Heightened activity in creative capital financing is an outward sign of drastic alterations taking place in public capital markets. Spurred by the property tax limitation movement, two trends in the structure of state and municipal finance are observable: Increased use of user fees and charges as a source of revenue and a drastic change in the ratio of revenue to general obligation debt. Both trends, coupled with a reawakening of the theoretical foundations of user fee economics, make for enhanced prospects for user‐pay funding in infrastructure revitalization. User‐pay systems may be a means by which to create more stability and predictability in an otherwise volatile capital finance market. Along with dedicated funds and various forms of public enterprise (utilities, autonomous authorities, special districts), user‐pay practices could be used to improve public works organization and management.

The results of an investigation designed to determine the infrastructure needs of a typical midwestern state such as Indiana are presented. One general finding is that the infrastructure condition of small communities appears to be worse than that of larger cities or metropolitan areas. These results should challenge conventional thinking that infrastructure is a “big city” problem. In fact, since Indiana is a state of small to medium sized communities and since the U.S. population is moving in the direction of non‐metropolitan areas, considerable attention should be given to the management, technology and financing of infrastructure for small and medium sized communities. The study also generated a large number of comments. Numerous city and county engineers mentioned that they were not prepared to complete the questionnaire until they had conducted a comprehensive survey of the public facilities under their jurisdiction. One significant beneficial result of this statewide investigation, therefore, is that infrastructure studies were performed in localities that had not previously taken the opportunity to catalog their needs.

One of the most disturbing issues of the medical profession has begun to disturb those in the engineering community—malpractice. Although professional engineering liability made its debut in the 1950's, it has become an item of concern for every engineer. The threat of liability frequently has replaced the idea of creativity with ideas of conservation. There are several actions an engineer can take to reduce or eliminate, or both, the potential for a liability lawsuit: (1) Use of AEPIC for structural failure data; (2) avoidance of liability‐prone projects; and (3) purchase of liability insurance. However, there is no guarantee that an engineer will not be named in a lawsuit, regardless of the precautions he or she takes.