Much of California's public infrastructure was designed and built to serve a population half the size of its current 38 million residents.

Not too long ago, when you mentioned the word infrastructure in a conversation with a non-engineer, you either got a blank stare or, like the spelling bee, the listener asked you to spell it and use it in a sentence! The good news is that "infrastructure" has seeped into our national lexicon and you even hear leading politicians talk about needed infrastructure investments. The bad news is there is still not enough funding to even maintain what we have, let alone invest in new infrastructure. The current recession has obviously made matters worse.

Historically, recessions tend to trigger a drop in tax revenue and an increased demand for government services, which stresses government budgets. The current recession is no different, but this time declines in municipal tax revenues have been more severe because of a prolonged period of high unemployment and a sluggish economic recovery. Another factor contributing to the current sharp decline in tax revenue is the shrinking of the property tax base because of a high rate of property foreclosures and continuing falling home prices. Stable home prices provide stable tax revenue, which is used to fund many critical city and county services such as the local police force, fire department, public education, and infrastructure projects. The fall in property values that began in the recent recession, and that continues in many markets across California today, is amplifying the budget crises in California and across the nation.

With that cheerful information, should we just fold up our tents and wait for the economy to get better and hope for more infrastructure funding at that time? Or, should we mobilize behind a unified message and become individual "Infrastructure Champions," advocating for a cause that directly impacts our careers and communities' well being, as well as, in our case, California's economic health?

Choosing the latter course of action, on Feb. 29, 2012, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Region 9 (California) unveiled its second statewide Infrastructure Report Card. ASCE has more than 14,000 members in both public and private sectors throughout California. The support for this report card was founded in the engineering profession represented not only by ASCE, but also by organizations such as American Public Works Association (APWA), University of California Irvine's Civil & Environmental Engineering Affiliates (UCI CEE), American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), and others. The California Infrastructure Report Card effort involved about 100 volunteers from both the public and private sectors who spent countless hours over five months combing through volumes of data, developing reports, recommending public policy positions, and calculating funding needs for eight infrastructure categories.

California, in some respects, is a microcosm of our nation. We are a culturally diverse and rapidly growing state. As such, our infrastructure is beginning to show its age. With 38 million residents, California is the most populated state in the country and boasts the world's eighth largest economy. This trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. During the next 20 years, California is expected to grow at a rapid pace. Based on some estimates, our state will add an additional 10 million residents during the next 20 years, putting California's population at a staggering 48 million people. So, how did California do and how did our grades change from the first Infrastructure Report Card in 2006?

As seen in Table 1, four categories improved slightly, three categories remained the same, and one category – Water – declined. The overall GPA improved slightly from C- to a C. Still, this is not a report card that one is proud showing off to others. The slight improvements in grades can be attributed to existing projects in the "pipeline" as well as an infusion of money from the passage in 2006 of infrastructure ballot initiatives worth about $42 billion. Those are all good things, but comparing the $650 billion need over 10 years with the $42 billion one-time infrastructure bonds, we have a long way to go should not ease up on our efforts, just yet. The old adage applies: "Pay me now or pay me later."

Consider the fact that in just six years the needed infrastructure investment in California has increased from $37 billion annually in the 2006 Infrastructure Report Card to $65 billion annually in this year's Infrastructure Report Card. Infrastructure components do not remain static; they deteriorate over time, so as engineers we are always playing a catch-up game even to maintain the infrastructure we have. The message: Our infrastructure is deteriorating very rapidly and the days of getting by with just maintenance are gone.

In the last five decades, our capital investment has plummeted precipitously. In the 1950s and 1960s, California spent 20 cents of every dollar on capital projects. By the 1980s, that figure dropped to less than five cents on the dollar. Current estimates put infrastructure investment at around a penny on the dollar. This is despite ever-increasing demands presented by population growth and economic development. Much of the state's public infrastructure was designed and built to serve a population half the size of California's current 38 million residents, and we face an ever growing population in years to come.

So what can we do about this? The California Infrastructure Report Card has outlined several public policy options in its Citizen's Guide. These include the "Self-Help" model, which has been very successful in California, especially Southern California. Virtually every county south of Ventura County has a one-half cent sales tax in place with the funds going directly to road and transportation projects for that specific county.

"Pay As You Go" is another model that we believe needs to be applied to more infrastructure elements than just toll roads. Many businesses charge a premium for delivering a premium service. For example, UPS, cable companies, and pest control companies all charge extra if you want to reduce their standard four- to six-hour waiting block to a one- to two-hour window. It also has become accepted practice in the airline industry to charge extra for each piece of checked luggage. Adapting this concept to areas where people are willing to pay for infrastructure renewal is key.

Lastly, the public-private partnership (P3) concept has been thrown around a lot but underutilized. P3s have mostly been discussed in the context of a private entity funding construction of a public infrastructure upfront in exchange for a revenue stream from the public entity during a fixed period of time. There are innovative partnerships and solutions that can be formulated in this area that can save cash-strapped cities and counties a lot of upfront monies, as well as time and effort.

Finally, we need to get to know our infrastructure. We can't have an infrastructure rehabilitation/renewal strategy if we don't have a road map showing us what those needs are. Having little or no knowledge about the condition of our infrastructure guarantees its failure in the not-so-distant future. This is one case that ignorance is definitely not bliss.

Consider that the ratio of emergency repairs to non-emergency repairs could be 5:1. This means that $65 billion we have identified could mean $325 billion annually if there are a lot of infrastructure failures that have to be funded on an emergency basis. We can't afford $65 billion now, so we really can't afford to wait and let it become $325 billion annually.

One thing is certain, we are living on borrowed time when it comes to our infrastructure; if we don't undertake a major and comprehensive rehabilitation soon, we will leave very little infrastructure to our grandchildren. So how do we move forward? The answer is straightforward, but it takes a bit of work and perseverance to implement. It can be summarized in three steps:

1) Discovery – Develop an accurate picture of your infrastructure by producing your local report card;

2) Message – Get to know infrastructure demands your public has and is willing to support; and

3) Advocacy – Combine the results of your findings and take that message to the public and to public officials.

It all starts and ends with us. As civil engineers, we can be our own best representatives and cheerleaders to deliver the message of need for infrastructure funding to the public and politicians. So, get involved, and get ready to start preaching the gospel of infrastructure renewal to your friends, neighbors, and countrymen.

Yazdan Emrani, P.E., senior vice president/principal with Hall & Foreman Inc., is co-chair of the California Infrastructure Report Card Executive Committee. He can be contacted at yemrani@hfinc.com.

For more information on the California Infrastracture Report Card, visit asceareportcard.org