Pub. 3 2020-21 Issue 2

27 On the national report card, roadways got a D, bridges got a C and transit was a D-. Even though Utah’s grade was better than the overall grade, getting a C grade is not terrific. How worried should people in Utah be about that? How does it compare to previous grades? Everyone should be concerned about our infrastructure because it affects everyday life. Infrastructure that is resilient and sustainable has a direct correlation to our quality of life. As a result, ASCE members are concerned about the consequences if we fail to invest adequately. We estimate that over the next 20 years, failing to invest will cost individual households $3,300 a year. That number comes from purchases individual households will have to make, such as the wear and tear on cars from potholes, dirty tap water that causes people to buy water from the store, and poor health care access. There are lots of little things that can make life more expensive in general. What are the bottom three grades? Why? Canals were a D+, levees were a D- and dams were a C+. Given that Utah is currently experiencing serious drought conditions, how important is it to put money into the state’s levees? I spoke with the author of the levee section about that, and he said Utah is exposed to periods of extreme precipitation and drought. Our experience has been that periods of drought are often followed by increased moisture, which can cause flooding. Future climate change can add new events, but the risk and associated costs of flooding will only continue to escalate. Since we know we have high cyclical drought and runoffs, investing now would be good. Although we are already preventing flooding, we have over 100 miles of levees that were not constructed according to modern standards. The levees were built to protect farmland. Now the land has been developed, and broken levees would cause more damage than they would have in the past. It would affect 125,000 Utahns and cost $10 billion in property damage. You worked on the report section about roads. Replacing gas tax revenue is important; how do you think that issue is going to play out? How have owners of electric and hybrid vehicles responded so far to the idea of paying an annual flat fee or a usage-based fee? ASCE strongly advocates for a gas tax. We still think the gas tax is the best short-term solution. It provides a way for everyone to pay their fair share of our transportation system. Although we still need to find a long- term solution, we suggest a three- pronged approach for providing future funding: • Increase the gas tax for the next five years. • Start taxing electric vehicles. • Put more research into the miles traveled pilot. We need to know if it is working and find a sustainable model for the future. I haven’t seen responses from car owners, and I haven’t seen anything about a public response, either. A program with a road-use charge went into effect a year ago. People were asked to enroll voluntarily. They could pay a flat fee upfront or pay the fee as they typically do. At a UDOT conference in 2019, there was a session where the new program was presented. I don’t know how many people enrolled, but I’ve spoken to a couple of colleagues who work at gas refineries. They are working on planning and transportation in and out of the refineries. The refineries are working as close to capacity as they ever will. Gasoline demand will go down in the future, and refineries are expected to produce less and less gas. According to the report, Utah’s municipal solid waste recycling is 1.45%, versus a national recycling ratio of more than 35%. Would you please put these percentages in context? The 1.45% is the total tonnage that is diverted to recycling. We have very limited data beyond aggregate tonnage, so we wrote the report in comparative terms, but the number we did get for Utah was based on recent reports. We were fortunate to find a report about recycling from a company called Eunomia International Environmental Consultants (https://www.eunomia.co.uk/ ). After we gathered the information for the report card, the Eunomia report developed a new methodology for measuring recycling rates. In Utah, the rate under the new methodology improved to about 17%, which is comparable with other western states. Although higher rates would be better, 17% is consistent with policy trends and common markets in our region. Are we still sending our recycling materials to China? China and other countries have increased restrictions or banned materials for recycling. Those policies culminated in an import ban at the end of 2020 on waste materials. As a result of the ban, we don’t send much to China anymore. International restrictions based on the types of recycled materials do affect the U.S. recycling market in several ways. For example, operating and handling costs for recycling handlers have increased. continued on page 28