Boise is floating a $570 million water bond. Should it pass? Here’s our recommendation

The city of Boise has engaged in a good deal of public outreach about its $570 million wastewater bond on next week’s ballot, but it’s clear that more should have been done earlier. Many residents, and even many candidates for office, do not seem to have a clear understanding of it.

A model to emulate would have been the process leading up to passage of the 2018 wastewater bond in Nampa, a fiscally conservative community that approved its bond with a staggering 87% support.

But in an endorsement decision, the merits of the project are more important than the public outreach about it. And Boise’s water renewal bond clearly has merit.

Sometimes a bond is a choice between incurring a significant expense and forgoing it. The water bond is not such a case. The costs the bond will cover must be incurred.

The city can’t just let sewer pipes rot, so the repairs will take place. The city is approaching a day where it will be producing more sewage than it can treat, so additional treatment capacity must be built.

The Lander Street Water Renewal Facility, built just after the end of Word War II, is on its last legs and has perhaps a decade of life remaining. The city has miles of pipe in need of replacement.

Boise is growing quickly, and so are the demands on its water system. New sewer and water treatment capacity has to keep ahead of growth, not follow behind it. So it’s necessary to build more now.

The only major project that could be considered optional is starting an industrial recycled water program, but that idea has obvious merit. Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of droughts in Idaho. The plights of salmon and steelhead are increasingly dire. A project that will improve water conservation and reuse will be a long-term asset for Boise.

The question at issue in the bond is not whether these things will be done but how they will be paid for.

With bond financing, this will mean a sewer bill will rise by about 10% — about $4 per month for a typical household — an increase that will persist for decades.

The alternative is an immediate 53% rate hike, about $19 per month for the typical household. The increase would be sharper, but less persistent.

A $4 increase will barely be noticed. A $19 increase is obviously more significant and could be a nontrivial burden for some on tight budgets.

The use of bond financing will also open up other resources that could save ratepayers in the long run, including low-interest loans through the state’s revolving fund and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-administered Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loans. The ability to access those programs could mean lower costs in the long run.

The bond will make sewer bills predictable. There is value, both for businesses and individuals, in that predictability, because it allows them to plan effectively.

We decided to endorse the bond because that predictability is so valuable.

This story was originally published October 29, 2021 at 4:00 AM.