, for lack of a better term, specifically focused on water infrastructure."
GLWA plans to take the report on the road to build a coalition among lawmakers, business leaders, and local elected officials to evaluate potential funding paths forward.
"Our goal was really to be able to create a report that allowed us to start to have the conversations in a detailed way," Coffey said. "To give legislators, business leaders, and others, local electeds, the ability to ask specific questions and to understand, number one, the scope of the problem, how big is it, and number two, what are available options."
