Not Everything Is Broken: The Future of U.S. Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and Finance

Abstract

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1739Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.ISBN: 978-0-8330-9971-6 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark. Cover: The cover image, taken by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers photographer Mark Rankin, is of Chickamauga Lock and Dam, which is located seven miles North East of Chattanooga, Tenn., and was completed in 1940. The lock is owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A project to replace the now-deteriorating lock began in 2003and is scheduled for completion in 2023.iii PrefaceFederal investment in infrastructure has been receiving more attention than usual since the Trump Administration and new Congress took office in January 2017. Not surprisingly, the debate is largely about money: how to finance repairs, new roads, and other projects without adding to the deficit, either by direct public spending or tax credits. Less discussed but no less important are issues concerning the policies that support the mature and urban-centered economy that the United States has now-rather than the economy it had decades ago, when most of the current terms of federal engagement were set. These issues are the focus of this report. We frame the infrastructure debate around the case for modernizing federal policies related to funding, finance, and project selection; recognizing the centrality of regional initiatives that transcend local government and state boundaries; and understanding different types of financing-public, private, and public-private partnerships. The premise is that if compelling public benefits can be articulated and financial incentives properly aligned on both the public and private sides, appropriate investment and maintenance will follow. Poorly targeted investment comes from poorly designed policy. Inadequate maintenance often is a symptom of management and governan...

A review of public water infrastructure financing in the United States

“…In addition to determining who pays for water infrastructure and what financial tools should be used, many have called for more attention to which projects are selected for funding. For example, a recent Rand Corporation Report argues that "Congress should condition capital funding on state and local governments' to incorporate resilience to natural disasters and adaptation to rising seas and other climate trends" (Knopman et al, 2017). A recent OECD roundtable on the business case for resilience in water infrastructure investment focused on resilience as "a concept that should be adopted in international infrastructure develop help to facilitate action, even in the face of risk" (Linkov, Trump, & Hynes, 2019).…”

“…Given its fundamental importance, every level of government has been involved in financing water infrastructure in the United States at some point in time, although the fiscal burden for each level of government has shifted over time. While the federal government has historically played a large role at times, state and local governments shoulder the majority of the burden (Knopman, Wachs, Miller, & Pfrommer, 2017).…”

A Flood Damage Allowance Framework for Coastal Protection With Deep Uncertainty in Sea Level Rise

“…Second, financing for disaster preparedness projects is usually only available following major disasters (NRC, 2014), in part due to motivations of elected officials (Healy & Malhotra, 2009). Current flood protection revenue streams are inadequate for supporting either new construction or regular upgrades that may occur with a flexible/adaptive approach (Knopman et al, 2017;Sustainable Solutions Lab, 2018). This financing arrangement may reinforce the use of prediction-first approaches that force a decision to be made now with no planned opportunity to revisit the course of action in the future.…”

The Political Complexity of Coastal Flood Risk Reduction: Lessons for Climate Adaptation Public Works in the U.S.

“…Additionally, annual USACE appropriations are much smaller than the levels needed to fund coastal risk reduction megastructures. For these projects, substantial federal assistance is needed from either Energy and Water Development appropriations acts or emergency supplemental appropriation following disasters (Carter, 2018; Knopman et al., 2017; Kousky & Shabman, 2017; Scodari, 2014; Sustainable Solutions Lab, 2018b; US National Research Council, 2014).…”