United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
The Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund Program
FINANCING AMERICA'S DRINKING WATER
FROM THE SOURCE To THE TAP
- REPORT To CONGRESS
-------
Message from the Administrator
Living in this great nation of ours, it is easy to take many routines of our daily life for granted. One of these is our
daily action to turn on the tap for a glass of water to drink. We are fortunate that, throughout this country, local
communities and private businesses operate public water systems that provide us safe and clean drinking water.
Ensuring that our drinking water is safe from the source - be it a mountain lake or an aquifer - to the tap relies on
the concerted efforts of thousands of public water system owners, operators and managers and staff of state
drinking water programs.
Just as we rely on water from our taps, that water relies on infrastructure to carry it from its source to the plant where
it is treated to remove contaminants and from the plant to the customers. Billions of dollars have been invested in our
nation's water infrastructure and we must remain ever vigilant to ensure that it does not fall into disrepair that would
result in contamination of our drinking water. In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency released a survey of
drinking water infrastructure needs which found that public water systems must invest $151 billion in infrastructure
improvements over the next twenty years to continue to provide safe drinking water to consumers. These needs are
great, and can represent a particular burden for our nation's small water systems, which have a small customer
base against which to distribute costs.
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments authorized the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
grant program to help systems, especially those with great economic need, finance infrastructure improvements
needed to protect public health and ensure compliance with drinking water standards. The programs are managed by
states, who best know the needs of the systems under their jurisdiction. States have used DWSRF funds to help water
systems make needed infrastructure improvements, develop programs to improve the management of water
systems, and establish and expand programs that protect sources of drinking water.
The DWSRF has proven to be a success - communities across the country have benefitted from DWSRF assistance
and states have strengthened their drinking water programs. As we look to the future and the challenges of aging
infrastructure, increasing population, and threats to our water resources, the DWSRF should serve as a critical pro-
gram in ensuring public health protection and will help each of us maintain confidence as we turn on the tap
every day.
Christine Todd Whitman
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA-918-R-03-009
www.epa.gov/safewater
May 2003 <^> Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program
Financing America's Drinking Water From the Source to the Tap
Report to Congress
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
(4606M)
EPA 918-R-03-009
May 2003
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
xecutive Summary
In the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Congress authorized the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program — a new funding program to help public water systems
make infrastructure upgrades necessary to ensure the continued provision of safe drinking water and help
states undertake activities to support their drinking water programs. Under the DWSRF program, EPA
awards capitalization grants to states, which in turn provide low-cost loans and other types of assistance
to public water systems to finance the costs of infrastructure projects needed to achieve or maintain
compliance with SDWA requirements. States are also authorized to set aside a portion of their
capitalization grants to fund a range of activities including source water protection, capacity
development, and operator certification.
This Report to Congress describes the progress that states have made in the DWSRF program since the
first grant was awarded in March 1997. The report uses information provided to EPA by states through
state fiscal year (SPY) 2001 (June 30, 2001). In its first five years, the DWSRF program has proven to
be an important tool in helping states and public water systems address infrastructure needs and public
health protection.
T Infrastructure Funding
Using funds made available through federal grants, state match, net bond proceeds, transfers from the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund program (CWSRF), earnings and repayments, states provided public
water systems with close to 1,800 loans totalling $3.8 billion. This represented 72 percent of the
available funds—$1.4 billion remained available for loans. Loans in the program must have interest rates
that are less than market rate and repayment terms of no more than 20 years. Weighted average interest
rates for loans in the program have generally ranged between 2 and 4 percent. When compared to the
20 year Bond Buyer Index interest rate (a proxy for market rate), which ranged between 5-1 and 5-8
percent for the same period, it is apparent that loan recipients in the program benefited from a
considerable subsidy.
Congress acknowledged that even the low interest rates made available through the program may not
make these loans affordable for some systems. Therefore, the SDWA allows states to provide additional
subsidies (e.g., principal forgiveness, negative interest rate loans) to systems identified as serving
disadvantaged communities. States may also extend loan terms to up to 30 years for these systems.
States determine which systems are disadvantaged in accordance with state-developed affordability
criteria. Twenty-nine states have provided assistance to systems through a disadvantaged assistance
program. Sixteen states offered principal forgiveness, 18 offered extended loan terms, and 10 offered
both types of assistance.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
DWSRF Program at a Glance (through June 30,2001)
Fund
Total Funds Appropriated*
$4.4 billion
Total Funds Available to States
$4.2 billion
Total Grants Awarded to States
$3.6 billion
State Contributions
$773 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds (15 states)
$1 billion
Total Amount Transferred from CWSRF (8 states) $147 million
Total Funds Available
$5.2 billion
Total Loans Executed (#,!
1,776, $3.8 billion
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
1,338, $1.5 billion
Percent projects that have started construction
89%
Percent projects completed
46%
Set-Asides
Reserved (% of grant awards) Expended
Set Asides Reserved
$576 million (15.8%) $244 million
The SDWA also placed a
special emphasis on providing
assistance to small systems
serving 10,000 people or
fewer, requiring that states
provide a minimum of 15
percent of their available
funding to small systems.
States have far exceeded the
requirement, with 41 percent
of loan funds going to small
systems. The actual
percentage of loan agreements
provided to small systems (75
percent) is considerably larger,
which reflects the fact that the
average dollar amount of loans
to small systems is less than
that for larger systems.
When looking at how funds
have been directed in the
DWSRF program, treatment
represented the largest
percentage of project costs
(43%), followed by projects to
address transmission and
distribution needs (32%).
The law requires that states
give priority to projects that are needed to protect public health and ensure compliance with the SDWA.
While solutions to public health and compliance problems may require a system to address any of the
four categories of infrastructure (transmission and distribution, treatment, source and storage), many
projects require costly treatment solutions.
T Set-Asides
The 1996 Amendments also included several other new programs and requirements aimed at
strengthening the technical, financial, and managerial capacity of public water systems and preventing
contamination of sources of drinking water. The law allowed states to use up to 31 percent of their
grants to support these types of activities. States must describe how funds are used in workplans, most of
which range from one to three years.
Nationally, states have reserved approximately 16 percent of federal grants for these purposes, although
on an individual state basis the amount reserved has ranged from 7 to 31 percent. Through SPY 2001,
states had expended 43 percent of the $576 million in funds they reserved to conduct set-aside activities.
Administration and Technical Assistance
$135 million (3.7%)
$75 million
Small System Technical Assistance
$54 million (1.5%)
$24 million
State Program Management
$147 million (4.0%)
$68 million
Local Assistance and Other State Programs $240 million (6.6%)
$77 million
'Appropriations through FFY 2002 are $5.3 billion
-------
Executive Summary
EPA had concerns about slow progress in expenditures of set-asides, but expenditures have increased from
9 to 42 percent from SPY 1998 through 2001.
States have funded a wide range of activities through the set-asides that fall under several broad
categories, such as:
• Enhancing the technical, financial, and managerial capacity of public water systems in an effort to
make systems more sustainable and to promote long-term compliance with the law.
• Enhancing operator certification programs to ensure that operators of public water systems are
properly trained in the operation of facilities and meeting requirements under the law.
• Providing technical assistance to small systems, which often have limited financial resources and face a
great challenge in meeting new SDWA requirements.
• Facilitating partnerships with institutions of higher learning, water system professional and trade
organizations, government officials, and the general public to carry the message of the importance of
drinking water safety.
• Enhancing support for state drinking water programs to implement new programs and build existing
programs in the areas of regulatory oversight, data systems, and source water protection.
• Promoting source water protection to manage potential sources of contamination and prevent
pollution from reaching sources of drinking water.
T Financial and Programmatic Effectiveness
The report includes a discussion of several factors considered in an effort to gauge the progress and
effectiveness of the program. In the last few years, states have worked hard to develop and implement
successful programs. States have received 87 percent of the federal grants available to them and initiated
construction on projects for 89 percent of the executed loan agreements. When considering the return
on federal investment in the program, the numbers are impressive. States have used several sources to
add funds to the program, exceeding the amount of federal dollars provided. After removing federal
disbursements for set-asides, the national disbursements as a percent of net federal outlays for
infrastructure projects is 160 percent. In other words, for every $1 in funds drawn from the federal
government, states have disbursed $1.60 for project construction.
The SDWA requires that states give priority to projects that protect public health, ensure compliance
with the SDWA, and help systems with the greatest economic need on a per household basis. EPA takes
the view that all of the projects funded through the program will, in some way, benefit public health
now and in the future. More than one-third of the agreements funded have gone to systems that are out
of compliance with health-based drinking water standards, to develop projects that will return or bring
them into compliance. With respect to addressing economic need, 26 percent of all loans have been
provided to systems identified as disadvantaged. The program has also given many small systems access
to infrastructure financing and technical assistance through the set-asides.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
T Program Issues and the Future
As with any new program, states have faced challenges in implementing the DWSRF program. States
have had to make decisions on how to direct funds and structure programs in a manner that addresses
their highest priority needs and ensures that funds will be available to provide assistance in the future.
At times, these goals can compete with one another, particularly in determining how much of the
funding to direct to set-asides, and in making decisions on the types and amount of assistance provided
to disadvantaged systems.
EPA has tried to work in partnership with states to identify solutions to several issues impacting
implementation of the program. Addressing future challenges will likewise require partnerships between
public water systems; local, state and federal governments; and the general public. These challenges
include addressing drinking water infrastructure needs, ensuring the sustainability of public water
systems, and ensuring the security of facilities. While the DWSRF primarily addresses the first of these
challenges, it can also be structured and implemented in a manner that addresses the others as well.
For example, states are using DWSRF set-aside funds to implement capacity development strategies
focused on improving the technical, financial, and managerial capacity of water systems. States can
encourage use of tools that enhance sustainability such as rate structuring, asset management,
consolidation, public-private partnerships, privatization (where appropriate), and use of affordable
technology through their DWSRF set-asides or by including conditions within infrastructure loans.
With respect to security, states can help systems assess their vulnerability to security threats and then
take measures to address those threats.
The report discusses several issues that arose during the early years of program implementation as well as
issues raised by states and other stakeholders that could benefit from changes to current law. For
example, EPA agrees with stakeholders that have requested an extension of the flexibility to transfer funds
between the two SRF programs. EPA has worked through many issues affecting the program using the
support of a state/EPA work group on SRF implementation. The Agency has also worked to reach out
and coordinate with other stakeholders and their representative associations and has developed reports
and fact sheets to reach parties beyond state DWSRF program managers.
EPA looks forward to addressing other issues which may arise in the future and identifying ways to
enhance implementation of this important public health program. While the program already supports
many principles that guide how we look towards the future, states and EPA can work to enhance the
DWSRF as a tool through which to encourage integrated use of all local, state, federal, and private
sources of funding; promote use of innovative and efficient technology; encourage rates that are
appropriate to cover the costs of supplying drinking water; promote comprehensive strategic planning;
and help states to manage their public health programs.
-------
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program:
Financing America's Drinking Water From the Source to the Tap
^^alH^IHH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Executive Summary
Tables
Figures
Acronyms
Introduction
Establishment of the DWSRF
DWSRF Basics
Features of State Programs
Financial Status
Types of Fund Assistance
Recipients and Projects Receiving Assistance
Financial and Programmatic Effectiveness
Status of Set-Aside Funds
Set-Aside Activities Funded
Implementation Issues
Future of the DWSRF
^^^^^•^^^^^™
i
vi
vii
ix
1
3
7
17
25
31
35
47
59
65
79
89
Appendix A: State DWSRF Program Summaries
Appendix B: DWNIMS Reports
Appendix C: References
-------
Tables and Figures
TABLES
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
6-1
6-2
8-1
Public Water System Inventory Data
Comparison Between CWSRF and DWSRF Programs
Fiscal Year 1997 Capitalization Grants
National Set-Asides
State Allotment Percentages
Eligible Project Categories
Set-Aside Categories and Eligible Activities
Features of State DWSRF Programs
Agencies Implementing the DWSRF Program
Sources and Uses of Fees
States Using Leveraging
Capitalization Grants (through FFY 2001)
Sources of State Match
Bond Proceeds Through Leveraging
States Using Transfers
Summary of Sources and Uses
Types of Fund Assistance
Disadvantaged Assistance (D.A.)
Grant Equivalence of DWSRF Loans
3
6
8
8
9
11
12
16
18, 19
20
22
25
26
27
27
29
31
34
55
-------
FIGURES
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
6-1
6-2
6-3
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
8-5
8-6
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-6
9-7
11-1
12-1
Structure of the DWSRF Program
Overview of the DWSRF
Timeframes within the DWSRF Program
Sources of Annual Administrative Expenses
Sources of State Match (# of States)
Monthly Bond Buyer Index
Annual DWSRF Weighted Average Interest Rates
Disadvantaged Assistance (D.A.)
Assistance to CWS and NCWS (% Loans)
CWS Ownership
CWS Ownership by Size
Assistance to Privately-owned Systems
Population Served as a Function of System Size
DWSRF Assistance by System Size
Comparison of Needs to Assistance by System Size
Needs by Category (% Dollars)
DWSRF Assistance by Category (% Dollars)
Type of Assistance
Coordinated Funding
Milestones in the DWSRF Process
Cumulative Appropriations and Awards
Utilization of Funds
Assistance as a % of Funds Available
Project Status Milestones
Utilization of Funds Leveraged vs. Non-Leveraged Programs
Funds Reserved for Set-Asides
Funds Expended for Set-Asides
Cumulative Set-Aside Expenses
Administrative Set-Aside
Small System Technical Assistance Set-Aside
State Program Management Set-Aside
Local Assistance and Other State Programs Set-Aside
DWSRF Identification of Fundable Projects
DWSRF Support of the Mission to Ensure Safe Drinking Water
10
13
14
21
21
32
32
34
35
35
35
36
37
38
38
39
40
42
44
48
48
49
49
50
50
59
60
60
60
60
62
63
84
89
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
ACH
ASAP
AWWA
CCR
CWA
CWS
CWSRF
D.A.
DWNIMS
DWSRF
EPA
FY
FFY
FR
GAO
GIS
HUD
IUP
LA
LOG
MTBE
NCWS
NTNCWS
PPL
PWS
PWSS
RUS
SDWA
SDWIS
SDWIS/FED
SFY
SPM
SRF
SSTA
TNCWS
Automated Clearing House
Automated Standard Application for Payments
American Water Works Association
Consumer Confidence Report
Clean Water Act
Community Water System
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Disadvantaged Assistance
DWSRF National Information Management System
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year
Federal Fiscal Year
Federal Register
General Accounting Office
Geographical Information System
U.S. Housing and Urban Development
Intended Use Plan
Local Assistance
Letter of Credit
Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether
Non-Community Water System
Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
Project Priority List
Public Water System
Public Water System Supervision
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information System
Safe Drinking Water Information System/ Federal Version
State Fiscal Year
State Program Management
State Revolving Fund
Small System Technical Assistance
Transient Non-Community Water System
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Introduction
The United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world. This fact is a testament to the efforts
of thousands of people who at the local, state, and federal levels have worked to ensure that citizens have
access to safe and clean drinking water. Ensuring that drinking water remains safe in the future is the
shared responsibility of local
West Virginia _
citizens, private business, local
government, and state and federal
agencies.
In the 1996 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), Congress authorized a
new federal funding program to
give states resources with which to
address their most pressing public
health needs. The Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) program represents the
first significant federal source of
funding for drinking water
infrastructure administered by
states. Through federal fiscal year
(FFY) 2001, Congress
appropriated $4.4 billion for the
program*. With additional
contributions, including state
matching funds and proceeds
from issuing bonds, states have
made more than $5-2 billion
available for funding infrastructure
projects needed to help protect
public health and ensure
compliance with the SDWA.
States have also reserved $576
million to fund activities and
Addressing Multiple Compliance Problems in West Virginia
Founded in 1888, the Town of Bramwell was home to coal barons and
their fortunes during the early 1900 s; most evidence of these past riches
has all but disappeared. BramwelTs water system had several serious
problems. The town originally had two sources of drinking water to
serve its 273 customers. The primary source, a ground water well, had a
treatment plant which did not need a full-time operator. The surface
water source, an impoundment, was used only in emergencies. In 1996,
the finished water tasted and smelled like petroleum and the well,
determined to be contaminated, was taken offline and sealed. This left
Bramwell relying solely on its surface source, which tended to dry up in
the summer and during drought conditions. Additionally, the surface
water treatment plant was over 30 years old and in poor condition
despite the thousands of dollars spent to upgrade it and required a full
time class II operator, which Bramwell could not afford. Because the
plant had no operator, the town was under a boil water advisory for
extended periods of time. On top of these problems, the system was
losing 50% of its treated water due to a deterioriated distribution system.
Another small water system, the Bluewell Community System (serving
9 5 customers), was under an Administrative Order from the West
Virginia Bureau for Public Health for state drinking water violations.
The Bluewell water source was under the influence of surface
contamination and did not provide the required filtration. To ensure that
the residents in these two "run down" systems had access to a reliable and
safe source of drinking water, a plan was developed to consolidate both
systems with the Bluewell Public Service District (PSD), a well-operated
system with an adequate water supply. A 32,000 foot water main was
extended from the Bluewell PSD to Bramwell and the Bluewell
Community System customers. The extension was also able to provide
service to 36 new customers who were not previously connected to any
public water supply. The project was funded by a $ 1.3 million DWSRF
loan as well as a $ 1.25 million U.S. Housing and Urban Development
Small Cities Block Grant.
*Appropriations through FFY 2002 are $5.3 billion.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
programs that support drinking water programs, enhance water system management, and protect sources
of drinking water.
In the SDWA Amendments, Congress required that EPA report on the status of state loan funds through
FFY 2001. This Report to Congress describes the progress that states have made since the first grant was
awarded in March 1997. This report uses information provided to EPA by states for the DWSRF
National Information Management System (DWNIMS), an annual collection of DWSRF data based on
a state fiscal year (SPY), which runs from July to June. Because the DWNIMS is used as the primary
resource for information, except where noted otherwise, this report reflects data collected through June
30, 2001 (i.e., SPY 2001).
This report gives an overview of the DWSRF program and attempts to answer several questions,
including:
• Why did Congress create the DWSRF program?
• What are the basic characteristics of the DWSRF program?
• How have states structured their DWSRF programs?
• What types of assistance are states providing, who is getting the assistance, and what are the dollars
doing?
• How effective, both financially and programmatically, are state DWSRF programs?
• How are set-asides being used and what are they accomplishing?
• What issues have been associated with implementation of the program?
• What is the future of the DWSRF program?
This report reflects the national status of the program. One of the important things to understand is
that there is no one DWSRF program—the national program is comprised of 51 DWSRF programs, one
for each of the 50 states and Puerto Rico. Each is unique, which is to be expected given that the
program is intended to give states flexibility with accountability. The main body of this report discusses
the status of the national program. Chapters 2 through 4 provide background information on the
national program and the structure and features of state programs. Chapters 5 through 8 provide
detailed information on the status of state revolving loan funds, the types of activities funded by states,
and an assessment of the financial and programmatic effectiveness of the program. Chapters 9 and 10
discuss the uses of funds set aside from state grants to conduct other programs and activities that support
drinking water and health protection. Finally, Chapters 11 and 12 discuss some of the issues associated
with implementation of the program and challenges for the future. Overviews of each states' program are
provided in Appendix A. While the snapshots cannot tell the entire story of a state's program, they
provide a starting point for further investigation. Appendix B provides the full suite of reports (national
and state by state) generated by the DWNIMS reporting system, the national results of which are
provided within the text of this report. Appendix C provides a list of all documents referenced in this
report.
-------
Establishment of the DWSRF
The United States has more than 165,000 public water systems. These systems can be divided into
three types: community, non-transient noncommunity, and transient noncommunity. Table 2-1
presents the definition of each type of water system, the number of systems, and the population served
by those systems. The table shows that the universe of water systems is diverse. This diversity is
apparent when looking at how systems are distributed as a function of the population they serve. The
vast majority of systems are very small systems that serve fewer than 3,300 people. However, the
majority of the population (81%) is served by the seven percent of community water systems that serve
Table 2-1 Public Water System Inventory Data
Active, current systems, from Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal version (SDWIS/FED) FFY 01Q4 frozen inventory table.
System size
by population served
Very Small
500 or less
Small
501-3,300
Medium Large Very Large
3,301-10,000 10,001-100,000 >100,000
Total
# systems
31,262
14,241
4,498
3,432
350
53,783
Pop'n served
5,094,790
20,096,911 26,092,461 96,516,416 116,344,551 264,145,129
% of systems
58%
26%
6%
1%
100%
% of pop'n
2%
10%
37%
44%
100%
# systems
17,133
2,847
93
19
20,095
Pop'n served
2,386,179
2,814,630
459,388
545,943 380,046
6,586,186
% of systems
85%
14%
0%
0%
0%
100%
% of pop'n
36%
43%
7%
6%
100%
# systems
3,729
2,691
121
49
91,593
Pop'n served
7,471,798
2,702,365
667,436
1,242,141 735,001
12,818,741
% of systems
97%
3%
0%
0%
0%
100%
% of pop'n
58%
21%
5%
10%
6%
100%
Total # systems
137,124
19,779
4,712
3,500
356
165,471
CWS = Community Water System: A public water system that supplies water to the same population year-round.
NTNCWS = Non-Transient Non-Community Water System: A public water system that regularly supplies water to at least 25 of the same
people at least six months per year, but not year-round. Some examples are schools, factories, office buildings, and hospitals which have
their own water systems.
TNCWS = Transient Non-Community Water System: A public water system that provides water in a place such as a gas station or
campground where people do not remain for long periods of time.
Note: Some numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
more than 10,000 people. Many smaller water systems face challenges because they lack the economies
of scale that systems serving larger communities have. Large systems may also face challenges in making
upgrades to aging infrastructure. Some of these large systems can also be challenged by having to spread
costs across a declining population base as residents move out of large cities.
A substantial amount of money has gone into building the infrastructure needed for our nation's water
systems. Most of this capital spending has been financed through local sources, including water rates
and tax revenues. Before the DWSRF program was established, the primary source of federal funding for
drinking water was through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service (RUS), which
focuses on building systems to serve rural communities. According to a General Accounting Office
(GAO) report issued in 2001, between fiscal years 1991 and 2000, the RUS provided more than $11.5
billion in grants and low interest loans for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant
program provided $4 billion in block grants for drinking water and wastewater over the same time
period.
With passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972, there was a recognition on the part of the nation
and the federal government that many of our surface and coastal waters were in serious trouble. Many
water bodies were not safe for fishing, swimming, or as sources of drinking water. In order to reduce
loadings of pollutants to waterbodies, the federal government initiated the Construction Grants program
to construct and upgrade wastewater treatment facilities throughout the nation. Between 1972 and
1990, EPA awarded $50 billion in grants to communities to help them construct and improve their
facilities for treating wastewater. Tremendous improvements in surface waters over the past 30 years are
a direct benefit of investment through EPA's Construction Grants program.
In the late 1980's, Congress made a decision to replace the
Construction Grants program with a new program that states
could use to address their most critical water quality needs.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program
was authorized in the 1987 Amendments to the CWA. The
program replaced direct grants to municipalities with grants to
states to establish revolving loan funds. States are responsible
for setting priorities, selecting projects and managing the
programs which fund the construction of projects for publicly-
owned treatment works and projects to address estuarine and
nonpoint source pollution problems.
What is a revolving fund?
Revolving funds are not unique to EPA.
A revolving fund is essentially an
account that is repeatedly expended,
replenished, and then expended again.
For the EPA programs, funds deposited
into the SRF are loaned at low interest
rates to eligible borrowers. Loan
principal repayments and interest
revenues are subsequently used to
make new loans.*
Since 1988, Congress has appropriated more than $18 billion for the CWSRF program. With the
federal dollars serving as seed money for their revolving funds, states have been able to provide more than
$34 billion in assistance to fund about 11,000 projects. The program is widely viewed as a successful
partnership of federal and state government in addressing important environmental problems.
In 1996, the SDWA underwent significant revisions which included changes to EPA's approach for
*A more technical definition identifies a revolving fund as an expenditure account that is credited with offsetting collections that are generated by,
and earmarked to finance, a continuing cycle of business-type operations.
-------
Chapter 2 - Establishment of the DWSRF
setting health-based standards for contaminants in drinking water. Fundamental to the framework for
the SDWA Amendments was the recognition that drinking water protection is better achieved through a
multi-barrier approach—by addressing protection from the source of drinking water to the tap. New
programs were established to encourage practices that would enhance the management of water systems.
States were required to develop programs to: (1) improve the technical, financial, and managerial capacity
of water systems to ensure that they are sustainable, and (2) ensure that operators of such systems are
adequately trained. Because preventing contamination of a drinking water source may be more cost-
effective than treating a source that has been contaminated, the SDWA Amendments also required that
states assess the potential sources of contamination for all drinking water sources within their borders.
Congress also recognized that there was a need for funding drinking water infrastructure to help systems
protect public health and ensure compliance with the requirements of the Act. The SDWA
Amendments established the DWSRF program to help states and public water systems advance drinking
water protection. The state-run program is intended to help states finance high priority drinking water
infrastructure projects.
The DWSRF program was modeled in part after the CWSRF program. However, there are significant
differences between the two programs (Table 2-2, page 6). One of the most significant differences is the
flexibility given to states to use a portion of their grant funds (i.e., set-asides) to help advance the other
new programs authorized by the Amendments. States were also given additional authority to address the
particular needs of disadvantaged communities for infrastructure funding. In order to help identify the
infrastructure needs in the country, the SDWA Amendments required that EPA conduct a survey of
drinking water infrastructure needs in each state. The results of the survey are used to determine the
amount of funding each state receives from annual appropriations for the DWSRF program, with the
condition that each state receive a minimum of one percent of the funds available to states.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Table 2-2 Comparison Between CWSRF and DWSRF Programs
CWSRF
DWSRF
Initiated
1988
1997
Authorization
$8.4 billion (FFY 1989-1994)
$9.6 billion (FFY 1994-2003)
Appropriations through FFY 2001
$18 billion
$4.4 billion
Assistance provided through SFY 2001 > $34 billion
> $3.8 billion
Eligible Uses of Fund
(types of assistance)
Loans, Refinance, Insurance,
Guarantee, Purchase Debt,
Security for Leveraging,
4% grant for administration
Loans, Refinance, Insurance,
Guarantee, Purchase Debt,
Security for Leveraging
Loan Terms
Interest between 0% and
market rate, 20 year terms
Interest between 0% and market
rate, 20 year terms, 30 year terms
for disadvantaged systems
Eligible Systems
Publicly-owned treatment
works
Communities, individuals,
non-profit groups, etc.
Publicly and privately-owned
community and non-profit
noncommunity drinking water
systems
Eligible Projects
Projects for wastewater
treatment plants
Nonpoint source and estuary
projects identified in state
nonpoint source or comprehensive
conservation and management plans
Projects to upgrade/replace
drinking water source, treatment,
storage, transmission and
distribution
Ineligible Projects
O&M
Dams, Reservoirs (unless for
finished water), Water Rights
(unless purchase through
consolidation), O&M
Set-Asides
No
Yes, up to 31 % of grant (for
administering DWSRF, public water
system supervision, source water
protection, capacity development,
operator certification programs)
Disadvantaged Assistance
No
Yes, up to 30% of grant (principal
forgiveness), 30 year repayment terms
Transfers between SRFs*
Yes (up to 33% of DWSRF
grant amount)
Yes (up to 33% of DWSRF
grant amount)
*Although the statutory provision sunset in FFY 2001, the ability to transfer was extended through the FFY 2002
appropriation and the FFY2003 President's Budget request.
-------
DWSRF Basics
The authorizing legislation for the DWSRF program is in section 1452 of the SDWA Amendments,
which were passed on August 6, 1996. Following passage of the Amendments, EPA moved rapidly to
develop the DWSRF program so that states could receive funding from the FFY 1997 appropriation.
EPA convened a work group of state and EPA staff in the fall of 1996, which released Interim Guidelines
for the program on October 4, 1996 to give states the information they needed to begin developing
programs. EPA subsequently held a series of public meetings with stakeholders to provide information
about the program and to review the Interim Guidelines. Comments received during the period of
public comment and from attendees of the public meetings were critical in developing the DWSRF
Program Final Guidelines (EPA-816-R-97-005; 63 FR 59844), which were signed by the Assistant
Administrator for Water on February 28, 1997.
The development of a regulation for the program was
initiated in the spring of 1998. A work group of state and
EPA staff participated in reviewing and commenting on
drafts of the rule through 1998. A more complete draft of
the rule was posted on the EPA website for a 45 day public
comment period on April 12, 1999. An interim final rule
was published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2000
(65 FR 48285). The Agency received no significant
comments during the comment period and published a
notice in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001 to
indicate that the interim final rule stood as final (66 FR
2823). The regulations have been codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart L.
The first DWSRF grant was awarded to the State of
Georgia on March 6, 1997, and on May 22, 1997,
Pennsylvania made the first loan in the program to the
Borough of Williamsburg. By the end of FY 1997, 18
states had received their initial capitalization grant (Table
3-1). In the early stages of the program, many states
needed time to make the necessary legislative and
regulatory changes before they could receive a grant. States
that had preexisting funding programs generally had a
head start over states that had to develop a new program
from the ground up.
Pennsylvania.
First DWSRF Loan in the Nation -
Borough of Williamsburg,
Pennsylvania
The Borough of Williamsburg has served its
residents and parts of neighboring Woodbury
and Catherine Townships with its water
system for more than 90 years. For most of
that time, water was supplied by two
reservoirs located on Tussey Mountain. In the
late 1960s, two ground water wells were
constructed to supplement the reservoirs. In
the 1980 s, the reservoirs were abandoned
due to Giardia contamination and the poor
condition of the transmission lines. Even
after the abandonment of the reservoirs, many
of the existing lines were undersized and in
poor condition, resulting in pressure, flow,
and leak problems in some areas. The
Borough received a $4.2 million DWSRF
loan in May 1997—the first DWSRF loan in
the nation. The project included the
installation of a booster pumping station, a
210,000gallon water storage tank, eight
miles of water mains, and the replacement of
every water meter in the system. The project
was completed in the spring of 1998.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Table 3-1 Fiscal Year 1997 Capitalization Grants*
FFY 1997 - 1st year of availability
10/1- 1/1- 4/1- 7/1-
12/31/96 3/31/97 6/30/97 9/30/97
Georgia Pennsylvania (p) Washington (s)
Maryland (s)
Mississippi
South Carolina
Idaho
Colorado
South Dakota
Alaska (p)
Illinois
Maryland (p)
New Hampshire (s)
Oklahoma (s)
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia (p)
FFY 1998 - 2nd year of availability
10/1- 1/1- 4/1-
12/31/97 3/31/98 6/30/98
Hawaii Arizona New Mexico
Michigan (s) Connecticut (s) Minnesota
Kansas Oklahoma (p) Washington (p)
Maine Utah Nevada
Rhode Island (s) New York Rhode Island (p)
North Carolina (s) Michigan (p)
Virginia (s) Oregon
Montana
7/1-
9/30/98
Nebraska Kentucky
Connecticut (p) Iowa
New Hampshire (p) Massachusetts (p)
Pennsylvania (s) Indiana
West Virginia New Jersey
Massachusetts (s) Ohio
North Carolina (p) Wisconsin
Alabama Arkansas
North Dakota California
Florida Puerto Rico
Wyoming Missouri
Louisiana Delaware
Alaska (s)
fc (p=projects, s=set-asides, all others are complete awards)
Table 3-2 National Set-Asides
Appropriation
American Indian and
Alaska Native Villages
Monitoring for
Unregulated Contaminants
Small System
Technical Assistance
Health Effects Studies
Operator Certification
Reimbursement Grants
Total National Set-Asides
Funds Available to States,
DC and Territories
FFY 1997
$1 ,275,000,000
$19,125,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,125,000
$1 ,225,875,000
FFY 1998
$725,000,000
$10,875,000
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$12,875,000
$712,125,000
FFY 1999
$775,000,000
$11,625,000
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$15,000,000
$28,625,000
$746,375,000
FFY 2000
$820,000,000
$12,300,000
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$30,000,000
$44,300,000
$775,700,000
FFY 2001
$823,185,000
$12,347,700
$1 ,995,600
$0
$0
$29,934,000
$44,277,300
$778,907,700
TOTAL
$4,418,185,000
$66,272,700
$7,995,600
$0
$0
$74,934,000
$149,202,300
$4,268,982,700
-------
Chapter 3 — DWSRF Basics
T Program Overview
States are eligible to receive
capitalization grants from funds
annually appropriated by Congress.
The national appropriation is reduced
by national set-asides (Table 3-2).
With the exception of FFY 1997, states
receive a grant allotment that is
proportional to the total state need
identified in the most recent survey of
drinking water infrastructure needs
conducted every four years in
accordance with the law (Table 3-3).
For 1997, pursuant to the statute,
states were allotted funds based on
their allotment percentage for Public
Water System Supervision (PWSS)
grants. Results from the first needs
survey, released in 1997, were used for
FFY 1998 through FFY 2001
allotments. The first needs survey
identified a 20 year national need of
$138.6 billion (1995 dollars). Results
from the second needs survey, released
in February 2001 (EPA 816-R-01-
004), will be used to determine FFY
2002 through FFY 2005 allotments.
The new survey identified a national
need of $150.9 billion (1999 dollars),
with 20 year needs for individual states
ranging from $147 million (Hawaii) to
$17.5 billion (California).
States have two years in which to
receive a grant—the year in which the
funds are appropriated and the
following year. In order to receive a
grant, a state must agree to deposit
matching funds equal to 20 percent of
the grant into their state revolving loan
funds. States distribute grant funds
Table 3-3 State Allotment Percentages
PWSS Formula
FFY 1997
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
1.00%
2.15%
1.35%
1 .00%
6.03%
1 .34%
1.70%
1 .00%
3.59%
2.05%
1 .00%
1.13%
3.07%
2.05%
1 .34%
1.12%
1 .00%
1.63%
1.01%
1.40%
1.14%
1995 Survey
FFY 1998-
FFY 2001
1.19%
1 .00%
1.02%
1.42%
10.83%
1 .35%
1.00%
1.00%
2.90%
2.14%
1 .00%
1.00%
3.48%
1.22%
1 .58%
1.41%
1.52%
1.40%
1.00%
1.00%
3.85%
1999 Survey
FFY 2002-
FFY 2005
1.00%
1 .00%
1.13%
1 .08%
10.24%
1 .65%
1.00%
1.00%
2.34%
1.58%
1 .00%
1.00%
3.73%
1.17%
1 .84%
1.15%
1.22%
1.00%
1.00%
1.16%
3.58%
Michigan
4.75%
District of Columbia
1.00%
Territories
0.33%
2.94%
1.00%
0.33%
4.10%
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
3.35%
1.31%
1 .74%
1.18%
1.02%
1.00%
1.10%
2.23%
1.02%
4.71 %
3.67%
1 .00%
3.43%
1 .40%
1.51%
4.24%
1.00%
1 .00%
1.18%
1 .00%
1.02%
5.59%
1.00%
1 .00%
2.34%
2.48%
1.00%
3.31 %
1.00%
1 .66%
1.16%
1 .34%
1.00%
1 .00%
1.00%
1 .00%
2.44%
1 .00%
6.33%
1.81%
1 .00%
3.20%
1 .44%
1.48%
3.15%
1.44%
1 .00%
1.08%
1 .00%
1.34%
7.58%
1.00%
1 .00%
1.95%
2.69%
1.00%
1 .34%
1.00%
1 .98%
1.00%
1 .45%
1.00%
1 .00%
1.00%
1 .00%
2.30%
1 .00%
7.75%
1.76%
1 .00%
3.05%
1 .55%
1.76%
3.22%
1.33%
1.00%
1.00%
1 .00%
1.01%
7.70%
1.00%
1 .00%
1.38%
2.47%
1.00%
1 .98%
1.00%
1.00%
0.33%
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Figure 3-1 Structure of the DWSRF Program
Federal EPA Grant
STATE
Add 20%
State match
Set-asides (up to 31%)
• Administration of DWSRF
• Small system tech assistance
• Source water assessments
• Source water protection
• Drinking water program
• Capacity development
• Operator certification
Revolving Loan Fund
(includes repayments,
bond proceeds, interest, etc.)
Assistance to Public Water Systems
• Treatment
• Sources
• Storage
• Transmission & distribution
*Repayments return to Fund for future assistance
between (1) the Fund, from which monies are used to finance infrastructure projects, and (2) set-asides,
which finance other programs and activities (Figure 3-1).
States are required to develop an annual Intended Use Plan (IUP) that describes how funds in the
program will be used, including a comprehensive list of infrastructure projects eligible for funding and a
fundable list of the highest priority projects expected to receive funding in that year. This IUP must be
made available for public review and comment prior to being finalized, and is required for receipt of a
capitalization grant from EPA. States must also develop a biennial report describing how funds have
been used.
In order to receive a capitalization grant, states must provide a number of assurances to EPA. States must
show that they have the ability to manage the program and that they will comply with statutes and
regulations applicable to the program. With the exception of funds used for set-asides, states must agree
to deposit all program funds into their Fund and must agree to
requirements related to the timing of providing assistance. The
state must agree to use generally accepted accounting principles
and to conduct audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act
(per requirements of the Office of Management and Budget). As
a best management practice, EPA encourages all states to
conduct independent audits of their programs to ensure their
financial integrity. The full set of requirements can be found in
the program regulations.
States are also required to meet certain conditions to avoid
withholding of DWSRF grant funds. The 1996 SDWA
What are the "Fund" and "Set-
Asides"?
In this report we refer to a state's
revolving loan fund as the Fund. Set-
asides refer to those grant funds that
are not deposited into the Fund, but
are instead used to support other
drinking water activities. Use of the
term "DWSRF program" refers to the
state program and activities
conducted through the Fund and/or
set-asides.
-------
Chapter 3 — DWSRF Basics
Amendments included new requirements relating to state capacity development and operator
certification programs (SDWA sections 1419 and 1420). States that fail to meet requirements related to
the development and on-going implementation of these programs are subject to a withholding of
DWSRF grant funds ranging from 10 to 20 percent. Conceivably, a state that fails to meet requirements
for both programs could be subject to a withholding of 40 percent of their DWSRF grant. To date,
because all states have met program requirements, none has been subject to grant withholding.
In order to give states flexibility to address their greatest public health and water quality priorities,
Congress also gave states the ability to transfer an amount equal to 33 percent of their DWSRF grant to
the CWSRF Fund, or an equivalent amount from the CWSRF Fund to the DWSRF Fund. A report to
Congress on the use of the provision, Implementation of Transfers in the Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund Programs (EPA 816-R-00-021), was released in October 2000. While the SDWA
did not allow for transfers after September 30, 2001, Congress extended the provision for an additional
year through EPA's FFY 2002 appropriation as requested by the Administration for FFY 2002 and in
the FY 2003 President's Budget.
T Fund Assistance
To ensure that the most critical infrastructure needs are addressed, states are required to fund the highest
priority projects pursuant to a priority system that reflects criteria provided for by law. States must give
priority to projects that (1) address the most serious risks to public health, (2) are necessary to ensure
compliance with the requirements of the SDWA, and (3) assist systems most in need on a per household
basis.
The law allows states to provide funding to publicly- or privately-owned community water systems and
non-profit noncommunity water systems for eligible projects. Entities that will create a new community
water system to address a public health problem caused by unsafe sources of water can also receive
assistance.
Table 3-4 Eligible Project Categories
The law provided that funds could be used for Treatment
projects of a type or category that the EPA . projects to maintain compliance with regulations for
Administrator determines would facilitate contaminants that cause acute and chronic health
.. . , . , . j • i • effects
compliance with national primary drinking
water regulations applicable to the system or Transmission and Distribution
otherwise significantly further the health
protection objectives of the Act. The work
otherwise significantly further the health * Installation or replacement of transmission and
1 distribution mams
group tasked with developing the initial
.... r i • i -r- i r- i * Rehabilitation of wells or development of sources to
guidelines for the program identified five basic rep|ace contaminated sources
categories of eligible projects (see Table 3-4). ~~
Other types of projects have been identified as
• Installation or improvement of eligible storage facilities
ineligible for assistance from the Fund. The
j- r Consolidation
law specifically excluded expenditures tor
• Consolidation of water supplies if a water supply has
monitoring, operations, and maintenance and become contaminated or if a system is unable to
indicated that the DWSRF could not be used maintain technical, financial, or managerial capacity
to fund projects where the primary purpose was
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
to facilitate growth. The Administrator identified additional types of projects as ineligible, including the
construction or rehabilitation of dams and reservoirs (unless the reservoir is for finished water or part of
the treatment process); water rights (except if owned by a system being purchased through
consolidation); and projects needed primarily for fire protection.
With the exception of disadvantaged assistance, assistance provided in the form of loans must have
interest rates that are between zero and market rates and repayment terms that do not exceed 20 years.
With the exception of privately-owned systems, states may refinance existing debt where the debt
obligation was incurred and the project was initiated after July 1, 1993. States can use Fund assets to
issue bonds to increase the amount of funds available for assistance, provided that the net bond proceeds
are deposited into the Fund. States may also use the Fund to purchase insurance or loan guarantees for
debt obligations which help to reduce interest rates.
Assisting small systems and systems with economic need is a priority for the program. The law requires
that states provide a minimum of 15 percent of available funds to systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons. A state may use up to 30 percent
of its grant to provide additional assistance
to systems the state has identified as
disadvantaged using criteria developed by
the state. Assistance to systems that have
been identified as serving disadvantaged
communities—using state-determined
affordability criteria—may receive
additional subsidies in the form of principal
forgiveness or negative interest rate loans.
States may also provide extended loan terms
of up to 30 years to systems serving
disadvantaged communities.
All projects funded through the program
must undergo an environmental review to
ensure that they will not have a negative
impact on the environment. States must
also apply more than 20 federal laws and
executive orders (i.e., federal cross-cutters)
to, at a minimum, an identified group of
projects receiving funding in an amount
equal to federal funds. These recipients
must, as a condition of receiving federal
assistance, comply with laws such as the
Endangered Species Act, the Archeological
and Historic Preservation Act, and executive
orders concerned with the protection of
wetlands, floodplain management, and
Table 3-5 Set-aside Categories and
Eligible Activities
Administration and Technical Assistance
• Administer the DWSRF program and
provide technical assistance to public
water systems.
Small System Technical Assistance
• Provide technical assistance to small
systems serving 10,000 people or fewer.
Maximum
4%
2%
10%*
State Program Management
• Administer the state PWSS program.
• Administer and provide technical assistance
through source water protection programs.
• Develop and implement a capacity
development strategy or an operator
certification program.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs 15%**
• Delineate and assess source water
protection areas.
• Provide loans to systems to acquire
land or conservation easements.
• Provide loans to systems to assist in
voluntary, incentive-based source water
protection measures.
• Make expenditures to establish and
implement wellhead protection programs.
• Provide technical or financial assistance to
systems as part of a capacity development
strategy.
* States must provide a dollar-for-dollar match for expenditures made under
this set-aside.
** No more that 10% per activity per capitalization grant.
-------
Chapter 3 — DWSRF Basics
Figure 3-2 Overview of the DWSRF
State develops a
project priority list
based on public
health, compliance
and affordability
State presents plan
with intended uses
of project & set-aside
funds to public
State determines
level of set-aside use
State is awarded
DWSRF grant
State submits
application to
EPA for approval
tate
State must provide
a 20% match to
federal funds
II
State
DWSRF
Capitalization Grant -
state allotment based
on % of national need
Set-asides
Up to 31% of grant for
activities supporting
source water protection
and PWSS management
State can issue
bonds to increase
the amount of
$ for loans
LOANS
Loans can range
from 0% to market rate
PWS
(Loan Recipient)
REPAYMENTS
Special allowances
for small and
disadvantaged
systems
Contractor
Terms generally limited to
20 years. Begin one year
after project completion.
Paid as costs
incurred
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
minority- and women-owned business enterprises. All recipients must comply with several specific
federal anti-discrimination laws, including the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination Act.
T Set-Aside Assistance
In order to provide states with the resources to address other programs that support drinking water
protection, states have the option to use up to 31 percent of their grants to fund set-aside activities that
support drinking water programs, enhance the management of water systems, or support programs that
protect sources of drinking water. There are four categories of set-asides—each of which carries a limit on
the amount of the capitalization grant that can be used for activities eligible under that set-aside (Table
3-5, page 12).
States must develop workplans describing how funds reserved from grants will be used. The workplans
can cover more than one year, provided that the state can account for how funds will be spent. If a state
does not have an immediate need for funds, but knows that it will in the future, it may reserve the
authority to take funds associated with the set-aside in the future.
T Flow of Funds
On a macro level the program appears fairly simple—EPA provides grants to states, states make loans to
recipients, recipients pay contractors, recipients repay loans to states, and states make more loans (Figure
3-2). However, a closer look is necessary because the flow of funds in the program is a complicated
process. Therefore, it is important to have a general understanding of how funds cycle through the
program (Figure 3-3). As noted before, states have two years in which to receive a grant award from a
specific appropriation. States then have the earlier of 8 quarters after the grant award or 12 quarters after
the allotment to take payments from the federal Treasury via an electronic funds transfer system (e.g., the
Automated Clearing House (ACH) or Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP)). It is
Figure 3-3 Timeframes within the DWSRF Program
Appropriation/
Apportionment/
Allotment
Capitalization
Grant Award
Payments
Binding
Commitments
Cash Draws
Disbursements
Project Funding
Process
Fiscal
Year 1
$
Award in y
Earlier of £
Entered in
As costs a
Generally
Loan Agre
Fiscal
Year 2
sar of appr<
quarters o
to within 1
•e incurred
ollowthe p
sment - Sta
Fiscal
Year 3
>priations 01
grant awar
rear of payr
ittern of ca
t construct
Fiscal
Year 4
following)
d or 1 2 qua
lent equal t
Fiscal
YearS
ear
•ters of allo
o grant and
\"_
»h draws
on - Projec
ment
match used
"
L
r
for projects
completion! - Begin repayment in 1 year
-------
Chapter 3 — DWSRF Basics
important to note that, unlike most grant programs, a DWSRF program payment does not represent an
actual transfer of cash from the Treasury to the state. It simply gives the state the ability to draw an
amount equal to the payment when disbursing funds to recipients for incurred costs.
After taking a payment, a state has one year in which to make a binding commitment with a recipient to
fund a project. In most cases, a binding commitment is concurrent with execution of a loan agreement,
although the two steps are separate in some states. A state cannot disburse funds to a recipient prior to
execution of the loan agreement. However, after the loan is executed the recipient can be reimbursed for
approved costs that were incurred prior to execution of the loan agreement. A state can only draw funds
from the Treasury based on a request for reimbursement of incurred costs by the recipient. A recipient
must begin loan repayments no later than one year after completion of the project. Loan terms cannot
exceed 20 years, except in the case of disadvantaged communities, which may have loan terms extended
up to 30 years.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Table 4-1 Features of State DWSRF Programs
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
Ml
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
PR
Rl
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
Wl
WY
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
O
4
O
O
4
4
4
O
O
O
O
4
4
4
O
O
O
4
4
4
O
4
O
4
O
4
4
O
4
O
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
O
4
O
4
4
O
O
4
4
4
4
4
O
O
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
O
O
O
4
4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
4
O
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
O
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 = Program feature utilized as of June 30, 200 I as reported in DWNIMS
O = For columns with *, program feature established, but not utilized as of June 30, 200 I
-------
Features of State Programs
This chapter reviews several features of state programs including a discussion of how the programs are
structured administratively and financially. The chapter also reviews how states support their programs
in providing required matching funds and additional funds to help operate programs. Finally, this
chapter reviews how states are working to coordinate their DWSRF programs with new or preexisting
state funding programs or other federal financial assistance programs. Table 4-1 shows additional
features of state programs that are discussed throughout the report.
T Administrative Structure
As noted previously, there is no one model for how states have established their DWSRF programs. The
number of agencies involved in administering the program can vary from one to more than three.
However, in every state, in accordance with the law, the authority to establish assistance priorities and
related activities of the DWSRF program, other than financial administration of the Fund, resides with
the state agency having primary enforcement responsibility (i.e., primacy) for administration of the
state's PWSS program. In most cases the primacy agency is located within a state's Health or
Environment Department. Table 4-2 shows the agencies involved in administering each of the 51
programs. In some cases, as a financial management matter, the primacy agency is not the EPA grant
recipient, but the agency remains responsible for setting program priorities.
In the majority of states, the primacy agency cooperates with other state agencies to help manage the
program. States are required to develop agreements with other relevant agencies to clearly identify the
roles and responsibilities of each agency in running the program.
In many states, the DWSRF program is being managed out of the same agency that oversees the CWSRF
program. Other DWSRF programs are cooperating with the agency that oversees the CWSRF program,
primarily in the areas of financial management or environmental reviews. In New York, the Environmen-
tal Facilities Corporation, which manages the CWSRF program, assists the Department of Health in
financial management and accounting for loans.
In some cases, the complexity of a state's program will require the participation of another state agency.
For example, states that issue bonds (i.e., leverage their grants) to increase the amount of funding for
projects will typically require the participation of a state agency to facilitate issuance of bonds. In Maine,
the Municipal Bond Bank works with the state Department of Health to manage additional funds made
available through leveraging.
Many states are implementing their DWSRF programs in coordination with state grant and loan
programs that were in existence prior to establishment of the DWSRF program. Twenty-five states
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Table 4-2 Agencies Implementing the DWSRF Program
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
18
Agency
Department of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Environmental Quality
Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
Department of Health
Development Finance Authority
Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Department of Health Services
State Water Resources Control Board
Department of Public Health and Environment
Water Resource and Power Development Authority
Department of Public Health
Department of Environmental Protection
Dept.of Health & Social Services
Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Facilities Authority
Department of Health - Safe Drinking Water Branch
Department of Health - Wastewater Branch
Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Environmental Management
State Budget Agency
Department of Natural Resources
Finance Authority
Department of Health and Environment
Department of Administration - Development Finance Authority
Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Cabinet
Infrastructure Authority
Department of Health & Hospitals
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Human Services
Municipal Bond Bank
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of the Environment - Water Quality Financing Admin.
Department of the Environment - Water Management Admin.
Department of Environmental Protection
Water Pollution Abatement Trust
Department of Environmental Quality
Municipal Bond Authority
Department of Health
Public Facilities Authority - Dept. of Trade and Economic Development
State Department of Health
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Natural Resources & Conservation
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Health and Human Services
DWSRF
Primacy
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DWSRF
Grantee
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DWSRF
Financial
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CWSRF
Financial
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DWSRF
Environmental
Reviews
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Chapter 4 — Features of State Programs
Table 4-2 Agencies Implementing the DWSRF Program (continued)
State
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Agency
Department of Human Resources
Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
Department of Env. Services - Water Supply Engineering Bureau
Department of Env. Services - Wastewater Engineering Bureau
Department of Environmental Protection
Environmental Infrastructure Trust
Environment Department
Finance Authority
Department of Health
Environmental Facilities Corporation
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Department of Health
Municipal Bond Bank
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Development Authority
Department of Environmental Quality
Water Resources Board
Department of Human Services
Economic and Community Development Department
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Protection
Infrastructure Investment Authority (Pennvest)
Department of Public Health
Infrastructure Finance Authority
Environmental Quality Board
Department Of Health
Department of Environmental Management
Clean Water Finance Agency
Department of Health and Environmental Control
Budget and Control Board
Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Department of Environment & Conservation
Natural Resource Conservation Comm.
Water Development Board
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Env. Conservation - Water Supply Div.
Department of Env. Conservation - Facilities Engineering Div.
Economic Development Authority
Municipal Bond Bank
Department of Health
Resources Authority
Department of Health
Department of Ecology
State Dept. of Community, Trade and Econ. Development
State Public Works Board
Bureau for Public Health
Water Development Authority
Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Administration
EPA Region 8
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of State Lands & Investments
State Loan Investment Board
DWSRF
Primacy
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DWSRF
Grantee
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DWSRF
Financial
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CWSRF
Financial
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DWSRF
Environmental
Reviews
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
19
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
reported other state funding programs in the DWNIMS. States with preexisting programs had an
advantage at the beginning of the program since they already had the structure and staff needed to
implement the program.
T Program Staffing and Funding
As a condition for receiving assistance a state must demonstrate that it has adequate personnel and
resources to manage the DWSRF program. EPA has not established a baseline number of personnel that
it believes is necessary to operate a program, but rather evaluates each program on its own merits. The
number of staff implementing the program varies widely. Fewer than 10 people manage a successful
program in Kansas while close to 40 manage a much larger and equally successful program in New York.
Many states have, however, experienced difficulties in attracting and maintaining the number of staff that
they would like to have in managing the program. Several programs have been affected by state-imposed
hiring freezes. Many states that have been able to hire have had difficulties offering salaries that are
competitive with the private sector.
As is the case with the CWSRF program, states have concerns about having sufficient funds to manage
the program. States may use up to four percent of their grant to pay for administration of the program.
While, in the absence of additional funds from the state, many programs have elected to impose fees on
borrowers, it may lessen the affordability of assistance for certain borrowers.
As reported in DWNIMS, 32 states have imposed fees on borrowers (Appendix B-12). Fees can be
applied in one of two ways—they can be paid directly by the borrower (i.e., on top of the loan) or they
can be included as principal within the loan. Table 4-3 shows the income that has been generated from
fees and their uses through SPY 2001. States may use income derived from either type of fee to help
administer the DWSRF program or for other activities eligible under the Fund or set-asides. Income
derived from fees placed on top of the loan can also be used to provide match required under the
program. There are additional limitations placed on fees included within loan principal; the most
important of which is that fees cannot be charged to disadvantaged communities receiving principal
forgiveness. While most states are using fee income to help administer their programs on an ongoing
basis, many are choosing to accumulate fees to
Table 4-3 Sources and Uses of Fees (in millions) ensure that they win haye funds available to
Total Fee Income $20.98 administer their programs in the event that federal
capitalization grants cease.
Included in Loans $12.14
On top of Loans $7.94 States have also provided additional state
Interest Earnings on Fee Account $0.90 contributions to help implement their programs.
Through SPY 2001, more than $1 million in
Total Expenses from Fees $8.12 .
additional state contributions have been expended
To Administer Fund $8.01
to supplement funds made available from the
State Match $0.00 DWSRF administrative set-aside and fee income.
Figure 4-1 shows the annual expenditures on
Other Eligible Purposes $0.11 ....
administration and the sources or the runds.
Balance of Fee Income $12.86
-------
Chapter 4 — Features of State Programs
T State Matching Funds
As a condition of the grant, states are required to
provide matching funds equal to 20 percent of the EPA
grant for deposit into the Fund. States may obtain
match from one or more of several sources (Figure 4-2).
The most common means of obtaining match is from
state appropriations. Bond proceeds are the second
most prevalent source of match. Bonds issued to obtain
match can be in the form of general obligation bonds or
revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are typically
issued by the state and are repaid using general revenue
from the state. Revenue bonds are typically issued by
the state DWSRF program and are repaid using interest
earnings from the Fund. It is important to note that
the use of DWSRF-backed bonds reduces the growth of
the Fund since interest earnings go to repay
Figure 4-2 Sources of State Match (# of States)
2
Figure 4-1 Sources of Annual
Administrative Expenses
SPY
1999
SPY
2000
SPY
2001
• Additional State Funds
D Fee Income
• DWSRF Set-Aside
• Cash or Appropriation
D Bonds retired outside DWSRF Fund
Bonds retired from DWSRF Fund
• Other Sources
Note: Numbers add up to more than 51
because some states use more than
one method
bondholders rather than to provide
additional loans. Finally, although it has
not been done to date, states with
preexisting state-funded loan programs may
pledge repayments associated with loans
made under those programs provided that
the repayments are deposited into the
Fund.
States must demonstrate that they have
matching funds at the time of the grant. They have the option of depositing match into the Fund at any
time, but no later than when federal funds are drawn to pay incurred costs. Match deposited into the
Fund prior to its use can earn interest, which must be used for Fund purposes. States may also elect to
establish a Letter of Credit (LOG) within the state and withdraw funds only when they are needed for
disbursement to a recipient. Use of a LOG method allows the state to maintain its funds in the state
treasury until needed—interest earnings on funds held within the state's treasury are not deposited into
the Fund. When funds are needed for disbursement, state and federal funds are drawn proportionally to
ensure that federal funds are not used more rapidly than state funds. An exception to this is in the case
of set-asides, for which states draw 100 percent federal funds.
Although it was a greater problem early in the program, several states have had trouble obtaining match.
In some cases, matching funds are tied to a larger state bond issue which must receive voter approval. In
other cases, state legislatures have been slow to provide matching funds through appropriations.
T Direct Loans vs. Leveraging
The majority of states have established direct loan programs whereby loans are made to recipients using
available federal funds, state match, interest earnings, and repayments. In some states, the demand for
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
financial assistance exceeds the availability of funding. Several states have decided that the immediate
demand for funding is so great that the program should increase the amount of funding available
through the issuance of bonds. Through SPY 2001, 15 states had used leveraging in their programs
(Table 4-4).
The decision to leverage using bonds must be well thought out. Demand must be sufficient to ensure
that the funds are used within the timeframes outlined by the Internal Revenue Service. Generally,
subsidized bond proceeds are used for public entities. States that wish to fund private systems must
exercise caution to ensure that subsidized bonds do not lose their tax-exempt status. The financial
strength of the recipients is also of a greater concern in a leveraged program since a strong loan portfolio
promotes a good bond rating, which translates to a lower interest rate. Interest rates charged in leveraged
programs tend to be slightly higher than those in direct loan programs because the interest rates reflect
the increased costs of funds as a result of issuing bonds. Some states that issue bonds offer loans made
from bond proceeds to borrowers with greater financial strength and offer direct loans to smaller, less
creditworthy, and/or private recipients.
Some states with leveraged programs have also made use of the practice of cross-collateralization, whereby
the funds from one SRF program can be used to secure the other SRF from revenue shortfalls (i.e.,
defaults) (Table 4-4). Generally, state bond issues can be used to support the other SRF program with
the condition that revenues from the bonds be allocated to the respective funds in the same portion as
they were used for security for the bonds. Use of the provision, provided for by Congress in the 1999
Appropriations Act, has had a significant
positive impact on state SRF programs,
particularly state DWSRF programs. Rating
agencies have given states with cross-
collateralized programs better credit ratings,
which translate into lower bond interest
rates. Some DWSRF programs have
indicated that, without the flexibility
afforded by cross-collateralization, they
would be less able to implement a leveraged
program to reach drinking water borrowers.
An alternative to cross-collateralization which
also provides additional security and can
positively impact bond interest rates is short-
term cross-investment, which is allowed
under the investment provisions of both SRF
programs (Table 4-4). Using cross-
investment, a state may use available funds
from one SRF program to help cure a bond
default in the other SRF program by
"investing" funds in the other SRF program
temporarily to cover the deficiency. Funds
Table 4-4 States Using Leveraging
States
Cross-Collateralization Cross-Investment
Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
X
X
X
Indiana
Iowa
X
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Chapter 4 — Features of State Programs
are repaid to the lending SRF once the borrower SRF has recovered from the default. The likelihood of a
state having to exercise cross-collateralization or cross-investment to cover a default is viewed as slim
because most states typically have several other levels of security that would be exhausted first.
T Coordination of Funding Programs
The DWSRF program is not the first program in any state to finance drinking water needs. The RUS
has been funding drinking water projects for small, rural communities for many years and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development has a Community Development Block Grant program
which has funded water infrastructure. Additionally, many states had preexisting grant and loan
programs or have instituted programs complementary to the DWSRF to provide assistance to public
water systems.
While competition can be effective at helping a potential recipient get an affordable financing package, it
can create problems when programs have worked with a system to prepare it for funding only to lose it at
the last moment to another funding program. Many states have determined that it is more practical to
develop coordination committees that work together to identify the best funding solution for a project.
These committees meet together periodically to discuss projects and develop funding packages. Some
states hold funding fairs at which potential
customers can learn about the various funding
programs and submit preapplications for
assistance. In Maine, the Department of
Health Services (the DWSRF lead agency) holds
regular meetings with the Maine Municipal
Bond Bank (the financial partner in
implementing the DWSRF), the state RUS
affiliate, the Department of Economic and
Community Development, and the CWSRF
Program (within the Department of
Environmental Protection) to streamline the
financial assistance efforts of all the agencies.
The status of each agency's assistance capabilities
and the projects each intends to fund are
discussed at these meetings. Other issues
exas_
discussed include the projects for which funds
are not immediately available, the overall state
funding needs for drinking water and clean
water projects, and the ability and need for co-
funding of projects.
Coordinating Funding in Texas
The City of El Paso Public Service Board (PSB)
received a $15. 3 million DWSRF loan to expand
the Jonathan Rogers Water Treatment Plant. The
DWSRF loan will be used to finance 32.5% of
design capacity to serve city residents. The
remainder of the design capacity will be financed
through a $ 14.9 million grant from the North
American Development Bank (NADBank) and
local funds. In addition to the DWSRF loan and
the NADBank grant, the El Paso Water Utilities will
contribute $4.5 million toward the water project.
The El Paso PSB proposes to expand the Jonathan
Rogers Water Treatment Plant from 40 to 60
million gallons per day and construct 32,000 linear
feet of 42-inch diameter water transmission main.
The water plant expansion will allow provision of
water to Colonia Areas within El Paso County, in
addition to conserving ground water resources and
improving regional water supplies.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Financial Status
This chapter provides a detailed breakdown of the financial status of the DWSRF program at the
national level. Subsequent chapters review the types of assistance and the types of systems and projects
that have received assistance. In order to effectively inform the public about how funds are being
distributed among projects and set-asides, EPA has requested that states provide a table describing the
sources and uses of DWSRF funds within their lUPs. This chapter follows that format.
T Sources of Funds
Through SPY 2001, the primary contributors to funds available for projects have been federal
capitalization grants and state match, although in some states, significant additional funds have been
made available through leveraging (Appendix B-l).
> Capitalization grants
Through SPY 2001, Congress had appropriated $4.418 billion for the DWSRF program. After
accounting for national set-asides (Table 5-1) and funds reserved for the District of Columbia and
Territories, $4.212 billion was available to states for capitalization grants. States have received $3.648
billion, or 87 percent of the funds available for grant awards. Grants for FFY2000 funds had not yet
been made to 8 states and 33 states had not yet been awarded FFY 2001 funds*.
>• State match and additional state contributions
As noted earlier, states are required to provide a 20 percent match on their capitalization grants. States
are required to demonstrate that they will be able to provide match, but are not required to deposit the
funds into the Fund until they draw federal funds. Through SPY 2001, states had deposited $773.4
million for state match (Appendix B-2). This reflects an overall 21 percent of the grants as some states
provide more match than required.
Table 5-1 Capitalization Grants (through FFY 2001)
Appropriation
National Set-Asides
Grants to DC and Territories
Available Grants to States
Awarded Grants to States
FFY 1997
$1 ,275,000,000
$19,125,000
$16,703,200
$1,239,171,800
$1,239,171,800
FFY 1998
$725,000,000
$12,875,000
$9,471 ,300
$702,653,700
$702,653,700
FFY 1999
$775,000,000
$28,625,000
$9,926,800
$736,448,200
$736,448,200
FFY 2000
$820,000,000
$44,300,000
$10,316,800
$765,383,200
$765,383,200
FFY 2001
$823,185,000
$44,277,300
$10,359,500
$768,548,200
$485,708,700
TOTAL
$4,418,185,000
$149,202,300
$56,777,600
$4,212,205,100
$3,929,365,600
"Through September 30, 2001, the capitalization grants awarded totaled $3.929 billion.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Matching funds have been provided from several Table 5-2 Sources of State Match (in millions)
sources (Table 5-2). In some states, match has been Source of Match
obtained using more than one of the sources. Thirty-
. , i • j Cash or Appropriation $546.4
eight states have obtained match through state
appropriations. Twelve states have derived match from Bonds retired outside Fund $113.7
bonds totaling $111.2 million that are retired using Bonds retjred usjng Fund $111 2
the interest payments from loans and interest earnings
c u r M- u • Preexisting Loans $0.0
on investments or the fund. Nine states have obtained i
state match from bonds that are retired using funds Other Sources $2.2
that are not from the DWSRF program and two states T t I M t h $773 4
have obtained match from other sources.
Several states have been able to get additional state contributions to assist their programs. For example,
at the beginning of the program, the state legislatures in Kansas and New York appropriated $5 million
and $66 million, respectively, to help meet a high demand in the early years of the program. States have
the option of depositing these funds into the Fund and using them as credit for future match or they
may choose to maintain accounts separate from the Fund. Because of use and reporting requirements
attached to monies deposited into the Fund, many states have elected to keep additional state
contributions outside of the Fund to maintain flexibility in their use.
>• Bond proceeds made available by leveraging
States may use the assets of the Fund as a source of revenue or security for the payment of principal and
interest on revenue or general obligation bonds issued by the state in order to increase the amount of
funds available for assistance. The net proceeds of the sale of bonds must be deposited into the Fund.
Through SPY 2001, 15 states had issued bonds in their programs (Table 5-3). The gross proceeds for
bonds issued in the national program were $1.520 billion. After considering the cost for issuing bonds,
the net bond proceeds were $1.485 billion. States must deposit funds in debt service reserves to provide
security on the bonds. While these funds are not immediately available for projects, they are released
back to the Fund as the bonds are repaid. Through SPY 2001, $434.3 million was being held in debt
service reserves. As bonds are repaid, the total amount of bonds outstanding in the program decreases.
The amount of bonds outstanding in the program is $1.473 billion.
>• Interest earnings
While states may not hold monies with the sole purpose of earning interest, a state may earn interest on
monies deposited into the Fund prior to disbursement of assistance. This includes funds held in reserve
accounts that are used as security for bonds or guarantees. Through SPY 2001, states had earned $130.5
million in interest on Fund accounts.
> Transfers from the CWSRF
The SDWA gave states the flexibility to transfer an amount equal to 33 percent of their DWSRF grant to
the CWSRF program, or an equivalent amount from the CWSRF to the DWSRF program for deposit
into the Fund. The provision in the law included a sunset date of September 30, 2001, after which
transfers would not be allowed. As part of the FFY2002 Appropriations Act, Congress extended the
provision for one additional year and the President's FY 2003 Budget proposal extended for another year.
Through SPY 2001, eight states had made use of the transfer provision (Table 5-4). These states
-------
Chapter 5 — Financial Status
Table 5-3 Bond Proceeds Through Leveraging (in
Gross Bond Net Bond
State Proceeds Proceeds
Alabama $68.4 $62.0
Arizona $8.0 $7.9
Colorado $122.3 $121.3
Connecticut $29.6 $29.6
Indiana $73.7 $70.0
Iowa $25.3 $24.5
Kansas $127.0 $123.9
Maine $4.8 $4.7
Massachusetts $160.9 $160.9
Michigan $153.3 $151.1
Minnesota $21.5 $21.1
Missouri $69.0 $68.2
New Jersey $63.4 $59.7
New York $580.5 $568.1
North Dakota $11.9 $11.8
Total $1,519.6 $1,484.8
transferred a total of $147.2 million from
their CWSRF programs to their DWSRF
Funds. The amount transferred ranged
from $5.4 million in Illinois to $66.2
million in New York. Most states have
elected to transfer repayments because the
transfer process is more expeditious. Only
$12.1 million of the transfers to date have
been federal dollars.
> Loan repayments
Most projects take from two to three years
to complete, and repayments must begin no
later than one year after completion of the
project. Therefore, it takes some time
before loan repayments begin flowing back
to the Fund. Many of the repayments to
date are likely from loans that were made to
millions)
Debt Service
Reserve
$14.3
$2.5
$35.3
$16.3
$0.0
$13.9
$54.2
$0.02
$62.6
$70.2
$1.8
$12.2
$1.9
$148.7
$0.4
$434.3
Table 5-4 States
State
Alabama
Colorado
Illinois
Maryland
Montana
New Jersey
New York
Wisconsin
Total
*AII transfers from
Bond Proceeds
Available for Bond Principal
Projects Repaid
$47.7
$5.4
$86.0
$13.3
$70.0
$10.6
$69.7
$4.7
$98.3
$80.9
$19.3
$56.0
$57.8
$419.4
$11.4
$1,050.5
Using Transfers*
Dollars Transferred
(in millions)
$12.9
$8.0
$5.4
$10.6
$8.8
$20.9
$66.2
$14.3
$147.1
CWSRF to DWSRF
$1.4
$0.2
$4.7
$0.0
$0.3
$0.0
$1.9
$0.4
$3.2
$0.0
$0.9
$1.4
$0.7
$30.8
$0.7
$46.6
Bonds
Outstanding
$67.0
$7.8
$117.6
$29.6
$73.4
$25.3
$125.0
$4.4
$157.7
$153.3
$20.6
$67.6
$62.7
$549.7
$11.2
$1,472.9
Transfers as a %
of DWSRF Grants
27%
14%
4%
28%
20%
25%
27%
20%
20%
27
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
refinance debt since they are not subject to a construction period. Through SPY 2001, the loan
principal repayments were $103-7 million and interest earnings on loans were $111.9 million, for a total
of $215-6 million in principal and interest.
T Uses of Funds
The uses of DWSRF funds are limited to activities that are eligible under the Fund and activities eligible
under the set-asides. This section identifies both the intended use of funds and the actual use
(obligation or expenditure) as of June 30, 2001.
> Set-asides
States are allowed to reserve up to 31 percent of their capitalization grants for set-aside activities. These
funds are not deposited in the Fund, but are held and tracked in separate accounts. States have reserved
$575-7 million of their capitalization grants for set-aside activities (Appendix B-19). Nationally, this
represents 15-8 percent of grants awarded, although the amount reserved at the state level varies from 6.7
percent to 31 percent. Through SPY 2001, states had expended $244.6 million for set-aside activities
(Appendix B-20). This represents 42.5 percent of the funds that have been reserved. While the amount
appears to be low, in many cases this is a result of the ability of states to develop multi-year workplans in
which they account for how funds will be expended. In some states, however, the progress of set-aside
expenditure has been impacted by problems experienced in getting the programs established. Additional
information on the use of set-asides can be found in Chapters 9 and 10.
> Fund assistance
States are required to make binding commitments within one year of taking a payment from the federal
Treasury (which gives states the authority to draw funds based on incurred costs). Through SPY 2001,
states had entered into binding commitments totaling $4.040 billion. However, a more useful figure is
the amount of loans that have been executed, as that represents when funds are available to assist
recipients. In most states, the execution of a loan agreement is equivalent to a binding commitment.
Through SPY 2001, states had entered into $3.764 billion in loan agreements (Appendix B-7).
Additional details on the types of assistance are provided in Chapter 6. States disbursed $2.195 billion
of the total loans made to recipients to cover incurred costs.
> Repayment of state match and leveraged bonds
States use the Fund to repay bonds issued for state match or bonds issued to fund additional projects.
States may only use interest earnings of the Fund and the interest portion of repayments to retire state
match bonds. Both the principal and interest portions of repayments and interest earnings of the Fund
may be used to retire leveraged bonds. Through SPY 2001, states had repaid $1.5 million in state
match bonds, $46.6 million in leveraged bonds, and $120.5 million for interest on bonds.
-------
Chapter 5 — Financial Status
T Funds Available for Assistance
Table 5-5 provides a summary of the data
discussed in this chapter. As of June 30,
2001, the total sources of funds for the
DWSRF program were $6.399 billion. The
sources include capitalization grants awarded,
state match, transfers from the CWSRF, net
bond proceeds, interest earnings on
investments and loans, and loan principal
repayments.
The total uses of funds in the program were
$5.219 billion. They included current
binding commitments (i.e., loans that have
not yet closed), executed loan agreements,
repayments for leveraged and match bond
principal and interest, debt service reserves,
and amounts reserved for set-asides.
The funds made available for projects include
all sources less funds reserved for set-asides,
debt service reserves, and interest and
principal repaid on bonds. Through SPY
2001, the total funds made available for
projects were $5.221 billion (Appendix B-3).
The total funds that were uncommitted and
available for projects was $1.181 billion, or
23 percent of the funds made available for
projects. In their annual lUPs, states must
demonstrate that all funds will be committed
to projects identified on their priority lists.
Table 5-5 Summary of Sources and Uses (in millions)
Sources
Capitalization Grants
State Match
Transfers
Net Bond Proceeds
Investment Interest Earnings
Loan Principal Repayments
Interest Earnings on Loans
Total Sources
Uses
Binding Commitments
Loan Agreements
Bond Principal Repaid
Debt Service Reserve
Interest Paid on Match and Leveraged Bonds
Amounts Reserved for Set-Asides
Total Uses
Funds Made Available for Projects
$3,648.4
$773.4
$147.2
$1,484.7
$130.5
$103.7
$111.9
$6,399.8
$276.0
$3,764.3
$48.1
$434.4
$120.5
$575.8
$5,219.1
$5,221.0
Funds Uncommited (for Projects) $1,180.7
Sources - Uses (or funds immediately available for projects or other uses)
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Types of Fund Assistance
This chapter provides a discussion on the types of assistance that states have provided to water systems
from the Fund. It includes information on the conditions that recipients of assistance must meet, the
weighted average interest rates of the assistance states have provided, and the use of disadvantaged
assistance by states.
T Conditions for Receiving Assistance
As discussed earlier, DWSRF assistance may only be provided to eligible recipients for eligible projects.
In addition, there are other national conditions that recipients must meet in order to receive assistance.
States may also impose additional conditions on recipients.
Systems must be able to demonstrate that they have a dedicated source of revenue, or in the case of
privately-owned systems, adequate security to ensure repayment of assistance. Systems must also have
the technical, financial, and managerial capacity to ensure compliance with the SDWA. States have
developed different strategies for assessing the capacity of systems. A description of the methods used by
six states was included in the EPA report, Case Studies in DWSRF Implementation - Capacity Assessment,
EPA 816-R-00-004 (July 2000). The methods used by states will change over time as states implement
capacity development strategies required by the SDWA. If a system lacks adequate capacity, a state may
assist the system provided that it agrees to undertake changes to ensure that it will achieve technical,
financial, and managerial capacity.
Finally, a system cannot receive assistance if it is in significant noncompliance with any national primary
drinking water regulation or variance unless such assistance will address the cause of the noncompliance
and return the system to compliance. Assistance may also be provided for a project unrelated to the
cause of noncompliance if the system is on an enforcement schedule or has a plan for returning to
compliance.
T Types of Fund Assistance
Through SPY 2001, 1,776 assistance
agreements had been executed for a total of
$3.764 billion. Although the law provides
for other types of assistance, loans are the
predominant type of assistance provided
through state DWSRF programs (Table 6-1).
For some states, loans are made through the
purchase of a separate debt instrument that
the community must enter into as a
Table 6-1 Types of Fund Assistance
Number Dollars
of Agreements
Loans
Short-term Refinance
Long-term Refinance
Guarantee/Insurance
Total
1,670
24
82
0
1,776
$3.314 B
$57.7 M
$392.6 M
$0
$3.764 B
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
condition for receiving assistance. The second most common type of assistance is refinancing of existing
short- or long-term debt. Of the total agreements, 106 were for refinancing of short- or long-term debt
in the amount of $450.3 million, or 12 percent of the total assistance provided (Appendix B-10). While
states can also use funds to provide guarantees or purchase insurance, none had made use of these types
of assistance through SPY 2001. States can include costs that were incurred prior to execution of a loan
within the loan provided that the costs were authorized by the state. Ensuring that systems can be
reimbursed for these pre-approved costs is important to those states which have short construction
seasons (e.g., Alaska) or which conduct financing at specific times of the year (e.g., New Jersey).
The repayment period for loans cannot exceed 20 years (except for disadvantaged loans). Although some
states provide for shorter repayment periods, most loans have repayment terms of 20 years. Non-
disadvantaged loans must have interest rates that are between zero and market rate. States are responsible
for identifying the market rate against which they will set their interest rate. In states that provide
assistance to privately-owned systems, states may have one market rate for public borrowers and another
(typically higher) for private borrowers. EPA has asked states to report their market rates in the
DWNIMS. Across all years of the program, market interest rates identified by states have ranged from
2.5 to 8 percent.
Figure 6-1 Monthly Bond Buyer Index
States use different methods for
determining their interest rates. Most
states set their interest rate based on
some percent of the rate that states are
charged for borrowing—typically the
20 year General Obligation Bond
Buyer Index. Figure 6-1 shows the
monthly 20 year Bond Buyer Index
tracked by the Federal Reserve. Some
states have established a set interest
rate which is charged to all borrowers
in the program while others have
floating rates that are based on
Figure 6-2 Annual DWSRF Weighted Average Interest Rates
1 Municipal
Corporate Aaa
Corporate Baa
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 to 2%
2 to 4%
Interest Rate
• SPY 1997
• SPY 1998
• SPY 1999
D SPY 2000
• SPY 2001
-------
Chapter 6 — Types of Fund Assistance
Wisconsin.
economic need, loan repayment period, or some
other factor. States are asked to provide a weighted
average interest rate on all loans executed in each
state fiscal year. Weighted interest rates have
ranged from 0 to 6 percent for all years (Figure 6-
2) with most programs charging interest rates that
range from 2 to 4 percent (Appendix B-l 1). Rates
have decreased slowly over the past three years.
When compared to the 20 year Bond Buyer Index,
the program has provided subsidies equivalent to
11 to 26 percent grants.
The law allows states to refinance debt that was
issued after July 1, 1993, for publicly-owned
systems only. Most states regard refinancing as a
low priority, although in some cases the savings
afforded through refinancing debt can be
significant, particularly for systems that have issues
related to affordability. Generally, however,
refinancing was more common early in the
program.
T Disadvantaged Assistance
States are allowed to provide additional subsidies to
systems identified as serving disadvantaged
communities. Subsidies that are in the form of
negative interest rate loans or principal forgiveness are limited to an amount equal to 30 percent of the
state's capitalization grants. States can also extend loan terms to up to 30 years for disadvantaged
communities.
States are responsible for defining which systems are disadvantaged using affordability criteria which they
must release for public comment. In accordance with the law, EPA released a report in February 1998
on how states could consider affordability in their state programs—Information for States on Developing
Affordability Criteria for Drinking Water (EPA 816-R-98-002). EPA also released a report in July 2000
on disadvantaged programs developed by several states, Case Studies in DWSRFImplementation -
Disadvantaged Communities (EPA 816-R-00-005).
Not all states have developed disadvantaged assistance programs, and for those that have, not all
programs offer principal forgiveness. EPA has decided that if a state makes an assessment of the
disadvantaged status of a community in determining the terms of assistance, then the state is deemed to
have a disadvantaged program. Using this definition, the DWNIMS shows that 29 states have developed
disadvantaged assistance programs (Figure 6-3). Of the 29 states with programs, 16 states provided
principal forgiveness and 18 states provided loan terms of up to 30 years. Ten states provided both
principal forgiveness and 30 year terms. Five states had disadvantaged programs, but provided neither
Providing Disadvantaged Assistance
in Wisconsin
The City of Ashland, located in northern
Wisconsin on the south shore of Lake Superior, is
home to more than 8,600 residents. Historically,
Ashland was a shipping port for nearby iron ore
mines. Its 100 year old surface water slow sand
filtration system, drawing from Lake Superior, was
unable to consistently produce finished water of
acceptable quality under current turbidity
standards. The city received a $2.3 million
DWSRF loan to build a 2 million gallon per day
membrane microfiltration plant and replace the old
filters. Ashland also qualified for a disadvantaged
interest rate of 1.782% because its population was
less than 10,000 residents and the adjusted
median household income (MHI) was less than
80% ofWisconsin's adjusted MHI. The project
also addressed other treatment violations with the
installation of new chemical feed systems to
improve the uniformity of the added chemical
concentrations and purchasing a new supervisory
control and data acquisition system to provide
continuous system monitoring and control from
multiple city locations.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
principal forgiveness or 30 year
terms. These states offer lower
interest rates to recipients identified
as disadvantaged. Table 6-2 shows
the breakdown of disadvantaged
assistance.
Table 6-2 Disadvantaged Assistance (D.A.)
Number
of Agreements
Dollars
Total D.A.
455
$618.9 M
D.A. including principal forgiveness
187
$213.7 M
D.A. with >20 year terms
185
$218.4 M
* Some recipients receive both principal forgiveness and extended
terms
For the purposes of determining
compliance with the limitation that
no more than 30 percent of funds be
used to provide disadvantaged
subsidies, states only consider the amount of principal that is forgiven from assistance agreements.
Nationally, an amount equal to 2.6 percent of the capitalization grants have been used for principal
forgiveness. When looking only at those states that have offered disadvantaged assistance that included
principal forgiveness, an amount equal to 5-7 percent of their capitalization grants were used to forgive
principal on loans. No state has used the full 30 percent allowed by the law, although three states have
used between 15 and 20 percent (Appendix B-15).
Figure 6-3 Disadvantaged Assistance (D.A.)
Provided D.A.
Provided D.A. with
Principal Forgiveness
Disadvantaged Assistance represented
26% of agreements and 16% of total assistance
cr?-
-------
Recipients and Projects
Receiving Assistance
The types of systems receiving assistance and the types of projects being funded are as varied as the
universe of public water systems itself. The DWNIMS collects information that captures the diversity of
assistance being provided through the state programs. EPA has collected state aggregate data—not data
on individual projects. However, in this chapter, and throughout this report, examples are provided of
the types of problems that are being addressed by specific projects and the benefits afforded by these
projects.
T Types of Systems
State DWSRF programs can provide
infrastructure assistance to publicly- and
privately-owned community water systems
and non-profit noncommunity water systems.
Although there are a greater number of
noncommunity water systems, the vast
majority of assistance has been provided to
community water systems, which serve a much
greater population (Figure 7-1).
Figure 7-1 Assistance to CWS and NCWS (% Loans)
Figure 7-2 CWS Ownership
Ancillary Private^
24%
Figure 7-3 CWS Ownership by Size
10,000
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
population served by a system decreases, the percentage of
water systems under private ownership increases. Because
there is such diversity of ownership in the drinking water
industry, a one-size fits all approach is not always
appropriate in identifying challenges and potential
solutions to those challenges.
Although the law gives states the authority to provide
assistance to private systems, not all states have done so
(Figure 7-4). Several states have state legislative or
regulatory restrictions on providing assistance to private
systems. A few others have made a policy decision to
restrict assistance to private systems due to concerns about
endangering the tax-exempt status of bonds issued to
provide state match. Among the states that do not have
these restrictions, some have yet to provide assistance to a
privately-owned system. These states have indicated that
they have not had any demand from privately-owned
systems for assistance or that they have been reluctant to
provide assistance to these systems due to concerns about
the creditworthiness of applicants. Publicly-owned
.Florid;
Funding Private
Systems in Florida
Tradewinds Utilities is a small private water
system in central Florida. In October 1998,
the Department of Health (DOH) asked the
system to sponsor a project in an area with
multi-family housing units regulated by DOH
and served by water with extensive
microbiological contamination. Tradewinds
received a $590,000 low interest loan to
construct an elevated storage tank and
approximately 6,185 feet of water lines to the
area. This was Florida's first loan to a private,
investor-owned utility. Florida requires all
systems receiving DWSRF assistance to
maintain a repayment reserve fund in case they
encounter difficulties in making loan
payments. Because Tradewinds is a private
system, it was required to establish a repayment
reserve that was 6 percent more than that
required of publicly-owned systems.
Construction was completed in November
1999.
Figure 7-4 Assistance to Privately-owned Systems
States that Provided DWSRF
Assistance to Private Systems
States that Have Not Yet Provided
DWSRF Assistance to Private Systems
States Restricting DWSRF
Assistance to Private Systems
Assistance to private systems
represented 9% of agreements,
4% of total assistance dollars
-------
Chapter 7 — Recipients and Projects Receiving Assistance
States with Greatest
Number of Loans to Private
Systems (shown as a
percent of all loans)
Arizona - 54%
Washington - 30%
Florida - 30%
Pennsylvania - 28%
Vermont - 23%
systems generally have the full faith and credit of the utility or
community backing its loan. States funding private systems may
have to put in additional effort to ensure a similar level of security
for these loans.
The assistance provided to private systems does not reflect the
inventory data for those systems. While 57 percent of the nation's
community water systems are privately-owned, only nine percent
of DWSRF assistance agreements have been provided to privately-
owned systems (Appendix B-14). The states that have been
successful in funding private systems (see box) use a variety of
methods for assessing credit—some contract the service out and others do it in-house. EPA continues to
be concerned about the failure of many states to fund privately-owned systems and will continue to work
to raise the comfort level of states in providing assistance to privately-owned systems and address issues
that are causing states to restrict funding to these systems.
Public water systems operated on American Indian lands and in Alaska Native Villages can receive direct
grants from EPA through the national set-aside reserved for that use. However, these systems are also
eligible for assistance from state DWSRF programs, with the exception that a specific project cannot
receive both a DWSRF loan and a Tribal set-aside grant. There are many challenges involved in
providing assistance to Tribal systems associated with their legal status. However, a few states have
worked to implement procedures to facilitate the funding of these systems, which often have serious
public health needs. Arizona was the first state to provide a DWSRF loan to a Tribal government for its
water system.
Figure 7-5 Population Served as a Function of System Size
70% -,
59%
44%
T Size of Systems
Eighty-one percent of the population is
served by the seven percent of total
community water systems that serve more
than 10,000 people. However, the
majority of water systems serve fewer than
3,300 people (Figure 7-5). Systems that
serve small populations face challenges in
responding to infrastructure needs and
regulatory requirements, because they lack
the economies of scale that are available to
large water systems, which can spread
costs over a larger population base.
However, where there are challenges, there
are also opportunities to introduce
practices that can bring efficiencies to the drinking water industry and/or reduce the number of these
small systems. For example, consolidating management or the physical assets of a water system with
another system can reduce burdens on the utilities and customers by leveraging the systems' economies
of scale. Consolidation could be especially attractive for small systems that are in close proximity to
another system.
<500
501-3,300
3,301-
10,000
Population
10,001-
100,000
> 100,001
% of Systems
% of Population
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
The SDWA placed a special emphasis on
providing assistance to small systems
serving 10,000 people or fewer. States
must provide a minimum of 15 percent
of their available funding to small
systems. States have more than met the
requirement, with 41 percent of the
funds that have been provided nationally
through loans going to small systems.
The actual percentage of loan agreements
(75%) provided to small systems is
considerably larger. This is due to the
fact that the average dollar amount of
loans to small systems is smaller than
that for larger systems. While several
states have not met the requirement for
funding small systems, this is primarily
because they have not executed many
loans.
While the law established a population
size of 10,000 or fewer as small for the
purposes of the DWSRF program, many
in the drinking water industry do not
consider a system that serves 10,000 to
be a small system. In
fact, the majority of
public water systems
serve populations of less
than 500. When
breaking out assistance
across a greater number
of population ranges,
one can see that the
greatest number of
agreements have been
made in the 501-3,300
population range
(Figure 7-6, Appendix
B-16). The percentage
of assistance provided to
the various size
categories of systems
40%
37%
Figure 7-6 DWSRF Assistance by System Size
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
18%
15%
10%
5%
0%
20%
<50I
501-3,300
3,301-
10,000
Population
10,001-
100,000
> 100,001
% of Dollars
% of Loans
Figure 7-7 Comparison of Needs to Assistance by System Size
65%
<3,300
3301-10000
Population
> 10,000
% Needs
% DWSRF Assistance Dollars
North Dakota
m & *•
Wfe
consin
Funding a Small Water System in North Dakota
The Southeast Water Users District received DWSRF assistance to provide water service
to the City of Havana, North Dakota. Havana has a population of 124 and a land area
of 0.6 square miles. The $60,000 loan was used to construct transmission and
distribution lines necessary to rectify Havana's pressure problems and bacteriological
compliance problems under the Total Coliform Rule.
Funding a Large Water System in Wisconsin
The City of Oshkosh, located in central Wisconsin on Lake Winnebago, had a 100-
year-old surface water system that was vulnerable to microbial contaminants. To address
this threat, a new 16 million gallon per day treatment plant was planned, designed, and
built with DWSRF loans totaling $25.6 million. This new plant, which has four dual-
media filters, two ozone contractors, chemical handling facilities, and plant
administration space, ensures safe water for the city's 5 5,000 residents. The entire cost
of the project was $29 million, and Oshkosh was scheduled to receive its final DWSRF
loan of $3-5 million to complete the project.
-------
Chapter 7 — Recipients and Projects Receiving Assistance
Carolina
largely agrees with national needs numbers identified
by the 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey (Figure 7-7).
States have faced challenges in providing assistance to
small systems. These systems tend to be less
sophisticated than many larger systems and often have
issues related to technical, financial, and managerial
capacity. Some very small systems may not even be
aware of the infrastructure improvements needed to
ensure the continued supply of safe drinking water.
States have had to work hard to simplify and streamline
requirements to help small systems through the loan
application process. States are also entering into
partnerships with organizations that work with small
systems to help them identify projects and work
through the application process. States are using set-
aside funds to provide capacity development assistance
and are also working to introduce financial and
infrastructure assessment elements into sanitary surveys
of drinking water systems conducted by the states.
T Categories of Projects -
Infrastructure
The DWNIMS collects state aggregate data on several categories of projects, including the project
categories used in the 1999 Needs Survey. The Needs Survey collected information on four major
construction categories which correspond to the primary components of a drinking water system: source;
transmission and distribution; treatment; and storage. In addition to these construction categories, the
DWNIMS collects data on project costs associated with purchasing systems, restructuring a system, or
acquiring land needed to locate the facilities. Through SPY 2001, states reported that they had provided
funding to more than 1,846 projects. The number of projects is greater than the number of loan
agreements because some loans are made for more than one project.
Replacing Inadequate Distribution
Lines in North Carolina
Chimney Rock Village, located in North Carolina's
Rutherford County, is a community with a
population of only 137 people. Until 1998, it was
served by privately-owned Chimney Rock Water
Works. The Water Works had only an emergency
operator appointed by the North Carolina Utilities
Commission and was under an Administrative
Order to replace its spring source which was under
the direct influence of surface water with a new
source of supply and replace its undersized water
lines. In 1998, the Village purchased the water
system in order to be eligible for state assistance.
Due to the limited number of customers and
excessive water rates, funding for the needed
projects from rate increases was unfeasible. The
Village received a $ 182,230 DWSRF loan to
comply with the Administrative Order. The project
included developing and connecting previously
drilled wells to the system so that the spring water
sources could be abandoned. The Village was also
able to replace its undersized lines. The project was
successfully completed and brought the Village into
compliance.
Figure 7-8 Needs by Category (% Dollars)
Transmission &
Distribution
56%
~^^^^^H
Treatment
25%
Other c~~~ Source
Storage 6o/0
12%
The Needs Survey showed that the majority of needs are
associated with transmission and distribution assets
(Figure 7-8). This finding reflects that most of the
assets of a water system are associated with the
transmission pipes that move water from the source to
the treatment plant and the distribution pipes that move
treated water from the plant to the customers. Projects
under this category may include the installation or
replacement of pumps, valves, backflow prevention
devices, service lines, and water meters. In DWNIMS,
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Figure 7-9 DWSRF Assistance by Category (% Dollars)
Treatment
43%
Transmission &
Distribution
32%
N/A c«.
7% Misc. Stora§e
3% 5%
EPA asked states to report whether an
agreement addressed one or more of the
construction categories and the dollar amount
associated with that component. The total
number of components identified is greater
than the number of agreements because most
projects typically address more than one
construction category. Fifty-one percent of the
total components identified addressed
transmission and distribution while 34 percent
addressed a treatment component.
Although transmission and distribution needs were the most frequently addressed construction category,
the picture changes when looking at funding directed at the projects (Appendix B-13). Treatment
projects comprised 43 percent ($1.612 billion) of the total construction costs while transmission and
distribution made up only 32 percent ($1.184 billion) of the total costs (Figure 7-9). The law requires
that states give priority to projects that are needed to protect public health and ensure compliance with
SDWA. Many projects that are needed to address these statutory criteria will require a treatment
solution as opposed to solutions provided through the other categories. Treatment projects can include
projects needed to address microbial contaminants,
which, if left unaddressed, can result in serious and,
in some cases, immediate health problems. Projects
addressing microbial contaminants might include
filtration of surface water sources and disinfection
with chlorine-based compounds. Removal of chronic
contaminants such as organic chemicals may require
aeration and/or treatment by granulated activated
carbon to reduce concentrations to safe levels.
Treatment can also address secondary contaminants
like iron and manganese, which can affect the taste
and color of water. The solutions to these violations
often pursue a treatment course, but may also involve
other categories of infrastructure.
South Dakota.
Storage projects ($199-1 million) include those
needed to construct or rehabilitate elevated and
ground level storage for treated water. The category
also includes installation of covers for treated water
reservoirs to bring them into compliance with the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
Water systems need to have sufficient storage to
provide an adequate supply of treated water to the
public during periods of variable demand. The
storage must enable the system to maintain minimum
pressures to ensure that contaminants are not
Addressing Nitrates in South Dakota
Situated in Minnehaha County, the City of
Brandon is just a few miles from Sioux Falls,
South Dakota's largest city. As Sioux Falls'
population grew by 25% over the past 10 years,
the City of Brandon grew even faster: from about
3,500 people to 5,700. Brandon's four existing
wells had limited capacity and drew from a
shallow aquifer high in nitrates. To remedy the
nitrate problem and increase supply, the city
investigated drawing water from a deeper, cleaner
aquifer. Although water in the deeper aquifer is
low in nitrates, it has high levels of iron and
manganese. The city decided to drill a fifth well
in the deeper aquifer and blend this water with
the existing supply to reduce nitrate levels. The
city needed to build a new water treatment plant
to remove the iron and manganese. In 1998,
Brandon received a $ 1.95 million DWSRF loan
to drill the additional well and to construct a new
treatment plant using oxidation and filtration
technology. Construction was completed in
November 1999 and the new plant went online
in early 2000. The project came in $70,000
under budget.
-------
Chapter 7 — Recipients and Projects Receiving Assistance
introduced into the distribution system. The optimal storage
capacity is generally based on the population served by the
system and requirements that a state may have to ensure that
systems have an adequate emergency supply in case of an
interruption of service.
Drinking water is obtained from ground water or surface water
sources. Projects needed to address surface water sources include
constructing or rehabilitating surface water intake structures.
Projects designed to address ground water sources include drilled
wells, wellhead pumps, and spring collectors. States provided
$355-3 million in funding for capital projects addressing sources
of drinking water. Projects intended to protect sources of
drinking water from contamination are not eligible for assistance
from the Fund, but can be addressed through various set-asides
as described in Chapters 9 and 10.
Information on several other miscellaneous project categories is
also collected. Planning and design is a necessary component of
any capital improvement project. States have funded planning
and design in many different ways. Most frequently, the costs of
planning and design
are rolled into
9f illgn n . construction costs for
the infrastructure
Indiana
Funding Regionalization
in Michigan
Michigan awarded three loans
totaling $ 17.4 million to the
community of Wixom. Located
about 35 miles outside of Detroit,
Wixom has a population of 6,700.
Before the DWSRF loans, Wixom
had eight separate water systems:
several small subdivisions, apartment
complexes, and regional business
developments had their own
(unreliable) water systems. The
DWSRF loans were used to extend
distribution mains, build elevated
storage tanks, provide a new pump
station, and loop and connect
systems so that all the systems could
be tied into the Detroit Regional
Water System, which serves about
80 communities.
m
Funding Consolidation
in Indiana
Prairieton is a community of 350
people in central Indiana. In 1999,
the Prairieton Water Company was
under an Administrative Order due to
nitrate maximum contaminant level
(MCL) violations. Given its small
population, the best available solution
for Prairieton was to hook up to the
Indiana American Water Company, a
much larger system. Indiana American
serves 700,000 people in 35 cities and
towns. A $500,000 DWSRF loan was
awarded in January 2001 to fund
Prairieton's connection to Indiana
American. Because Prairieton has a
median household income of only
$11,973, it qualified for the lowest
available interest rate of 2.9%. This
loan allowed Prairieton to abandon its
existing plant and connect to Indiana
American with the residential water fee
remaining steady at $25 per month.
Residents began receiving water from
Indiana American in May 2001.
improvements.
However, a few states
have made loans solely for the cost of planning and design.
States have provided $20.5 million in loans that are solely for
planning and design through the Fund. Planning and design
funding for small systems has also been provided through set-
asides in the form of loans or grants.
EPA is also tracking the costs for acquiring land that is needed
for the purposes of locating eligible project components. At
$12.2 million, the costs for land acquisition have not been
significant. This is likely due to the fact that most of the
construction that has taken place has been on land that is
already owned by the utility. Land that is needed to protect
sources of drinking water is not eligible for purchase using the
Fund. A separate set-aside allows water systems to take loans to
acquire land or conservation easements to protect their drinking
water source.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Some states are using their DWSRF programs to encourage efficiencies in the drinking water industry.
Consolidation, regionalization, and restructuring are three activities that can address the large numbers of
public water systems that serve very small populations throughout the country. To facilitate
consolidation of utilities, the costs needed to purchase a public water system are eligible for DWSRF
assistance. Costs needed for restructuring, which could include changes in the organizational or
management structure, accounting or rate systems, or other activities that would improve the technical,
financial, and managerial capacity of a water system, are also eligible for assistance. States have provided
$59-5 million and $24 million for the costs of purchasing systems and restructuring, respectively. States
have also executed 157 agreements for $458.7 million to facilitate consolidation projects which have
resulted in the elimination of 325 systems.
T Categories of Projects - Programmatic
EPA has also collected project data for several categories that reflect DWSRF programmatic priorities and
issues (Appendix B-14). The three priority criteria in the SDWA for the DWSRF program are
protection of public health, compliance with requirements of the Act, and ensuring affordability. Almost
all projects funded through the program will protect public health, by either addressing an immediate
threat, or by taking preventative measures to ensure that the public is protected. Likewise, all projects
ensure that the system will maintain compliance with the requirements of the Act. However, some
projects receive assistance to address an existing violation of health based drinking water standards. The
DWNIMS asks states to report on the number of loan agreements that are funding a project to help a
system come into compliance. More than one-third of the agreements were made to systems to address
existing compliance problems. Projects funded by these agreements will help to ensure safer drinking
water for the more than 10 million people in SPY 2000 and 7 million people in SPY 2001 served by the
systems.
Because all DWSRF loans are made at interest rates that are at or below the market interest rate, they can
provide relief to water system customers who would be subject to even greater rate increases to ensure
A Note on Population Numbers
The DWNIMS collects numbers on the population
benefiting from assistance for several of the data elements.
It is important to note that these figures may include double
counting if a system receives more than one loan
agreement from a state over a period of years. For example,
if a city received a loan in 1998 to correct a compliance
problem and another loan in 2000 for a different project
addressing a different compliance problem, the population
for that city would be counted twice. Because states
cannot double count in the annual data collection, it is
sometimes better to look at annual rather than cumulative
numbers for population.
Figure 7-10 Type of Assistance
Agreements
Dollars
• Non-disadvantaged
• Disadvantaged (D.A.)
D.A. w/ Principal Forgiveness
D D.A. w/ >20 year repayment term
-------
Chapter 7 — Recipients and Projects Receiving Assistance
New York.
repayment of debt incurred to fund
infrastructure improvements. As noted
above, however, a state may provide
additional subsidies to water systems it
has identified as serving disadvantaged
communities. Approximately 26 percent
of the total loan agreements have been
provided to these systems. Forty-one
percent of the disadvantaged assistance
agreements included forgiveness of
principal and 38 percent extended loan
terms beyond the standard 20 year term
(Figure 7-10).
There are more than 16 million
households that obtain their drinking
water from sources other than public
water systems. The vast majority of these
households receive water from drilled or
dug ground water wells. Although state or local governments have imposed requirements on these wells,
they are not regulated by the SDWA. There are instances where it may be desirable to extend service
from a public water
system to households
served by wells that have
Providing Disadvantaged Assistance in New York
The Village of Unionville had a water supply that was antiquated
and portions of the system were in dire need of replacement.
Village officials had begun working with the U.S. Department of
Agricultures Rural Development (RD) Office to obtain financial
assistance for the project as early as 1991. When it became
apparent that the RD grant would be insufficient to meet total
project costs, the Village turned to the Environmental Facilities
Corporation and the DWSRF to make the project possible. The
DWSRF co-funded the project with the Village receiving
$823,370 in subsidies from the DWSRF. The Village also
received a $450,970 loan from the DWSRF combined with a
$475,760 grant from RD toward the total project cost of
$ 1,750,000. By bringing together both federal and state
resources, the Village could move forward. Through replacement
of old mains, and the installation of new pumps and a well, the
risk of microbiological contamination has been greatly reduced.
Virginia.
Tennessee.
Extending System Service to Households in Tennessee
Mount Pleasant, south of Nashville, a community with a population of 4,278, had
antiquated water lines that served 15 residential customers. These water lines had
galvanized pipes which allowed rust to leach into the water supply. The water system
also had high unaccounted-for water losses. Mount Pleasant received a one-time
$71,300 DWSRF loan to replace and extend its water lines. The interest rate on the
loan is 3%, which is based on the town's small population and low average annual pre-
tax household income. Once the water lines were extended, 15 additional customers
were added to the system who had previously drawn water from private, contaminated
wells.
Providing Safe Drinking Water to Households in Virginia
Coal mining in the Red Root Ridge area in Tazwell County led to serious water quality
and quantity problems. One family depended on a cistern to supply its water after two
wells failed. Even with a cistern, the family purchased drinking water and had
insufficient water for bathing and laundering. The local fire department often brought
them water, but the costwas high and they sometimes ran out ofwater. A $416,000
DWSRF loan was provided to Red Root Ridge for a waterline extension project. The
project was completed in May 2000 to provide safe water to 63 families, including the
family that depended on a cistern.
become contaminated
and unsafe.
However, there are cases
where a public water
system is not located
near the homes served by
contaminated wells and
the SDWA requires that
DWSRF assistance be
provided only to public
water systems. States
asked EPA to consider
how these important
public health problems
could be addressed by
the DWSRF program.
EPA issued a policy in
December 2000 which
allowed states to provide
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
assistance to an entity that was not currently a
public water system, if the assistance would
result in the creation of a federally-regulated
community water system. States have reported
funds that have been used to create new public
water systems. Through SPY 2001, 46 loan
agreements totaling $84.6 million had been
made that resulted in the creation of new
systems. These new public water systems are
subject to requirements to ensure that they have
adequate technical, financial, and managerial
capacity, and that they will not contribute to
unreasonable growth.
Finally, as noted earlier, many states have
funding programs that complement the DWSRF
program—federal funding is also available
through the RUS and Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Many states have
developed coordination groups to maximize use
of funding and to help develop the best funding
packages available for potential recipients. States
have been asked to report on the number and
amount of projects they fund using monies from
Figure 7-11 Coordinated Funding
Maine
Coordinating Funding in Maine
Maine's Winter Harbor is a disadvantaged community
with approximately 200 residential customers. With
the average annual water bill exceeding $300 and the
average annual household income just over $ 19,000,
the average family's water bill is almost 2% of their
annual pre-tax income. The water system in Winter
Harbor was privately-owned and poorly managed. It
was one of the last unfiltered surface water systems in
Maine and had limited storage, old water mains, and
high unaccounted-for water. Funds from the Rural
Development Agency of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture paid for an eminent domain takeover and
the water system became a public water district. In
1997, Winter Harbor received a DWSRF loan of $ 1.1
million and a U.S. Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Community Development Block Grant of
$400,000 to install two new wells, a new pump
station, treatment plant, glass line, and storage tank.
Winter Harbor was given maximum assistance with
75% of the funds on principal forgiveness and 25%
of the funds on a 0% interest loan over 30 years. In
1999, the community received another DWSRF loan
of $ 180,000 and a HUD Community Development
Block Grant of $400,000 to replace nearly half of the
water mains.
Provided DWSRF
Coordinated Funding
Note: Not all states reported data in OWN IMS.
Coordinated Funding
represented 15% of agreements
$680M in assistance ($366M were DWSRF funds)
-------
Chapter 7 — Recipients and Projects Receiving Assistance
more than one source (Appendix B-18). Although some states that have coordinated funding failed to
report their data, 27 states did report that they had funded projects using multiple funding sources
(Figure 7-11). In these states, 15 percent of the DWSRF agreements were coordinated. The total dollar
amount in these coordinated agreements was $679.7 million, of which $366.3 million (54%) was
DWSRF funding.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Financial and Programmatic
Effectiveness
Nationally, the DWSRF program has been effective in providing financial assistance for needed drinking
water projects. When looking at effectiveness on a state by state basis, some states have been challenged
in implementing their programs due to various barriers, which will be discussed in a later chapter. The
activities conducted using the infrastructure Fund and the set-asides are integral components in the
greater mission of drinking water and public health protection. This chapter primarily deals with the
financial and programmatic effectiveness of the Fund and, as such, the measures that are discussed within
this chapter focus on the Fund as a separate entity. Many states are using the set-asides to directly
support the activities of the Fund. The effectiveness of the set-asides in assisting the Fund and other
parts of the drinking water program will be discussed in the following chapter.
Before beginning, it might be helpful to discuss what it means to be financially or programmatically
effective. It is difficult to point to any one indicator that will clearly identify one way or another that the
program is or is not effective. In a way, it depends on who is asking the question. As an example, for
Congress, the most important question might be — How much assistance is being provided for every
federal dollar appropriated? For an EPA staff member, the question might be — How much of the funds
that are available have states committed to loans? For a state DWSRF program manager, the question
might be — How are we doing in getting the projects built and the facilities in operation to address
specific compliance requirements? Obviously, there are many questions that one might ask in order to
come to some conclusion about effectiveness.
From a financial standpoint, the program's effectiveness might be assessed by answering questions such
as:
• Are states taking the money that Congress has appropriated?
• Are states making loans?
• Are projects getting built and are loans getting repaid?
• What other funds have been invested in the program?
From a programmatic standpoint, the questions one might ask to determine if the program is effective
include:
• Is the program protecting public health?
• Is the program helping systems maintain compliance with drinking water standards?
• Are disadvantaged communities benefitting from the program?
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Finally, since this is a revolving fund, it is important to ask how EPA and states are working to ensure
that funds will be available into the future. Throughout this chapter, progress is discussed as measured
against one or more of three values: the amount of federal capitalization grants, the amount of funds
available, and the amount of assistance provided.
Figure 8-1 Milestones in the DWSRF Process
Appropriation
Grant made
Repayments made
Loan executed
Project
completed
Funds disbursed
Project started
T Financial Effectiveness
As noted in an earlier chapter, there
are many steps that must be taken
before funds are actually used to
build a project. In determining how
the program is progressing, several
milestones have been identified that
can help to tell the story (Figure 8-1).
EPA has also developed several
financial indicators to help assess the
health of national and state programs.
EPA worked with its state partners to
finalize the indicators, which were in
large part based on indicators
developed for the CWSRF program.
While no single indicator can identify
a state program as successful or
unsuccessful, taken as a suite they
paint a picture of the relative health of a state's program. One important thing to note about the data
presented in this report is that it provides a picture of the program's status through SPY 2001. Many of
the indicators discussed below can vary depending on the time period covered by the underlying data.
For example, a state could enter into a large loan agreement the day after the data is reported. This
would not be reflected in the data or the indicators.
>• Are states taking the money that Congress has appropriated?
Through FFY2001, Congress appropriated $4.418
billion for the program. Of this amount, $4.212
billion was available to states for capitalization grants.
The remainder of the national appropriation was
used for various national set-asides, including funds
for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Village systems
and operator certification reimbursement grants.
Through SPY 2001, states had applied for and
received $3-648 billion in grants, or 87 percent of
available grants (Figure 8-2). The law affords states
two years in which to receive a grant. Thirty-three
states received part or all of their FFY 2001 grants in
the first year of availability. Some have questioned
why all states do not receive their grants in the first
Figure 8-2 Cumulative Appropriations and Awards
5
^ 2
1997
1998 1999 2000
State Fiscal Year
2001
Appropriation Awarded Grants
-------
Chapter 8 — Financial and Programmatic Effectiveness
year, given the demand for funding. In the first year of the program only 18 states received a grant. The
number has increased since then, but many states are on an established schedule and work to develop
their lUPs, grant applications, and requests for projects at the same time every year and thus are not in a
position to accelerate their process to receive funds earlier. Some states also establish schedules by which
they can receive funds from two appropriations within one grant agreement.
Figure 8-3 Utilization of Funds
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1997
1998 1999 2000
State Fiscal Year
2001
Assistance as % of Funds Available
Assistance as % of grants
> Are states making loans?
Before states even have the grant funds in
hand, they are working to identify projects
for funding. States must enter into
binding commitments with recipients in
accordance with a timeframe established in
their grant agreements. In most states, this
binding commitment is the same as
assistance provided in the form of a signed,
executed loan agreement. While the legal
requirement is that states enter into
binding commitments, when assessing
progress of the program, EPA believes it is
more important to look at the actual loans
that have been executed to determine when
the funds are made available to the
recipient. From SPY 1997 to SPY 2001,
the states have made considerable progress
in executing loans for projects. The
cumulative assistance provided as a
percentage of the funds available has
increased from one percent in 1997 to 72
percent in 2001 (Figure 8-3, Appendix B-
4). The assistance provided as a percentage
of federal funds shows that the federal
return is 123 percent. This is consistent
with the progress shown during the first
five years of the CWSPvF program.
Although the majority of states have
executed loans for more than one-half of
their available funds, considerable
variability exists among the states (Figure
8-4). States with low percentages have faced challenges in implementing their programs, which are
further discussed in Chapter 11. As of June 30, 2001, $1.4 billion remained available for loans.
>• Are projects getting built and are loans getting repaid?
Once a loan has been executed, states are focused on making sure that the projects get underway and are
completed. In many grant programs, including EPA's wastewater construction grants program, there
were concerns that projects were taking far too long to be built. In the DWSRF program, states have a
Figure 8-4 Assistance as a % of Funds Available
25
0)
«
L.
0)
.Q
20-
Oto25
26 to 50
5 I to 75
> 76
Percent
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Figure 8-5 Project Status Milestones
$4000
^ $3500
| $3000
'£ $2500
<=• $2000
JS $1500
zz
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
State Fiscal Year
vested interest in ensuring that projects are
completed because repayments are required
to begin no later than one year after the
project is completed, although some states
require repayments to begin once the project
has started construction (or closed the loan).
Indicators that show project progress include
project starts, project disbursements, and
project completions (Figure 8-5, Appendix
B-9). To date, projects have been started for
approximately 89 percent of loan agreements
that states executed. While EPA does not
collect information on specific projects
funded through the program, the general
sense is that projects take anywhere from one
to four years to complete. While small
projects may take less time, and some large
projects may take more, the average
construction period is probably around three years. As construction proceeds, monies are disbursed to
recipients based on incurred costs. States have disbursed 58 percent of the funds in executed loan
agreements to recipients to cover costs (Appendix B-8). Projects have been completed for 46 percent of
the agreements, and because some states required repayments to begin before construction is completed,
principal repayments have been initiated on 46 percent of the projects (Appendix B-9). At three
percent, the actual amount of loan principal repaid as a percentage of the assistance provided is low, but
this will increase with time as the program matures (Appendix B-8). This can be demonstrated by
looking at the more mature CWSRF program. Repayments have increased steadily throughout the life of
the CWSRF program to the point where, in SPY 2001, loan principal repayments of $1.2 billion were
nearly equal to the program's FFY2001 appropriation of $1.35 billion.
Assistance Provided —A— Project Disbursements
- Project Starts ~~*— Project Completions
—*— Loan Principal Repayments
>• What other funds have been invested in the program?
The amount of funds added to the program
above and beyond the federal contribution is
significant. Funds have been added from states
through the required 20 percent match,
additional state contributions, earnings, transfers
from the CWSRF program, and proceeds from
bonds issued for leveraged programs. As noted
earlier, 15 states have used leveraging at some
point in their program to add $1.050 billion in
net bond proceeds available for projects.
Leveraging has allowed several states to fund
more than twice the amount of projects they
would have been able to fund through
capitalization grants alone. Some have pointed
Figure 8-6 Utilization of Funds Leveraged vs.
Non-Leveraged Programs
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
Assistance as a
% of funds available
Assistance as a
% of grants
All States • Leveraged States Non-Leveraged States
-------
Chapter 8 — Financial and Programmatic Effectiveness
to leveraging and asked why all states do not use the practice to increase the funds available for projects.
It is important to recognize that leveraging only makes sense if a state has sustained loan demand that
significantly exceeds the funds available. Also, a state needs to have the necessary management and
financial expertise to operate a leveraged program, which is significantly more complex than a non-
leveraged program. When looking at some of the financial indicators, it is useful to separate out those
states that are leveraging from those that are not to see if there are any differences. Figure 8-6 shows
that the assistance provided as a percentage of federal capitalization grants is significantly greater for
leveraged states (203%) vs. non-leveraged states (83%). The assistance provided as a percent of funds
available is not as different—80 percent for leveraged states vs. 65 percent for non-leveraged states
(Appendices B-5 and B-6). One of the financial indicators developed by EPA looks at the estimated
additional DWSRF assistance that is provided as a result of leveraging. The total amount added for the
15 states using leveraging is $526.1 million. Through SPY 2001, four states had not yet achieved
additional benefits through leveraging. States that issue bonds must work hard to execute loan
agreements for the greater amount of funding. If projects fail to proceed in accordance with a state's
anticipated schedule, this can cause problems. At least two states that experienced difficulties in
executing loans decided to suspend leveraging until they have enough projects ready to proceed.
When looking to judge the success of the program from the ability of the program to exceed the federal
investment, EPA considers the cumulative DWSRF assistance that has been disbursed against the
federal draws from the Treasury. EPA uses these figures, rather than the assistance provided as a
percentage of federal grants awarded, because they capture activities that have actually occurred. The
assistance provided as a percent of the grants awarded would include funds that had not been obligated
to projects and loan funds that had not yet been disbursed for construction costs. Using total
disbursements and federal Treasury draws for activity from the Fund (i.e., excluding non-administrative
set-asides), the disbursements as a percent of net federal outlays is 160 percent. Values for individual
states were as high as 518 percent. States with a value greater than 100 percent have disbursed more to
projects than they have drawn in federal funds for projects, which is accomplished through the
disbursement of state match and other monies in the Fund (e.g., bond proceeds, earnings). The
significant range of values observed for some of the indicators is reflective of the fact that, early in the
program, the highly variable nature of the data makes it difficult to apply financial indicators. The
indicators will become more useful and relevant when the data have a more historical basis.
T Programmatic Effectiveness
Some of the elements described in the previous section also speak to programmatic success in that public
health protection cannot occur if states are not executing loans and building projects. However, clearly
assessing the programmatic effectiveness of the program for public health benefits is somewhat more
difficult, primarily because no baseline exists against which to assess progress.
> Is the program protecting public health?
Examples provided on the following two pages and throughout this report show how the program is
financing projects that will protect public health now and in the future. EPA takes the view that all of
the projects that will be funded through the program will in some way benefit public health. Replacing
an aging distribution system will help to ensure that line breaks that could introduce contaminants into
the water supply do not happen. Consolidating a system with poor management with a viable system
-------
Assuring Public Health and Compliance
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Williston, population 14,500, is located
in the Northwest corner of North
Dakota, 18 miles from Montana and
approximately 65 miles from the
Canadian border. The community was
having problems meeting the Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
and turbidity requirements, so they
designed a plan to improve their
treatment processes. The Williston
project is a multi-phase water treatment
plant improvement project. Phase 1,
funded by a $3.6 million DWSRF loan,
includes filter rehabilitation, transfer
pump improvements, instrumentation
and control upgrades, backflow
prevention devices, electrical
upgrades, replacement of the
traveling water screen, and raw
water pump upgrades. The Phase 2
project includes, among other
things, improved pre-treatment.
Coliform and E.coli
The Harrybrooke condominium complex in New Milford, Connecticut
has had significant problems with its drinking water supply sincel 996.
Due to contamination from its septic system, Coliform bacteria and E. colt
were routinely detected in the raw water supply. As a result, numerous
violations were issued by the Connecticut Department of Public Health,
and the management of the complex frequently had to issue boil water
notices to protect the residents. In November of 1997, the 45
condominium owners applied for DWSRF funds. A $330,000 DWSRF
loan enabled the system to disconnect its well, install 2,700 feet of water
main, and install a service line to connect to a large regional water utility
(United Water Company). The residents of the complex no longer
receive boil water notices and now enjoy a safe supply of drinking water.
Addressing
Microbial
Contaminants
Cryptosporidium and Giardia
The City of White Salmon in Washington provided drinking water to a
residential population of 3,500 from Buck Creek, an unfiltered surface water
source and tributary to the White Salmon River. The only treatment
provided was simple chlorine disinfection. The city had numerous water
quality issues that triggered boil water advisories, including consistent
turbidity standard violations, sediment deposits, and rodent access to
breached air vents in storage reservoirs. In 1993, the City ofWhite Salmon,
the City of Bingen, and the Port of Klickitat signed an agreement to create a
Multi-Jurisdictional Water Utility Consortium (MJWC) to address water
supply needs over the next 20 years. After instituting an extensive water
quality monitoring program, the city found Cryptosporidium oocysts and
Giardia cysts in the water supply. In thesummer of 1999, aboil water
advisory went into effect until an alternate water supply could be developed
(June 1999-August 2000). The MJWC set a goal of having the first two
ground water production wells online by March 2002 with a deliverable
capacity of 2.60 million gallons per day to meet the projected 20 year
growth. This new ground water source will replace Buck Creek as the
primary source (Buck Creek will serve as an emergency backup supply only).
The project will also fund a booster station, distribution mains, and reservoir
storage. Of the projects total $7.6 million price tag, $4 million was funded
by a DWSRF loan. The first well is online and the second is scheduled to be
completed in 2002.
Surface Water
Treatment Rule
The City of Elizabethton, Tennessee
received a $2 million DWSRF loan with
a term of 20 years and interest rate of
2.67% to complete improvements to the
Big Springs Water Treatment Plant and
install approximately 13,000 linear feet of
12-inch waterline along Max Jett Road.
The plant had been operating in
noncompliance with the provisions of the
Tennessee Surface Water Treatment
Rules because of two outstanding issues.
The first was the plants lack of availability
of filter-to-waste capabilities. Filter-to-
waste provisions protect the consumer
from small diameter pathogens such as
Cryptosporidium and Giardia Limblia,
among others. The second was the plants
inadequacy to treat highly turbid water.
Plant improvements included filter media
replacement, new instrumentation and
controls, new pumps, a backwash basin, a
new chlorination system, additional
clarification equipment, and
modifications to the existing building.
This project provides a safe and reliable
drinking water source to approximately
13,150 residents of the City of
Elizabethton and the surrounding
community.
-------
Radium
Mount Pleasant, in the southeast corner of Iowa, has a
population of approximately 8,000 people. It is home to
several industries including Goodyear and HON Industries as
well as direct mail houses and Iowa Wesleyan College. The
water system in Mount Pleasant drew water from three Jordan
aquifer wells and a surface water intake on the Skunk River.
Treatment at the wells consisted of aeration, filtration, and
chlorination, while surface water treatment included aeration,
coagulation/flocculation, clarification, activated carbon
addition, gas chlorination, filtration, and fluoridation. Storage
and pressure for the wells was provided by two ground storage
tanks, two elevated storage tanks, and three clearwell storage
tanks.
The city had several water problems: the Jordan aquifer is
highly mineralized; the water system had been experiencing
exceedances of the radium maximum contaminant level
(MCL) for several years; and customers expressed displeasure
with the iron content and hardness of the treated water. To
comply with the radium MCL, the system needed to
upgrade its treatment plant. Mount Pleasant
received a $5.9 million DWSRF loan, which,
when combined with utility reserve funds,
was enough to finance their needed
improvement project. Mount Pleasant
installed electrodialysis reversal units and a
ground storage reservoir. Construction of the
projectwas completed in 1999. In addition,
the utility decided to change the Oakland
Mills plant on the Skunk Pviver from an active
source to an emergency standby source to
eliminate the need for surface water treatment in Mount
Pleasant. Mount Pleasant is now meeting the standard for
radium, and the citizens of Mount Pleasant are "very pleased"
with their treatment plant upgrade and the improved quality
of their finished water.
~V
Addressing
Chemical
Contaminants
Total Trihalomethanes
Mississippi's coastal city of Pascagoula is a deep-water
port that is home to manufacturing, shipbuilding,
international trade, and a U.S. Naval Station. The
water system serving the city's 35,000 residents was
having trouble meeting the total trihalomethanes
(TTHMs) maximum contaminant level. The
TTHMs were the result of chlorine being used to
control the color of the water. The system also
experienced high levels of hydrogen sulfide in the
water.
To address these issues, the city decided to build three
reverse osmosis water treatment plants that would also
have ozone filters to treat for hydrogen sulfide.
DWSRF loans were used for the construction of all
three plants: $1.3 million for the first plant; $ 1.2
million for the second; and $1.5 million for the third
plant. When the first plant opened, the city was so
proud of the results that they gave away bottles of
their water and had "before" and "after"
samples to show the marked difference in
the quality of their drinking water.
The city is currently in the process of
building their third and final plant.
Lead
Nitrates
Abilene, Kansas received a $ 1.4 million DWSPvF loan which
partially financed a $7.8 million water treatment plant.
Abilene now sells water to Dickinson Country Rural Water
District No. 2, whose wells had nitrate problems and were
under the influence of surface water from the Smoky Hill
River. The treatment facility is the first reverse osmosis
treatment facility in the state of Kansas, and provides for
softening, nitrate removal, and iron and manganese removal.
The project serves a total population of 7,700.
The Clinton Public Works Authority in
Oklahoma provides drinking water to
residents in six subdivisions. Many homes
in these communities were served by cast iron,
dead-end lines with leaded j oints. Clinton had
problems with inadequate water availability to
individual households (pressure violations), stale
water caused by dead ends (bacteriological
violations), and lead contamination from lead jointed
cast-iron water mains. To address these problems, the
system replaced the inadequate drinking water
distribution lines. The project included replacing the
existing substandard lines with new PVC water lines;
constructing a loop trunk line to supply this area;
restoring affected drives and streets; and replacing fire
hydrants, valves, and appurtenances. A $644,000
DWSRF loan paid for most of the $963,700 project
— the difference was paid for by the water system.
Construction started in January 2000 and was
completed in April 2001.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
will help ensure that the system is properly maintained and
operated. Rehabilitating a ground water source to increase
flow will help to ensure that pressure in the distribution
system is maintained, thus removing the danger of
backsiphonage within the system. However, it is not
possible or feasible to point to the program and conclude
that 10,000 people are less ill today than before systems
received assistance.
> Is the program helping systems maintain
compliance with drinking water standards?
Although the results may not be discernible in the
compliance and enforcement tracking systems maintained
by states and EPA, evidence suggests that the program has
helped to return systems to compliance with national
primary drinking water standards. More than one-third of
the agreements and funds provided have gone to systems
out of compliance with health-based standards for projects
that will return or bring them to compliance. Some states
are working closely with their enforcement staff to make
sure that systems that are identified as being in violation of
a standard know that the
DWSRF is available for
financial assistance. It should
be noted that there is some
concern in the drinking water
industry that the program
appears to be focused on what
are considered the "bad players"
- the thought being that
systems which are out of
compliance will get the benefits
of low interest loans while more
proactive systems are left
seeking funding from less
affordable sources.
10
Funding Consolidation in Ohio
One objective of the DWSRF program
in the state of Ohio is to consolidate
small systems into larger, regional systems
so they may benefit from economies of
scale and better protect public health.
The Orchard Mobile Home Park is
located in Knox County, a rural area
between Columbus and Cleveland.
Orchard owned and operated a water
system that served its 150 residents. In
1999, Orchard was awarded a $89,836
DWSRF loan to abandon its well and
hook up to the larger Mt. Vernon Water
System. The connection was successful
and the park is now part of the larger
system.
Idaho
Wyoming
> Are disadvantaged
communities benefiting
from the program?
The third statutory focus of the
program was to help systems
with the greatest economic
need. All states must consider
the financial status of applicants
Returning Systems to Compliance in Idaho and Wyoming
Castle Mountain Creeks Subdivision is a small development of 200 homes in
Idaho's mountains approximately 45 miles north of Boise served by a surface
water system. In addition to lacking flow to sufficiently meet demand, the
system did not meet the requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule — the
system chlorinated the water, but did not filter it. A voluntary Consent Order
that detailed the steps the subdivision would take to bring the system into
compliance was signed with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
An engineering firm was hired to prepare a report on the options available to the
subdivision. After consideration of the alternatives, ayear-long pilot study was
conducted on-site. Upon completion of the pilot study, the subdivision was
awarded a $400,000 DWSRF loan to design and construct a diatomaceous earth
pressure filtration system, a pipeline chlorine contact chamber, and a new
100,000 gallon storage tank. The project was completed under budget at a cost
of $323,341.
Wyoming's Bridger Valley Joint Powers Board provides water to 3,300 people
residing in several small communities. Bridger Valley had been under an EPA
Administrative Order for its numerous turbidity violations. The filtration plant
was severely inadequate — the plant had 12 inches of filter media which was 22
inches under the state-designated minimum amount. The system received a $6
million DWSRF loan to enable it to construct a new filtration plant to come into
compliance with SDWA and state requirements.
-------
Chapter 8 — Financial and Programmatic Effectiveness
in prioritizing projects. Many states have also used the flexibility afforded by the law to provide
additional subsidies to systems they had identified as disadvantaged using their own affordability criteria.
Twenty-six percent of all agreements have been made to systems identified as disadvantaged (16% of the
loan dollars). Repayment terms have been extended to up to 30 years in 10 percent of the total
agreements and principal forgiveness has been provided in 11 percent of the total agreements (some of
the agreements may have had either or both types of assistance). However, since the program must offer
loans that are at or below the market interest rate, all borrowers receive an economic benefit from
participating in the program. In fact, a grant equivalency for the program can be calculated. Table 8-1
shows the grant equivalency for a range of DWSRF interest rates and market rates. The national
weighted average interest rate of DWSRF loans made in SPY 2001 was 2.4 percent and the 20 year Bond
Buyer Index market rate was 5-3 percent. Therefore, a loan made at the average DWSRF interest rate of
about 2.5 percent provided the same subsidy that the recipient would have benefited from if it had
received a grant for 23 percent of the project's cost, and financed the remaining amount at a 5-5 percent
market interest rate.
Table 8-1 Grant Equivalence of DWSRF Loans
DWSRF
Interest
Rate
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
Market Borrowing Rate for Local Share
4.0%
32%
28%
25%
21%
17%
13%
9%
4%
0%
NA
NA
4.5%
35%
31%
28%
24%
20%
17%
13%
8%
4%
0%
NA
5.0%
38%
34%
31%
27%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
5.5%
40%
37%
34%
30%
27%
23%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
6.0%
43%
40%
36%
33%
30%
26%
23%
19%
16%
12%
8%
6.5%
45%
42%
39%
36%
33%
29%
26%
22%
19%
15%
12%
7.0%
47%
44%
41%
38%
35%
32%
29%
25%
22%
19%
15%
7.5%
49%
46%
44%
41%
38%
35%
31%
28%
25%
22%
18%
8.0%
51%
48%
46%
43%
40%
37%
34%
31%
28%
25%
21%
Beyond the statutory criteria that states had to consider in prioritizing projects for funding, the law had a
focus on providing assistance to small systems and also placed a strong emphasis on ensuring that systems
have technical, financial, and managerial capacity to operate sustainably. This report has already
discussed how small systems have benefited through the program. Their participation has exceeded the
expectations of the program and states should be applauded for their efforts to prepare these systems for
assistance and move them through the process. The capacity development requirements tied to receipt of
assistance have focused state attention on the needs of utilities in these areas and many states have
conditioned assistance to ensure that the systems have put measures into place to improve their ability to
effectively manage their facility. The next chapter on set-asides also highlights how states are using the
entire DWSRF program to target assistance in these areas. Assistance from the Fund has also been used
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
in some states to eliminate smaller systems
through physical consolidation. States are also
looking to ways to use funds to help restructure
systems to facilitate managerial consolidation
where physical consolidation is not feasible.
T Stewardship of the Program
The DWSRF program is envisioned as being a
perpetual source of funding for states to finance
needed drinking water projects, the idea being
that after several years of federal capitalization,
state programs should be able to provide
assistance using the repayment stream from earlier
loans. While states are responsible for ensuring
that this actually happens, EPA is responsible for
overseeing state programs to ensure that they are
meeting the intent of Congress and to identify
where technical assistance may be needed to
ensure that the states can provide assistance into
the future.
> Are states working to ensure that funds
will be available into the future?
The flexibilities Congress provided in the DWSRF
program, which allows for set-asides and principal
forgiveness, complicates this vision somewhat in
that heavy use of these provisions could leave less
money available to revolve through the loan Fund.
States must make considered decisions about how
they will allocate funds to ensure that the dual
program goals are met - protecting public health
and ensuring that a long-term source of funding is
maintained. Judging by how states have used funds, EPA believes that each state has considered its
needs and determined the best mix of funding. Nationally, states have reserved approximately 16
percent of the grant funds for set-aside activities and only 2.6 percent of the grants have been used to
forgive principal on disadvantaged loans. Although the numbers may vary on a state level, it would
appear that states are implementing their programs in a manner that will ensure long-term access to
funding.
One additional financial indicator assesses how well states are doing at maintaining the contributed
capital of their Funds. This net return value is computed by subtracting the state match bond principal
repayments and principal forgiven from the Fund's retained earnings. Positive return values indicate that
expenses in the Fund are covered by revenues, even after match bonds are repaid or principal is forgiven.
Nationally, the net return for the program stands at $27.3 million.
Providing Disadvantaged
Assistance in Alaska
The City of Cordova is a fishing community on
Prince William Sound in the Gulf of Alaska. The
typical winter temperatures range from 17 to 28° F,
and summer temperatures range from 49 to 63° F.
Fifteen percent of the 2,454 residents are Alaska
Native or part Native, and the city has an active
Village Council. The city was under a compliance
order from the state to upgrade its water treatment
system to meet the requirements of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR). Cordova faced the
possibility of having to use the antiquated Eyak Lake
water filtration plant, which was problematic because:
the plant was expensive to operate and maintain due
to high energy costs in Cordova; the plant would have
required extensive upgrades to meet the requirements
of the SWTR; and a boil water notice and/or bottled
water provision may have still been necessary for
compliance.
Instead, Cordova applied for DWSRF funds. In
1998 and 1999, Cordova received a total of $2.5
million in DWSRF loans for the construction of access
roads, contact tanks, and distribution mains. The loan
included $ 1,15 5,000 in principal forgiveness because
the city qualified as a disadvantaged community. The
city also received two state grants totaling $2.4
million. Without all of this assistance, residents would
have faced a $ 51 monthly water bill. With the
subsidy, the monthly rate was kept to $39.
Construction was substantially complete in 2000 and
operations began February 1, 2000. The system is
now in compliance with the SWTR.
-------
Chapter 8 — Financial and Programmatic Effectiveness
Some states, particularly those with leveraged programs, have developed cash flow models to help them
make program decisions. Early in the program, EPA distributed a simple model that would allow a state
to vary several factors including set-aside amounts, disadvantaged assistance, loan interest rates and
repayment terms, and bond usage so that they could see the impact of their decisions on the long-term
health of the Fund. This model had initially been developed to help EPA conduct budget projections
for the CWSRF program. It was extended for use for the DWSRF program, but was not user-friendly,
and was not widely used by states.
In 2000, EPA distributed a new, more powerful model which uses the information states have provided
through the DWNIMS for historical data on which to build projections. The model, based in Microsoft
Excel, is user-friendly and includes all the potential features of a DWSRF program. EPA has helped
several states to use the model and conducted training for state staff in EPA regional offices during 2001.
A few states have incorporated use of the model into the planning they do as part of the IUP process.
> Is EPA working to ensure that state programs are effective and sustainable?
In addition to developing modeling tools like the one described above, EPA has taken additional actions
to ensure that states have the information they need to effectively manage their programs. In many
respects, EPA views its oversight role as a means for supporting state programs. When issues are
identified in state programs through reviews, the Agency is able to direct assistance to state programs to
help them successfully resolve them. In large part, because states often learn best from other states, the
efforts of EPA are focused on sharing information about successful elements of state programs with other
states. This has been accomplished through the development of fact sheets, case study reports,
newsletters, and participation in national conferences. The Agency also helps to sponsor an annual SRF
workshop organized by the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities. The Agency has also
conducted four major training efforts for states - all of which took place in multiple EPA regions:
• 1997 - program start-up and general implementation
• 1999 - financial program management
• 2000/2001 - program management
• 2001 - financial modeling
In January 2002, the GAO released a report, Drinking Water: Key Aspects of EPA's Revolving Fund Program
need to be Strengthened (GAO-02-135), which was critical of elements of EPA's oversight of state DWSRF
programs. EPA is working to address the issues raised in the report. EPA Regional staff work closely
with state program staff and conduct annual reviews of state programs to ensure that the states are in
compliance with the regulations and terms and conditions of their grant agreements. The EPA Office of
Water also works in partnership with the EPA Office of the Inspector General to ensure that the financial
integrity of the program is maintained. EPA has encouraged states to conduct independent financial
audits of their Funds as a best management practice. Currently 43 states conduct an independent
financial audit or have a Single Audit that is the equivalent of an independent audit. The Inspector
General will periodically conduct audits for states that do not have independent audits and will also
review the quality of independent audits.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Status of Set-Aside Funds
The previous chapters largely dealt with a description of the status of the Fund, which provides
infrastructure assistance for drinking water projects. But, when looking at the DWSRF program, that
tells only part of the story. The major difference between the CWSRF program and the DWSRF
program is that Congress gave states the flexibility to use their programs to address other activities and
measures needed to protect drinking water and public health. Each state may set aside up to 31 percent
of its capitalization grant to conduct activities and establish and implement programs that place a strong
emphasis on preventing contamination problems through source water protection and encourage better
system operations through enhanced water systems management. Although the need to address
infrastructure projects through the Fund is great, all states have recognized the importance of
preventative measures and have set aside some portion of their grants for these activities. This chapter
discusses how funds have been directed in the set-asides. The subsequent chapter provides examples of
the many types of activities that states have funded using the flexibility afforded to them.
Figure 9-1 Funds Reserved for Set-Asides
IS
Through SPY 2001, 15-8 percent ($575-8
million) of the total amount of funds that
have been provided to states through
capitalization grants has been allocated to set-
aside activities. States have reserved anywhere
from 6.7 to 31 percent of their total grants for
set-asides (Figure 9-1, Appendix B-19). The
DWNIMS does not track activities conducted
under individual grants; rather, it tracks
activities that occur in any given fiscal year.
However, EPA also tracks the amount of each
set-aside states have reserved from each grant
through its grant and financial management
systems using the distinct accounting codes
associated with each of the four categories of set-asides. The greatest amount of set-asides was reserved
from the FFY 1997 appropriation, primarily because of the availability of a one-time set-aside to
conduct source water assessments. States reserved 20 percent of the FFY 1997 appropriation and have
reserved about 14 percent of each subsequent year's appropriations.
States must describe how they will use set-aside funds in workplans, most of which range from one to
three years. Funds cannot be reserved if a state cannot identify a specific use for them. With the
exception of set-asides associated with the local assistance category, states can reserve the authority to
reclaim funds they have not reserved from a future grant as long as they do not exceed the cumulative
OtoS StolO I0tol5 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 31
Percent of Grants
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
caps on the set-aside category (see box, page
61). Through SPY 2001, states had expended
$244.6 million, or 42.5 percent of the total
funds that had been reserved (Appendix B-20).
On a state by state basis, states had expended
anywhere from 7 to 77 percent of the funds
they had reserved (Figure 9-2). EPA has had
concerns about the slow progress in spending
set-aside funds, but the progress has improved
considerably through time, increasing from 8.7
to 42.5 percent from SPY 1998 to SPY 2001
(Figure 9-3). Because funds are expended in
accordance with a workplan, it is reasonable to
expect that roughly one-half to one-third of the
funds will be unspent in any given year.
T Administration and Technical
Assistance
States may reserve up to 4 percent of their
allotment to administer the DWSRF program
and provide technical assistance to public water
systems. Nationally, states have reserved
$135-4 million (3.7 percent of their grants) for
these activities (Figure 9-4, Appendix B-21).
Forty-two of the states have reserved the full 4
percent available under the set-aside.
Figure 9-2 Funds Expended for Set-Asides
0 to 20 20 to 40 40 to 60 60 to 80 80 to 100
Percent of Funds Reserved
Figure 9-3 Cumulative Set-Aside Expenses
Yo of Funds reservec
42.5%
-^••^
33.6%^---"'"'
20.6%^^^
3.2% 8.7%^^^^
«, : "*"
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Figure 9-4 Administrative Set-Aside
^ $ISOn $135.4
1 $100
$50 -
$60.0
Remaining
Figure 9-5 Small System Technical Assistance Set-Aside
$54.2
$29.9
Reserved
Expenses
Remaining
States have expended $75-3 million of the
amount that has been reserved. At 55-6 ^
percent, the set-aside has the highest ^
expenditure level of any of the four categories.
On a state basis, states have expended from 10
to 100 percent of the funds they have reserved for the category. Funds have predominantly been used to
cover the costs of administering their DWSRF programs. Only four states have used funds to provide
technical assistance to public water systems.
T Small System Technical Assistance
States may reserve up to 2 percent of their grants to provide technical assistance to small systems that
serve 10,000 or fewer people. Nationally, states have reserved $54.2 million (1.5 percent of their grants)
for this category (Figure 9-5, Appendix B-22). Twenty-three states have reserved the entire amount
available, while only two have not reserved any funds.
States have expended 44.8 percent of the funds that have been reserved for the set-aside, with individual
state expenditures ranging from zero to 100 percent. The $24.3 million expended to date has gone for a
-------
Chapter 9 — Status of Set-Aside Funds
Reserving Authority for Set-Aside Activities
A state is receiving a $10 million grant in FFY 1998. The state may
take up to 2 percent of its grant to provide small system technical
assistance. The state has determined that it needs $100,000, or 1
percent, to fund a circuit rider program and elects to reserve the
authority associated with the remaining 1 percent allowed under
the set-aside for future use. In FY 2000, the state decides to
implement a program to provide small grants to help systems
conduct planning and design for infrastructure projects. The state
will also receive a $10 million grant for FY 2000. The state will use
$200,000, or 2 percent, of the grant to conduct these activities and
will also recover the remaining authority associated with its FY
1998 grant—an additional $100,000. Therefore, technically the
state will take $300,000, or 3 percent, of its grant to conduct small
system technical assistance. While the state will exceed the 2
percent statutory cap for the grant, it will not exceed the cap when
calculated on the basis of the cumulative grants that have been
received. EPA takes the view that this approach is preferable to
having states reserve funds in abeyance with no immediate use. In
this way, states may target funds where they are most needed and
can maintain flexibility to address new programs in the future.
wide range of activities. States have
used the funds for activities which
include planning grants to systems,
visits from technical assistance
providers and circuit riders, and
training. Many states have
contracted activities to state rural
water affiliates since these technical
assistance providers are accustomed to
working with small systems. To get a
sense of how many systems are
benefitting from assistance, EPA asks
states to report on the number of
systems that are reached through the
technical assistance. The systems
that can be counted include those
that receive direct assistance,
including but not limited to face-to-
face meetings and attendance at
workshops/conferences. It does not
include systems reached by indirect
assistance (e.g., mass mailings, media, internet). A system may, however, be counted if it receives
extended assistance via phone, fax, e-mail, or interactive internet communication. States have reported
assisting more than 55,000 water systems. It is important to recognize that this includes double
counting of systems that receive more than one instance of assistance over multiple years. However, it
serves to give an idea of the connections that states have made with public water systems using the set-
aside.
T State Program Management
States can reserve up to 10 percent of their allotment for programs and activities that help strengthen the
programs they administer to protect drinking water and public health. There are four general activities
eligible for assistance under the set-aside category. States can use funds to supplement funding for their
PWSS programs. The PWSS program, funded in part by federal PWSS grants, is the program through
which state drinking water programs exercise their primary enforcement authority for carrying out
national primary drinking water regulations. States can also use funds under the set-aside to develop and
implement their capacity development and operator certification programs, the requirements of which
were added or substantially upgraded through the 1996 SDWA Amendments. Finally, states can use
funds to administer a source water protection program through which they can provide technical
assistance to public water systems to prevent contamination of sources of drinking water.
Nationally, states have reserved $146.6 million (4 percent of their grants) for state program management
activities (Figure 9-6, Appendix B-23). Nine states have reserved the full amount allowed and seven
states have reserved none of the funds under the set-aside.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
$78.9
Expenses
States have expended $67.8 million R9ure 9'6 state Program Management Set-Aside
(46.2 percent) of the total funds ,-
reserved under the set-aside. Most of I
the funds ($42.7 million) have been ,s
used to supplement the PWSS &
program. Twenty-nine of the 44
states reserving funds for this category
spent funds for this activity. Over the
past several years, approximately $93
million has been made available
annually to states and tribes for
carrying out their PWSS programs through federal PWSS grants. In the last two years, states have
expended more than $15 million annually from this set-aside to supplement their programs as they
work to strengthen their base programs and implement new regulations.
States have spent $12.2 million to supplement their source water protection programs. Over the past
few years, states have been focused on conducting required assessments of all sources of drinking water in
their states. Eighteen of the states have used funds under this set-aside to support that effort and to
begin to promote protection activities. For example, Massachusetts uses funds under the set-aside to
provide small grants (not to exceed $45,000) to public water systems and technical assistance providers
to implement protection measures.
States have spent $7.3 million developing and implementing capacity development programs required in
the 1996 SDWA Amendments. The program is focused on helping public water systems achieve and
maintain adequate technical, financial, and managerial capacity to ensure that they are able to provide
safe drinking water to their customers. States were required to obtain the authority to ensure that no
new public water systems could be developed which lacked capacity. States were also required to develop
strategies to address capacity issues for existing public water systems. The failure to meet these
requirements would have subjected a state to a withholding of DWSRF grant funds. Fortunately, none
of the states were subject to withholding for failing to meet the requirements. Twenty-one of the 44
states reserving funds in this category have used funds to develop and implement their programs. With
all state strategies approved as of October 2000, EPA expects that states will increase use of this set-aside
to implement new activities under their strategies. While annual expenses for the PWSS activity stayed
flat from SPY 2000 to SPY 2001, annual expenses under the capacity development set-aside increased by
more than one-third.
Finally, states have spent $5.6 million to develop and implement their operator certification programs.
Most states have had programs to certify operators for public water systems for many years. However,
the requirements of state programs varied widely. The 1996 SDWA Amendments required that states
develop comprehensive programs in accordance with guidance developed by a workgroup with
representatives from EPA, states, and stakeholder organizations. States that failed to develop programs
for approval would be subject to withholding of their DWSRF grants. State operator certification
programs required under the law are still undergoing review by EPA. However, 42 programs had been
approved through December 2001, and EPA does not anticipate withholding funds from any states.
-------
Chapter 9 — Status of Set-Aside Funds
Twenty-three of the 44 states reserving funds under the state program management set-aside have spent
funds to assist their operator certification programs.
The state program management set-aside differs from the other categories by requiring states to provide
an additional dollar for dollar match in order to access the funds. The law allowed states to use the
matching funds and additional funding provided on state PWSS grants in fiscal year 1993 as a basis for
determining a credit towards meeting the match, with the condition that at least 50 percent of the
match be provided from current overmatch on PWSS grants, state in-kind services, or new funding.
States may provide the match at the time of the grant award or at the time expenditures are made.
Through SPY 2001, states had provided $127.4 million in match as new funding or in-kind services.
This amount exceeds the expenditures to date by $59.6 million.
T Local Assistance and Other State Activities
States may use up to 15 percent of their capitalization grants to fund a variety of activities that support
source water protection and enhance the technical, financial, and managerial capacity of public water
systems. There are five general activities eligible under the set-aside category. States may use no more
than 10 percent of the set-aside on any one activity. Two of these activities are loan programs that
address source water protection. Two additional activities address source water protection for surface
water and ground water sources and a final activity provides for financial and technical assistance to
public water systems in support of a capacity development strategy.
Nationally, states have reserved
$239-6 million (6.6 percent of
their grants) for this set-aside
category (Figure 9-7, Appendix
B-24). While six states have
reserved the full 15 percent,
every state has reserved funds
under this set-aside in order to
access a one-time set-aside from
FFY 1997 grants.
Figure 9-7 Local Assistance and Other State Programs Set-Aside
$239.6
$162.4
Expenses
States have expended $77.2 million (32.2 percent) of the amount of funds reserved under the set-aside.
Most of the funds ($49.2 million) have been spent to support source water assessments. The 1996
SDWA Amendments required that each state conduct an assessment of the sources of drinking water for
all public water systems in order to determine their vulnerability and susceptibility to potential sources
of contamination. States were required to develop source water assessment plans for EPA approval and
expend the funds in accordance with those plans. Therefore, almost all states took the full 10 percent
allowed under the law from the FFY 1997 appropriation to support this activity. States have
subsequently made adjustments to their original intended allocation of funds under the category, but
EPA estimates that close to $112 million in funds were allocated for the activity. Thus, states have
expended approximately 43 percent of the funds they intended to use for assessments. Most states will
likely complete assessments by the end of 2003.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Two of the activities eligible under this set-aside category have not been a success to date. States may use
funds to provide loans to public water systems to either purchase land or conservation easements needed
to protect sources of drinking water or to implement voluntary, incentive-based source water protection
measures. While several states have developed programs (12 states for land acquisition and easements; 5
states for protection measures), only three states (Maine, Vermont, and Kentucky) have managed to
make land acquisition loans. These three states have made eight loans totaling $1.9 million which have
protected 1,400 acres of land. No states have made loans to fund protection measures. In many cases,
public water systems are not interested in taking out loans to conduct these activities and the CWSRF
program proves to be a more attractive source of funding by which to achieve similar goals. EPA hopes
that activity under the loan programs will increase as assessments are completed and public water systems
determine actions they must take to protect their sources of drinking water. EPA is also encouraging
public water systems to enter into partnerships with land trust and conservancy organizations to identify
and manage critical protection areas.
The activity that allows states to use funds to develop and implement wellhead protection programs to
protect ground water that serves as a drinking water source has been more widely used. In part, this is
due to the fact that many states had already developed wellhead protection programs and did not have to
develop a program from the ground up. Twenty-six states have spent a total of $14.9 million to fund
protection activities. Many states have used funds to develop education programs intended to heighten
awareness of the general public and local leaders on the importance of protecting the aquifers that
provide the water they drink. Now that states are fully implementing source water protection programs
(of which wellhead protection is a component), some states have expressed concerns that there does not
appear to be a similar opportunity to use funds to address activities similar to those conducted under
wellhead protection for surface water sources.
The final activity under this set-aside category allows states to use funds to provide technical and
financial assistance to public water systems as part of their strategy for addressing the capacity of new and
existing systems. Assistance has been provided by both state staff and third party contractors. Seventeen
states have spent a total of $11.3 million on this activity. As with the activity addressing capacity
development under the state program management set-aside category, spending has increased for this
activity over time as states implement their strategies. States have indicated that they have assisted more
than 5,600 water systems using funding from the set-aside.
-------
Funded
The flexibility provided to states to fund a wide range of activities using set-asides to help support their
drinking water programs made it difficult to develop a tracking system similar to that developed for
information on infrastructure projects. While the previous chapter summarized state use of funds in
accordance with the categories of set-asides identified in the law, reality does not break down so cleanly.
In many cases, states can fund an activity using more than one of the set-asides. In reviewing state lUPs,
Annual/Biennial Reports, workplans and other promotional information EPA identified several areas in
which states are focusing their efforts, including (1) enhancing technical, financial, and managerial
capacity of systems; (2) enhancing operator certification programs; (3) providing technical assistance to
small systems; (4) facilitating partnerships; (5) improving public outreach; (6) supporting drinking water
programs; and (7) promoting source water protection.
T Enhancing Technical, Financial, and Managerial Capacity
By enhancing system operations and ensuring the technical, financial, and
managerial capacity of public
water systems, states can promote
greater long-term compliance
with the SDWA. As required by
the SDWA Amendments, all
states are implementing programs
to ensure that new systems have
capacity and have developed
strategies to ensure that other
water systems within the state
obtain and maintain capacity.
From on-site technical assistance
to managerial training and direct
financial support, states are
funding a wide range of activities
to promote system capacity.
Enhancing Technical, Financial, and
Managerial Capacity
Challenges
• Maintaining or improving capacity of small
systems that lack economies of scale
• Improving operation and management skills of small
system operators
• Ensuring adequate capacity for DWSRF loan eligibility
Solutions
• Use holistic approach to address technical, financial, and manage-
rial deficiencies
• Provide incentives to promote consolidation and regionalization
• Establish training and technical assistance programs for small
systems
> Reducing the number of systems through consolidation and regionalization
Almost 60 percent of community water systems serve fewer than 500 people. These very small water
systems often lack the economies of scale that develop with a larger customer base to maintain adequate
capacity. Consolidation and regionalization of systems results in lower facility, operation, and treatment
costs. Some states, including Pennsylvania and Utah, have separate funding programs to promote
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
consolidation. These programs help to increase the number of customers per treatment facility while
raising revenues and reducing treatment costs.
Pennsylvania offers a program that provides incentive grants to encourage regionalization and
consolidation of small systems. In addition, grants are offered to systems to study the feasibility of
regionalization and consolidation and to implement recommendations from these feasibility studies or
other consolidation projects. The program requires grant recipients to achieve adequate technical,
managerial, and financial capacity.
In 1998, Utah initiated a $1 million study with monies from its Drinking Water Board, Community
Impact Board, and Community Development Board for its Regional Water Planning Initiative. The
Initiative recognized that many of Utah's small water systems share the same water sources, and
sometimes water treatment needs, often with contiguous or even overlapping service areas. Management
Plans developed on a county-by-county basis discuss possibilities of joint source protection efforts,
sharing of managers, operators, equipment, and facilities (existing and proposed), and especially
consolidation of water systems. Plans were developed for 24 of Utah's 27 counties, with only the three
largest counties not participating. For many of the small water systems, recommendations were made to
regionalize or to consolidate with neighboring systems to broaden the base of revenues and other
resources and to improve cost-effectiveness. Those water systems with a record of noncompliance who
choose not to accept the recommendations in their respective county's Water Management Plan are
ineligible to receive DWSRF loans from the state. The highest profile success of the Initiative has been
in the unincorporated areas of Summit County that surround Park City, host of a number of 2002
Winter Olympics events. Approximately 10 to 15 small water systems in this area historically have
litigated over shared water sources and have competed in common service areas oftentimes with
redundant distribution system facilities. Under the umbrella of the new county water agency, the
Mountain Regional Water Special Service District, five of the 10 to 15 systems in the county were
consolidated into the District in 2001 with likely consolidation of the others by 2002.
> Training operators and managers to improve technical, financial, and managerial skills
States such as Vermont, Tennessee, and Hawaii used DWSRF set-aside funds to offer various training
programs at reduced costs to improve the operation and management of systems. Through a grant to the
Northeast Rural Water Association, Vermont offers several types of assistance to small systems including
on-site training and management assistance. Specifically, training and assistance is provided on all
SDWA compliance related topics, on any aspect of project development and the DWSRF loan process,
and on identifying and applying for other sources of funding. Tennessee used set-aside funds to contract
with the Fleming Training Center to provide operator and management training programs. The Center
offers programs on all aspects of water system operations including cross connection control, water
laboratory workshops, and chemical addition seminars. As part of its capacity development strategy,
Hawaii entered into a contract with the Rural Community Assistance Corporation to provide training
courses to more than 100 managers and 300 operators representing municipal and private water systems
throughout the islands. Training included assistance in preparing water system distribution operators
for the distribution system operator certification exam.
-------
Chapter 10 — Set-Aside Activities Funded
> Assessing system capacity to determine DWSRF loan eligibility
The DWSRF program requires that loan applicants have the technical, financial, and managerial
capacity to ensure compliance with the requirements of the SDWA. Some states, such as Idaho and
Texas, have used set-aside funds to facilitate the capacity assessment of their loan applicants. Idaho
developed a screening tool which walks the reviewer through a series of indicators to assess the capacity
of potential borrowers. The Environmental Finance Center at Boise State University was contracted to
prepare the actual capacity assessments of the applicants. Texas used set-aside funds to hire a
contractor to assist with providing assessments of, and on-site assistance to, prioritized systems to move
them toward compliance on a voluntary approach. Assessments are also conducted for the applicants
who must demonstrate they have developed the capacity, or will through funding, to operate a viable
successful system before the DWSRF may be used to finance improvements.
T Enhancing Operator Certification Programs
Ensuring the knowledge and skills of public water system operators is considered an important, cost-
effective means to promote public health protection. Proper operations and maintenance by qualified
operators can also prevent premature depreciation of drinking water infrastructure. Therefore, it is
essential that operators of public water systems have adequate training. The 1996 SDWA Amendments
required each state to implement programs that meet minimum requirements for the certification and
recertification of operators of community and nontransient noncommunity water systems. States have
used DWSRF set-asides to fund a number of operator certification training and implementation
activities.
> Expanding operator certification classes and programs
By expanding operator certification classes and programs, many states such as Georgia, Texas, and
Nebraska are furthering SDWA objectives and facilitating the certification process. Supporting the
enhancement of training opportunities allows states to ensure proper system operation. Georgia entered
into a contract with Georgia Water and Wastewater Institute (GWWI) to provide training of water,
wastewater, and laboratory analysts in FY2000. In one year, more than 1,000
students attended 80 training
courses held by the Institute.
GWWI expanded its training
methods to include participation
in Georgia Water and Pollution
Control Association District
Meetings, Spring, Fall, Annual,
and Industrial Conferences, and
provided on-site assistance to
water and wastewater personnel.
Early training opportunities for
potential operators in Texas are
offered through a water system
curriculum in high schools to
encourage entry into the water
supply business. The state hopes
Enhancing Operator Certification
Programs
Challenges
• Reaching operators of small, rural
systems in remote locations
• Providing affordable training and certification
programs
Solutions
• Leverage existing educational outlets to expand number of
certification courses offered
• Provide on-site training opportunities
• Subsidize cost of training and certification or offer financial
assistance to operators
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
to bring more qualified operators to the industry by providing early training and certification. Nebraska
contracted with several organizations to enhance training opportunities. As a result, the Nebraska
Environmental Training Center now provides specialized one-day workshops for continuing education
units designed to teach water treatment operations, associated operation and maintenance costs, and
chlorination and fluoridation processes. Funds also supported a mentor program for small systems and
teleconference registration assistance to qualifying systems.
> Partnering with universities, colleges, and extension services
Partnering with universities, colleges, and extension services allows states to provide unique opportunities
for systems operators wishing to continue their education. Continuing education is critical in ensuring
that owners and operators of water systems are knowledgeable about the newest technologies and
regulations affecting the water industry. New Jersey contracted with Rutgers, the State University of
New Jersey, to reduce the cost for operators taking courses that fulfill continuing education requirements.
Under this program, licensed operators receive a discount on course tuition.
T Providing Technical Assistance to Small Systems
Small water systems often face a great challenge in meeting new SDWA requirements because these
systems often lack the resources to properly train operational and managerial personnel. They also
typically have extremely limited financial resources and a small customer base. Small systems benefit
from a variety of programs aimed to make operations safer and more efficient. Many states are using set-
aside funds to provide on-site technical assistance, staff circuit rider programs, offer training sessions for
managers and operators, and provide assistance identifying and applying for funding from various
sources.
*• Assisting small systems in applying for DWSRF funding
Small systems comprise the majority of community water systems in the nation. While these systems
may have difficulty providing adequate documentation for DWSRF loan eligibility, they have the
greatest need for funding. Programs in states such as New York and New Hampshire
have facilitated the application process for small systems. New York used set-
aside funds to expand its peer
assistant program—the Small
Water Systems Program.
Although the main goal of the
program is to provide information
and publications that allow
systems to complete applications
on their own, direct assistance is
also available. The program
includes providing guidance to
communities applying for funding
from the DWSRF and other
sources, calculating project costs,
preparing budgets, selecting
projects, preparing engineering
Providing Technical Assistance to
Small Systems
Challenges
• Providing assistance to small systems in
remote locations
• Preparing required documentation for DWSRF loan eligibility
Solutions
• Hire circuit riders to provide on-site assistance
• Offer off-site technical assistance (i.e., online or via telephone)
• Organize peer support relationships between small and large
systems
-------
Chapter 10 — Set-Aside Activities Funded
reports, and filing for disadvantaged loan status. New Hampshire has worked with several contractors to
provide a range of services throughout the state to facilitate the loan application process. Programs
include assistance in completing applications for DWSRF funding and other sources, education and
outreach, on-site visits to identify the needs and deficiencies of the system, and project management,
coordination, and inspection assistance.
> Providing assistance for developing engineering reports and design plans
Small systems often lack the resources to hire an engineering firm to prepare the plans and specifications
and other documentation necessary to be eligible for DWSRF loans and other types of assistance. Many
states, including South Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, and Oregon use DWSRF funds to assist small
systems through grants to hire private contractors or by offering the assistance of qualified state staff.
South Carolina has a multi-level planning and development program. The program reviews sanitary
surveys, water quality sampling results, compliance schedules, operating budgets and rates, and
information concerning future needs. The second phase involves detailed evaluation of the viability of
the system. Management, operations, facilities, and financial plans are analyzed and improvement plans
for technical, financial, and managerial problems are offered. The third phase involves assisting in the
completion of a business plan to ensure future viability through detailed facilities engineering reports,
management structure recommendations, and financial plans that include the identification of
construction costs if DWSRF or other funding is needed.
Virginia offers planning and design grants to private and public small community water systems. Grants
are provided to small, rural, financially-stressed community water systems serving fewer than 3,300
persons for up to $25,000 per project. Projects include preliminary engineering reports, design of plans
and specifications, performance of source water quality and quantity studies, and the drilling of test
wells. Missouri and Oregon also provide engineering service grants aimed at very small systems. These
grants fund the cost of preparing an engineering report (up to $10,000), which is then used to
determine if the system is eligible for DWSRF loans or other sources of funding.
>• Helping small systems assess and enhance capacity
By assisting small systems with capacity assessment, some states such as Delaware and Wisconsin are
helping to increase the efficiency and viability of small systems. Delaware developed a technical
assistance program for small system capacity development. The program, designed and implemented by
the Delaware Rural Water Association, provides hands-on assistance to systems throughout the state on
matters including safety issues, emergency response preparedness, leak detection, and budget planning.
Financial assistance training is also available to all DWSRF applicants through the program. Similarly,
Wisconsin, in conjunction with the Wisconsin Rural Water Association, scheduled visits to targeted
small systems and provided assistance with preparing consumer confidence reports, operator certification,
SDWA compliance issues, and operations and maintenance. Educational sessions on these and other
topics affecting small systems were also offered through the University of Wisconsin.
T Facilitating Partnerships
Partnerships are an essential tool for states and water systems because participants aid each other and
mutually benefit. Duplication of effort is avoided by partnering with other entities in the state with
similar goals. Furthermore, the consolidation of financial resources allows states to provide even greater
assistance to water systems. Several states have used set-aside funds to establish partnerships between
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
agencies within the state and with other entities such as universities and trade organizations. Other
states are using the funds to encourage partnerships between systems (particularly small systems) for
purposes of enhancing capacity.
>• Partnering with colleges, universities, and extension services
Colleges, universities, and extension services offer technical expertise and training capabilities to states
and water systems on a wide range of technical, financial, and managerial topics. Many states are
directing set-aside funds to local colleges and universities to obtain these services through an existing
framework. Kentucky works with universities on system analyses for water systems
throughout the state. The
University of Cincinnati was
contracted to conduct a
distribution system study to
validate an EPA Model.
Northern Kentucky University
was contracted to evaluate a
plant and distribution system and
conduct extensive water testing at
the system for a one year period.
Facilitating Partnerships
Challenges
• Providing adequate training and technical
assistance to meet diverse needs
• Avoiding duplication of effort
Solutions
• Leverage resources by combining funds with other agencies and
organizations
• Use existing frameworks and expertise
Montana contracted with the
Montana State University to
create a CD-ROM training
device on source water
assessment and delineation procedures. Nevada contracted with the University of Nevada for various
activities. The Reno Cooperative Extension is in charge of source water protection education and
distance training for operators. Activities included creating a web page, gathering and coordinating
source water information to make available in a "clearinghouse" website, and using existing models to
further develop education programs. The Las Vegas branch of the extension has also been contracted to
provide assessments of the Colorado River and Lake Mead.
> Partnering with water system professional and trade organizations
Organizations such as the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the National Rural Water
Association and the Rural Community Assistance Programs have provided technical assistance to water
systems of all sizes for many years. Through partnerships with these and other organizations, several
states have greatly expanded the types of assistance offered and the number of systems that receive
assistance. Florida contracted with the Florida Rural Water Association and the Florida Association of
Community Action to offer a range of technical assistance to small systems. Services provided include
assisting with the preparation of DWSRF loan documents, providing capacity assessments to small
systems and designing plans for improving capacity, assisting with the development of business plans,
developing and implementing source water protection programs, and helping with on-site technical
issues. In Oklahoma, the Rural Water Association has been working to ensure that at least 200
assistance visits are made annually to small systems throughout the state to help improve operational
and managerial abilities to meet SDWA requirements. Assistance has resulted in improved compliance
rates and enhanced managerial attributes.
-------
Chapter 10 — Set-Aside Activities Funded
Indiana utilized the expertise of technical assistance providers to conduct various activities funded
through DWSRF set-asides. The Indiana Section of the AWWA and Rural Water Association are
responsible for staffing a toll-free helpline and conducting technical assistance workshops throughout
the state. Nebraska established a "Two-percent Team" to bring technical assistance partners together to
address system capacity needs. The team meets monthly and identifies systems that need assistance by
reviewing violation notices, expanded sanitary surveys, or applications for DWSRF or other financial
assistance. The team includes the Nebraska Environmental Training Center which conducts workshops
on water treatment operations, chlorination, and fluoridation, and the Midwest Assistance Program,
which provides systems with a financial self assessment tool. Other partners include the League of
Nebraska Municipalities, the Nebraska Rural Water Association, and the Nebraska Section of AWWA.
T Improving Public Outreach
Support of the public is vital to address and prevent threats to drinking water quality. One of the goals
of the SDWA Amendments is to provide better information to the public on the quality of drinking
water. The Amendments emphasize public information and the consumer's right-to-know to ensure that
drinking water program implementation by states is responsive to public needs. States have used set-
asides to fund a variety of public outreach initiatives.
> Conducting outreach at conferences
States wish to promote the benefits of the DWSRF program to as many systems as possible.
Several states utilize a variety of promotion opportunities at conferences that are
held throughout their state.
Louisiana DWSRF staff regularly
attend the Louisiana Municipal
Association's annual convention,
the Louisiana Police Jury
Association's annual convention,
and the Louisiana Rural Water
Annual Training and Technical
Conference to distribute
DWSRF information to
interested parties. Louisiana
DWSRF staff present funding
opportunities at training sessions
throughout the state. South
Carolina also uses conferences
attended by utility personnel as
an effective means to market the
DWSRF program. Conferences are held by the South Carolina Rural Water Association, the South
Carolina American Water Works Association, the South Carolina Municipal Association, the South
Carolina Association of Counties, and the South Carolina Association of Special Purpose Districts.
Improving Public Outreach
Challenges
• Informing the public about health
concerns from drinking water
• Promoting the DWSRF as an important
source of funding
• Educating key decision makers on drinking
water issues
Solutions
• Conduct public awareness campaigns statewide
• Develop outreach materials
• Provide targeted training for local government officials and water
system professionals
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
> Publishing educational materials
Many states publish materials to promote drinking water program awareness. These are often in the
form of mailings or newsletters. Louisiana sends mailings to all systems and engineers across the state
and promotes the DWSRF program in the state's Safe Drinking Water newsletter, "The Water Funnel,"
distributed quarterly. Delaware created a quarterly newsletter through set-aside funding. The newsletter
is mailed to all public water systems in Delaware and interested stakeholders, to inform the drinking
water system community of regulations, requirements, and other beneficial information. Washington has
created a quarterly newsletter, "Water Tap," which provides information on drinking water topics such as
the DWSRF program, application deadlines, and public hearing notification. Special issues of the
newsletter highlight the successes of the state's DWSRF program.
> Conducting public awareness campaigns
Several states have tried to involve the general public in, and educate the public about drinking water
issues by conducting public awareness campaigns. New Mexico has established "Water Testing Fairs"
throughout the state. The fairs allow the New Mexico Bureau of Water to have direct contact with the
public at scheduled fair exhibitions. Pamphlets on health effects and other pertinent information are
distributed. Alabama conducted three "Drinking Water Awareness Celebrations" in the state to
emphasize the need to protect and appreciate safe drinking water. Held in conjunction with National
Safe Drinking Water Week, the celebrations included drinking water taste tests and poster and coloring
contests to encourage awareness among students. News media provided coverage of the events and the
water system with the best tasting water competed nationally in Washington, D.C. Georgia contracted
with the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia to establish communication
and coordination mechanisms among water programs, local government officials, and others involved in
water resource management. The result of the contract will be a watershed management guidebook.
> Enhancing drinking water websites
Websites can be very effective vehicles for disseminating information about drinking water programs to
water systems and the general public. Several states, including Kentucky, Florida, and Pennsylvania have
established websites to provide information on the DWSRF program. Kentucky's website separates
information for the general public and information for professionals, including consulting engineers,
water system managers and operators, and researchers. The site includes information about the state's
DWSRF program and detailed information on state regulations, certified labs, analytical methods,
drinking water treatment tips, and links to related sites. Florida's website provides information about
the DWSRF program including a calendar of events, procedures for getting a loan, application
materials, and frequently asked questions.
Pennsylvania's website provides information on the DWSRF program including set-aside workplans,
project priority lists, and links to a loan calculator which allows borrowers to compare DWSRF interest
rates with interest rates of other financing sources. It also has self assessment guides and budgeting
worksheets for different types of systems, including municipally-owned and mobile home park-owned
systems. A webpage for operators has also been created to provide information to operators. The
webpage includes a calculator for common process control calculations, an advertisement section to buy
or sell equipment and supplies, and a section to ask questions and exchange ideas or address problems
experienced by operators.
-------
Chapter 10 — Set-Aside Activities Funded
> Informing local government and water system officials
States recognize that reaching and educating key decision makers such as local officials, water board
members, and system owners is essential for ensuring that systems have the resources to ensure adequate
capacity. Mississippi entered into a four year contract with the Mississippi State University Cooperative
Extension Service to provide coordination and material support needed to conduct technical training
sessions for board members and managers of small water systems in the state. Board members and
managers were given training on the legal, decision making, and system oversight responsibilities of their
positions, and the basic technical and managerial skills necessary to fulfill those responsibilities. The
state provided 1,800 participants with training at 67 separate training sessions. To address the fact that
more than half of the state's population relies on ground water, North Carolina used funds to increase
public knowledge of the benefits of wellhead protection. One-day seminars on wellhead protection were
conducted across the state and training was provided to local community leaders on the importance of
wellhead protection and the methods available for use within wellhead protection plans.
T Supporting Drinking Water Programs
Many states have used set-aside funds to enhance their drinking water programs by hiring additional staff
to support their PWSS, operator certification, capacity development, and source water protection
programs, and by providing additional resources to implement new drinking water regulations. States
have also used funds to enhance their oversight of system compliance, improve their data systems, and
assist systems with preparing consumer confidence reports.
> Enhancing oversight of system compliance
As part of their primacy responsibilities, states are required to ensure that their systems comply with
national primary drinking water regulations and must have a program in place to conduct sanitary
surveys of their systems. The sanitary survey is a valuable tool for assessing the adequacy of a water
system in producing and distributing safe drinking water. Colorado used funds to increase the scope and
frequency of sanitary surveys, capacity development reviews, and investigation and response to incidents
of non-compliance. More than 200 system site visits have been made under a state noncommunity
drinking water system sanitary survey initiative using local health departments as part of the state's
capacity development program.
This effort will eventually involve
annual sanitary surveys of
approximately 800
noncommunity ground water
systems. New Mexico developed a
Statewide Drinking Water
Assessment planning process to
identify and provide information
on the needs of the state's public
water systems through sanitary
surveys and other sources of
information.
Supporting Drinking Water Programs
Challenges
• Implementing and complying with new
drinking water regulations
• Conducting adequate oversight of water
systems
• Maintaining drinking water data management
systems
Solutions
• Hire additional state staff to help implement new regulations
• Decentralize sanitary survey responsibilities and increase scope of
surveys
• Purchase or improve data management systems
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Oregon used funds to contract with County Health Departments to help public water suppliers with
sanitary surveys, water quality problems, reporting, and regulatory consultation. Utah used funds to
continue to perform core functions of the PWSS program such as sanitary surveys, plan reviews, and
ground water source protection. The state also awarded $75,000 in grants to 12 local health
departments to conduct sanitary surveys.
> Improving state data systems
The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), designed by EPA to help states run their
drinking water programs, houses three major categories of information: inventory, sampling, and
compliance monitoring data. States use SDWIS to help meet EPA quarterly reporting requirements and
increase efficiency. West Virginia used DWSRF set-aside funds to update the SDWIS data management
system. Information gathered through the program helps the state planning and policy team to manage
sanitary survey reports, follow-up on violation and enforcement actions, map information through the
use of geographical information system (GIS) tools, and interact with state, tribal, and local governments.
Other states, including Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, have used set-aside funding to purchase or
improve SDWIS data management systems. Presently, Delaware is adopting the SDWIS program to
clean up current data and facilitate data migration. The state is generating electronic monitoring
schedules for systems to track violations and enforcement actions.
States are also using set-aside funds to develop data systems to track information for other parts of their
programs. Montana entered into a contract to create a GIS database of water system sources using
existing latitude/longitude information and to train PWSS staff in the use of Internet interactive mapping
applications. Pennsylvania is developing a networked data management system to support certification
activities such as testing and continuing education. Texas developed an integrated data applications
package to give the PWSS program the capacity to satisfy the data and tracking needs of both the state
and EPA. Massachusetts is developing a comprehensive GIS database of public water supply sources and
their protection areas, land use, and potential contaminant sources.
>• Helping systems prepare consumer confidence reports
The SDWA Amendments require water systems to prepare annual consumer confidence reports (CCRs)
which provide consumers with information on their drinking water sources, the level of any contaminant
found in local drinking water, the likely source and potential health effect of any contaminant in the
local drinking water supply, and other consumer protection documentation. The consumer greatly
benefits from these reports, but many systems do not have the resources or personnel to complete the
required reports. To meet SDWA requirements and protect consumers, many states, including Arkansas
and Pvhode Island, used set-aside funds to help systems complete the reports. Arkansas, in conjunction
with the Arkansas Rural Water Association, has provided extensive assistance to systems in completing
CCRs including the review and critique of drafts and reminders to systems regarding deadlines for
compliance. Rhode Island contracted with the New England Water Works Association and Maine
Rural Water to provide assistance to small systems in the areas of system operation and CCR preparation.
-------
Chapter 10 — Set-Aside Activities Funded
T Promoting Source Water Protection
Taking positive steps to manage potential sources of contamination and prevent pollutants from reaching
sources of drinking water is often more efficient and cost-effective than treating drinking water later.
Each state has developed a comprehensive Source Water Assessment Program to assess the source of every
public water system within the state. The source water assessment results provide the information
necessary for water systems to seek help from states in protecting source water, or initiating local
government protection efforts. Many states are using set-asides to fund a variety of source water
protection measures including educational outreach programs, incentive-based programs for water
systems to create and improve source water protection areas, land acquisition and conservation easements,
and programs to ensure wellhead protection.
> Educating the public on the benefits of source water protection
Upon completion of source water assessment activities, the SDWA Amendments require all water systems
to demonstrate the condition of their water source to the public. States such as
Pennsylvania and California have
developed educational programs
for water systems and the public
on the importance of source water
protection and the funds available
to improve source water quality
Promoting Source Water Protection
Challenges
• Managing potential sources of contamina-
tion
• Gaining public support for source water
protection
Solutions
• Provide assistance for conservation easements or acquisition of
land
• Implement wellhead protection programs
• Promote protection through websites, schools, and community-
based activities
through protection measures.
Pennsylvania's program is
comprised of several elements.
The state has created a web page
to provide the public with
assessment schedules, summary
reports for completed assessments,
and general information on source
water protection. A grant
program supports source water protection projects throughout the state and information on the
application process and available funding is provided on the state web page. Grants provided to
communities assist local coalitions in community-based education efforts and help to promote
communication and networking activities. Information and training are provided through 10 to 12 local
coalitions annually. Other grant recipients focus on educating children through museum exhibits,
school materials on source water protection, and a "Hydro Mania" festival.
California also uses funds to promote source water protection education activities. Funds support
presentations to local and professional organizations on implementation of the source water protection
program. A technical and policy advisory committees for source water protection was also created. The
state's website provides guidance for delineating and assessing source water protection areas, electronic
forms to complete assessments, results of completed assessments, and information on funding
opportunities.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
> Funding incentive-based programs for water systems to create and improve source water
protection areas
Several states, including Massachusetts, Texas, and California, are focusing protection efforts on
providing assistance to local communities and water systems to undertake local source water protection
initiatives. Such an approach emphasizes the implementation of local land use controls, ordinances, and
management measures. Massachusetts expanded a well-developed source water protection program by
instituting a technical assistance and land management grant program. Project funding is prioritized
based on need. Projects supported by these funds include: planning riparian buffer zones at agricultural
sites; addressing the management of existing protected lands and public access issues; designing pesticide
and chemical storage facilities; educating the public; coordinating and improving emergency response;
and developing a local surface water protection plan. The state supports the acquisition of land for
source water protection when deemed financially cost-effective.
Texas developed a loan program for systems to implement best management practices to protect their
drinking water sources. The types of projects eligible for funding include: land acquisition,
implementation of land use ordinances, hazardous waste collection programs, and public outreach
activities. California has reserved more than $8 million from its capitalization grants to support loans for
community water systems to implement measures to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from
contamination. The types of projects eligible for funding include: hazardous waste collection programs,
education on best management practices, closure of abandoned wells, and fencing out cattle from intakes,
tributaries, or reservoir boundaries.
> Acquiring land and conservation easements
Conservation tools such as land acquisition and conservation easements can protect a water supply by
preventing pollution-generating activities from occurring in critical areas, and can provide community
benefits such as preserving open space, enhancing recreational opportunities, and reducing flood damage.
Unlike purchasing the land through acquisition, a conservation easement is a legal agreement between a
landowner and a government agency that permanently protects the land by limiting the amount and
type of development that can take place while the landowner continues to own it. Several states,
including New Hampshire, Vermont, and Kentucky, have established loan programs for land acquisition
and conservation easements for source water protection.
New Hampshire provides loans to systems to purchase land or conservation easements to protect
vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination. Applications received by the state identified a
demand for more than $1.5 million in projects. A contract with the Society for the Protection of New
Hampshire's Forests provides technical assistance to water systems in prioritizing projects for land
acquisition and facilitating purchases. New Hampshire identified protection of sources of drinking water
as a priority and budgeted $1.5 million in state grants as a 25 percent match to help communities
purchase land. Vermont established a program to provide loans to municipally-owned systems for the
purchase of land or conservation easements. The state has made a total of $200,000 in loans to 3
systems. One loan, to the Town of Bradford, purchased a tract of farmland within Zone I of the system's
source protection area. The purchase was a high priority because the Town's source protection plan
identified high risk land use activity on the property. Kentucky also established a loan program for land
-------
Chapter 10 — Set-Aside Activities Funded
acquisition or conservation easements. The site must be within a delineated source water or wellhead
protection area and the acquisition must be consistent with approved county water supply plans. The
state made a $360,000 loan to a system to acquire 180 acres.
>• Implementing wellhead protection programs
Nearly 80 percent of community water systems use ground water for their primary source of supply.
Wellhead protection promotes pollution prevention and management techniques to protect ground water
sources of drinking water. States such as Michigan, Maryland, and Illinois used funds to support the
proper abandonment of wells. Improperly decommissioned wells and treatment facilities provide a direct
conduit for contaminated surface water and treatment byproducts to enter ground water. Recognizing
these potential threats and developing measures to prevent them is an important part of any source
protection program.
Michigan developed and is implementing a statewide Abandoned Well Management Program with the
support of set-aside funding. The program helps water systems manage abandoned wells identified
inside delineated wellhead protection areas and in areas where municipal water service was extended into
areas previously served by on-site wells. The program combines a statewide education program with
demonstration projects to promote this new program. At least 210 improperly abandoned wells were
properly capped with the help of two full-time staff and two student assistants hired through DWSRF
set-aside funds. In addition, a state environmental bond program provides grant money (with a 25
percent local match requirement) to communities to locate and properly seal abandoned wells within
delineated wellhead protection areas.
Maryland implemented a wellhead protection program that provides grants to local communities to
support the creation of wellhead protection areas. Funds support the distribution of information to all
water suppliers and local government officials on the availability of DWSRF funding for source water
protection. Funds may be used to support technical analyses of wellhead areas including dye tracing,
estimation of areas contributing recharge to the ground water, and any approved method for establishing
a wellhead protection area. Illinois has established a well recharge area delineation program focused on
Illinois' Priority Groundwater Protection Planning Regions. This program will delineate the five year
recharge areas for community water system wells which utilize unconfined aquifers within these regions.
With the help of several public universities, the information gained will be included in the Illinois EPA
Internet GIS database.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Implementation Issues
Any new program of this magnitude can be expected to have its share of growing pains; and the DWSRF
program is no exception. States have faced, and continue to face, challenges which affect the
implementation of their programs. Some of these challenges affect the progress of their programs and
others impact their programmatic decisions. This chapter discusses some of the challenges that states
have encountered in implementing their programs and other obstacles and barriers they perceive as
affecting their programs. The chapter also discusses some of the issues and resolutions to these issues.
T Challenges Impacting Utilization of Funds
In reviewing the status of state DWSRF programs, EPA often refers to the rate of fund utilization or
"pace" of the program. Chapter 8 outlined several of the milestones associated with providing assistance
to recipients and completing projects. A program with good pace is deemed to be one that is efficient
and timely in providing assistance to recipients. The measure used to assess the utilization of funds is
the assistance that has been provided as a percent of the funds available. As was noted in Chapter 8,
while the national average for that measure through SPY 2001 was 72 percent, there were several states
that exhibited lower utilization rates. There is no one reason for slower pace in some states - the causes
are multiple and, in some cases, unique to each state.
States that had preexisting programs or were implementing the DWSRF through the same agency used
for the CWSRF program generally got off to a faster start because they had the administrative structure
in place to handle the funds and were comfortable operating a loan program. These states also benefitted
because, in working to obtain legislative authority, they typically only had to amend existing legislation
rather than introduce new bills. States that had to develop new programs and obtain new legislative
authority took longer to get moving. In fact, only 18 states received funding in the first year of
availability for their FFY 1997 grants, and 14 of those received funds in the final month of that fiscal
year (Table 3-1). Sixteen states received their first grant in the final month of availability for the funds
(September 1998).
Obtaining the state match needed to receive a grant was a significant issue for some states early on, even
though the law provided states with additional time to provide match for the FFY 1997 appropriation.
For a few states, the challenge of obtaining match has proven to be a continuing problem, which could
increase in light of recent state budget constraints. States that were unable to receive state appropriations
for match were forced to go to the bond market to issue bonds to provide match. In many cases, these
bond issues require voter authorization which can further slow progress in a state's program. Rhode
Island and Louisiana have both faced serious problems in obtaining match, affecting their ability to
provide assistance since states are required to provide state funds proportionally with federal funds.
California and Maine are among the states that must obtain voter approval for bonds issued to provide
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
match. In California, the delay caused by issues associated with the match placed the state in danger of
losing its FFY 1997 funds.
Obtaining adequate staff to implement programs has been another challenge for some states. Staffing
problems have been caused by hiring freezes, internal reorganizations, and salary imbalances between the
state and private sector that make it difficult to hire qualified staff. Many of these challenges are state-
level problems that the federal government cannot fix. However, in a few instances, EPA has issued
letters to state leaders informing them of the Agency's concerns about the state's ability to manage the
program and the potential impact this would have on their ability to receive future federal grants. In
some cases, these actions have helped states understand and reduce state-level hurdles.
Another factor that has the potential to impact utilization of funds in all states is a natural outcome of a
program that focuses on the needs of smaller systems. Smaller systems frequently need more time and
assistance to identify what projects they need to complete and to prepare to receive assistance. In many
cases a system will rank high on a state's priority list because it has a serious public health problem, but
the system has not done the planning and design work they need to complete before they can be
considered for a loan. Overcoming the challenges presented by smaller systems has required hard work
and creativity on the part of the states. States have put additional resources into working with smaller
systems and, as described in Chapter 10, have used their set-aside funds to help small systems prepare for
funding. As state capacity development programs continue to improve, and as more systems are aware of
the requirements associated with the DWSRF program, states should be able to move the smaller systems
toward funding more quickly.
When approaching a particular state that is exhibiting slower progress in using funds, it is important to
try to understand the root causes in order to determine potential solutions to problems. EPA will use
financial indicators developed using data from its data system as a starting point for investigation rather
than as a endpoint. For example, California's utilization of funds through SPY 2001 stood at 28
percent, which is much lower than the national average of 72 percent. However, the figure represented a
large increase from the previous year's value of 4 percent and it appears that the state is on track for
continuing improvement. In the final two months of SPY 2001, the state closed eight loans for $60
million, which represented 50 percent of the agreements and 66 percent of the funds provided in that
fiscal year. Upon investigation, there have been several contributing factors to the slower pace in the
state:
• The California Department of Health did not have a preexisting financial assistance program and had
to develop legislation for passage by the state's General Assembly. The state received its FFY 1997
grant in September 1998 (the final month of availability).
• Although the program was able to secure match from the state's general fund for the first two grants,
DWSRF staff had to spend considerable time and energy working on a multi-billion dollar bond
referendum which included match for future DWSRF grants. Passage of the bond issue in March
2000 gave the staff time to increase their focus on implementing the program.
• During the initial years of the program the state took the time to establish clear procedures so that it
-------
Chapter 11 — Implementation Issues
would be able to more effectively run the program in the long-term.
• The state has focused its attention on smaller systems which require significant assistance to prepare
for funding.
An additional example is the State of Arkansas. Utilization of funds in the state increased slightly from
the SPY 2000 figure of 22 to 25 percent through SPY 2001. Upon investigation, two major causes were
identified, neither of which are in and of themselves serious problems or within the state's control. The
state had entered into binding commitments with two projects which ranked number 2 and 3 on the
state's first fundable list of projects. However, prior to receiving loans, both projects (totaling $24
million) were beset by legal problems. The state has worked to help mediate the disputes and was able
to close one of the loans and partially fund the other. The second factor affecting the state's pace has
been, unexpectedly, its success in coordinating funding. Arkansas is a good example of a program that
coordinates funding with other state and federal sources of funds. A state Water/Wastewater Advisory
Committee meets monthly and reviews projects that have requested funding in order to identify the best
funding solution for each project. As a result, a substantial number of the initial projects on the state's
priority list were financed with other sources of funding. In the initial years of this state's program, as
systems are preparing to proceed with DWSRF loans, projects identified through the DWSRF process
are getting funded and important public health protection is taking place.
With respect to the set-asides, there have been three primary challenges impacting states in utilizing
funds that have been reserved—staffing, contracting, and competing priorities. The August 2000 GAO
report, Drinking Water: Spending Constraints Could Affect States' Ability to Implement Increasing Program
Requirements (GAO/RCED-00-199) discussed how states have been impacted by low authorized state
staffing and funding levels, hiring freezes, and inadequate salaries. Some states reserved funds and then
found they could not hire the staff needed to implement activities. States that could not hire looked to
contracting as a solution, but often found road blocks in the procurement process or ceilings on contract
use of funds. Finally, in addition to new drinking water rules, the 1996 SDWA Amendments
introduced several new programs and requirements in the areas of source water protection, capacity
development, and operator certification. States have spent the last three years working to complete
strategies and receive approval for programmatic changes. Now that states have approval for source water
assessment plans, capacity development strategies, and operator certification programs, it is anticipated
that expenditures of the set-asides will continue to increase.
T Challenges Related to Federal Requirements
Challenges that states face are not only the product of state issues or the character of the recipients of
assistance in the program. Many of the challenges that have affected pace in the program are the product
of federal requirements. There are a number of federal laws and regulations that apply to recipients and
sub-recipients of federal assistance (i.e., cross-cutters). These include requirements relating to the
conduct of environmental reviews, utilization of disadvantaged businesses, and historical preservation.
There are also conflicting requirements that create obstacles to efficient coordination of funding among
different federal agencies. For example, when pursuing coordinated funding opportunities, states have
experienced frustration at differing federal agency requirements pertaining to the conduct of
environmental reviews.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
Because there are many conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds, states face challenges in
working to help recipients of assistance understand all of the requirements to which they are subject,
especially small and/or privately-owned systems which often do not have the option of using the
municipal market or other affordable sources of financing. States have reported that the most challenging
cross-cutters to implement have been the provisions governing the participation of disadvantaged
business enterprises (minority and women), environmental reviews, and historic preservation.
T Issues Related to State Program Decisions
In the discussion on stewardship in Chapter 8, it was noted that, in implementing their programs, states
must make decisions on how to direct funds and structure programs in a manner that addresses their
highest priority needs and ensures longevity of the Fund. These goals can compete against one another,
particularly in determining how much of the funding to direct to set-asides and how much assistance,
and what type of assistance, to provide to disadvantaged communities. EPA, in guidance and
regulations, has left the decision as to how states split their grants between funding set-asides to carry out
priority drinking water program activities and capitalizing their Fund to support loans to water systems.
Usually, decisions on how to distribute funds between the Fund and the set-asides are made at the state
drinking water program level based on a consideration of the immediate need for funding for projects
that are ready to proceed in the coming year, the long-term goal for fund capitalization for the state, and
the activities that need to be implemented through the set-asides. The amount of funds reserved from
year to year will vary in accordance with the projected funding needs. Nationally, states have reserved
approximately 16 percent of their grants for set-aside activities. On a state by state basis, the figure
ranges from 6.7 to 31 percent. In some instances, states have reserved an excess of funds for the set-asides
and found that they are not able to expeditiously expend them. EPA has encouraged several states to
transfer excess funds to the Fund to provide infrastructure assistance. On the other hand, the 2000
GAO report referred to in the previous section discussed the concerns of several states with respect to the
political difficulties in using funds for set-asides when the acknowledged infrastructure needs are so great.
This tension is more acute in states where more than one agency is implementing the program. In these
states, there are often conflicts between the drinking water program and the financial agency overseeing
implementation of the Fund in determining how much of the funding goes to projects as opposed to set-
asides. In some cases the pressure comes from higher levels of the state government. In at least one state,
the state's budget agency dictates how much of the set-asides the state program can access. An
additional factor that has impacted state use of set-asides is an inability to take funds for the state
program management set-aside because a state cannot provide the additional matching funds required to
access the set-aside.
In addition to tensions between the Fund and the set-asides, EPA has also observed tensions between the
set-asides and other sources of state funding. In some cases, states have decreased the amount of funding
they provide for their drinking water programs and replaced the funds with the set-aside funds. This
causes concern for state drinking water administrators because they cannot be assured that the set-aside
funds will be available in the long-term since they are tied to capitalization grants. Other states have
been reluctant to take set-asides because they are afraid that their own state funding will be cut or that
EPA will make a decision to decrease funding for the traditional PWSS grant program.
-------
Chapter 11 — Implementation Issues
A second programmatic issue that is restricted to management of the Fund is the subject of
disadvantaged assistance. Although the DWSRF program offers significant savings through its low
interest loans, there are systems that will still find it difficult to receive loans and keep rates affordable for
their customers. Only 16 of the 29 states with disadvantaged assistance programs provided principal
forgiveness. Most states that do not provide disadvantaged assistance in the form of principal forgiveness
have indicated that their reluctance is due to the fact that the assistance will, by its nature, reduce the
amount of funding available for assistance in the long-term as forgiven principal will not return to the
revolving Fund. States have been more amenable to providing longer term loans of up to 30 years and
interest rates that are greater than zero but less than the standard interest rate for non-disadvantaged
loans. Many states believe that the low interest loans offered through the program are sufficient in
addressing disadvantaged needs based on a financial assessment of the applicant. Some states are using
other federal or state funding programs to provide grant assistance to systems that have an identified
need, and in some cases, coordinate that funding with DWSRF funding.
EPA has not developed an estimate of the percentage of systems in the country that serve disadvantaged
communities. In its January 2002 report, Drinking Water: Key Aspects ofEPA's Revolving Fund Program
need to be Strengthened (GAO-02-135), GAO surveyed states in an attempt to develop a national estimate
of the number of disadvantaged communities using an individual state's definition of disadvantaged or a
system's rates as a percent of its median household income. GAO estimated that about 28 percent of the
24,334 small systems reflected in the results of their survey qualified as disadvantaged. However, GAO
did not have confidence in the precision of their estimate because some states lacked information to
report and there were issues associated with the sampling strategy. In response to new regulations such
as the revised arsenic standard, there has been a call for new grant programs targeted at small systems.
States may need to reassess their use of the disadvantaged assistance provision to determine if they are
missing systems that are not participating in the program due to lack of subsidy.
T National Program Issues
EPA established a partnership with the states to address the problems and issues associated with the new
program and to identify acceptable solutions. One of the first major issues faced by the program was
related to identifying the types of projects that would be eligible or ineligible for DWSRF assistance.
The law indicated that projects of a "type or category which the Administrator has determined ... will
facilitate compliance with the national primary drinking water regulations applicable to the system under
section 1412 or otherwise significantly further the health protection objectives of the Act" would be
eligible for assistance through the program. In developing the initial guidelines for the program, EPA
also considered the required criteria of section l452(b)(3)(A) of the SDWA to focus on projects needed
to address the most serious risk to human health, to ensure that the nation's drinking water is safe
through compliance with the national primary drinking water regulations, and to assist those systems
with the greatest economic need. The Agency determined that the purposes of certain types of projects,
including the construction and rehabilitation of dams and reservoirs and purchase of water rights, were
focused less on water quality and more on satisfying demand for drinking water. The Agency believed
that providing DWSRF program assistance for these types of projects would not further the objectives
Congress set out in the SDWA to the same extent as the other projects identified as eligible. EPA
maintained these restrictions in its final regulation for the program.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
The second major issue facing the program was associated with identifying and prioritizing projects for
funding. The law required that states give priority to projects that meet the criteria in section
l452(b)(3)(A) of the law (see above). EPA reviewed the priority systems for all 51 programs to ensure
that they met the Congressional intent of the law. In some states, there were intense discussions relating
to the types of factors and relative weights assigned to them within the systems. States were concerned
that through the review process, EPA was attempting to force a cookie-cutter approach that would have
all state priority systems looking the same. EPA provided a compendium of the state priority systems in
a report released in February 1999, Prioritizing Drinking Water Needs: A compilation of State priority
systems for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program (EPA 816-R-99-001). A review of the
priority systems demonstrates that, while all states had to address the three primary factors identified in
the law, the structure of, and additional factors included within, the states' systems vary considerably.
The law requires that states provide assistance to those systems with the highest priority on a fundable
list of projects. This was a departure from the CWSRF program, which allows states to fund any projects
on the priority list regardless of order (although most states try to fund the highest priority projects).
Early on there was some concern and misunderstanding about the consideration of a project's readiness
to proceed with respect to offering assistance. For the first two years only, EPA allowed readiness to be
considered as a factor in the priority system. After the initial two years, states could not include
readiness as a priority ranking factor because it would provide a misleading portrait of the projects with
the highest public health and compliance needs. Many states therefore thought that readiness to
proceed could no longer be considered in funding decisions and that they would have to hold funding
for a highly ranked project until it was ready for construction. However, EPA believes that states now
understand that a project's readiness to proceed must be considered as the state develops its fundable list
of projects from the comprehensive list of projects that have expressed interest in funding (Figure 11-1).
A state would not want to place a project with a high public health need at the top of its list of projects
that will receive funding in
the next year if the project
will not be ready to proceed Figure 11'1 DWSRF Identification of Fundable Projects
for three years.
Two issues which states
identified as concerns were
discussed and resolved using
the assistance of the State/
EPA SRF work group. This
work group consists of 18
representatives from state
DWSRF, CWSRF, and
finance agencies; and staff
from EPA's headquarters and
ten regional offices. The
group was convened in
February 1998 and has met
ten times since then to
Comprehensive List of
all ranked projects with
expected funding schedule
Proceed down list from
highest to lowest priority
NO
Will system be ready to
proceed in this funding cycle?
What technical
assistance can we
provide to help
the system get
ready?
YES
Fundable List of
projects ready to proceed
-------
Chapter 11 — Implementation Issues
discuss issues related to the two SRF programs. Early in the program, states received inquiries from
homeowners served by private wells that had become contaminated about the possibility of their
receiving assistance to remedy the problem. States had also heard from water utilities that were
interested in consolidating into a regional water authority. In both scenarios, the applicants were seeking
assistance to create a new public water system. Because the language in SDWA requires that assistance
only be provided to a public water system, neither of these scenarios could be funded. EPA recognized
that there could be important public health benefits and affordability issues that could be addressed
through these types of projects and that allowing such projects would fall within the scope of the SDWA
goals. The Agency worked with the work group to craft a policy that would allow these types of projects
to be funded, but which would also include measures to ensure that the policy would not be abused.
After seeking comment, a policy was approved through the Federal Register in 1998 (63 FR 59299) and
was later incorporated into the final regulations for the program.
The second issue related to the timing of assistance for projects and whether such assistance would be
considered refinancing. The law precludes states from refinancing projects for privately-owned systems.
Some state programs were concerned that this restriction, read strictly, would preclude them from
funding privately-owned systems under the state's funding schedule. For some states that issue bonds,
all loans are closed at one or two times during the year. Because the state does not want to delay a
project from proceeding prior to execution of the loan agreement, these states will typically allow the
project to proceed and agree to reimburse the recipient for costs incurred between the time that the
project was approved and the loan executed. Other states with short construction seasons, such as
Alaska, also wanted the ability to reimburse a project for approved costs incurred prior to the execution of
the loan. If a system, particularly a private system, was to fund any interim costs using debt, this meant
that the state could not provide reimbursement of funds since it could be construed as refinancing.
After soliciting public comment, EPA released a policy in 1999 (64 FR 1802), later incorporated into
the regulations, stating that a project (for a privately-owned or publicly-owned system) that had been
given approval, authorization to proceed, or any similar action by the state prior to initiation of
construction would be eligible for reimbursement for construction costs incurred after such state action,
provided that the project met all of the requirements of the DWSRF program and other criteria.
Planning and design and associated pre-project costs were eligible for reimbursement regardless of when
the costs were incurred.
A final, and on-going, controversy concerns state restrictions on funding privately-owned systems. The
SDWA, unlike the CWA, explicitly allowed for the provision of assistance to privately-owned systems
through the DWSRF program. This is particularly relevant since roughly one-half of the systems in the
country are privately-owned and typically small. Several states have explicit restrictions against providing
funding to privately-owned enterprises on a policy, statutory or regulatory basis. Presently, 12 states
restrict the provision of DWSRF monies to privately-owned systems (Figure 7-4).
EPA had been asked by some stakeholders to consider changes to the allotment method to account for
restrictions in the states that restrict privately-owned systems from receiving DWSRF assistance.
Stakeholders expressed the opinion that the allocation for these states should only consider the total need
associated with water systems that are eligible to receive DWSRF monies from the state (i.e., publicly-
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
owned systems). They proposed that capital needs associated with privately-owned water systems be
deducted from these states' total need estimates, although, as required by the SDWA, each state (even
those restricting privately-owned water systems from funding) would receive at least one percent of the
funds available to states.
EPA reviewed the statutory language and determined that allotments should be based on the needs
reported in the most recent needs survey which must assess "capital improvement needs of all eligible
public water systems." The total state need collected through the survey represents the needs associated
with systems eligible for assistance under the law (i.e., publicly- and privately-owned community water
systems and non-profit noncommunity water systems). Therefore, these needs must be included in
determining the allotment of funds.
Since the program began, several states with such funding restrictions have made changes to legislation to
allow funding to privately-owned systems. Others have worked to identify alternative methods of
providing assistance, have used set-aside funds to provide technical assistance, or are helping privately-
owned systems obtain assistance from other state or federal sources. However, EPA has also found that
some states with the authority to provide assistance to privately-owned systems have not done so. The
Agency has been concerned that an attempt to remedy inequities through the allotment method might
itself lead to inequities by penalizing states which have specific restrictions and not penalizing states that
have no restrictions but do not fund private systems. EPA will continue to monitor states with respect to
their decisions to fund privately-owned systems to ensure that the program maximizes benefits to public
health. EPA will also continue to work to assist states in working with privately-owned systems by
providing financial management training on the mechanics of applicant credit evaluation and facilitating
the dissemination of information between states.
There have been additional issues that have been raised throughout implementation of the program, and
issues will continue to be raised as the program moves into the future. EPA's goal is to work with the
states to identify mutually agreeable solutions to issues that may arise.
-------
Chapter 11 — Implementation Issues
Public Outreach and the DWSRF program
One of the primary goals of the 1996 SDWA Amendments was to provide better information to the
public on the quality of their drinking water. The law emphasized public participation and consumer
right-to-know to ensure that states' choices concerning drinking water program implementation are
responsive to public needs. Several provisions in the law specified that the public be given the
opportunity to review and comment on program implementation in an effort to increase public
awareness. For the DWSRF program, the law requires that a state release its Intended Use Plan,
which provides information on how the state will use its program to fund infrastructure projects and
other programs for the protection of drinking water and public health, to the public for review.
States have used a variety of methods to reach the public—including traditional mailing, the media,
and the Internet. Effective public outreach not only serves to increase public awareness - an
effective campaign that reaches all interested parties, including public health and environmental
groups, will also market the program to potential customers for the program. In April 2000, EPA
released a report, Case Studies in DWSRF Implementation — Public Participation (EPA 816-R-00-001),
which reported on how several states were reaching out to include the public in developing their
DWSRF programs and marketing the program to potential borrowers.
The success of states in reaching the public has been mixed. Some states have been able to
successfully bring the public into the process while others have been disappointed that their efforts
have not yielded greater interest on the part of the public. An example of a successful effort to
market and promote the program comes from the State of Arizona. To highlight the importance of the
DWSRF in protecting the citizens of the state, the state Water Infrastructure Finance Authority annually
identifies a project of the year. A past winner was the Far West Water & Sewer, Inc., a private utility
that serves a population of 20,000 in an area 10 miles east of the City of Yuma. The $6 million
project, funded at a 6% interest rate, solved a significant water quality problem by constructing a
pumping plant and pipeline to transport water from the Yuma-Mesa Canal to a new "package"
surface water treatment plant. The project acquired, pumped, treated, and distributed Colorado
River water flowing in the Canal to supplement and blend with poor quality water from existing
sources of ground water wells. The project enabled the owners to transfer their water source from a
poor quality ground water source to treatment of a better quality surface water source.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Future of the DWSRF
Entering its sixth year of implementation, the DWSRF program is viewed as a success by both states and
EPA, although all acknowledge that the program continues to be a work in progress. EPA and states
have heard criticisms that the program has not moved as quickly towards full implementation as its sister
CWSRF program had. While the DWSRF program has been fortunate to build on the experiences of the
successful CWSRF program, it has suffered misconceptions due to comparison with a more mature
program. In fact, a review of the data for both programs shows that the DWSRF program is actually well
in line with progress shown by the CWSRF program at the same time in its development. Should
appropriations continue beyond the 2003 authorization, EPA and states expect similar success for the
DWSRF over the long-term.
Some of the greatest assets of
the program are the elements
that differ from those of the
CWSRF program. Congress
structured the DWSRF
program to touch on all aspects
of drinking water protection -
not just infrastructure (Figure
12-1). While the flexibility to
use funds for other purposes
can present challenges for
states in decision-making, EPA
believes that states have found
the flexibility of the set-asides
and disadvantaged assistance to
be of great utility in ensuring
that their citizens have safe and
affordable drinking water.
States are using the DWSRF to
fund their highest priority
infrastructure projects and the
program is successfully
integrating with other
objectives of the 1996 SDWA
Amendments. States are using
funds to implement new
Figure 12-1 DWSRF Support of the Mission to Ensure Safe Drinking Water
Preventing
contamination
of source water
Improving water
system management
& operations
DWSRF
Drinking water
program rule
implementation
Financing
infrastructure
improvements
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
programs related to source water protection and operator certification. The program is focusing on
assisting small systems through both the Fund and the set-asides. Perhaps the most effective cross-
fertilization has occurred in the area of capacity development. Several states are integrating their DWSRF
and capacity development programs to ensure better sustainability of system operations in the long-term.
There are still a few states that are facing challenges in implementing their programs. While EPA is
committed to working with these states to help them overcome obstacles, the Agency will also monitor
states for compliance to determine if it would be appropriate to withhold funding for redistribution to
states with efficient programs.
This final chapter addresses programmatic challenges that are faced by systems and local, state, and
federal governments and how they can be addressed through the DWSRF program as it is currently
structured. The chapter also discusses other challenges that may require Congressional consideration to
identify solutions. Finally, several principles are identified that should guide the efforts of federal, state,
and local governments as they work to ensure protection of public health and drinking water.
T Challenges on the Horizon
> Meeting drinking water infrastructure
Over the past two years, there has been much
industry over the next several decades. Other
needs in excess of EPA's 20 year estimate of
$151 billion. EPA has developed a report
on the potential gap that exists between
what systems currently spend and will
need to spend in the future to meet those
needs. The predicted gap varies
considerably depending on the
combination of assumptions used in the
analysis. The analysis found that a
significant funding gap could develop if the
nation's clean water and drinking water
systems maintain current spending and
operations practices. However, this
funding gap is not inevitable. For example,
the gap largely disappears if municipalities
increase clean water and drinking water
revenue and associated spending at a real
rate of 3 percent per year (above the rate of
inflation) - a growth rate that is consistent
with the long-term growth estimates of the
economy. Over the next few years, EPA
will be working with its stakeholder
partners in all levels of government and
needs
discussion of the great needs facing the drinking water
reports have been released that promote drinking water
Rhode Island.
Addressing Aging Systems in Rhode Island
The Providence water treatment plant supplies 60 percent of
Rhode Island residents—over 600,000 people—with safe and
reliable drinking water. In November 1999, an inspection of
their 90-inch concrete aqueduct revealed severe corrosion and
deterioration. The aqueduct, built in the 1920 s, was the
main water conduit from the water treatment plant to the
distribution system. Though an alternate line was built in
thel 960's, it did not provide true redundancy because there
was no shut-off mechanism to prevent water from passing
through the 90-inch aqueduct. If there was a failure in the
line, there would be no way to isolate the 90-inch aqueduct,
resulting in a complete loss of service to the entire water
system.
Providence secured a $5 million DWSPvF loan to install a
temporary 90-inch plug to take the aqueduct offline and
make the necessary improvements. With the temporary plug
in place, repairs to the aging concrete were completed, the
entire 4.5 miles of pipeline was inspected, and a new butterfly
valve and valve structure were installed. The new valve gives
the system the capability to isolate the aqueduct in the future.
This first phase was completed in May 2001, and repairs to
the remaining miles of pipe were scheduled for the following
winter.
-------
Chapter 12 - Future of the DWSRF
utilities to address the challenges presented by the gap and to identify the appropriate share and type of
local, state, and federal and private funding sources needed to meet future infrastructure needs.
In working through these issues, one of the primary considerations will be how to address issues of
affordability associated with those segments of the population with low incomes. Although the federal
government cannot be responsible for meeting the entire cost of providing safe water, it can share in
meeting the burden where new drinking water standards disproportionately impact small communities.
In the past two years, several Congressional bills were introduced that would develop new grant programs
to address small and disadvantaged systems. While the intent behind the bills - to target funding to the
neediest systems - may be appropriate, creating new grant programs may not be the best way to address
the problem. The DWSRF program provides an existing administrative infrastructure for financing
drinking water system improvements, operated by states, who best know and understand the systems
that require assistance. State DWSRF programs already have the ability to provide subsidies (i.e.,
principal forgiveness) to recipients and would likely increase use of the provision if additional funds were
made available through the program. Additionally, many state DWSRF programs have expressed
concerns that new grant programs would negatively impact the ability of state DWSRF programs to
make loans because systems will wait for grants rather than apply for loans, even if loans are an affordable
option.
> Ensuring sustainability
One of the most significant objectives of EPA's drinking water program is to see that all drinking water
systems are sustainable. As discussed earlier in the report, the diversity of water systems is considerable,
and many systems do not have the customer base or rate structure to be sustainable. The water industry
as a whole should work towards sustainability using several different tools including rate structuring,
more affordable technology, restructuring, privatization, and managerial or physical consolidation of
systems.
One practice that has taken hold within the utility sector is asset management. By developing a
comprehensive strategic plan and ensuring that sufficient funds are allocated over the life of an asset, a
water system can potentially improve the process for building, maintaining, and renewing infrastructure.
Over the next several years, new standards developed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board
will require that local governments revise their financial statement presentation in order to meet generally
accepted accounting principles for governmental financial statements. Modifications include showing
the depreciation of capital assets or a modified approach that would include an accounting of the value
and condition of infrastructure assets. This requirement should continue to move publicly-owned water
systems forward in managing their assets in a comprehensive and business-like fashion.
The DWSRF program can support many of the tools that can be used to enhance sustainability. An
assistance recipient must undergo an assessment of their technical, financial, and managerial capacity
before they can receive assistance. Most states will look at the rate structures of the system with an eye
towards ensuring that the loan will be able to be repaid. Other states take a closer look at the rates and
encourage systems to make changes that will ensure that they have adequate revenue in the future to
maintain their infrastructure and make other needed improvements. For some private systems subject to
Public Service Commission rate review, the DWSRF program has proven to be the avenue by which they
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
have justified rate increases to sustainable levels. States can take a closer look at the rate structures of the
systems to which they provide assistance to ensure that rates are adequate and affordable to those with
the greatest needs. The capacity review that states do on recipients also can touch on aspects related to
asset management. A state could require that a system develop or update a plan outlining how it intends
to manage its assets in order to show that it has adequate managerial capacity. States could also provide
incentives to systems for enacting and maintaining asset management practices by providing them bonus
priority points or additional subsidies if a system maintains proper asset management practices over the
term of the loan (e.g., reduce the interest rate by a set number of basis points at years 5, 10, and 15 as a
reward).
> Ensuring security of systems
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 focused public attention on security issues related to public
infrastructure. While water systems have always had to monitor their facilities to ensure that they are
safe from vandalism, most have not conducted detailed assessments of their vulnerability to terrorist
attack. State DWSRF programs can be used as a vehicle to ensure that systems have done sufficient
security planning. For example, in order to demonstrate technical capacity, states could require that a
system have a vulnerability assessment or current emergency operation plan in place as condition of
assistance. States can look to the DWSRF to provide assistance for conducting vulnerability assessments
and implementing infrastructure-related security measures. The DWSRF program can fund vulnerability
assessments through the Fund or set-asides related to capacity development and technical assistance. Set-
asides can also be used to help systems update emergency response plans. Remedial actions identified
through assessments are also largely eligible for assistance where the action is a project that would
otherwise be eligible under the Fund. For example, a system might identify that it needs to change its
treatment process to ensure enhanced protection or it might determine that it needs to enclose its
wellhead within a building to increase security.
> Addressing water quantity
Water supply is a critical consideration for
any local government leader since
diminished supply will directly impact
the economic health of the community.
Many areas in the nation are experiencing
pressures arising from population growth
and persistent drought conditions.
Because the DWSRF program was
developed to address public health and
compliance with the SDWA, water
quantity is not a priority for the program
and many water quantity projects are not
eligible for funding. Ensuring adequate
quantity is a state and local, not a federal,
responsibility. Congress explicitly
disallowed DWSRF funding to be used
for projects where the need was primarily
N
ew Jersey.
Improving System Capacity in New Jersey
The City of Cape May is a summer resort area located on the
southern tip of New Jersey. The aquifer that supplied the city
with drinking water was experiencing salt water intrusion and
had insufficient long-term capacity. The aquifer was used by
more communities than it could support, especially in the
summer time. Cape May wanted to drill deeper to ensure
adequate supply for its 12,880 residents. They installed an 840
foot deep well with a pump rate of 1,000 gallons per minute.
Due to the high salinity of the water, the construction of a 1
million gallon per day reverse osmosis desalination water
treatment plant was also required. The total project cost was
$ 1.6 million, of which $ 1.35 million was funded with a
DWSRF loan. The city also received funds from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Since operation of the new plant
began in October 1998, Cape May has had an adequate source
of safe drinking water and should well into the future.
-------
Chapter 12 - Future of the DWSRF
due to growth. While EPA cannot fund water quantity projects, it can address water quantity through
water conservation. Many states are exercising the provision in section 1455 of the SDWA that allows
states to require recipients of assistance to develop a water conservation plan as a condition of assistance.
All states should look towards incorporating such plans into their program requirements. The DWSRF
program can also fund many types of projects that would promote water conservation or reuse. Such
projects could include (but are not limited to) installation of water meters, development of water
conservation plans (through the set-asides), and installation of dual pipe distribution systems (potable
and non-potable) as a means to lower the cost of treating water to potable standards. However, because
the law specifically restricted use of funds to address growth as a primary purpose of a project, the intent
of the program does not include increasing water quantity for household use or any other purpose.
The CWSRF program can also be used to fund many other types of water reuse and conservation projects
that address the ability of wastewater treatment plants to properly meet the environmental goals of a
community efficiently and at a minimum cost. The types of projects that can be funded include
plumbing fixture retrofits and replacements (located in public buildings), use of efficient landscape
irrigation equipment, recycling gray water in public
buildings, and reusing wastewater.
> Coordinating the CWSRF and DWSRF
In implementing the Clean Water and Safe Drinking
Water Acts, federal, state and local governments often
encounter barriers and disconnects that can hinder effective
management of water programs. While EPA continues to
work to identify and promote connections between the two
Acts, the SRF programs provide an example of how
programs authorized under one Act can help support the
goals of the other Act. In EPA, the DWSRF and CWSRF
programs work closely together. In many states, the two
programs are implemented out of the same agency.
However, in other states, where the drinking water
program resides in a health-related department rather than
an environment department which typically oversees water
quality, state agencies are challenged to work together.
EPA has promoted use of the CWSRF program as a tool to
address many types of problems that can negatively impact
drinking water quality, such as methyl-t-butyl ether
(MTBE) contamination, poorly managed septic systems,
and ground water contamination by shallow underground
wells used for the injection of waste. EPA has also
promoted use of the CWSRF for the purchase of land and
conservation easements to help protect sources of drinking
water. Several states, including New York and New Jersey,
have provided significant amounts of loan assistance that
Minnesota.
Combined Drinking Water and
Wastewater Project in
Minnesota
The cities of New London and Spicer, as well
as the Green Lake recreational area, are
located in Kandiyohe County in central
Minnesota. In the late 1990 s, the area
experienced several related drinking water
and wastewater problems. Many households
on Green Lake were served by private wells
that were susceptible to contamination from
failing sewage systems. The drinking water
storage available in the two cities could not
keep pace with the growing need, and New
London had Coliform contamination. To
solve these varied problems, a proposal was
developed to combine systems into the
Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water
District. This combined wastewater and
drinking water project relied on a $6.5
million DWSRF loan in addition to funding
from other sources (such as the CWSRF, the
wastewater infrastructure fund, and County
State Aid Highways bonds) to finance the
$23 million project. The drinking water
project, begun in 1999 and completed in
mid-November 2001, consisted of con-
structing a new treatment plant, drilling four
new wells, installing three new water towers,
and putting in miles of water mains to serve
1,529 households.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
have helped to protect source water. Loans made from under the nonpoint source authority of the
CWSRF program can have a dual benefit. If a farmer takes out a loan to implement best management
practices that will reduce fertilization in order to reduce pollutant loadings to local water bodies, a
secondary benefit may be that ground water used as a source of drinking water will experience decreases
in nitrate, which can pose a serious risk to children. Both the water quality and drinking water programs
benefit from such cooperation.
T Challenges for Congressional Consideration
While many of the issues above could potentially involve Congressional actions, there are several
identifiable issues that have been raised by states that Congress could look to address in the short-term.
Some of these issues are related to DWSRF program implementation, some are tangential to the DWSRF
but important nonetheless for drinking water financing.
> Extending the authority to transfer between the SRFs
In the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congress authorized states to transfer up to 33 percent of their
DWSRF grant to the CWSRF program, or an equivalent amount from the CWSRF to the DWSRF
program. The Act included a sunset provision on September 30, 2001. Congress extended the provision
for one year through EPA's FFY 2002 appropriation, and an extension through FFY 2003 is proposed in
the President's Budget. States have indicated that they would like to see the provision extended
permanently. Several states have used the provision to their advantage to address high priority public
health needs. Others who would be interested in pursuing transfers have been reluctant due to the
presence of a sunset date. A lending SRF wants to be assured that it will be able to recapture the funds
in the future should circumstances require it.
>• Increasing funds for administration of the DWSRF program
Many states have expressed that an amount equal to four percent of the allotment is insufficient for
administering the program. This is especially the case where multiple agencies implement the program
and must share the funds, and, more importantly, in those states that issue bonds to increase the number
of projects they can fund. In some cases, the proceeds from bonds can create a four-fold increase in
available funds and the four percent can prove to be insufficient to meet the costs to oversee so many
projects. In the CWSRF program, states are confronted with a minimal amount of funds with which to
administer an ever-growing portfolio of loans as repayments begin to stream into the program. Many
states have elected to impose fees on borrowers, which has the effect of increasing costs for the borrower
or diminishing returns to the Funds. Because this is not a preferable solution, states should pursue an
appropriate solution that will provide them with sufficient funding to administer the program now and
into the future when capitalization ends.
> Providing relief from federal requirements
States have indicated that compliance with federal cross-cutters has hampered their ability to provide
assistance to small systems. Many small systems do not have the expertise to understand these
complicated requirements and other systems have determined that the costs of compliance exceed the
value of subsidies offered through the program. EPA will continue to work with other federal agencies
and internally to identify workable solutions in achieving compliance with these cross-cutting federal
requirements. However, flexibility to provide relief to some classes of borrowers (e.g., small and/or
disadvantaged applicants) could be useful.
-------
Chapter 12 - Future of the DWSRF
> Modifications to tax law
States have raised two issues related to tax law that they indicate negatively impact state DWSRF
programs that issue bonds. These issues also impact the CWSRF program and could also be an issue for
other environmental assistance programs. They relate to provisions of the Internal Revenue Code rather
than the SDWA. The first issue concerns arbitrage. Some states that have issued tax-exempt bonds in
connection with DWSRF and CWSRF programs use amounts as reserve accounts to secure repayment of
the bonds. If proceeds of tax-exempt bonds issued by state and local governments are invested in
securities that pay a higher yield than the yield on the bonds, the profit made on the invested bond
proceeds generally must be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. Without this rule, state and local governments
could issue tax-exempt bonds solely for the purpose of gaining arbitrage profits at the expense of greater
revenue losses to the federal government and ultimately higher interest rates on bonds whose proceeds
actually are used for the acquisition or construction of public property. States have urged that amounts
used as reserves to secure bonds for DWSRF and CWSRF projects be exempted from the arbitrage rebate
rules so that any interest earnings could be used for additional investment in water and wastewater
infrastructure projects. The Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities, which represents many
state SRF financing agencies, has estimated that, if arbitrage restrictions were lifted, SRFs could earn an
additional $100 to $200 million annually on their funds. If these earnings were used as reserves to
secure additional bonds they would provide an additional $200 to $400 million annual investment in
water and wastewater infrastructure projects. Treasury officials suggest that greater programmatic
benefits would be achieved if instead states used a small portion of those bond proceeds for other forms of
credit enhancement, such as bond insurance, and used the bulk of the proceeds for additional loans to
finance needed infrastructure.
A second issue raised by state programs concerns private-activity bonds. Unlike the wastewater treatment
universe, the drinking water system universe includes a significant number of privately-owned systems.
Any tax-exempt bonds issued by a state DWSRF program under arrangements whereby the proceeds are
used by privately-owned systems generally must receive an allocation of issuance authority under a state's
private activity bond volume cap. States allocate their volume caps based on the priority they attach to
competing allowable uses of private activity bonds, all of which should serve some public purpose. States
and other stakeholders have suggested tax law modifications that would allow bonds for water
infrastructure projects funded through SRF programs to be issued without regard to the cap because the
activities serve a public benefit. However, if use of tax-exempt bond proceeds by private companies can
make critical progress toward DWSRF program goals, proponents of the financing should be able to
make persuasive claims on a state volume cap.
> State set-asides
The flexibility afforded to states to use a portion of their grants to support other drinking water programs
has proven to be an effective tool in drinking water protection. However, slight modifications to the set-
asides could help them to be even more effective. First, many states have not been able to use the state
program management set-aside because they cannot provide the dollar for dollar match required by the
law, which is above and beyond the 20 percent matching requirement on the entire grant. This set-aside
category includes important state activities that support drinking water rule implementation, source
water protection, and capacity development. The match was added to discourage states from back-
sliding. However, requiring the match has not stopped states from cutting their programs in light of
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
budget constraints. Secondly, now that states are fully implementing source water protections programs,
it may be appropriate to reevaluate the set-aside activities that address source water protection programs
addressed under section 1453 of the Act.
T Principles for Future Actions
As we move into the future to address the challenges
that have been identified in this chapter, there are
certain principles that should be followed to ensure that
any actions taken have the greatest benefit. The core
objective of any actions taken should be to promote
sustainable systems which will be better able to protect
public health. By ensuring the technical, financial, and
managerial capacity of water systems; encouraging
service providers to adopt holistic strategies to manage
water on a sustainable basis; creating incentives for
service providers to adopt best management practices
(e.g., consolidation, privatization, restructuring,
improved rate structures, source water protection); and
promoting innovative management techniques (e.g.,
asset management, environmental management systems)
to improve efficiency, utilities can reduce the cost of
service, avoid future funding gaps, and help protect
public health.
The principles which should be kept in mind as
solutions are pursued include:
• Providing Assistance through Enhanced SRFs. For
the present, the SRFs should be considered as the
centerpiece of any new funding that may be pro-
vided; program modifications should be made where
needed to increase flexible financial mechanisms.
Leveraging Existing Programs and the Private Sector.
The integrated use of all state and federal sources for
infrastructure financing and fostering public-private
partnerships and greater participation of private
capital should be encouraged.
Promoting Innovations and Efficiencies. There are
significant opportunities for developing affordable
and innovative technologies to help reduce the costs
of treatment for new and existing rules and extend
the life of infrastructure. By creating incentives to
Florida
Responding to
Customer Needs in Florida
The central part of Florida's Jefferson County is a
rural, economically depressed area with a median
household income of $21,782 and widespread
ground water problems. Most residents have
private wells which lack the depth and casing to
prevent contamination from nearby septic tanks.
There is also concern about surface runoff
contamination, leaking underground gasoline
tanks, and a leak at an area chemical plant that
has contaminated one community's aquifer.
Over 400 samples of private wells in the area
have tested positive for Coliform bacteria. In
1997, the only drinking water system in the area
was the Lloyd Water Works Authority (LWWA).
In order to complete a necessary expansion,
LWWA asked the Department of Environmental
Protection for financial assistance. During the
early planning stages of the expansion, the
system conducted public meetings and
discovered that people on the whole were
unhappy with the quality of their water.
Community-sponsored efforts spread through
Central Jefferson County and led to the
organization and chartering of the Jefferson
Communities Water System (JEFCOM), a non-
profit cooperative. In August 1998, JEFCOM
received a $ 158,000 DWSRF preconstruction
grant to plan and design the new, multi-
community system that will consolidate over 30
small, unreliable systems. Once the planning
and design was completed, JEFCOM received an
annual $750,000 DWSRF loan for 3 years
($2.25 million in total). In addition, JEFCOM
received a grant/loan combination from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for $2.75 million.
With this assistance, the water bill for the average
customer will be kept in the affordable range
between $20 and $25 per month. Even before
construction, the new system had 909 of the
1,000 potential connections signed up for
service. JEFCOM will consist of three wells, two
storage tanks, and over 80 miles of distribution
lines.
-------
Chapter 12 - Future of the DWSRF
support research, development, and use of innovative technologies, systems can move towards im-
proved services at lower life-cycle costs.
• Encouraging Cost-Based Rates. Appropriate rate structures that are sufficient to cover costs should be
encouraged, while taking care to ensure that water services are affordable for low-income families.
• Encouraging Comprehensive Strategic Planning. Effective planning at all levels should be promoted,
including effective regional planning to maximize use of existing infrastructure to address growing and
shifting populations, and utility planning to address current and future regulatory requirements,
infrastructure needs, security needs, and source water protection.
• Building State Capacity. States must have adequate resources to manage public health and water
quality programs, assist communities, and fully utilize flexibility available under existing grants and
regulations.
The flexibility provided for in the DWSRF program makes it a useful tool in addressing the challenges
ahead. Each of the principles discussed above are currently addressed through the DWSRF program or
could be in the future. In considering the question of whether Congress should continue to authorize
the DWSRF, the answer would appear to be in the affirmative. The program has proven to be a success
in helping states implement their drinking water programs and has provided assistance to public water
systems within the states for infrastructure improvements needed to protect public health.
-------
DWSRF Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
-------
State DWSRF Program Summaries
-------
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• State Goals In establishing the DWSRF program, Congress gave each state the flexibility to design a
program tailored to meet the needs of its water systems. Each state is required to include
short- and long-term goals for its DWSRF program within its Intended Use Plan (IUP).
These goals provide a framework to guide decision making within the state programs.
Key goals for each state programwere taken from the ILJPs.
Structure of Loan Program
• Type of Program Direct loan programs are programs with loans made from federal funds, repayments, and
other earnings from the Fund. Leveraged programs are programs with loans made from
the proceeds of bonds issued by the program to increase the amount of funds available
for funding projects.
Interest Rates
Each state must describe in its IUP how the interest rates for its program are determined.
The weighted average of the interest rate charged on DWSRF assistance provided was
taken from DWNIMS.
Information on the features of the state's disadvantaged assistance program was taken
Assistance Program from DWNIMS.
• Priority System The SDWA Amendments require that, to the maximum extent practicable, states give
priority to projects that (1) address the most serious risks to public health, (2) are
necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the SDWA, and (3) assist
systems most in need on a per household basis. Although each state must address these
three objectives, many states have developed additional categories, which reflect each of
the required objectives. The summary of categories for each state was taken from
Prioritizing Drinking Water Needs: A compilation of State priority systems for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund Program (EPA 816-R-99-001).
Project Needs and Demand
• Infrastructure Needs The reported needs were obtained from the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey:
Second Report to Congress (EPA 816-R-01-004), Exhibit B-l and Exhibit C-l.
Demand
The reported demand was taken from the comprehensive list of projects included in the
most recent IUP for the state as of July 2001.
Funding for Projects
• First Grant Award The first grant award information was taken from the capitalization grant agreements.
States have the option of applying for the full grant award or for project and set-aside
funds separately.
• Loans Executed Information on the types of systems that received loans was taken from DWNIMS. If a
state has not funded a privately-owned system, this does not necessarily mean that it has
restrictions on funding privates. It could be that the state has yet to provide assistance to
a privately-owned system.
-------
Program at a Glance
With the exception of the allotment percent and funds appropriated, all data in the table came from E
for the period ending June 30, 2001.
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) Percentage of appropriated funds available to states. The FY97 formula is based on
PWSS grants and the FY98-FY01 formula is based on Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey: First Report to Congress (EPA 812-R-97-001).
Funds Appropriated (FY97-01) Total amount of funds a state is eligible to receive from each fiscal year's
appropriation based on an allotment formula.
Grants Received Total amount of federal grants awarded to the state. States have two years in which
to receive a grant award from a specific appropriation.
State Contributions Amount deposited into Fund to meet 20% match requirement. Includes additional
state match funds to meet future 20% match requirements and excess match
contributions.
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds Gross bond proceeds less costs incidental to bond issuance.
Total Funds Available Total funds made available for assistance including funds obligated through
executed loan agreements and unobligated funds.
Total Loans Executed (#, $) Number and dollar amount of total loan agreements executed.
Loans to Small Systems (#, $) Number and percentage of loans to small systems serving 10,000 people or fewer.
Projects Completed (#, %) Number and percentage of projects completed. Completion is the date when the
project is complete for the purposes for which it was undertaken and operations are
capable of being initiated.
Structure of Set-aside Program
• Information on set-aside activities conducted by the state was taken from the most recent Annual/
Biennial Report submitted by the state. Specific activities under the 4% administration and technical
assistance set-aside were not included because, with the exception of 4 states, all states are using the
funds solely to administer their DWSRF programs.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• This category includes activities conducted by the state to provide technical assistance to small systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people.
State Program Management (SPM)
• This category includes activities conducted by the state to: administer the state PWSS program; provide
technical assistance through source water protection programs; and develop and implement a capacity
development strategy or an operator certification program.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• This category includes activities conducted by the state to: delineate and assess source water protection
areas; provide loans to systems to acquire land or conservation easements; provide loans to systems to
assist in voluntary, incentive-based source water protection measures; make expenditures to establish and
implement wellhead protection programs; and provide assistance to systems as part of a capacity
development strategy.
Set-asides Chart
• All data in the chart came from DWNIMS for the period ending June 30, 2001. Set-aside amounts
reserved are those dollar amounts included in state workplans. Set-aside amounts expended are those
dollar amounts in workplans that have been expended on activities. Most of the workplans have a three
year term. Because funds are expended in accordance with a workplan, EPA believes that it is reasonable
to expect that roughly one-half to one-third of the funds will be unspent in any given year.
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Management
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Protect public health and the environment and promote the completion of cost-effective water treatment,
storage, and distribution facilities.
• Assist systems in ensuring affordable water supplies.
Program at a Glance (through June 30,
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
1.00%, 1.19%
$48.4 million
$48.4 million
$9.1 million
$47.6 million
$116.3 million
52, $89 million
33, $29.2 million
32, 62%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also issues
bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.
• Interest rates are based on the prevailing interest rate for AAA
rated tax exempt municipal bonds less approximately 2%.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have been
about 3-8% over the last three years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: the nature
of benefit in terms of risks to human health and compliance,
the number of people benefitted per dollar, affordability, and
consolidation.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.1 billion, $674 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $34 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in August 1998.
• The first loan was executed in December 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 52 loans,
ranging from $115,000 to $12.7 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 63% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 52% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The water source for the City of Leeds was reclassified by the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), requiring installation of advanced treatment to ensure drinking water that meets all
current standards. The city received a $525,000 loan to install a package type facility as the most cost-
effective solution.
• The Limestone County Water System received a $4.9 million loan to install ultrafiltration treatment to
comply with water quality standards and to remove Cryptosporidium and Giardia Lambia. Completion of the
project allows the system to utilize its existing water supply source while providing capability to meet future
system needs.
• Harvest-Monrovia received a $10 million loan for a project that consists of a 10-MGD water treatment plant
for two existing water wells, two storage tanks, and an emergency interconnection with another water system.
Both water wells have failed to meet water quality standards and ADEM has directed the system to abandon
or provide additional treatment for these water supply sources. Together these wells provide 92% of the
water system supply.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on helping small systems and
promoting wellhead protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide technical assistance to small
systems through a contract with the
Alabama Rural Water Association
(ARWA). On-site technical assistance
visits were conducted, training sessions
were held and attended by more than
300 Water Board members, and the
viability of water systems was assessed
throughout the state.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $6.69 million (13.8%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$2.47 million (37%)
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to create a capacity development
program to evaluate the viability of
designated public water systems.
• Funds were also used to support Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V well activities in the vicinity
of drinking water sources. This program, which has been in existence since 1983, has seen new applications
more than double in the last two years. Two new geologists will be hired to implement the program.
• Funds will be used to support an Optimization Program that is used to evaluate the ability of surface source
systems to meet new Enhanced Surface Water Treatment regulations.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water
and wellhead protection program.
• Funding from the state was offered for programs involving source delineation and contaminant inventory.
These programs will service approximately 40 ground water and 25 surface water systems a year.
• The state entered into a contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority to conduct source water assessments for
numerous water systems in northern Alabama.
• The state also used funds to support its wellhead protection program.
i
Alabama
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Conservation
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Protect public health, minimize the potential for drinking water contamination, and promote projects and
activities that use best management practices and affordable technology.
• Support the state's goal of ensuring that all water systems provide water that is safe to drink.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a percentage of the current bond
rate, as defined by the Mutual Bond Index, and the
repayment period. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 2.5% to 4.2% over the last three
years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
principal forgiveness.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: public
health, compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act,
affordability, and additional considerations for projects that
implement measures such as adopting a debt retirement
plan, preparing construction plans, or regionalizing or
consolidating.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.15%, 1.00%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$57.2 million
Grants Received
$49.4 million
State Contributions
$9.9 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$61.6 million
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
34, $55 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
22, $22.6 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
11, 32%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $539 million, $457 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $49-6 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in November 1997- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 34 loans,
ranging from $300,000 to $8.3 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 65% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 41% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Sitka completed a corrosion control facility for its drinking water system with two loans totaling
$721,000 from the DWSRF. By making adjustments to pH and alkalinity, the facility will bring copper and
lead levels in the treated water down to safe levels.
• A $4.8 million project jointly funded by a $2.5 million DWSRF loan (including $1.1 million in principal
forgiveness) and two state grants enabled the City of Cordova to satisfy a compliance agreement with the
State of Alaska that required the city to make improvements to its treatment facility to ensure compliance
with the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $5.07 million (10.3%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.25 million (44.4%)
2.74
1.1
Admin
SSTA
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-asides
on promoting source water protection
and providing technical assistance to
small systems.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used this set-aside to educate
and train water system operators. As part
of this effort, the state developed
intermediate level water system workshop
materials and held certification seminars
for highly skilled and specialized
personnel.
• The state held training workshops for
small system stakeholders on newly
revised operator certification regulations
in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau.
• The state completed four workshops
targeting Level 1 small system operators
and completed two training seminars for
small system technical assistance providers.
• The state also developed training materials for very small water systems. Workshops will be presented around
the state in fiscal years 2002 and 2003-
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state did not reserve any funds from this set-aside.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to complete source water assessments of public water systems and
implement a statewide wellhead protection program.
• The state has begun to delineate and assess source water protection areas throughout the state. In addition,
funds are being used to aid water system owners in the development of local wellhead protection plans,
which include an identification of potential sources of contamination and the development of contingency
plans.
• The state used funds to hire staff (hydrogeologist and program coordinator) and purchase equipment
necessary to complete source water assessments of the state's approximately 1,700 federally regulated public
water systems that use approximately 1,800 sources to supply drinking water to their customers.
• The state also used funds to hire four engineering consultant firms, through the use of task orders, to assist
the state in completing source water assessments of most of the state's Class "B" public water systems
(transient non-community water systems).
• The state developed educational material (fact sheets, guidance manuals, Q & As) and provided outreach to
the public using a variety of methods (operator training workshops, presentations at conferences, articles in
newsletters, and publications).
-------
Lead Agency:
Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Environmental Quality
J
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Facilitate access to and efficiently deliver financial and technical assistance.
• Coordinate with other funding sources, technical resources, and regulatory authorities.
• Assume a leadership role in water infrastructure finance.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state initiates all loans as direct loans. As cash
decreases, the state issues bonds to increase the amount
available for funding projects.
• Interest rates are based on the priority of the project and
the local fiscal capacity. Weighted average interest rates for
the program have ranged from 2.6% to 3-0% over the last
three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program which
offers 30 year loan terms, reduced interest rates to below
0%, and reduced security requirements. The Board has an
option to provide principal forgiveness.
• The state's priority system considers five categories:
condition of facilities and sources, project benefits, local
fiscal capacity, prior funding, and consolidation and
regionalization.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.35%, 1.02%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$47.6 million
Grants Received
$47.6 million
State Contributions
$9.5 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
$5.3 million
Total Funds Available
$57.2 million
Total Loans Executed (#,!
54, $102.3 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
46, $31.6 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
28, 52%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.6 billion, $586 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $170 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in January 1998.
• The first loan was executed in June 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 54 loans, ranging
from $2,968 to $38 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 85% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 76% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Bella Vista Water Company received a $2.1 million loan to upgrade three small systems in its service area by
providing interconnections and adding a new water source to a system that currently relies on a single
source. This private water company operates four different water companies to serve the City of Sierra Vista
(with a population of 40,000) and Ft. Huachuca, a military installation (with a population of about
20,000). Systems will be extended and looped to provide service to customers in certified areas where
private wells are going dry.
• Francesca Water Company (FWC) received a $97,000 loan for new storage, booster pumps and other basic
improvements. FWC had virtually no water storage capacity. Additionally, two separate water systems were
combined to serve 88 connections (86 residential and 2 commercial).
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.99 million (16.8%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.98 million (49.8%)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, providing technical
assistance to small systems, and
promoting wellhead protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-
aside to provide three types of
technical assistance: project, policy,
and operational. More than 30
systems have received assistance
through the program.
• Project technical assistance included
assisting individual water systems to
conceive, plan, design, and develop
infrastructure.
• Policy technical assistance included
developing and distributing guidance
for the benefit of water systems
throughout the state.
• Operational technical assistance included assisting individual water systems to improve day-to-day
operations.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to add staff to develop and manage its capacity development and
operator certification programs. The state developed a capacity development strategy, developed policies
and procedures for implementing capacity requirements, and made necessary changes to the state's operator
certification rules.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state reserved funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source
water and wellhead protection program.
• The final source water assessment and protection program outlined steps to accomplish the assessment of
the state's source waters and included a schedule and priorities for delineations and assessments. Using this
data, the state will tailor individual monitoring schedules for systems based on actual conditions.
• The state also provided technical assistance in the planning and implementation of local wellhead and
ground water quality protection plans to 26 communities throughout the state.
• The state has integrated a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements or to
implement measures to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination with its infrastructure
funding loan program.
Ari
izona
-------
Arkansas
Lead Agency:
Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Health
Development Finance Authority
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Provide all Arkansans with safe, adequate, and affordable drinking water.
• Ensure that all public water systems achieve and maintain compliance with federal and state drinking water
standards, laws, rules, and regulations.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on Arkansas' financial assistance
objectives, an analysis of communities' ability to pay back
loans, and the state's tax exempt bond rate. Weighted average
interest rates for the program have been about 3-5% over the
last two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers 30
year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: primary
MCL violations, source vulnerability, consolidation and
interconnection, affordability, and other deficiencies.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $1.5 billion, $855 million of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $89 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in January 2000. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 3 loans,
ranging from $2.5 million to $4 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 67% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 100% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The DWSRF program closed its first loan with the City of Mulberry for $2.5 million to aid in the comple-
tion of the city's new water treatment plant.
• The City of Leachville received a $850,000 loan to construct a 350,000 gallon elevated water storage tank
and upgrade the existing 100,000 gallon storage tank. As a disadvantaged community, Leachville qualified
for a 30 year loan term.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1 .00%, 1 .42%
$55.4 million
$44.3 million
$9 million
NA
$41 .6 million
3, $10. 5 million
2, $6.5 million
1 , 33%
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on wellhead protection,
promoting source water protection, and
developing system capacity.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to enter into two contracts. The first,
awarded to the Arkansas Rural Water
Association, is focused on providing
technical and operational assistance to
small systems. The second, awarded to
the Community Resource Group, is
focused on assistance in the areas of
financial and managerial capacity.
More than 30 water systems have been
contacted for on-site capacity evalua-
tions, which have led to the develop-
ment of corrective plans of action.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $12.42 million (28%)
Set-
t-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.21 million (25
9
8
7
6
5
4
31
2
1
0
6.65
1.77
0.64 0.67
D.03
3.33
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program,
focusing on increasing consumer confidence report compliance rates. As a result of this effort, the state has
already seen a significant improvement in compliance.
• Funds were used to develop a capacity development strategy addressing existing systems. Two stakeholders
meetings were held to gather public input into this process.
• Funds were also used to revise the state's operator licensing law and operator licensing examination format.
These changes are expected to bring the state's licensing laws into full compliance with EPA's operator
certification requirements.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a source
water and wellhead protection program.
• The state entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct source
water delineations. More than 1,400 source water delineations have been completed.
• The state also hired a hydrologist and purchased new Global Positioning System (GPS) devices, computers,
and software to upgrade the wellhead protection program's technology.
Arkansas
-------
California
Lead Agency:
Department of Health Services
Cooperating Agency:
State Water Resources Control Board
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Assist public water systems throughout the state in addressing public health risks and in complying with the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Focus on projects which assist water systems considered most in need in terms of per household affordability
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are calculated as 50% of the average interest
rate paid by the state on general obligation bonds issued in
the prior calendar year. Weighted average interest rates for
the program have ranged from 1.5% to 2.3% over the last
two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30
year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers six categories: public
health risk, affordability, consolidation of systems, service
population, type of system, and size of system.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $17-4 billion, $3 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $7-7 billion in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in February 2000. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 21 loans,
ranging from $915,000 to $2.1 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 48% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 100% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The El Dorado Irrigation District has received a total of 4 loans, ranging from $915,293 to $1.7 million, to
line and cover 4 reservoirs with rigid covers and to construct related bypasses. These projects, benefitting
more than 85,000 people, will ensure that the district complies with the new Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule which requires that storage reservoirs for treated drinking water be covered.
• The Solano Irrigation District received a $2.1 million loan to construct a central water treatment plant for
the Gibson Canyon Improvement District, which serves a population of 450.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
6.03%, 10.83%
$401 .9 million
$31 7.6 million
$63.5 million
NA
$350.6 million
21, $98. 5 million
10, $12 million
8, 38%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $30.76 million (9.7%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $9.27 million (30.1 %)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting drinking water
program management, helping small
water systems, and developing source
water protection and capacity
development programs.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state provided outreach and
support for small systems through a
series of contracts, including one with
the California Rural Water Association
(CRWA) aimed at assisting small
systems that want to apply for DWSRF
funds.
• Small systems have benefitted from the
development of a Capacity Develop-
ment Work Team, which consists of
staff from the Department of Health
Services and its local primacy agencies.
The Team's primary focus is ongoing implementation of the state's capacity development strategy, as well as
the evaluation and prioritization of technical assistance needs addressing capacity development and general
compliance for water systems.
• The state intends to develop a small water system technical assistance staff manual that will include
procedures for providing technical assistance, descriptions of available third party assistance, and guidance
document handouts.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to complete its capacity development strategy, establish policies and
procedures for implementing capacity requirements, and continue the development of a capacity develop-
ment database to track the results of the strategy and its implementation.
• The state also entered into a contract with the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to assess,
develop, and present training programs to small water systems.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• Through its source water assessment program, the state entered into contracts with 33 local primacy agencies
to provide complete drinking water source assessments for all active public drinking water sources. More
than 120 assessments have been completed.
• The state also contracted with the University of California - Davis to develop geographic information system
(GIS) applications and decision support system tools in order to assist in identifying different source water
threats.
• The state developed a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements and implement
measures to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination. The types of projects eligible for
funding include: hazardous waste collection programs, education on best management practices, closure of
abandoned wells, and fencing out cattle from intakes, tributaries, or reservoir boundaries.
California
-------
Colorado.
Lead Agency:
Water Resources and Power Development
Authority
Cooperating Agencies:
Department of Public Health and Environment
Department of Local Affairs
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 200
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.34%, 1.35%
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Maintain the economic viability of the DWSRF while meeting current and projected drinking water system
needs in the state.
• Provide loans and technical and financial assistance to governmental agencies to facilitate effective planning,
design, financing, and construction or improvement of facilities to comply with the provisions of the
Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a program that provides leveraged loans for
projects over $1 million and direct loans for projects of $1
million or less. The state issues bonds to supplement the
grant funds for a leveraged loan program.
• Interest rates are set by the state so as to represent a discount
on the state's market interest rates. Weighted average interest
rates for the program have ranged from 3-8% to 4.5% over
the last three years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: acute
health hazards, chronic health hazards, potential acute health
hazards, potential chronic health hazards, and other future
needs.
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$57.3 million
Grants Received
$57.3 million
State Contributions
$11.6 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
$86 million
Total Funds Available
$161.5 million
Total Loans Executed (#,:
26, $137 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
15, $169 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
12, 46%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $2.5 billion, $809 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $643 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in October 1997- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 26 loans,
ranging from $188,700 to $15-4 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 58% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 80% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Julesburg received a $994,600 loan for the construction of a reverse osmosis treatment facility to
remedy compliance issues with nitrates. The small town also received assistance from a state grant program
and the Rural Development program.
• The Fountain Valley Water Authority received a $7-6 million loan to conduct an emergency replacement of
transmission lines that were damaged during flooding.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems, and
promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to conduct training programs for
managers and operators of small
systems through contracts with the
Colorado Rural Water Association, the
American Water Works Association, and
the University of Colorado School of
Continuing Education.
• Multi-day training sessions were
conducted and attended by more than
300 students.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $9.36 million (16.3%)
Set-
t-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.55 million (16
5.61
1.87
0.86
1.01
0.49
Admin
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state intends to use a portion of
the funds to hire 6.5 full-time employees to assist in the implementation of its Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) program. The new staff will be involved in drafting regulations and in writing imple-
mentation manuals.
• Funds will be used to support new regulatory initiatives such as increasing the scope and frequency of
sanitary surveys, capacity development reviews, and investigation and response to incidents of non-compli-
ance.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its capacity development program through the continued
implementation of system capacity reviews and an on-site sanitary survey effort. Three new system capacity
reviews were conducted.
• The state hired a project manager for the source water assessment and protection (SWAP) program and
developed new data-management tools and a SWAP web-site which includes information on the wellhead
protection program.
• The state intends to conduct source water delineations for ground water systems under its wellhead
protection program.
• More than 200 system site visits have been made under a state non-community drinking water system
sanitary survey initiative using local health departments as part of the state's capacity development program.
This effort will eventually involve annual sanitary surveys of approximately 800 noncommunity ground water
systems.
Colorado
co,or
-------
Connecticut
Lead Agency:
Department of Public Health
Cooperating Agencies:
Department of Environmental Protection
Office of the Treasurer
Department of Public Utility Control
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Implement new statewide health initiatives in an effective and consistent manner.
• Meet the diverse needs of Connecticut's drinking water providers through the program's lending policies.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
1 .70%, 1 .00%
$51 .5 million
$43.8 million
$8. 8 million
$13. 3 million
$52.6 million
15, $31 .3 million
9, $7.4 million
5, 33%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also issues
bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.
• Interest rates are based on the state's bond rate, with adjust-
ments made to address the tax exemption status and financial
condition of the applicant. Weighted average interest rates for
the program have been about 2.7% for the last three years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance pro-
gram.
• The state's priority system considers six categories: water
quality, water quantity, consolidation and interconnection,
proactive infrastructure upgrades, proactive measures covering
supply sources and distribution systems, and affordability.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $986 million, $261 million of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan indentified a demand for more than $159 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in January 1998 (set-asides) and July 1998 (projects).
• The first loan was executed in May 1999- Through June 30, 2001 the state had executed 15 loans, ranging
from $210,000 to $12.7 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 60% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 78% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Portland received a $2.5 million loan to interconnect with the regional Metropolitan District
Commission of Hartford water system. Portland had been under a consent agreement with the state for
failure to comply with the Surface Water Treatment Rule because it was using an unfiltered surface water
source.
• Cook Willow Realty received a $705,332 loan to interconnect to Connecticut Water Company by using
ductile iron pipe. This plan will correct the Department's finding regarding the exceedence of the Lead and
Copper Rule. It would also eliminate the cost of installing a corrosion control chemical feed system.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-asides
on supporting its drinking water pro-
gram, helping small systems, and pro-
moting wellhead protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state provided outreach and support
for small systems through a series of
contracts. The state estimates that more
than 580 systems have received assistance
through the programs financed by this
set-aside.
• Small systems have benefitted from the
development of a toll-free assistance
service line, newsletters, and technical
workshops. Funds were also used to
provide scholarships to small system
operators to help them obtain certifica-
tion.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$13.56 million (31%)
$3.73 million (27.5%)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
• Funds are supporting a Small Town
Public Water System Advisory Council which addresses the special informational and training needs of the
owners/operators of small systems. Another contract developed a specialized introductory workshop on
waterborne disease and water quality with an emphasis on small public water systems using ground water.
• Small systems are also receiving specialized circuit rider assistance from the Atlantic States Rural Water and
Wastewater Association.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used all of the funds from this set-aside to add staff within its Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) program. Three positions are assigned to various planning activities to assist in regional long-term
water supply planning. Four positions are assigned to regional engineering units that assist in drinking water
quality and engineering compliance activities.
• Other positions support the state's non-community water system and laboratory certification programs and
other aspects of the drinking water program.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds to conduct source water assessments and implement a wellhead protection program.
• The Department of Public Health (DPH) is working with the Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) to develop a source water assessment program and implement a wellhead protection program. DPH is
funding DEP staff to help to identify issues in the wellhead protection arena.
• The state also used funds to strengthen ongoing activities within its drinking water program through the
capacity development program. This includes enforcement, engineering, and planning activities.
-------
Delaware
Lead Agency:
Department of Health and Social Services
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Support the departmental goal that all Delaware communities will have water that is safe to drink all of the
time.
• Protect public health and promote the completion of cost-effective projects.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
1 .00%, 1 .00%
$42. 7 million
$27.1 million
$2.5 million
NA
$22.2 million
8, $7.4 million
8, $7.4 million
1, 12.5%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on 62.5% of the municipal bond yield
or corporate bond yield 10 days prior to closing. Weighted
average interest rates for the program have ranged from 3-0%
to 3-8% over the last two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers six categories: quality
deficiencies (i.e., violations of national public water standards),
quantity deficiencies, treatment/design deficiencies, financial
need, compliance with current and future regulations, and
regionalization.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $302 million, $119 million of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $20 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in June 2000. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 8 loans, ranging
from $34,321 to $3-2 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 100% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 100% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Frankford Water Department, serving a population of 600, received a $820,000 loan which
allowed the town to build a new treatment and storage facility, renovate existing storage, and upgrade water
mains.
• Two loans to Artesian Water Company will provide new community water systems to Fenwick Island and
South Bethany Beach where residents utilize existing private wells which are highly susceptible to storm
water damage and salt water intrusion and have high nitrate and iron levels.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.6 million (28%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$2.95 million (38.8%)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on creating a capacity develop-
ment program, helping small systems,
and promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state entered into contracts with
two technical assistance providers, the
Delaware Rural Water Association and
the Delaware Technical and Commu-
nity College. In the last two years,
these two providers have assisted over
127 public water systems and operators
throughout the state.
• The program developed by the
Delaware Rural Water Association
provided "hands-on" technical
assistance to systems throughout the
state. The Association has also provided
financial assistance training which is
required for all municipal DWSRF applicants. A total of 35 people representing 15 municipal systems have
attended the training.
• Delaware Technical and Community College created a full curriculum of technical training courses for
drinking water system operators. They also offered exams for drinking water operator licensure. This
program provides operators with everything they need to obtain certification and acquire endorsements for
licensure in Delaware.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside for source water protection program administration and to support
its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), capacity development, and operator certification programs.
• The state used a portion of this set-aside to locate and inventory shallow (Class V) underground injection
wells which can negatively impact underground sources of drinking water.
• Funds were used to purchase lab equipment for the PWSS program. Funds were also used to create a
quarterly newsletter, which keeps water systems and interested stakeholders throughout the state informed of
new regulations, requirements, and other beneficial information.
• The state created an Advisory Council to oversee its operator certification program. This Council meets
monthly to review and approve drinking water operator applications.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside for source water delineations and assessments and for the creation of
a land acquisition program aimed at source water protection.
• The state staffed and equipped a team of four to lead its Source Water Assessment and Protection program
and created a Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee to assist them.
elaware
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Protection
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Use the DWSRF set-aside funds strategically and in coordination with the program loans to maximize the
DWSRF's impact on achieving affordable compliance and public health protection.
• Encourage the consolidation and/or regionalization of public water systems that lack the capability to operate
and maintain systems in a cost-effective manner.
• Promote the development of the technical, managerial, and financial capability of all public water systems.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• The interest rate is set at 60% of the weekly average yield
reported in The Bond Buyer 20-Year GO Index for the
preceding quarter. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 3-0% to 3-4% over the last three
years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
30 year loan terms and principal forgiveness.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: public
health risks, compliance issues, affordability, population
size, and consolidation of systems.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $3-6 billion, $1.2 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $35 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 44 loans,
ranging from $35,700 to $20.3 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 77% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 76% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Steinhatchee Water Association, a disadvantaged community, received a loan and a subsidy totaling $2.1
million to build two wells, two pumps, a transmission line, a chemical additive facility, a 350,000 gallon
storage tank, and a backwash holding tank. These improvements will bring the system into full regulatory
compliance and help to protect public health.
• A private water system in Madison, a disadvantaged community, received a $92,000 subsidized loan to
consolidate service lines with the City of Madison in order to comply with state and federal regulations
concerning disinfection.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
3.59%, 2.90%
$132. 5 million
$132. 5 million
$28 million
NA
$147.2 million
44, $143.9 million
34, $35.3 million
5, 11.4%
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, assisting small systems, and
promoting wellhead protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state provided on-site support for
small systems through contracts with
the Florida Rural Water Association
(FRWA) and the Florida Association for
Community Action (FACA). Those
systems not in compliance are tracked.
• Small systems received assistance with
loan process planning, operator
training, capacity assessment, and
source water assessments from six FACA
circuit riders. Small systems also
received specialized technical assistance
from FRWA circuit riders.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $16.27 million (12.3%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$7.19 million (44.2%)
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds to implement capacity development measures with the aim of increasing state-wide
compliance from 94% to 98% by 2005- These measures include the tracking of troubled systems and the
development of improvement strategies for water systems in need.
• The state used funds to develop its consumer confidence report program and to support its Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) program.
• The state also used funds to implement its source water protection program by developing an effective
strategy to prevent contamination of drinking water supplies.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a source
water and wellhead protection program. As part of this effort, several full and part-time geologists were hired
to provide delineation and assessment services.
• A circuit rider was provided under the contract with the FRWA to assist small systems in establishing
wellhead protection areas to meet source water requirements.
• The state intends to enter into a contract to locate and catalog all public drinking water system intakes in the
state.
"Borida
,
-------
Lead Agency:
Environmental Facilities Authority
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Natural Resources
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Support the continuation of prevention programs to ensure future compliance with drinking water
standards.
Program at a Glance (through June 30,
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.05%, 2.14%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$90.3 million
Grants Received
$57 million
State Contributions
$8.2 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$52.4 million
Total Loans Executed (#,!
28, $37 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
22, $16.9 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
10, 37%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state's market
interest rates arrived at annually by the GEFA Board of
Directors. Weighted annual average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 1.5% to 1.7% over the last three
years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: the
protection of public health through compliance assurance,
environmental criteria, affordability, and financial manage-
ment/need.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2.4 billion, $1 billion of which was
for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $327 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in March 1997-
• The first loan was executed in July 1997- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 28 loans, ranging
from $190,000 to $8.2 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 79% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 77% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Jackson County/Arcade, a disadvantaged community, received a $173,100 loan and $272,860 subsidy to
extend its water system to approximately 100 residences on contaminated wells. The well contamination
resulted from ground water contamination by an oil recycling facility in an area known as Hidden Oaks.
• Fort Valley, a disadvantaged community with 8,005 residents received a $3 million loan and a $500,000
subsidy to replace 3 wells, construct a 300,000 gallon elevated storage tank, and water mains. This project
results from tetrachloroethylene contamination from area businesses causing the closure of 3 city wells. An
Emergency Order was issued under the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act as this contamination presented an
imminent and substantial danger to the city's drinking water supply.
• The City of Statham, population 1,892, was under a Consent Order to upgrade its Barber Creek Filter
Plant and was offered a very reasonable loan of $9,660 and a substantial subsidy of $449,340. The
treatment capacity will be upgraded from 800,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program and providing technical
assistance to small systems.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-
aside to assist targeted systems in
developing operational and managerial
capacity and to educate system
operators in the best technology and
methods available.
• Through an ongoing contract with
Georgia Rural Water Association
(GRWA), four full-time circuit riders
visited more than 640 owners/
operators on-site in 2001 to help
improve their local systems. 93% of
these visits were at systems serving less
than 3,300 people.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $12.99 million (22.8%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$5.79 million (44.6%)
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds to support an operator training program developed in conjunction with the Georgia
Water and Wastewater Institute. In one year, more than 1,000 students attended 80 training courses.
• Funds were also used to implement a strategy to combat waterborne disease, which includes prevention,
monitoring and surveillance, public education, and response.
• The state developed a capacity development strategy with two control points to ensure all new non-transient
community water systems have adequate technical, financial, and managerial capacity.
• The state entered into a contract with Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association to establish a
statewide certification and recertification program for backfiow assembly testers, using two nationally
recognized programs. Preventing backfiow of contaminated water into distribution systems is an important
preventative tool for water systems.
• The state also accelerated its wellhead protection efforts, performed numerous ground water investigations
to characterize contaminated ground water and determine contamination sources, and increased public
awareness of the importance of source water protection.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water
protection program. The state completed source water assessments for 31 municipal water systems and 126
wells.
• The state contracted with Gainesville College to locate and perform wellhead protection area assessments for
300 public non-municipal water wells in southern Georgia.
• The state contracted with the University of Georgia to establish a series of communication and coordination
mechanisms for use among water programs. This process is aimed at building better communication with
local government officials and authorities involved in water resource management.
• The state also contracted with the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia to develop the Georgia
Water Management Campaign, which translates water management policies and planning into management
capacity and technical assistance to local governments in Georgia.
rgia
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Health
Hawaii
f
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Assist water systems in efforts to protect the public health and environment of the state's residents and
operate systems in compliance with state and federal regulations.
• Promote activities to encourage water systems to protect their drinking water sources and promote principles
of water conservation in their operations.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on the annual rate of the weekly bond
buyer's 20-year general obligation index bond interest rate,
with adjustments. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 1.6% to 4.8% over the last two
years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers four categories:
correction of acute health problems; correction of chronic
health problems; other public health criteria; and consolida-
tion, prevention, and conservation.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $145-9 million, $123-7 million of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $102 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in December 1997-
• The first loan was executed in November 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 1 loan in
the amount of $7-8 million to a publicly-owned system.
• None of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.
• The state has 8 additional projects lined up for over $14.5 million, of which 7 of the projects (totaling $12.3
million) will go to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.
Project Examples
• The upcountry area on the island of Maui is composed of rural ranching communities on the slopes of
Haleakala, a dormant volcano. The Kamole water treatment plant serves 33,000 area residents and is a
supplemental source of drinking water for the entire upcountry area during times of drought. The system
received a $7-8 million loan to fund the construction of a surface water microfiltration facility to come into
compliance with turbidity requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
• The 8 additional projects include rehabilitation of a tunnel source to eliminate surface water influence, new
wells to replace spring, tunnel, and flume sources under the influence of surface water, and replacement of a
filter media and underdrain system at a treatment plant to comply with the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1.00%, 1.00%
$42.7 million
$349 million
$7.6 million
NA
$36.1 million
1, $7.8 million
0, $0
1, 100%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.53 million (21.6%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$1.95 million (25.9%)
6
5
4
3
3.49
0.7
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems, and
assisting local and other state programs
with source water protection and
capacity development programs.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state is working to develop a
resource library and may develop a
contract to provide for direct small
system technical assistance to individual
systems.
• Small systems assistance will also be
integrated into the state's local
assistance program contracts.
Admin SSTA SPM LA
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to support its Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS), capacity development, and operator certification programs.
• Within the PWSS program, set-aside funds supported upgrades of computer hardware for drinking water
personnel, travel for sanitary surveys, the acquisition and maintenance of appropriate laboratory analytical
capability, and the continued administration of the operator certification program.
• As part of its capacity development strategy, the state entered into a contract with the Rural Community
Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to provide training courses to more than 100 managers and 300 operators
representing municipal and private water systems throughout the islands. Training included assistance in
preparing water system distribution operators for the distribution system operator certification exam.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state primarily used funds from this set-aside for source water delineations and assessments. The state
conducted demonstration projects consisting of field assessments and delineations of four sources and
reported the results of those projects to the public.
• The state developed a newsletter, entitled "At the Source", to inform public water suppliers and the general
public about the intent and progress of the source water assessment program. The state also funded source
water assessment and protection information sessions facilitated by The Groundwater Foundation to help
reach the public sector and water system operators.
• The state will be entering into a contract to provide direct support to deficient small systems by assisting
them in evaluating their capacity.
• The state will be entering into a contract to provide training courses for a three-year period for managers and
operators of public water systems to assist in improving capacity through educational activities.
Hawaii
-------
Idaho
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Quality
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Protect the public health of citizens by offering financial assistance to construct the most cost-effective
drinking water facilities.
• Assist public water systems as they strive to achieve and maintain compliance with federal and state drinking
water standards.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 20
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
1.113%, 1.00%
$44.3 million
$36.5 million
$7.3 million
NA
$36.4 million
7, $18.2 million
6, $11. 8 million
0, 0%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on the state's market interest rates and
the degree to which a project is required to comply with the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Weighted average interest rates for
the program have ranged from 2.0% to 4.0% over the last
three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30
year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers six categories: public
health emergencies or hazards, water quality violations
(microbiological, chemical, and treatment techniques),
facilities' condition, overall urgency, consent or administrative
orders, and affordability.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $487 million, $411 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $42 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in November 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 7 loans,
ranging from $285,500 to $6.4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 86% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 83% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Twin Falls received a $6.4 million loan to design and construct improvements to its distribution
and storage system and to install a system-wide electronic communication system.
• The Castle Mountain Creeks Association received a $400,000 loan to install a surface water filtration system
in order to meet the requirements of a voluntary Consent Order to come into compliance with the Surface
Water Treatment Rule.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.4 million (20.3%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$4.4 million (59.5%)
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program and promoting source water
protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds to reimburse local
health departments throughout the
state for their own local aid programs
aimed at small systems.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to implement its operator certification
and capacity development programs.
• Funds were used to assist the Operator
Certification Board establish and
administer an exam for the certification
of very small system operators. Funds
were also used to expand an existing
contract to offer training classes for
operators of very small systems.
• Funds from this set-aside were used to pay for a portion of the salary of the employee charged with develop-
ing the state's capacity development strategy.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set aside to develop and implement a source water protection program. A
source water assessment plan was developed and funds were used to augment the state's wellhead protection
efforts.
Admin
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
M
Idaho.
-------
Lead Agency:
Environmental Protection Agency
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Provide a stable and perpetual financing source for eligible public water supply systems within the state.
• Utilize available set-aside funds to further the development and implementation of source water protection
programs within the state.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.07%, 3.48%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $143.2 million
Grants Received
$143.2 million
State Contributions
$27.9 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$171.2 million
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
82, $132.8 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
59, $49.3 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
39, 48%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program, but will be
changing to a leveraged program.
• Interest rates are based on a 50% discount on the market
interest rate. Weighted average interest rates for the program
have ranged from 2.6% to 2.9% over the last three years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers three categories: project
need based on public health risk and/or the need to improve
infrastructure to ensure compliance, population, and financial
hardship.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $6.1 billion, $2.5 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $514 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in December 1997- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 82 loans,
ranging from $69,000 to $10 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 72% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 58% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Dekalb received two loans totaling $7-8 million for the construction of five new water treatment
plants and the installation of over 16,000 feet of water mains with all necessary appurtenances to meet
radium standards.
• The City of Chicago received a $6.4 million loan for improvements to its drinking water treatment system.
Without the installation of the new equipment, the city would have been in danger of failing to meet
the new federal turbidity standards.
• The Village of Dieterich received a $130,000 loan to replace its deteriorated and inadequately sized elevated
storage tank. The replacement brought the Village into compliance with minimum state standards for
finished water storage volume.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on promoting source water
protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state did not reserve any funds
under this set-aside.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state did not reserve any funds
under this set-aside.
Local Assistance and Other State
Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to conduct source water assessments and
to implement a source water and
wellhead protection program.
• The state established a well recharge
area delineation program focused on
Illinois' Priority Groundwater Protec-
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $9.58 million (6.7%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$4.71 million (49.2%)
3.85
Admin
SSTA
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
tion Planning Regions. This program will delineate the five year recharge areas for community water system
wells which utilize unconfmed aquifers within these regions. With the help of several public universities, the
information gained will be included in the Illinois EPA Internet Geographical Information System (GIS) at
http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/groundwater/source-water-quality-program.html.
The state also established a watershed delineation and assessment program for intakes, watersheds, and sub-
watershed boundaries for community water systems using surface water, as well as a non-community water
system delineation and assessment program.
The state entered into a contract with the Illinois Rural Water Association to conduct local source identifica-
tions and perform susceptibility analyses.
To better organize and present the data being gathered, the state is enhancing and integrating the existing
H2O Works, Water Body System, and Arc/Info GIS databases, and updating its website to make information
available to the public.
Illinois
-------
/
Indiana
__
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Management
Cooperating Agency:
State Budget Agency
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Decrease the percentage of public water systems serving water with acute and/or chronic contaminants to less
than 5% statewide by the year 2002.
• Ensure that new and presently operating public water systems have the capacity to produce water safe in
quality and adequate in quantity.
• Protect Indiana's ground and surface water resources.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues
bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.
• Interest rates are based on a three tier system developed by
the Budget Agency which takes into account the median
household income as well as average water rates of the area
receiving assistance. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have been about 3-0% over the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: public
health protection, Safe Drinking Water Act compliance,
affordability, and public water system management.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.05%, 1.22%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$62.5 million
Grants Received
$62 million
State Contributions
$12.6 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
$70 million
Total Funds Available
$142.2 million
Total Loans Executed (#,!
44, $126.8 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
35, $55.5 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
9, 20%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $1.6 billion, $1.1 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $116 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 44 loans,
ranging from $255,000 to $24.3 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 80% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 77% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Cromwell received a $300,000 loan to build an iron removal treatment facility, drill a new well
field, and upgrade old distribution lines which had been responsible for elevated levels of lead in the town's
water.
• The City of Jasper received a $15 million loan to remove atrazine and simazine from the city's drinking
water. The project involves the construction of a new treatment facility, storage tank, and pump system.
• The City of South Bend will use its $2.6 million loan to upgrade current treatment facilities to ensure
removal of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs), and tetrachloroethane
from the city's drinking water supply.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on providing technical assistance
to small systems and promoting source
water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state will use funds from this set-
aside to provide on-site technical,
financial, and management assistance
through a series of contracts.
• Small systems will benefit from a toll-
free assistance service line and technical
assistance workshops conducted
throughout the state by the Indiana
Section of the American Water Works
Association and the Rural Water
Association.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $6.23 million (10%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $0.46 million (7.4%)
3
2
2.31
1.79
1.42
0.7
0.25
Admin
0.21
SSTA
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state intends to use this set-aside
to enhance its capacity development
program and to make improvements to its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program in the areas of
inspection (sanitary surveys) and compliance monitoring.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state reserved funds under this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a source
water and wellhead protection program.
• Source water assessment pilot projects have been initiated through contracts with the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), the Indiana Geological Survey, and Bruce Carter Associates. These pilot projects consist of field data
collection, source water delineations, source inventories, and susceptibility analyses.
Indiana
-------
Iowa
Lead Agency:
Department of Natural Resources
Cooperating Agency:
Finance Authority
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Improve the quality of drinking water to comply with primary drinking water standards.
• Ensure the long-term viability of existing and proposed water systems.
• Maintain the fiscal integrity of the fund and maintain the fund in perpetuity.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.34%, 1.58%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $64.4 million
Grants Received
$52.1 million
State Contributions
$10.4 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
$10.6 million
Total Funds Available
$70.6 million
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
30, $32.3 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
28, $29.6 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
12, 40%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues
bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.
• Interest rates will be set at a fixed rate of 3-0%. Weighted
average interest rates for the program have ranged from
3.5% to 3-7% over the last two years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: water
quality and human health-related criteria, infrastructure and
engineering-related improvement criteria, special category
improvements for systems with wellhead or source protec-
tion plans or water conservation measures, afford ability, and
population.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2.8 billion, $1.1 billion of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $80 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in December 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 30 loans,
ranging from $144,000 to $6.9 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 93% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 79% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Radionuclides such as radium are man-made or natural elements that emit radiation. Mount Pleasant
Municipal Utilities received a $5-9 million loan to bring its water system into compliance with radium
standards. The project involved the installation of a treatment system designed to remove high levels of
radium.
• The community of Janesville had elevated levels of nitrate in its drinking water supply. A $225,000 DWSRF
loan was awarded for the drilling of a new well to help correct this problem.
• The community of Norwalk had burgeoning demand and low pressure problems throughout its system,
increasing potential for drinking water contamination. A $1.2 million loan was awarded for the construction
of a new 1.2 million gallon elevated storage tank to meet Norwalk's quantity demand and alleviate its
pressure problems.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on helping small systems and
promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds under this set-
aside to provide technical assistance to
small systems. The state entered into
several contracts to develop a small
system technical assistance directory
and a peer review program and to
provide laboratory analysis training,
viability technical assistance, workshops
on how to prepare a consumer
confidence report, and value engineer-
ing for selected DWSRF projects.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state did not reserve any funds
from this set-aside.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $4.81 million (9.2%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.63 million (33.9%)
1.69
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a wellhead
protection program.
• Source water assessments for surface systems have been completed for Iowa City, the University of Iowa,
Montezuma, and water systems in the Okoboji Lake area using these funds. Assessments for Des Moines,
Cedar Rapids, and Ottumwa are forthcoming. An Department of Natural Resources sub-bureau has
completed about 60% of the source water delineations and assessments for ground water systems.
Iowa
-------
Kansas
Lead Agency:
Department of Health and Environment
Cooperating Agencies:
Department of Administration —
Development Finance Authority
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Address the current drinking water funding needs in the state and maintain a viable fund to assist in meeting
the state's long-term funding needs.
• Provide technical assistance to water suppliers to assure necessary projects are identified as candidates for
financial assistance.
• Use the program to build a comprehensive list of public water supply infrastructure needs in the state.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues
bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.
• Interest rates are set at 80% of the previous three months'
average Bond Buyer's 20 Year Bond Index. Weighted average
interest rates for the program have ranged from 3-7% to 4.1%
over the last three years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: water
quality issues, consolidation, improvements to reliability,
affordability, and special categories that include upgrades to
meet future regulations, plant expansion, water treatment
waste discharges, and extension of a system to an unserved
area.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.6 billion, $802 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $132 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in December 1997-
• The first loan was executed in November 1997- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 62 loans,
ranging from $74,270 to $9-2 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 85% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 74% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Colwich, population 1,134, received a loan for $3-8 million to finance a complete water system.
Prior to construction of this water system, residences and businesses used individual wells, some of which
were contaminated.
• The Town of Florence, population 678, received a $200,000 loan and a Community Development Block
Grant to incorporate slow sand filters to resolve compliance problems with the existing treatment plant.
• Logan, population 568, had high levels of selenium and nitrate in their water. Logan received a $650,000
DWSRF loan and a $400,000 Community Development Block Grant to improve water quality.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1.12%, 1.41%
$56.4 million
$56.4 million
$11. 3 million
$69.6 million
$137.4 million
62, $121 million
53, $76 million
19, 31%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.2 million (12.8%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$1.25 million (17.3%)
4
3
2.26
2.4
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program and helping small systems.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• Funding from this set-aside allowed the
state to contract with the Kansas Rural
Water Association to provide assistance
to small systems in resolving compli-
ance issues, management issues,
operation and maintenance problems,
and improving performance of surface
water treatment plants.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state will use funds from this set-
aside to implement its existing system
capacity development strategy.
Local Assistance and Other State
Programs (LA)
• The state will use funds from this set-aside to contract with a third party to complete source water assess-
ments.
1.13
1.41
0.1
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
Kansas
-------
Lead Agency:
Infrastructure Authority
Cooperating Agencies:
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Assist water systems in obtaining and maintaining compliance with federal and state drinking water
requirements and furthering public health protection.
• Provide technical assistance to small systems in areas that are most in need.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• The interest rate is set annually by the Kentucky Infrastruc-
ture Authority based on current market conditions,
availability of funds, and funding demand. Weighted
average interest rates for the program have ranged from
2.1% to 3-8% over the last two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: resource
development, water treatment, water distribution, extension
of service, and financial need.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $1.8 billion, $815 million of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $283 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in December 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 11 loans,
ranging from $32,000 to $5-5 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 64% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 14% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Bowling Green, with a population of 92,300, received a $3-3 million loan to construct a new
clearwell, storage tanks, and water distribution lines.
• The communities of Hickman, Providence, and Grayson all received planning and design loans to help them
prepare applications for assistance from the DWSRF for infrastructure projects.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1 .00%, 1 .52%
$58.5 million
$46.6 million
$9.4 million
NA
$48. 3 million
11, $15. 8 million
7, $2.2 million
0, 0%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.04 million (17.3%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$1.96 million (24.3%)
3
3.01
2.48
1.86
.12
0.68
Admin
LA
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program and promoting water source
protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state intends to use funds from this
set-aside to provide technical assistance
to small systems. Several contracts will
be awarded as part of this effort.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state intends to use funds from this
set-aside to support its Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) program,
enhance its operator certification
program, and develop and implement a
capacity development strategy.
• The PWSS program will prepare and
distribute water quality reports and
consumer confidence reports.
• An operator training program will be developed with the Kentucky Rural Water Association (KRWA)
covering subjects such as consumer confidence reports, treatment rules, and disinfection profiling.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, develop a land acquisition
program, and implement a wellhead protection program.
• The state entered into contracts with 12 local area districts to delineate and assess source water protection
areas. Assessment reports include the delineation of watershed protection areas, an inventory of potential
contaminants, and a discussion of the risk of contamination.
• A wellhead protection program has been developed with the KRWA to help local communities develop their
own plans for wellhead protection and to assist them in the development of contingency plans for contamina-
tion.
• The state also developed a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to protect
drinking water sources from contamination. The state made a $360,000 loan to a system to acquire 180
acres for source water protection.
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
Kentucky
-------
isiana
Lead Agency:
Department of Health and Hospitals
Cooperating Agencies:
Department of Environmental Quality
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Assist water systems throughout the state in achieving and maintaining the health and compliance objectives
of the Safe Drinking Water Act by providing financial assistance to meet infrastructure needs in a prioritized
manner.
• Promote the benefits of the program to as many water systems as possible to assure equitable distribution of
the available financing resources.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.63%, 1.40%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $62.5 million
Grants Received
$40.8 million
State Contributions
$6.3 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$38.8 million
Total Loans Executed (#,!
6, $16.6 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
5, $7.6 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
0, 0%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates that will result in below market rate loans are set
by the secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have been
about 3-5% over the last two years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: public
health effects, unacceptable physical condition, environmental
criteria, and affordability criteria.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $1.3 billion, $892 million of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
more than $99-7 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in August 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 6 loans,
ranging from $1.5 million to $9 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 83% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, none of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Oakdale received a loan of $1.5 million to assist the city in improving its water quality and
complying with federal drinking water requirements. The funds will be used to replace deteriorating water
lines and make improvements to a water storage tank.
• The Town of Church Point will use loan funds to upgrade and expand its existing ground water treatment
plant. The project includes two new filters, rehabilitation of the two existing filters, rehabilitation of the
pipe gallery, a new aerator, a new clarifier, and other miscellaneous work.
• Ward Two Water District of Livingston Parish will use loan funds to construct 5 wells, 2 elevated tanks,
300,000 feet of line improvements, abandon existing wells no longer in service, and paint storage tanks.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on capacity development,
promoting source water protection, and
providing technical assistance to small
systems.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• Both state staff and a contracted circuit
rider conducted on-site visits and
provided technical assistance to small
systems throughout the state. In one
year, 835 site visits were made,
averaging out to around 70 visits per
month.
• The state also held a series of quarterly
training sessions for small systems
throughout the state.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $9.54 million (23.4%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$2.62 million (27.5%)
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program and implement its capacity development
and operator certification programs.
• The state filled an engineer position for its PWSS program and intends to hire several more engineers and a
geologist.
• The state hired personnel on a contract basis to support its operator certification program. Over 1,260
operators completed certification tests in one year. Many very small system operators sought certification
voluntarily.
• Funds were also used to conduct capacity reviews for systems across the state.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside primarily to conduct source water assessments.
• The state entered into a contract to complete field assessments and to map source water assessment areas
using Geographical Information System (GIS) software. A total of 400 assessments have been completed.
Louisiana
'
-------
Maine
T
Lead Agency:
Department of Human Services
Cooperating Agency:
Municipal Bond Bank
Department of Environmental Protection
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Maintain the fiscal integrity of funding programs for infrastructure projects and source water protection land
acquisition in perpetuity.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.01 %, 1.00%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.8 million
Grants Received
$35 million
State Contributions
$7 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
$4.6 million
Total Funds Available
$39.8 million
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
38, $29.8 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
36, $24.5 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
5, 33%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also
issues bonds to increase the amount available for funding
projects when needed.
• Interest rates are based on a 2% discount on the cost of funds
for similar tax-exempt debt as determined by the Maine
Municipal Bond Bank. Weighted average interest rates for
the program have ranged from 0.4% to 1.6% over the last
three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30
year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers seven categories in the
following areas: public health, low pressure problems,
aesthetics, construction for source protection, construction of
redundant facilities, system compliance/enforcement status,
affordability, population served, compliance history, co-
funding, and public water system type.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $472 million, $296 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for $27 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in December 1997-
• The first loan was executed in March 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 38 loans,
ranging from $36,050 to $3 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 95% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 89% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Ashland had a storage tank coated with lead-based paint and a collapsing roof. With a median
household income (MHI) of only $13,638 and water rates of $320 per household per year, Ashland qualified
for maximum disadvantaged assistance. The state developed a funding package which forgave $73,541 of the
principal of a $98,865 DWSRF loan at 0% interest and included an additional $25,000 from Maine's Rural
Development Council. The assistance will allow the town to ensure safe storage of its drinking water and will
reduce the water rates to the state's target rate (1.3% of MHI).
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.56 million (24.5%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$5.02 million
(58.6%)
Admin
SSTA SPM LA
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems,
acquiring land for source water
protection, and promoting wellhead
protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide assistance to small systems
through the Maine Rural Water
Association (MRWA) and the Maine
Water Utilities Association (MWUA).
MRWA received funding for two circuit
rider positions who made 789 on-site
visits to systems on topics such as
corrosion control, sampling, wellhead
protection, and public notification.
MWUA conducted 5 training sessions
at various locations throughout the
state.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to hire 13 additional staff in its Drinking Water Program. These
new staff positions support the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), source water protection, capacity
development, and operator certification programs.
• The state also used funds to purchase computer hardware and software for its PWSS program.
• Funding also supported the development of a strategy to address capacity issues for existing systems and
enhancement of the state's source water protection program.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, implement a wellhead
protection program, and acquire land for source water protection.
• The state entered into a contract to complete delineations and assessment of ground water sources. Approxi-
mately 85 sand and gravel and 5 bedrock aquifer sources have been delineated.
• The state used funds to develop a revolving loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation
easements to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination. The state has made over $1.5
million in loans to 6 systems, including one loan that involved a joint easement with Lewiston-Auburn Water
Commission and Androscoggin Land Trust.
• Funds were used to provide comprehensive system planning grants as part of the state's capacity development
strategy and wellhead protection grants. Funds were also used to hire a full-time employee who reviews and
approves new wellhead protection plans and works with systems to encourage participation in the state's
voluntary wellhead protection program. The employee also evaluates and assesses applications for testing
waivers from public water systems.
Maine—
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of the Environment
Maryland
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1 .40%, 1 .00%
$47. 8 million
$37.9 million
$8 million
NA
$52 million
22, $37.7 million
12, $14.3 million
12, 55%
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Provide low interest rate loans and other subsidies for drinking water system capital improvements to protect
public health and ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Ensure that drinking water projects are constructed and maintained at a reasonable cost for the users of the
system.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also
has a linked deposit program to reach small privately-
owned systems that may wish to seek a subsidized interest
rate loan through a local bank.
• The current interest rate is 40% of Market (Bond-Buyer
11-Bond Index), which over the past three years has been
lowered down from 60% of Market. Weighted average
interest rates for the program have ranged from 1.8% to
3.0% over the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that
offers lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness
and 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: public
health benefits, compliance benefits, environmental and
system reliability benefits, and affordability criteria
scoring.
• Selected projects must be in compliance with the state's "Smart Growth" designated Priority Funding Areas
or be approved through an exception process.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.6 billion, $323 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $50 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in August 1997 (set-asides) and September 1997 (projects).
• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 22 loans,
ranging from $45,000 to $6 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 55% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 83% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Myersville received a $467,842 loan to replace an aging and inadequate water treatment plant,
serving approximately 1,000 customers, which was under a complaint and consent order by the Maryland
Department of the Environment for noncompliance. The improvements will allow the plant to meet the
Surface Water Treatment Rule.
• The Independence Village Water Cooperative, a privately-owned system serving 23 households, received a
$45,000 loan to replace a water storage tank and upgrade its aging water distribution system.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.74 million (23.1 %)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$4.89 million (55.9%)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on helping small systems,
promoting source water protection, and
supporting its drinking water program.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state uses a portion of this set-aside
to fund an agreement with the
Maryland Rural Water Administration
to provide a circuit rider program to
assist small systems.
• Funds are also used to staff two public
health engineers to provide technical
assistance to small systems.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state uses a portion of the funds
from this set-aside to partially staff
positions including public health
engineers, sanitarians, and environmen-
tal specialists involved in state program management. New equipment and computer hardware was also
purchased in order to continue to upgrade the state's Public Drinking Water Information System (PDWIS)
as well as staff desktop applications.
• Funds were also used to support new state drinking water legislation, which included provisions on public
notification, capacity development, administrative penalties, consumer confidence reports, as well as work on
regulations related to federal changes since 1998 such as the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule, Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule, and operator certification.
• This set-aside also supports a process aimed at formally delegating oversight of transient non-community
water systems to Maryland's counties. Twenty-one counties have accepted this delegation and receive funds
from this set-aside to help support them in this new responsibility.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state uses funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, to acquire land and conservation
easements for source water protection, to assist systems in achieving capacity development, and to implement
a wellhead protection program.
• The state uses a portion of funds from this set-aside to partially staff positions including public health
engineers, sanitarians, environmental specialists, and geologists involved in wellhead protection and capacity
development assistance
• Completed source water assessments and public meetings assist in notifying the systems and the public
about the availability of loans for land acquisition and conservation easements to protect vulnerable drinking
water sources.
• Source water assessment projects which this set-aside supported include: the Gunpowder Watershed
Assessment Project, the Potomac River Basin Selected Pathogens Study, the Ground Water Virus Study, Piney
Reservoir Study, Patuxtent River Reservoir Study, Susquehanna River Basin Assessment, Liberty Reservoir
Assessment, Potomac River Assessment, and the Source Water Assessment Plan.
• Informational meetings were held to publicize the availability of funds for wellhead protection projects.
Nine separate wellhead protection projects were also approved for funding, totaling over $534,000.
Maryland
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Protection
Cooperating Agency:
Water Pollution Abatement Trust
assachusetts
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Support the protection of public health by ensuring that all Massachusetts communities have safe drinking
water.
• Develop and effectively manage a self-sustaining program to facilitate compliance by all public drinking
water systems with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Maintain a strong source water protection program as the first step in a multiple barrier approach to
maintaining excellent water quality.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.14%, 3.85%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $130.3 million
Grants Received
$124.6 million
State Contributions
$24.9 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
3.3 million
Total Funds Available
$242.8 million
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
35, $161 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
18, $31.7 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
21, 60%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues
bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.
• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state's market
rates. Weighted average interest rates for the program have
been about 0% since the program's inception.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program due to the high rate of subsidy already provided
and the need to preserve fund equity.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: public
health criteria, compliance criteria, affordability, and
program structure and implementation criteria such as
consolidation or restructuring and consistency with
watershed management plans.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $5-9 billion, $797 million of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $373 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in July 1998 (set-asides) and September 1998 (projects).
• The first loan was executed in July 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 35 loans, ranging
from $165,000 to approximately $12 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 37% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 31% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Leominster received a $4.5 million loan for a new design-build-operate multimedia filtration
plant. The city's original slow sand filtration plant, built in 1934, treated water drawn from three surface
water reservoirs. Since the new system went online, filtered water turbidity has decreased, chlorine demand
has diminished, and the water system has received positive feedback from customers noticing improvements
in the taste of their water. As a result of using the DWSRF as a funding source, the city realized a savings of
10% on user rates.
• Seekonk received a $5-9 million loan for a new membrane filtration plant and the construction of a new well
to ensure compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $18.83 million (15.1%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $9.95 million (52.8%)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems,
developing capacity, and promoting
source water and wellhead protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to hire a circuit rider in each of its four
regional offices to provide technical
assistance to small systems on treat-
ment, distribution, and regulatory
obligations. Circuit riders have also
provided support in completing
DWSRF loan applications. An
additional staff person assists small
systems with system classification and
operator certification training.
• The state also entered into a contract
with Massachusetts Coalition for Small
Systems Assistance to provide group training for hard to reach small systems on aspects of financial and
managerial capacity, sampling, source water protection, and operator training.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state continues to use funds from this set-aside to support 29 staff in its Drinking Water Program.
These staff support the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), source water protection, capacity
development, and operator certification programs.
• The state provided training classes for small systems on preparing consumer confidence reports and on the
managerial and financial aspects of operating a water system. The state also initiated a self-audit survey for
transient noncommunity water systems which captures technical, financial, and managerial information.
• The state developed a technical assistance program to assist water suppliers in protecting local and regional
drinking water supplies. Eligible projects include prioritizing land for protection and control, planning
riparian buffer zones, and addressing management of existing protected lands.
• The state provided regulatory reviews and technical assistance as part of its source water protection program.
Approximately 75% of the state's community water systems have approved source water protection plans in
place. The Massachusetts Geographic Information Systems (GIS) program digitized data layers relating to
public water supply sources and their protection areas, land use, and potential contaminant sources.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water
and wellhead protection program.
• The state developed a wellhead protection grant program to encourage entities such as water system
suppliers, watershed groups, and regional planning agencies to conduct local drinking water protection
projects. Eligible projects include developing wellhead protection plans, installing fencing around public
wells, and implementing best management practices. The state has awarded a total of $2.6 million in grants
for 65 projects.
Massachusetts
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Quality
Cooperating Agency:
Municipal Bond Authority
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Develop effective partnerships with other federal and state financing sources to promote efficiency in
environmental review procedures and coordination of funding.
• Apply a capacity assessment program to new water suppliers and selected existing systems.
• Improve compliance status and reliability of public water systems.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues
bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.
• Interest rates are based on the state's current market
conditions, demand for funds, and the cost of compliance.
Weighted average interest rates have been about 2.5% over
the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
principal forgiveness and 30 year loan terms as well as
assistance in defraying the costs of planning documents
using technical assistance set-aside funds.
• The state's priority system considers five categories:
drinking water quality and public health, infrastructure
improvement, population size, consolidation, wellhead
protection, and financial need.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 4.75%, 2.94%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$148.3 million
Grants Received
$145.6 million
State Contributions
$30.6 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
$80.9 million
Total Funds Available
$245.8 million
Total Loans Executed (#,:
57, $144.1 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
38, $67 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
36, 63%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $6.4 billion, $1.7 billion of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $134 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in December 1997 (set-asides) and June 1998 (projects).
• The first loan was executed in June 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 57 loans, ranging
from $330,000 to $8.4 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 67% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 42% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Colon received a $2.1 million loan as part of an effort to solve its chronic pressure problems
that, if left unchecked, could introduce contaminated water into the system through backsiphonage. A new
elevated storage tank and well were built, the main distribution lines were replaced, and the town's water
lines were looped.
• The Town of Breckenridge received a $330,000 loan to construct a new well and connect it to the water
system, allowing compliance with state rules regarding source reliability.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, improving its operator
certification program, promoting
wellhead protection, and increasing
public awareness of drinking water
issues.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to assist small systems with operator
training, on-site assistance, and source
water assessments.
• The state has also awarded assistance to
three disadvantaged communities to
cover the planning costs associated with
applying for loans from the DWSRE
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $20.56 million (14.1%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $13.76 million (67%)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to add staff to implement a capacity development program.
• The existing operator certification program was also expanded through the addition of three staff to improve
the structure and administration of the program.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state reserved funds to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water and wellhead
protection program.
• The state has developed an extensive source water assessment and protection program, coordinating with
Michigan State University, the Groundwater Education in Michigan Center, the U.S. Geological Survey, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and local health departments. This program will
identify contaminant sources, assess susceptibility, and inform the public about source water protection.
Locally, 20 surface water programs, 100 individual wellhead protection programs, and 32 ground water
programs have also been created through these efforts.
• The state has developed a comprehensive program to manage abandoned wells located inside delineated
wellhead protection areas. The program couples a statewide education program with demonstration projects
to promote this new program that will make grants from a state bond program to communities to locate and
plug abandoned wells. The state has also used funds to address approximately 210 improperly plugged
abandoned wells.
• The state also intends to develop a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to
protect source water.
1'ichigan
-------
Lead Agency:
Public Facilities Authority—Department
of Trade and Economic Development
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Health
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Provide financial and other assistance to public water systems in order to protect public health and achieve
and maintain compliance.
• Maintain the perpetuity of the fund while providing the greatest possible number of loans through
leveraging of capitalization grants.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.35%, 1.66%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$92.3 million
Grants Received
$79.3 million
State Contributions
$18.5 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
$19.3 million
Total Funds Available
$112 million
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
71, $106.9 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
69, $80.4 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
66, 70%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a leveraged loan program. The state
issues bonds as necessary to increase the amount of loan
funds available for medium to high priority projects.
• Interest rates are based on a top rate set at 0.5% below
market rate with up to 3-5% in additional discounts
possible based on demographic criteria. Weighted average
interest rates for the program have ranged from 3-0% to
3.5% over the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
principal forgiveness.
• The state's priority system considers three categories: public
health criteria, infrastructure improvement criteria, and
financial need.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2.9 billion, $1.2 billion of which
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in April 1998.
• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 71 loans,
ranging from $29,000 to $16.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 97% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 74% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Clara City, a town of 1,300, was subject to an enforcement action by the state drinking water program due
to elevated nitrate/nitrite levels that were first detected in 1998. The city received a $3-1 million loan,
including $500,000 in disadvantaged community principal forgiveness, for a new well, reverse osmosis
treatment plant, storage tower, and water main.
• The City of Hawley's aging water tank was leaking, and, in the winter, developed large icicles that were
dangerous. The City received a $660,000 loan to construct a new 250,000 gallon water tower to replace the
older one.
was for small systems.
more than $124 million in projects.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $9.25 million (11.7%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$6.75 million (73%)
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its operator
certification program, helping small
systems, and promoting source water
protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide non-regulatory assistance to
water system operators to help them
effectively manage their public water
systems and identify potential sources
of contamination.
• Two positions within Minnesota Rural
Water Association (MRWA) were
funded from this set-aside. A ground
water technician assisted municipal
community water systems with
establishing wellhead protection
programs. A circuit rider provided non-
municipal community water supplier
operator training and on-site technical assistance, emphasizing overall system operation, consumer confidence
reports, and operator certification.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state is using funds from this set-aside to expand its operator certification program and to address public
water system program expenses. Water operator exam preparation training is being offered at American Water
Works Association conferences.
• The state also placed a high priority on contacting systems that did not have certified operators. The state
sent warning letters to 77 municipal and 45 non-municipal community water systems and teamed with
MRWA to provide targeted certification assistance to systems with no certified operator. As a result of these
efforts, compliance with certification requirements has improved from 87% to 95%.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a source
water and wellhead protection program.
• The source water protection program provided communities with procedures, technical information, and
guidance in delineating source water protection areas, identifying contaminant sources, and implementing
source water protection plans.
• The state entered into contracts with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Agriculture to obtain significant contaminant source information for vulnerable water wells.
• The state also entered into a contract to identify potential spill sites and critical assessment areas in the
Upper Mississippi watershed incorporating EPA spill data and Army Corps of Engineers flow data.
• The state filled 8 of 9 full-time positions to work with community and non-community water systems on
their wellhead protection programs. The wellhead protection program was actively involved in approving
plans for new municipal wells, with approximately 50 plans being approved in one year. Program staff also
helped communities develop and implement these plans prior to review.
Minnesota
-------
Mississippi
Lead Agency:
Department of Health
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Environmental Quality
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Develop partnerships with the Community Development Block Grant program, the Appalachian Regional
Commission, and the Rural Utilities Service.
• Ensure the long-term life of the fund, meet state drinking water needs, obtain a satisfactory compliance rate,
and protect the public's health.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state's market
interest rates. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 3-0% to 3-4% over the last three
years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers seven categories:
primary drinking water standards, pressure deficiencies,
capacity expansion, back up water supply source projects,
existing facilities upgrades, secondary drinking water
regulations, and consolidation.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $22.5 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in September 1997- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 61 loans,
ranging from $5,649 to $1.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 72% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 61% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Olive Branch received two DWSRF loans totaling $2.4 million to implement a system-wide
improvement program aimed at improving pressure deficiencies, which, if left unchecked, could introduce
contaminated water into the system through backsiphonage.
• The Hilldale Water District had a history of noncompliance with Primary Drinking Water Standards relating
to storage deficiencies in its system. The water district received a $374,365 loan to fund a project designed
to bring the system, which serves 4,812 customers, into full compliance.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1.31%, 1.16%
$51 .5 million
$42.4 million
$15 million
NA
$57.8 million
61, $37.5 million
44, $22.7 million
40, 66%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $4.76 million (11.2%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$2.69 million
(56.5%)
1.65
0.57
0.56
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on helping small systems and
promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• Using funds from this set-aside, the
state created a program to provide
technical support to deficient systems
and management training for water
system officials. Over 67 separate
management training sessions with
1,800 participants were held through-
out the state.
• An on-site technical assistance and
volunteer system was also created by the
Mississippi Rural Water Association
with funds from this set-aside. A total
of 427 visits have been conducted to
assist with matters involving water
conservation, violation and compliance
issues, operation and maintenance,
management, water treatment, and training.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state intends to use funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement its source water
protection program.
• The state's Delineation and Source Water Assessment Program has worked to verify the confinement of
aquifers for public water supply in 51 counties (62% of the counties). All the information collected was
mapped using Geographic Information System (GIS) software to ensure the continued protection of the
studied areas.
Admin
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
1
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Natural Resources
Missouri
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Support the state's goal of ensuring that all citizens will have water that is safe to drink all of the time.
• Protect public health, minimize waterborne diseases, and avoid waterborne disease outbreaks.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a leveraged loan program. The state
issues bonds to increase the amount available for funding
projects.
• Interest rates are based on a baseline of two-thirds of the
state's market rates. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 3-2% to 4.5% over the last three
years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: Safe
Drinking Water Act compliance, public health, affordability
disaster recovery, and consolidation.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2.2 billion, $1.2 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $193-8 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 17 loans,
ranging from $365,514 to $25-1 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 76% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 46% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The community of Marceline was facing serious non-compliance and public health risks because of inad-
equate treatment. Marceline received a $4.1 million loan to improve treatment facilities, storage methods,
and distribution lines for the system's 2,645 customers.
• The Camden County PWSD #2 received a $702,625 loan to correct public health problems facing the
system. The loan provided funds for the construction of new wells, storage facilities, and distribution lines
for the system's 1,690 customers.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1 .74%, 1 .34%
$62.4 million
$41 .5 million
$125 million
$56 million
$95.4 million
17, $64.1 million
13, $30.6 million
3, 18%
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on helping small systems and
promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide small systems with technical
assistance aimed at improving their
technical, managerial, and financial
capacity.
• The state also provided engineering
service grants aimed at very small
systems. These grants fund up to 90%
of the cost of preparing an engineering
report (up to $10,000), which then are
used to determine if the system is
eligible for DWSRF loans or other
sources of funding. All options are
evaluated including consolidation,
regionalization, and resource sharing.
Set
Set
-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.82 million (21.3%)
-asides expended (% of reserved) $4.89 million (55.5%)
Admin SSTA SPM LA
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program by
adding personnel and contracting for services. Activities funded have included permitting and enforcement,
operator certification, capacity development, the creation of a drinking water information management
system, and the implementation of a consumer reporting initiative.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds under this set-aside to conduct source water assessments. Assessments are underway for
every public drinking water source in the state. Source water areas have been delineated using the watersheds
for surface water intakes and estimating the recharge areas for public wells based on local geology, well
construction, and pumping characteristics. Potential drinking water contaminants in these source water areas
have been identified by searching existing databases and are being verified by contract staff in the field.
Department geologists are compiling existing information to assess the susceptibility of each public well. All
of this information is stored in a geographic information system (GIS) where it can easily be used by program
staff and the general public.
• The state also intends to develop a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to
protect source water once sufficient data has been gathered through the assessment program.
Missouri
-------
Montana
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Quality
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• To continue building and maintaining a permanent, self-sustaining state revolving fund program that will
serve as a cost-effective, convenient source of financing for drinking water projects.
• To provide a financing and technical assistance program to help public water supplies achieve and maintain
compliance with federal and state drinking water laws.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
1.18%, 1.00%
$45 million
$45 million
$9.2 million
NA
$60.5 million
32, $43.2 million
28, $30.4 million
22, 69%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state's market
interest rates. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have been about 2.3% over the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers five categories:
documented health risks, proactive compliance measures,
potential health risks, consolidation, and affordability.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $833 million, $488 million of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
more than $345 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in June 1998.
• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 32 loans,
ranging from $45,000 to $8.4 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 88% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 68% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Phillipsburg, population 900, received a $200,000 loan to finance a pumping station and
transmission main to connect a new well. The purpose of the well is to provide a source of ground water to
blend with surface water from a mountain lake in an effort to reduce corrosivity and get the system into
compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule.
• The Seeley Lake Water District received a $1.3 million loan for the construction of a new packaged rapid rate
surface water treatment plant and raw water intake. The District's water system was in significant noncom-
pliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule since the early 1990s and was under an Administrative Order
since 1994. The completion of the new facility, serving 1,900 residents, ensured compliance and the
Administrative Order was closed out.
• Virginia City received a $66,000 loan to fund the construction of a new steel storage tank to replace a
substandard wooden storage tank. With a reduced interest rate loan, this small community of 160 residents
was able to improve substandard elements of its water system.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $5.34 million (11.9%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.53 million (47.3%)
Admin
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, providing assistance to small
systems, and promoting source water
and wellhead protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state provided outreach and
technical support through a contract
with the Midwest Assistance Program.
Approximately 88 systems have received
on-site assistance in identifying physical
problems with water system equipment,
record keeping, and acquiring and
training operators.
• Other services provided to water systems
and facilities included: helping
operators to identify and prioritize water
system needs; helping operators in
discussions with boards, councils and
other administrators; and discussing
capacity development, cross-connections, source water protection, water conservation, and operator certifica-
tion requirements.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program and
to develop and implement its capacity development and operator certification programs.
• As part of its PWSS program, the state entered into a contract with the Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology to search its Groundwater Information Center (GWIC) database so as to correlate well logs with
existing water system sources; to enter existing well log information into GWIC; to sample vulnerable wells;
and to collect latitude/longitude information for existing water system sources.
• The state also entered into a contract with the Natural Resources Information System to create a geographical
information system (GIS) database of water system sources using existing latitude/longitude information and
to train PWSS staff in the use of Internet interactive mapping applications.
• One new full-time certification technician was hired for the state's operator certification program, helping the
operator certification program to certify over 1,300 water system operators in one year.
• The state also developed an interactive CD-ROM training video on source water assessment and delineation
procedures that has been distributed to a wide audience.
• The state intends to hire a contractor to provide capacity development services including on-site visits to
water systems.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state reserved funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source
water protection program.
• The state has entered into contracts to collect source water information and to make this information
available to the public. A web-based source water protection program query tool was developed that allows
the user to identify and map selected contaminant sources within a specified distance of public water
systems.
Monta
-------
Nebraska
Lead Agency:
Department of Health and Human Services
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Environmental Quality
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• To assist public water systems in protecting the health and welfare of state residents by helping to assure safe,
adequate, and reliable drinking water.
Structure of Loan Program
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
1 .02%, 1 .00%
$43 million
$43 million
$9.7 million
NA
$45.2 million
49, $44.8 million
45, $35.6 million
15, 31%
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates for standard loans are set at between 3% and
the state market rate, with adjustments based on the median
household income of the community served by the system.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have been
about 3-2% over the last two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms and partial
principal forgiveness (if a system qualifies).
• The state's priority system considers three categories: the
public health benefit provided by the project, the financial
impacts of the project, and enforcement actions for non-
compliance.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $820 million, $454 million of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $223 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in July 1998.
• The first loan was executed in September 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 49 loans,
ranging from $60,000 to $6.8 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 92% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 84% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Village of Kennard received a $460,000 DWSRF loan plus $20,000 of loan principal forgiveness to
fund water system improvements aimed at correcting inadequate water pressure and low water quality. As
part of this project, the village will cease to make use of two wells that are responsible for high levels of iron
and manganese in their water and will instead connect to the Town of Blair's water system. A new storage
tower and booster pumps were also installed to address the village's water pressure problems.
• The Village of Bruning received a $570,000 DWSRF loan plus $249,000 in loan principal forgiveness to
fund water system improvements that resolved a Department of Health and Human Services Administrative
Order for nitrate MCL violations. A new well and transmission main was constructed for the community
providing a safe drinking water supply. Water meters were also installed which encouraged water conserva-
tion by the citizens.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.99 million (20.9%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$2 million (22.3%)
5
3
4.94
1.72
1.48
0.41
Admin
SSTA
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-asides
on providing technical assistance to small
systems and promoting source water
protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to enter into contracts with five technical
assistance providers aimed at the needs of
small systems. These providers make up
an alliance called the "Two-Percent Team"
which meets monthly to identify systems
that need assistance.
• The League of Nebraska Municipalities
provides training to water boards and
councils on their responsibilities.
• The Midwest Assistance Program
prioritized the needs of small systems and
helped those most in need apply for the
assistance best suited to their situation.
• The Nebraska Environmental Training
Center conducted workshops on water treatment operations, chlorination, and fluoridation.
• The Nebraska American Water Works Association provided educational manuals at no cost to small systems
and has also implemented a series of mentoring programs.
• The Nebraska Rural Water Association provided technical assistance through a minimum of 20 on-site visits
to systems per month.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to develop and implement a capacity development program and to
modify its operator certification program.
• Assistance from the Environmental Finance Center at Boise State University was sought to develop the
capacity development program. The Environmental Finance Center helped facilitate stakeholder meetings
and developed the findings report describing the stakeholder views on the various required aspects of capacity
development. From these findings, the state developed its capacity development strategy for existing systems
that is currently being implemented.
• Set-aside funds also provided for stakeholder meetings to gather input on the state's new operator certifica-
tion rules. The operator certification program is currently being implemented.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a wellhead
protection program.
• The state hired additional staff to delineate wellhead protection areas, update state maps, ensure public
awareness, and aid local water suppliers in developing local protection actions.
• The state also developed a land acquisition program to control land use and manage agricultural operations
to minimize impacts on well fields.
Nebra
ska
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Human Resources
/
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Support the state goal of ensuring that all Nevada public water systems provide their customers with water
that is safe and pleasant to drink all of the time.
• Develop and effectively manage a self-sustaining program to facilitate compliance by all public water systems
with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on the state's prevailing taxable or tax-
exempt bond rates, with adjustments to address the financial
status of the applicant. Weighted average interest rates for
the program have been about 3-6% over the last two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
principal forgiveness as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: acute
health problems, chronic health problems, refinancing of
debt, and deteriorated, substandard, or inadequate condi-
tions.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
_
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$42.7 million
Grants Received
$34.9 million
State Contributions
$7 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$35.5 million
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
7, $31.8 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
4, $4.1 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
3, 43%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $592 million, $180 million of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $131-5 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in May 1998.
• The first loan was executed in September 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 7 loans,
ranging from $50,752 to $12.3 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 57% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 75% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) received a $12.3 million loan to assist in an ongoing $2.1
billion capital improvement program, which includes the construction of a second raw water intake on Lake
Mead and several water treatment facilities. SNWA is a wholesale water supplier that provides water to retail
water systems serving over 1.3 million total customers throughout southern Nevada.
• Indian Hills General Improvement District (IHGID) received a $643,500 loan to replace inadequate storage
and upgrade and replace portions of its water system distribution and transmission system.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.25 million (20.8%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.77 million (38.3%)
Admin
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems, and
developing source water and wellhead
protection programs.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to enter into contracts with two
assistance providers, the Nevada Rural
Water Association (NVRWA), which
provided a "circuit rider" approach to
technical assistance, and the Rural
Community Assistance Corporation
(RCAC), which provided a "targeted"
approach focused on specific water
systems.
• Approximately 50 water systems
received assistance in the preparation of
environmental documents; the
development of operating manuals,
emergency plans, consumer confidence reports and other operating documents; and the development of
wellhead and source water protection programs.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to continue the development of an information management system
for its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. The state hired an expert to manage this effort and
provide training to the database administrator.
• The state is also working with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to develop a state-
wide inventory of shallow (Class V) underground injection wells which can negatively impact underground
sources of drinking water.
• With the help of third party contractors, the state is implementing both its capacity development strategy
and operator certification training.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to provide assistance to water systems in developing and enhancing
their technical, managerial, and financial capabilities. Three editions of a quarterly newsletter were published
containing training information, seminar and class schedules, and other information useful to water system
operators.
• The state also used funds to begin to organize a "Water Fair" where workshops and training will be provided
to owners, operators, and customers of public water systems.
• Approximately 50 community wellhead protection programs have received assistance through a contract with
NDEP and the state has also entered into a contract to gather field data so that staff can perform assessments
of source waters for public water systems.
M,
evada
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Services
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Ensure that all New Hampshire communities will have water that is safe to drink all of the time.
• Develop and effectively manage a self-sustaining program to facilitate compliance by all public drinking
water systems with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on the established market rate (as
published in the 11 GO Bond Index) and the loan repayment
period. Weighted average interest rates for the program have
ranged from 3-5 to 4.0% over the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
principal forgiveness.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: violations of
national drinking water standards, quantity deficiencies or
insufficient storage, treatment or design deficiencies,
affordability, and additional factors such as consolidation, source
water protection, water conservation, backfiow prevention, and
emergency plans.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $452 million, $349 million of which was
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
1.10%, 1.00%
$43.9 million
$36.1 million
$8 million
NA
$39.3 million
37, $30.2 million
25, $16.6 million
12, 33%
for small systems.
than $13-7 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997 (set-asides) and July 1998 (projects).
• The first loan was executed in September 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 37 loans,
ranging from $28,170 to $4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 68% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 92% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• A $153,356 loan to the Bristol Water Works, serving approximately 2,800, was combined with grant
funding from the Community Development Block Grant program for a project that installed a new well and
associated piping. The use of alternative technology—horizontal directional drilling to install a water main
under the Fowler River—allowed the water system to avoid negative environmental impacts to the river and
adjacent wetlands.
• After funding major improvements to its water system in 1997 using private financing, the Tilton and
Northfield Aqueduct Company found that cement-tin water mains (dating from the late 1800's) located
throughout the distribution system could not withstand increased water pressures resulting from system
improvements. Using a $1.4 million disadvantaged loan, the system replaced the pipe and has seen a drastic
reduction in water main breaks.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.18 million (22.7%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$3.51 million
(42.9%)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
5.41
0.84
1.21
1.44
0.72
Admin
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems, and
promoting source water and wellhead
protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide technical assistance to over
100 small systems through contracts
with the Northeast Rural Water
Association (NERWA), the Rural
Community Assistance Program
(RCAP), and the North Country
Council.
• A circuit rider from NERWA provided
on-site assistance to systems with
compliance problems.
• RCAP identified needs and deficiencies
of small systems, prepared income
surveys, and provided information on
funding sources.
• The North Country Council provided on-site technical assistance in preparing applications for the DWSRF
and other funding sources.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to implement its source water protection program.
• The state completed an inventory of land uses in source water protection areas and conducted extensive
outreach to municipalities using maps that showed all water resources in each municipality as well as
potential threats to those resources.
• The state also trained local officials on source water protection inspections and developed rules to address
ground water withdrawal and ground water protection.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, develop a land acquisition
program, and implement a source and wellhead protection program.
• Using it own staff, and through grants to localities, the state has conducted assessments and is compiling a
detailed database of water sources.
• The state entered into a contract with the U.S. Geological Survey to determine travel time of contaminant
spills in large water supply rivers in the state.
• A loan program was established for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to protect vulner-
able drinking water sources from contamination. Applications received by the state identify a demand for
more than $1.5 million in projects. A contract with the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's
Forests provides technical assistance to water systems in prioritizing projects for land acquisition and
facilitating purchases.
• The state entered into a contract with the New Hampshire Association of Conservation to provide grants for
agricultural improvements in source water areas. The state also provides grants for wellhead protection
projects.
shire
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Protection
Cooperating Agency:
Environmental Infrastructure Trust
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Achieve and maintain drinking water quality and eliminate Safe Drinking Water Act violations to ensure
public health.
• Make the DWSRF program a self-sustaining loan program.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.23%, 2.44%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$101.4 million
Grants Received
$82.4 million
State Contributions
$12.7 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
$57.8 million
Total Funds Available
$170.3 million
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
39, $124.7 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
9, $11.5 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
9, 16%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also
issues bonds to increase the amount available for funding
projects.
• Interest rates are based on one half of the state's prevailing
revenue bond rate. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 2.3% to 2.7% over the last three
years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers four categories:
compliance and public health, drinking water infrastructure
planning, state development/redevelopment planning, and
affordability.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $3-5 billion, $859 million of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $612 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 39 loans,
ranging from $287,500 to $18.5 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 23% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 11% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Mount Holly Water Company of Burlington County received a $12.3 million loan for the construction
of four wells, a treatment plant, a storage tank, and water mains.
• Waldwick Borough received a $1.65 million loan for the construction of a finished water storage tank.
• The North Jersey District Water System received a $2.4 million loan to remove filter media, demolish
vitrified clay tiles, and remove rusted reinforced steel within its treatment plant and to construct three
booster stations with feed systems for sodium hypochlorite.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, providing technical assistance
to small systems, and promoting source
water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide outreach and support for
small systems through a series of
contracts. New Jersey Water Associa-
tion (NJWA) conducted site visits and
training courses for small systems across
the state. NJWA will also develop and
maintain a website which will provide
further technical assistance and
outreach services to small systems.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.97 million (10.9%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $6.94 million (77.3%)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to develop a source water protection
program and to implement its capacity development and operator certification programs.
• The state tracked cases of noncompliance and worked to improve systems through compliance inspections,
identification of inadequacies, and legislation as part of its capacity development program.
• The state also developed a reduced-cost training program for water system operators with Rutgers University.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments.
• Approximately 2,500 community wells have been mapped using GPS. The state has collected sufficient data
to delineate a source water protection area for over 90% of these wells.
• In addition, over 2,800 non-community wells have been mapped using GPS. The state has entered into a
contract with NJWA and the County Environmental Health Act Agencies to complete the work. The U.S.
Geological Survey has also been contracted to develop susceptibility models for surface water and ground
water.
New jersey
Ne
-------
New_Mexico
Lead Agency:
Finance Authority
Cooperating Agency:
Environment Department
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Provide technical, financial, and managerial assistance to public water systems.
• Ensure that the needs of all water systems are addressed, particularly small systems serving fewer than 10,000
people.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are 3% for the first $2 million of the project
amount, and leveraged with state funds for any amount over
$2 million. Weighted average interest rates for the program
have ranged from 2.0% to 2.6% over the last two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
0% interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: protection
of public health, compliance assurance, environmental criteria,
capacity development criteria, and affordability criteria.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $1.03 billion, $562 million of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
more than $141 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in April 1998.
• The first loan was executed in December 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 5 loans,
ranging from $12,654 to $1.2 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 60% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 67% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300.
Project Examples
• The City of Santa Fe received approximately $1.2 million in DWSRF assistance to bring two exploratory
wells on-line as back-up water supplies during drought conditions.
• The City of Tucumcari received approximately $479,000 in DWSRF assistance to replace existing water lines
on two major streets that service the community.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1 .02%, 1 .00%
$42.9 million
$27.3 million
$7 million
NA
$26.5 million
5, $3.9 million
3, $0.7 million
3, 60%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.48 million (31%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$4.22 million
(49.8%)
Admin
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on providing technical assistance
to small systems, promoting source
water protection, and developing
system capacity.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to enter into two contracts with
assistance providers to help 15 to 20
small systems a year that are deficient
in capacity (primarily those on the
DWSRF priority list).
• Specialized technical assistance was also
provided to systems such as the Tajique
system, which received help from field
personnel in locating and eliminating
bacteriological contamination in the
water system, and the City of
Alamogordo, which received assistance
in developing plans for the installation
of a new pilot project treatment facility.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used a portion of the funds from this set-aside to help administer its Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) program.
• The state developed a Statewide Drinking Water Assessment planning process to identify and provide
information on the needs of the state's public water systems through sanitary surveys and other sources of
information.
• Funds were also used to support the state's operator certification program, which includes utility operator
courses, certificate examinations, and the surveillance of systems to assure compliance with operator
certification requirements.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state filled four positions in the source water assessment and protection program with funds from this
set-aside. Staff worked to develop new protocols and documents to help implement the program.
• Funds were also used to support the state's capacity development program. Activities included the develop-
ment of a set of capacity assessment tools and the creation of a program to assist existing water systems in
obtaining the desired level of capacity.
• The state also developed a program to assist small and disadvantaged communities in preparing engineering
reports, plans, and specifications so that they are ready to apply for assistance from the DWSRF and other
funding sources for infrastructure improvements.
New Mexico
new
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Health
Cooperating Agency:
Environmental Facilities Corporation
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Protect and enhance New York's public drinking water supplies.
• Assist public water systems in improving drinking water quality, quantity, and dependability.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also
issues bonds to increase the amount available for funding
projects.
• Interest rates are based on the terms of the bonds issued for
the program. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 2.7% to 3-1% over the last
three years.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 4.71 %, 6.33%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$249.8 million
Grants Received
$249.8 million
State Contributions
$120 million
The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $419.4 million
lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30
year loan terms. Total Funds Available $862.7 million
The state's priority system considers five categories: MCL/
treatment technique violations, other sanitary code
violations, system reliability/dependability issues, Loans to Small Systems (#,!
government needs, and financial needs. Projects Completed (#,%) 141, 68%
Total Loans Executed (#,!
207, $722.3 million
166, $312.6 million
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $13-1 billion, $2.4 billion
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $4.6 billion in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in February 1998.
• The first loan was executed in March 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 207 loans,
ranging from $71,311 to $158.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 80% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 78% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• In conjunction with a $1.4 million state assistance grant from the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, the
DWSRF provided a $668,268 loan at a 0% interest rate to the Town of LeRay to extend the town's
distribution service to homes that had previously received their water from unsafe private wells, as well as to
an area that was previously supplied by an abandoned private water system.
• The City of Newburgh, population 27,000, received a $4.3 million loan to rehabilitate its drinking water
system that dates from the early 1900's. The project will ensure that disinfection residuals are maintained.
It also will improve water pressure and flow, minimize turbidity, and control corrosion, thereby reducing lead
and copper levels in the system.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $27.22 million (10.9%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $15.54 million (57.1 %)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, providing assistance to small
systems, and training water system
operators.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state provided outreach and
support for small systems through a
series of contracts and a Small Water
Systems Program. Hundreds of systems
have received assistance through the
programs financed by this set-aside.
• Small systems have benefited from an
innovative Small Water System Program
that includes meetings with local
officials and water system operators and
assistance in self-evaluation, consolida-
tion with other systems, and the
funding application process.
• Funds were also used to support the state's Comprehensive Performance Evaluation program, which resulted
in 20 detailed assessments of water filtration plants in one year. As part of this program, on-site MCL,
performance, and other compliance criteria were checked and advice was given on how to achieve and
maintain compliance.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to develop and implement its capacity development and operator
certification programs.
• The state prioritized water systems in terms of need, identified institutional, regulatory, financial, tax, and
legal factors which impair capacity within the state, and held workshops and meetings to solicit public
comment on its plans.
• Funds were also used to fill a full-time position in the operator certification program, address the training
needs of approximately 1,700 additional operators requiring certification, and develop a training module to
upgrade the skills of operators already certified.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water
protection program.
• The state intends to map all of the 14,000 raw water sources in the state, delineate boundaries for their
assessment areas, identify point and non-point contaminants within those boundaries, and inform the public
about potential risks in each area.
• The state entered into an agreement with the Department of Environmental Conservation to compile
existing state databases relevant to source water protection.
• The state assisted EPA in a contract to conduct a source water assessment pilot study in the Upper
Susquehanna River Basin with the goal of implementing an integrated watershed management plan. The
study was initiated by the Upper Susquehanna River Coalition and the Water Resources Institute of Cornell
University. Source water assessments were completed in four study areas and a workshop was held on the
results of the source water protection efforts.
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
North Carolina
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Support the state's goal of assuring safe drinking water for state residents and visitors served by public water
systems.
• Increase the percentage of the population served by safe water systems.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.67%, 1.81 %
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$100.5 million
Grants Received
$72.5 million
State Contributions
$14.5 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$74.6 million
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
38, $48.4 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
28, $23.9 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
18, 47%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• The interest rate is based on the lesser of 4% or one half of
The Bond Buyer 20-Year Bond Index. Weighted average
interest rates for the program have been about 2.6% over
the last three years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: public
health and compliance, consolidation, reliability,
affordability, and source protection and management.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2.4 billion, $1.4 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
more than $272 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in March 1998 (set-asides) and August 1998 (projects).
• The first loan was executed in January 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 38 loans,
ranging from $200,400 to $3 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 74% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 57% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Seven Devils, with a population of 470, received a $475,000 loan from the DWSRF for
waterline replacement.
• Albertson Water and Sewer, serving a population of 965, received a $543,490 loan to extend its service to a
series of homes that had previously been served by contaminated wells.
• The Town of Andrews, with a population of 4,400, receive a $200,400 loan to install clearwell baffling to
meet CT requirements and install an altitude valve in order to reactivate an elevated storage tank.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, providing technical assistance
to small systems, and promoting source
water and wellhead protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide technical assistance to small
systems. Environmental technicians
from the state regional offices and a
circuit rider from the North Carolina
Rural Water Association (NCRWA)
provided technical assistance to over
2,000 systems in the areas of compli-
ance and treatment, operation and
maintenance, and management
techniques such as rate studies and
long-range financial plans for infrastruc-
ture improvements.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $14.88 million (20.5%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $6.5 million (43.7%)
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program and
implement its operator certification and capacity development programs. The state hired 8 field and
administrative employees to ensure adequate implementation of the drinking water program.
• The state entered into a contract with the North Carolina Waterworks Operator Association to provide for a
registrar position to coordinate operator training activities.
• The state developed guidance documents and rules for its capacity development strategy and held day-long
capacity development workshops with assistance from the North Carolina American Water Works Association
and NCRWA.
• The state also used funds to support a transient noncommunity water system program to maintain an
updated inventory and oversee regulation of these systems.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water
and wellhead protection program.
• The state mapped locations of water sources and contract programmers have been hired to help automate the
assessment process. The state is also in the process of conducting delineations and assessments of ground
water sources.
• To address the fact that more than half of the state's population relies on ground water, the state used funds
to increase public knowledge of the benefits of wellhead protection. One-day seminars on wellhead
protection were conducted across the state and NCRWA provided training to local community leaders on the
importance of wellhead protection and the methods available for use within wellhead protection plans. The
state also entered into a contract with NCRWA to provide two ground water technicians to assist and guide
communities through the process for developing and implementing wellhead protection plans.
• The state provided incentives to get wellhead protection plans approved by awarding priority points to
DWSRF applicants with approved plans.
olina
-------
Nort
Lead Agency:
Department of Health
Cooperating Agency:
Municipal Bond Bank
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Assist public water systems in improving drinking water quality, quantity, and dependability by providing
reduced interest rate, long-term financial assistance for infrastructure improvements.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also has
issued bonds to increase the amount available for funding
projects.
• The state presently offers two different interest rates depend-
ing on whether a system qualifies for tax-exempt financing.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have been
about 2.5% over the last three years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers nine categories: water
quality, water quantity, affordability, consolidation and
regionalization, infrastructure adequacy, project financial
considerations, operator safety, prevention initiatives, and
water conservation.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
_
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million
Grants Received
$34.9 million
State Contributions
$2.5 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
$11.5 million
Total Funds Available
$45.4 million
Total Loans Executed (#,:
20, $40.8 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
16, $12.5 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
13, 65%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $486 million, $293 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $258.8 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in August 1998.
• The first loan was executed in March 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 20 loans,
ranging from $44,004 to $13-2 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 80% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 88% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Grand Forks received two loans through the DWSRF to address Safe Drinking Water Act compliance issues
and damage incurred by major flooding along the Red River in 1997- The first loan ($13-2 million) will be
used to build a clearwell, pump station, and transmission to satisfy the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The
second loan ($10.0 million) will be used to construct new raw water intake facilities.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on helping small systems and
promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide capacity development and
source water protection assistance to
targeted water systems through techni-
cal assistance contracts with the Mid-
west Assistance Program (MAP) and the
North Dakota Rural Water Systems
Association (NDRWSA).
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state did not reserve any funds
from this set-aside.
Local Assistance and Other State Pro-
grams (LA)
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $3.19 million (9.2%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.39 million (43.5%)
1.26
0 0
Admin
SSTA
SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
The state used funds from this set-aside
to conduct source water delineations, contaminant source inventories, and susceptibility analyses for all of its
water systems.
The state also entered into a contract with MAP to complete contaminant source inventories for ground
water systems that use surface water.
North Dakota
-------
Lead Agency:
Environmental Protection Agency
Cooperating Agency:
Water Development Authority
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Maximize below-market rate loans to eligible public water systems to fund improvements to ensure
compliance with federal and state drinking water laws and regulations.
• Encourage the consolidation and/or regionalization of small water systems to allow them to take advantage of
the economies of scale available to larger systems.
Program at a Glance (through June 30,
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.43%, 3.20%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$139.6 million
Grants Received
$114.6 million
State Contributions
$28.2 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$132.3 million
Total Loans Executed (#,:
48, $120.5 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
28, $12.5 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
34, 71%
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on the term of loan, size of service
area, and the affordability needs of the service area.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have ranged
from 3-9% to 4.2% over the last three years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers six categories: human
health risks, compliance with federal and state Safe Drinking
Water Act requirements, affordability, population or service
area, regionalization/ consolidation, and effective manage-
ment.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $4.7 billion, of which $1.7 billion
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $527 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 48 loans,
ranging from $7,270 to $21.2 million to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 58% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 64% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Ottawa County received a $21.2 million loan for the consolidation and replacement of seven public surface
water treatment plants and more than 115 privately-owned ground water systems that had significant
problems with contamination. The new Ottawa County Regional Water System consists of a 6 million
gallon per day surface water treatment plant and two new 500,000 gallon elevated storage tanks that provide
water to approximately 23,000 people.
• Several public and noncommunity water systems in Geauga County consistently demonstrated difficulty in
meeting Ohio EPA guidelines. With the help of three different project loans totaling $1.4 million, Geauga
County was able to install a 300,000 gallon storage tower to aid in the replacement of eight non-community
water systems and consolidate and eliminate seven public water systems.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $14.32 million (12.5%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $5.31 million (37.1 %)
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-asides
on helping small systems and promoting
source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
for technical assistance teams to provide
operational, financial, and managerial
support to small systems. More than
2,600 systems received assistance through
the program.
• Operational technical support included
providing professional on-site assistance
to systems to maintain system compli-
ance and capacity and training water
system personnel and boards on
maintenance, operation, and managerial
matters. Contact is maintained with
system operators who have been assisted.
• Financial and managerial support
included providing assistance in
preparing loan applications, determining ability to pay, and assisting in finding the most cost-effective
method to address problems.
• The state also used funds to offer workshops around the state to enhance system operators' skills and
maintain certification levels by offering continuing education credits.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state did not reserve any funds under this set-aside.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water
and wellhead protection program.
• The state has developed an extensive source water assessment and protection program through a series of
contracts with the U.S. Geological Survey, Woolpert Consultants, and Ohio Department of Natural
Resources Division of Water. This program involves conducting resource characterizations, delineations of
source water protection areas, and inventories and susceptibility analyses for ground water and surface water
sources. For ground water systems, assessment work was initiated and completed in five pilot counties. For
surface water systems, assessment work was initiated and largely completed at one pilot system.
• The state also entered into a contract with the Great Lakes Rural Community Assistance Program to pilot a
regional source water assessment program designed for areas underlain by karst geology.
• The state also worked with water systems on their wellhead protection programs. Approximately 50
delineations and more than 50 separate elements of management plans were reviewed in the last two years.
Ohio
- ~ -
-------
Oklahoma
•--..7]
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Quality
Cooperating Agency:
Water Resources Board
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• To install or upgrade treatment that improves the capability of public water systems to comply with primary
or secondary drinking water standards.
• To rehabilitate or replace contaminated drinking water sources.
Structure of Loan Program
The state operates a direct loan program.
Interest rates are based on a discount on the state's market
interest rates. Weighted annual average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 2.8% to 4.0% over the last three
years.
The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
The state's priority system considers nine categories:
violations of primary standards, quantity deficiencies, design
deficiencies, vulnerability to potential pollution, violations of
secondary standards, consolidation, compliance orders,
source water protection, and affordability.
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.40%, 1.44%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$60.8 million
Grants Received
$49.6 million
State Contributions
$12.2 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$52 million
Total Loans Executed (#,!
10, $31.5 million
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
7, $17.7 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
3, 30%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2.3 billion, $1.3 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $67 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997 (set-asides) and January 1998 (projects).
• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 10 loans,
ranging from $575,675 to $8.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 70% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 43% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Trihalomethanes (THMs) are byproducts of the process used to disinfect drinking water. They form when
disinfectants react with natural organic and inorganic matter in source water and the distribution system.
The Stillwater Utilities Authority received an $8.5 million loan which allowed it to upgrade its water
treatment plant and to install new treatment options aimed at correcting THM violations.
• High nitrate levels in ground water is a common problem for many small towns in the western part of the
state. The Mangum Utility Authority received a $2.1 million loan to drill new water wells in an area having
lower nitrate levels and to upgrade their distribution system to alleviate pressure problems.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $11.04 million (22.2%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$5.95 million
(53.9%)
Admin
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on providing technical assistance
to small systems and promoting source
water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to assist small systems in preparing
applications for DWSRF project loans
and in developing needed operational
controls.
• The state also provided technical
assistance to systems through a contract
with the Oklahoma Rural Water
Association. More than 125 water
systems have received assistance through
this program. The small systems
benefited from assistance on how to
improve compliance with drinking
water standards, quality of service to
customers, and water system manage-
ment. The systems also received evaluations of raw water quality and of filtration and disinfection practices.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state primarily used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program with an emphasis on providing technical assistance and conducting other non-enforcement
activities.
• The state has increased tracking of volatile organic chemicals, nitrate violations, and disinfectant byproducts
and completed a statewide update of its surface water intake database. Funds have also been used to train
local water system operators on how to prepare consumer confidence reports.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state reserved funds from this set-aside to support its program for the delineation of watershed protec-
tion areas for surface water sources of drinking water. Over the next several years, all surface water areas will
be delineated and maps produced of the water source, surrounding drainage, and nearby land use. A similar
delineation project is underway for wellhead protection areas for ground water sources.
• The state has also begun to conduct an inventory of sources of contamination of water supplies. In some
cases, local contingency plans have also been developed.
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
homa
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Human Services
Cooperating Agency:
Economic and Community Developement
Department
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Support the goal of ensuring Oregon's water supplies provide safe water to drink by helping to finance
needed water system improvements.
• Increase water system compliance with state and federal drinking water requirements through technical
assistance, capacity development, and assessment of source water.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a discount of state and municipal
bond rates. Weighted average interest rates for the program
have ranged from 2.3% to 3-3% over the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30
year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: risk to
human health, compliance, community affordability, cost
effectiveness, and innovation.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2.7 billion, $929 million of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
more than $62 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in June 1998.
• The first loan was executed in July 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 28 loans, ranging
from $36,165 to $4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 96% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 89% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Talent's drinking water sources were once described as "the worst in Oregon" due in part to a
serious cryptosporidiosis outbreak in 1992. With a $2 million loan that included disadvantaged assistance, the
city was able to begin purchasing treated water from the Medford Water Commission.
• Mitchell received a $36,165 loan to make improvements to its drinking water system. The system had
experienced violations of maximum contaminant levels for Coliform bacteria due to inadequate treatment.
An upgrade of the chlorination system provided a consistent disinfection system to eliminate violations and
more effectively protect customers.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1.51%, 1.45%
$63.6 million
$63.6 million
$5.9 million
NA
$60.2 million
28, $29.4 million
27, $25.4 million
2, 7%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $10.27 million (16.1%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$4.09 million
(39.8%)
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on providing technical assistance
to small systems, promoting source
water protection, and expanding
oversight of public water systems by
using County Health Departments as
partners.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide technical assistance to
community ground water and surface
water systems through a series of
contracts.
• Resolution Plans were prepared for
systems throughout the state. These
plans identify any current deficiency
with the water system's infrastructure or
operation, outline detailed plans for
resolving deficiencies, and complete a
cost estimate for the solutions.
• Water system operator training programs were developed and over 300 hours of on-site technical assistance to
small systems was provided.
• The state also provided engineering service grants aimed at small systems. These grants fund the cost of
preparing an engineering report (up to $10,000), which then are used to determine if the system is eligible
for DWSRF loans or other sources of funding.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program
through contracts with County Health Departments, which help public water suppliers with water quality
problems, reporting, sanitary surveys, and regulatory consultation.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water
protection and capacity development program.
• The Department of Environmental Quality intends to provide early technical assistance at the community
level as part of the state's source water assessment process and to encourage community involvement in areas
where land-use planning issues involve ground water resources or high priority contamination sources. The
state plans to increase community awareness through meetings, education programs, and public forums.
• The state developed a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to protect
vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination.
• The state also established a three-phase capacity development plan that includes the assessment of loan
applicants, a capacity implementation program for new public water systems, and a capacity development
program for existing public water systems.
-------
Pennsylvania
Lead Agency:
Infrastructure Investment Authority
(Pennvest)
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Environmental Protection
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Ensure that all public drinking water systems in Pennsylvania achieve compliance with drinking water
standards.
• Protect and enhance the quality of life of present and future Pennsylvanians by providing safe and adequate
supplies of potable water.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a comparison of the unemploy-
ment rate of the county in which the project will take place
with the statewide average unemployment rate. Weighted
annual average interest rates for the program have been about
2.0% over the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers six categories: benefits to
public health, improvement in the ability to comply,
affordability, environmental and social impacts, improvement
in adequacy and efficiency, and benefits to public safety.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $5-0 billion, $2.3 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $201 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in May 1997 (projects) and July 1998 (set-asides).
• The first loan was executed in May 1997- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 97 loans, ranging
from $69,791 to $8.6 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 76% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 68% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Blacklick Valley received a $1.3 million disadvantaged assistance loan with a 1% interest rate and 26 year
repayment period to construct a waterline to supply residents of two communities with water from an
existing drinking water system. The project eliminated the use of two reservoirs and numerous private
drinking water wells contaminated with Giardia and Coliform bacteria.
• The Sandy Run Water Association received a $85,587 loan to construct a 10,000 gallon storage tank and
chlorination facilities to eliminate contamination from surface-water runoff into the existing facilities that had
required residents to boil water for five years.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
4.24%, 3.15%
$148.1 million
$148.1 million
$29.6 million
NA
$140.2 million
97, $149 million
74, $99.6 million
30, 31%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $45.9 million (31%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$12.48 million (27.2%)
24
20
16
12
22.21
14.81
5.92
4.32
Admin
SSTA
SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on capacity development,
promoting source water protection, and
facilitating partnerships between
drinking water systems.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to hire four addition full-time staff for
its capability enhancement program.
• The state entered into a contract with
the Pennsylvania Rural Water Associa-
tion (PRWA) for circuit riders to
provide leak detection and water
conservation training for small, rural
water systems. A complete water audit
is done for each system identifying the
location of any leaks, how much is
being lost, and cost savings to the
system if leaks are fixed.
• The state also contracted with the
Northeast Rural Community Assistance Program to help water suppliers address their financial and
managerial problems.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to implement its source water protection and operator certification
programs.
• The state added 15 additional full-time staff to provide technical assistance to localities in the development
of source water protection programs, increase public awareness, and provide geographic information support.
Several local communities and water suppliers received grants to implement local watershed protection
programs involving land use planning, zoning ordinances, and incentives for landowners.
• The state entered into a contract to enhance its capability to develop and deliver quality classroom and web-
based training for operators.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement its capability
enhancement program.
• The Environmental Resource Research Institute at Penn State University was contracted to conduct source
water assessments of ground water sources for all water systems in the state serving less than 3,300 customers.
The state also entered into a contract to conduct surface water source assessments in watersheds with areas
greater than 100 square miles.
• The state also established a grant program to assist communities in implementing local wellhead protection
programs aimed at addressing actual or potential causes of contamination in their ground water.
• The state hired 9 additional full-time staff to coordinate and facilitate water system participation in the
national Partnership for Safe Water Program.
Pennsylvania
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Health
Cooperating Agencies:
Infrastructure Finance Authority
Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Assist public water systems in improving drinking water quality and dependability.
• Consolidate and/or eliminate existing non-viable public water systems.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on economic and financial analysis
conducted by the Infrastructure Finance Authority.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have been
about 2.0% over the last year.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers six categories: compli-
ance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), public
health risk, reliability and dependability, governmental
needs, special priorities, and affordability.
Program at a Glance (through June 30,
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.44%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$55.8 million
Grants Received
$44.6 million
State Contributions
$8.9 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$49.4 million
Total Loans Executed (#,:
2, $36.7 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
0, $5.8 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
0, 0%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2 billion, $451 million of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $97-3 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in September 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 2 loans for
7 projects, ranging from $585,000 to $18 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• A total of $5-8 million went to 3 projects for small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.
Project Examples
• The water system serving the Carite and Guyama Wards in Guayama were in noncompliance with the
SDWA and inadequate for the area's demand. The system received a $2.9 million loan to build two new
distribution tanks with pumping stations and new distribution lines to ensure adequate supply and
compliance.
• The Municipality of Rio Grande's El Yunque Filter Plant was overloaded and thus in noncompliance with
the turbidity standard. An $18 million loan was agreed to by the DWSRF to update and improve the filter
plant to correct the problem.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $4.16 million (9.3%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$0.69 million
(16.7%)
2
1
1.79
1.26
0.89
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on providing technical assistance
to small systems and supporting its
drinking water program.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide assistance to 234 community
water systems in preparing consumer
confidence reports by developing
guidance, providing assessment, and
working with systems to make their
reports more accessible to the public.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to support its Public Water Supply
Supervision (PWSS) program and
implement its capacity development
and operator certification programs.
• The state developed guidance and provided orientation to help systems comply with the SDWA when
preparing consumer confidence reports.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct its source water assessment program.
• The state has worked to develop a plan of action, assemble all existing information, and begin implementa-
tion. Public outreach efforts are also underway to encourage self-implementation by systems through
orientation, guidance, incentives, and enforcement.
0.34
0.23
0.2
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
o Rico
-------
Lead Agency:
Clean Water Finance Agency
Cooperating Agency:
Department of Health
Department of Environmental Management
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Maintain the fiscal integrity of the DWSRF and comply with generally accepted governmental accounting
principles to assure continuance of loan funds for future generations.
• Coordinate DWSRF activities with other state and federal activities relating to public drinking water.
Program at a Glance (th
[through Jun
e 30, 2001)
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a baseline of three-quarters of the
market interest rate. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 2.8% to 3-1% over the last two
years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: acute
health risks, chronic health risks, compliance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act, infrastructure needs, and affordability.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $565 million, $63 million of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
more than $279 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in December 1997 (set-asides) and June 1998 (projects).
• The first loan was executed in June 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 4 loans, ranging
from $10,000 to $5 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 50% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 50% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Shady Acres Nursing Home, a private corporation in West Kingston, provides services to 77 patients. The
state provided a loan of $10,000 for well reactivation and storage enhancement.
• The City of Providence received a $5 million loan to fund three rehabilitation projects including aqueduct
rehabilitation, reservoir rehabilitation, and clearwell and effluent yard rehabilitation.
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
1 .00%, 1 .00%
$42.7 million
$27.1 million
$5.4 million
NA
$29.6 million
4, $10. 2 million
2, $0.2 million
5, 56%
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program and helping small systems.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to enter into contracts with the New
England Water Works Association and
Maine Rural Water to provide assistance
to small systems in system operations
training and consumer confidence
report preparation.
• The state also entered into a Memoran-
dum of Understanding with the Rhode
Island Water Resources Board to
provide matching funds.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $4.3 million (15.8%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.27 million (29.4%)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to support additional staff in its drinking water program.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside primarily to conduct source water assessments.
• The state entered into a contract with U.S. Geological Survey to determine the vulnerability of wells by
category of contamination.
• The state intends to conduct delineations and inventories of all of its water systems.
Rhode Ish
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Health and Environmental Control
Cooperating Agency:
Budget and Control Board
South Carolina
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Maintain the fiscal integrity of the fund to ensure continued growth of funding in perpetuity.
• Enhance the viability of public water systems through continued implementation of the state's capacity
development authority.
Structure of Loan Program
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.18%, 1.08%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $47.3 million
Grants Received
$38.9 million
State Contributions
$7.8 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$45.1 million
Total Loans Executed (#,:
9, $26 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
1, $0.3 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
3, 33%
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a baseline approximately 33%
below the Bond-Buyer 25 Index. Weighted average interest
rates for the program have been about 3-5% over the last three
years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: public
health risks- acute and chronic, exceedance or expected
exceedance of primary drinking water standards, non-
compliance with a secondary maximum contaminant level(s),
and compliance with the State Safe Drinking Water Act and
the State Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $808 million, $385 million of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $70 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in June 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 9 loans, ranging
from $344,882 to $6 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 11% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 100% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• BJ WSA Chelsea received a $5-8 million loan to expand its water treatment plant to reduce Hilton Head
ground water withdrawal rates.
• SJWD Water District received a $4.1 million loan to replace lines and close open loops to improve flow and
water system pressure. A pump station and treatment plant upgrade were also planned.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on providing technical assistance
to small systems and promoting
wellhead protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to enter into a contract to provide
assistance to systems via telephone, e--
mail, standard mail, and field visits.
• Encouraging, and in some cases,
requiring water systems to develop a
"business plan" is a major component of
the state's capacity development plan.
The state has used technical assistance
to help small systems complete self-
assessments and develop standard
operating procedures and detailed
business plans.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $3.49 million (9%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$1.54 million
(44.2%)
1.48
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state did not reserve any funds under this set-aside through fiscal year 2001. During fiscal year 2002,
the state intends to use funds under this set-aside for capacity development and source water protection.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a wellhead
protection program.
• The state contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey to delineate source water protection areas for 83 surface
water intakes used by public water systems.
• The state also developed an extensive wellhead protection program that includes the delineation of wellhead
protection areas. The state has completed delineations of wellhead protection areas for all existing water
systems.
• The state entered into a contract to complete an inventory of potential contaminant sources within each
delineated source water protection area. The contractor has completed inventories for 22% of the delineated
source water protection areas.
• The state intends to create a geographical information system (GIS) database of all ground water and surface
water delineations.
South Carolina
V
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
South Dakota
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1 .00%, 1 .00%
$42. 7 million
$42.7 million
$7.1 million
NA
$48.9 million
28, $31 .6 million
24, $15 million
15, 56%
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Ensure that the state's drinking water systems remain safe and affordable.
• Protect public health and promote the economic well-being of the citizens of the state.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on the current market rates, rates
secured on state issued matching funds, and current demand
for DWSRF funds. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 2.4% to 3-6% over the last three
years. Interest rates have been lowered to 3-5% starting in
fiscal year 2002.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers eleven categories:
primary drinking water contaminants, affordability
consolidation and regionalization, secondary drinking water
contaminants, total coliform, rehabilitation, inadequate
supply, wellhead/source water protection, replacement of
transmission lines, storage, and population.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $436 million, $277 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $53-4 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in January 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 28 loans,
ranging from $142,000 to $7 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 86% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 71% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Kingbrook Rural Water System received a loan of $475,000 to connect the town of Carthage to the rural
water system. Carthage is a rural community with a population of 187 and a median household income
(MHI) at 53% of the statewide MHI. The loan was used to rehabilitate the town's water distribution system
and install the mainline. Because of Carthage's MHI, the loan was provided at 0% interest rate with a 30
year repayment term.
• The City of Mobridge is located along the Missouri River in northern South Dakota. The Missouri River
supplies the city's 3,574 residents with drinking water, but the 50-year-old water treatment plant was in
need of renovation. The plant had inadequate backwash facilities, sedimentation capability, and control
equipment. The city received two loans totaling $1.32 million to upgrade its water treatment facility.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $3.33 million (7.8%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$1.08 million (32.5%)
1.31
0.02
Admin
LA
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems, and
promoting water source protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to assist in bringing non-complying
small systems into compliance, improve
operations of small water systems, and
facilitate small systems' access to the
DWSRF program.
• The state contracted with five planning
districts and the South Dakota
Association of Rural Water Systems to
provide technical assistance.
• To encourage more proactive planning
within small communities, the state is
proposing to use funds to initiate a
planning grants program, which will
reimburse 80% of the cost of an
engineering study.
State Program Management (SPM)
• A contract was awarded to South Dakota Association of Rural Water Systems to provide supplemental
training to assist operators that are having difficulty becoming certified.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used other funds to hold nine local community meetings and conferences across the state to present
information on source water protection. The meetings included members of the South Dakota Engineering
Society, the Black Hills Council of Local Governments, the South Dakota Association of Rural Water
Systems, the Butte County Commission, the Fall River County Conservation District, and the Edgemont
Chamber of Commerce.
• The state used other funds to complete preliminary source water delineations for approximately 374 systems
and 898 sources. A database has been developed to store information collected from the source water
assessments.
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
mth Dakota
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environment and
Conservation
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1 .02%, 1 .34%
$53.2 million
$53.2 million
$10.6 million
NA
$53. 8 million
25, $28.3 million
19, $21 .8 million
10, 40%
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Maintain a self-sustaining revolving loan program to provide low-cost financial assistance for projects to
assure affordable drinking water that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Protect and enhance the water quality in Tennessee by ensuring the technical integrity of funded projects.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on The Bond Buyer's 20-Year Bond
Index and then multiplied by the entities Ability To Pay
Index (ATPI). This ATPI uses a broad definition of fiscal
capacity that includes per capita income, per capita property
tax base, and per capita sales and is intended to measure fiscal
capacity in terms of the available resources for paying taxes or
paying for services. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 1.9% to 2.5% over the last three
years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
principal forgiveness as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers seven categories: water
quality problems, source/capacity issues, water storage,
leakage problems, pressure problems, replacement/rehabilita-
tion projects, and water line extensions.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.4 billion, $828 million
of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $83 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in March 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 25 loans,
ranging from $71,300 to $7-5 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 76% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 42% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Troy received a $805,000 loan with a 2.58% interest rate to install two new wells, convert
existing abandoned structures to clearwells, and renovate existing equipment and the water treatment plant
building. The new wells replaced older wells that produced water with unacceptable high iron levels. The
project provided safe and reliable drinking water to approximately 1,050 citizens of the town and the
surrounding community.
• The City of Crossville, with approximately 8,600 residents, received a $7-5 million loan with a 1.77%
interest rate to build a new 3-5 million gallon per day treatment plant. The existing plant was constructed
in 1937 and has outlived its useful life. The deteriorated conditions at the plant have made further
rehabilitation and expansion impractical and water rationing is expected in the short-term if the new water
plant is not built.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $11.45 million (21.5%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $5.35 million (46.7%)
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused its use of set-
asides on helping small systems,
supporting its drinking water program,
and promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide technical assistance to small
systems through a contract with the
Fleming Training Center (which is a
part of the Division of Community
Assistance).
• More than 500 small system water
treatment plant operators have received
hands-on assistance with technical
problems. Numerous operations classes
have also been offered to help small
systems improve their operations by
increasing their technical, managerial,
and financial abilities. Over 1,250
student days of instruction have been
provided per year.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state has used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program
and enhance its capacity development and operator certification programs.
• As part of its PWSS program, the state has made a special effort to ensure a high consumer confidence report
compliance rate by conducting outreach activities to inform water system operators about the importance of
these reports. Funds have also been used to support the enforcement of federal drinking water regulations
such as the Disinfection Byproducts Rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
• The University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Association of Utility Districts have been contracted to help
develop and implement the state's capacity development program to ensure that all loan applicants meet a
base-line standard with respect to capacity.
• The state also used funds to track and enforce compliance with the operator certification program.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and assist in wellhead protec-
tion program elements.
• The state conducted delineations and assessments of surface water sources with the assistance of the Tennessee
Association of Utility Districts. A total of 51 of the 180 surface source water assessments have been
completed.
• The state also performed additional wellhead protection work with the help of the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the U.S. Geological Survey. Activities within this program have included underground
discharge contamination source inventories and hydro-geological runoff investigations. In addition, the
Ground Water Institute (GWI) has completed more than 80 community wellhead digitizations. The GWI is
also performing susceptibility analyses for public water systems under the source water assessment program.
Tennessee
-------
Lead Agency:
Water Development Board
Cooperating Agencies:
Natural Resources Conservation Commission
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Improve and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the state's drinking water by
developing a financial and technical program capable of funding all projects annually that pose the most
serious risk to public health and meet compliance with the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Structure of Loan Program
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 5.59%, 7.58%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
$298. 7 million
$239.6 million
$30 million
NA
$237.6 million
24, $163. 5 million
13, $36 million
0, 0%
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state's market
interest rates, combined with the adjusted median
household income of the area receiving assistance.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have ranged
from 1.9% to 3-8% over the last two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms and
principal forgiveness.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: health
and compliance factors, physical deficiency factors,
consolidation, and population.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $13 billion, $4.3 billion of which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $600.3 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in May 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 24 loans, ranging
from $930,000 to $9-4 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 54% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 customers, 54% of which went
to systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Sweetwater received a $7-3 million loan in combination with a $3-5 million loan from the Texas
Water Development Fund to construct a new treatment plant. The new treatment plant will correct
secondary contaminant levels for sulphates and improve the disinfection process.
• The City of Brady received a $9-4 million loan to construct a surface water treatment plant and a storage
tank to correct radiochem violations in their ground water source. Since the city qualified as a disadvantaged
community, 35% of the loan was forgiven and the remaining loan amount was offered at a 0% interest rate
and a 30 year loan term.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $35.4 million (14.8%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$17.7 million (50%)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
16.39
4.97
Admin
SSTA
SPM
LA
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on program support, promoting
source water protection, and capacity
development.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state did not reserve any funds
from this set-aside.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to help administer its Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) program.
As part of this program, an integrated
data applications package was developed
to give the PWSS program the capacity
to satisfy the data and tracking needs of
both the state and EPA.
• A contractor was hired to collect water
samples of chemical quality from public
water system entry points. TNRCC
staff conducted treatment plant inspections and sanitary surveys.
• Funds were also used to develop a capacity development strategy. TNRCC prioritized water systems for
financial, managerial, and technical assessments and assistance. Since 1998, TNRCC has made over 950
referrals to a contractor for system assessments and 980 referrals for assistance. In addition, 113 water
systems have been assessed for potential consolidation.
• Additional funds were used to implement an operator certification program. A contractor was hired to
determine the knowledge, skills, and abilities of operators of surface water systems that serve more than 14
million people in the state. The certification exams for these operators were also revised.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• In addition to using funds to conduct required source water assessments, the state used funds from this set-
aside to conduct two source water protection projects. For these two projects, contractors were hired to
evaluate source water assessment and protection reports and make on-site visits with the aim of providing the
systems technical assistance in how to direct source water protection efforts.
• The state implemented a financial, managerial, and technical review process along with a business plan
review process to assure the abilities of new water systems and new utility owners to be viable and maintain
compliance.
• The state also developed a loan program for systems to implement best management practices to protect their
drinking water sources. The types of projects eligible for funding include: land acquisition, implementation
of land use ordinances, hazardous waste collection programs, and public outreach activities.
Texas
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Quality
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 200
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1 %, 1 %
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Help public water supplies achieve and maintain compliance with federal and state drinking water standards
and help historical significant noncompliers (SNCs) achieve compliance.
• Build a permanent, self-sustaining state revolving fund for financing drinking water projects.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on the state's bond market interest
rate, which is calculated weekly using George K. Baum &
Company's 20-year A bond municipal bond yields report.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have been
about 0% for the last 2 years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: water
source quality and quantity, treatment, storage, and
distribution.
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$42.7 million
Grants Received
$34.9 million
State Contributions
$7 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$35.3 million
Total Loans Executed (#,:
8, $20.4 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
5, $9.3 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
2, 25%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $504 million, $287 million of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $72 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in February 1998.
• The first loan was executed in November 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 8 loans,
ranging from $230,000 to $3-4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 63% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 80% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• In Manila, a publicly-owned community water system received a $750,000 loan for waterlines and other
system upgrades.
• In Wendover, a publicly-owned community water system received a $3-4 million loan for treatment, storage,
and distribution of water from a spring source that was identified as being under the direct influence of
surface water.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems, and
promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to enter into a contract with the Rural
Water Association for a circuit rider to
provide technical assistance to rural
drinking water systems. In addition,
targeted systems receive tri-annual
financial and management audits.
• In one year, over 900 systems received
assistance to resolve operational
problems and address compliance
issues.
State Program Management (SPM)
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $6.98 million (20%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $4.16 million (59.6%)
Admin
SSTA
SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program and implement its source water protection,
capacity development, and operator certification programs.
• The state used funds to continue to perform core functions of the PWSS program such as sanitary surveys,
plan reviews, and ground water source protection. The state also awarded $75,000 in grants to 12 local
health departments to conduct sanitary surveys.
• The state entered into a contract to consolidate its drinking water data into one user-friendly database.
• The state hired a full-time employee to develop and implement a source water protection program for surface
water sources.
• The state issued 24 contracts aimed at implementing regional planning for small systems on a county-wide
basis. As part of the regional planning process, recommendations were made to small systems to regionalize
operations or to consolidate with neighboring systems.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water
protection program.
• The state intends to conduct source water assessments for transient noncommunity systems with ground
water sources.
• The state established a program to partially reimburse (up to $2,500) small water systems serving fewer than
3,300 for costs incurred in preparing source water protection plans. Reimbursement was provided for 34
small water systems for 100 drinking water sources.
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Environmental Conservation
Cooperating Agency:
Municipal Bond Bank
Economic Development Authority
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.0%, 1.0%
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Provide a self-sustaining funding program that will assist public water systems in ensuring that the public
has safe drinking water.
• Maintain the fiscal integrity of the fund and comply with generally accepted government accounting
standards to assure continuance of loan funds for future generations.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a determination by the State
Treasurer and Secretary of the Department. Weighted
c i i jr 0 no/ Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
average interest rates tor the program have ranged rrom 2.0% ^ r
to 2.4% over the last two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
principal forgiveness (via negative interest rates) and 30 year
loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: water
quality deficiencies, system facility improvements, system
reliability criteria, population, and affordability. Tota, Loans Executed (#_ $) 60] $25 3 miNion
Grants Received
$42.7 million
$34.9 million
State Contributions
$6.6 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$35.5 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
60, $25.3 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
28, 43%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $307 million, $293 million of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $25 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997-
• The first loan was executed in December 1997- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 60 loans,
ranging from $13,518 to $2.6 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 100% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 95% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• Starksboro Village water system, which serves 80 people, received a loan of $14,657 for a new spring box.
The old, poorly constructed spring box was suspected of allowing surface water infiltration into the existing
spring source. Residents of the village are pleased with the resulting water quality improvement.
• The ground water well serving as the source for the 85 residents of the Hillside Manor Mobile Home Park
was under the influence of a small stream. A $330,000 loan with a -3% interest rate and 30 year repayment
period funded the consolidation of the system with the nearby Lazy Brook Mobile Home Park as well as a
new water storage tank, pumping station, and distribution mains. The water system operator indicated that
the use of DWSRF funds was the only way the project could be completed.
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $6.71 million (19.2%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$3.05 million
(45.5%)
Admin SSTA SPM LA
All figures in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems, and
promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide a grant to the Northeast
Rural Water Association and support a
project development specialist in the
Drinking Water Program to provide
technical assistance to small systems.
• Over 350 water systems received
assistance with applying for DWSRF
loans and other funding sources,
meeting historic preservation require-
ments, on-site management assistance,
water audits and leak detection, and
consumer confidence reporting.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to support 3 additional full-time staff in its Drinking Water
Program. The employees work on capacity development, adoption and implementation of new regulations,
and consumer confidence reports. One employee works to approve source protection plans and help water
systems with assessments and delineations.
• The state provided a grant to the Northeast Rural Water Association to conduct annual operator training
courses. In one year, approximately 36 training courses were held and attended by over 500 water system
operators.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement its capacity
development strategy and source water protection program.
• The state established a program to provide loans to municipally owned systems for the purchase of land or
conservation easements to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination. The state has made
a total of $200,000 in loans to 3 systems. One loan, to the Town of Bradford, purchased a tract of farmland
within Zone I of the system's source protection area. The purchase was a high priority because the Town's
source protection plan identified high risk land use activity on the property.
• As part of its capacity development strategy, the state also established a program to provide loans to small
municipalities to prepare feasibility studies. Approximately 18 loans have been executed. In addition, the
state entered into contracts with firms to complete facility improvement plans for 79 small water systems
serving less than 500 people. These plans include a site visit, replacement schedule, cost estimates, and an
evaluation of consolidation options.
Vermont
-------
Virginia _
Lead Agency:
Department of Health
Cooperating Agencies:
Virginia Resources Authority
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Help assure that Virginians will be the healthiest people in the nation with regards to drinking water.
• Promote consolidation and regionalization of water supplies through programmatic and construction
assistance.
• Assist and encourage waterworks owners to develop strategies to develop and maintain the capacity to provide
safe drinking water for the long-term.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on, at most, the municipal AA
revenue bond rate minus 1%. Weighted annual average
interest rates for the program have ranged from 1.2% to
3.0% over the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30
year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers three categories: health
and compliance criteria, affordability criteria, and additional
factors such as regionalization and coordinated funding.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2 billion, $796 million of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $21.4 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1997 (projects) and March 1998 (set-asides).
• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 39 loans,
ranging from $250,000 to $2.9 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 97% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 84% of which went to
systems serving less than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Town of Luray's water source, a ground water well, was found to be under the influence of surface water
and thus susceptible to contamination. The town received an $860,000 loan for the construction of a new
treatment plant and waterlines to correct this problem.
• Before the Dickenson County-Road Branch waterline extension project was completed in December 2000,
residents used drinking water wells that were contaminated with bacteria, sulfur, and iron. For many years,
residents hauled potable water to their homes, a hardship to those who were elderly or disabled. The
extension has made a safe, affordable, and reliable water supply available to 41 families and has improved
their quality of life.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
2.34%, 1 .95%
$88.2 million
$87.5 million
$7.5 million
NA
$81.1 million
39, $51 .7 million
38, $50.4 million
20, 51%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $14.15 million (16.2%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $5.78 million (40.8%)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
7.84
2.91
Admin
SSTA
SPM
LA
in millions of dollars
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on helping small systems,
developing system capacity, and
promoting source water protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to complement a state-wide program of
technical assistance for all systems
through a contracting with the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State
University. The program offered free
seminars to small system owners,
managers, and operators on topics such
as comprehensive business plans,
bookkeeping, and recordkeeping.
• The state also awarded 26 planning and
design grants, aimed primarily at
helping develop preliminary engineer-
ing reports, design plans, and carry out
water quality and quantity testing.
• The state entered into three contracts to: provide assistance to systems which were significant non-compliers;
provide hands-on assistance to more than 200 systems with such matters as pressure storage, chemical
application in water treatment, and sampling methods; and work with 129 water systems to develop and
implement source water protection programs.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and operator
certification programs.
• Funds were used to make improvements to the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services, which performs
the vast majority of the analysis required by the drinking water program. Improvements in both technology
and training greatly improved the quality and response time of the lab's work.
• Funds were also used to create a comprehensive operator certification training program, including scholar-
ships for distance learning available to operators across the state.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a capacity
development strategy.
• The state continued to provide hands-on assistance to existing systems in developing comprehensive business
plans through a contract with the Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project, Inc.
• The state also developed a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements and to
implement measures to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination.
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Health
Cooperating Agencies:
Public Works Board
Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Provide loans and technical assistance to community and nonprofit, noncommunity water systems to
facilitate effective planning, design, financing, and infrastructure improvements aimed at increasing public
health protection and compliance with primary drinking water regulations.
• Provide assistance to communities in strengthening their local capacity.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also has
an innovative financing approach to reach privately owned
utilities.
• Interest rates are based on the income level of the water
system's customers. Weighted average interest rates for the
program have ranged from 2.7% to 3-0% over the last three
years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: public
health, compliance, regionalization, restructuring, and per
household need.
Program at a Glance (through June 30,
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.48%, 2.69%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $112.3 million
Grants Received
$97.8 million
State Contributions
$18.3 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$88.2 million
Total Loans Executed (#,:
91, $61.7 million
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
74, $43.1 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
10, 11%
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $3-9 billion, $1.5 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $75 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in July 1997 (set-asides) and May 1998 (projects).
• The first loan was executed in December 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 91 loans,
ranging from $58,000 to $4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.
• 81% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 89% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The Cities of White Salmon and Bingen (Klickitat County) received a $4 million loan to switch from surface
water to ground water sources, improvements that are significant public health priorities for those communi-
ties. These improvements allowed these cities to end a boil water order that had been in effect for over a year.
• Camp Zanika Lache (the North Central Washington Council of Camp Fire) received unfiltered water directly
from a small creek. The camp was subject to an "agreed" order with the state to bring its water back into
compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The camp received $85,000 to partially finance a
$93,000 project to bring a new well online and make improvements associated with the new well.
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on supporting its drinking water
program, helping small systems, and
promoting source water and wellhead
protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide technical assistance to small
systems in the areas of source water and
wellhead protection.
• The state entered into a contract with
the Evergreen Rural Water Association
to send a circuit rider around the state
to help systems develop wellhead
protection plans.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $30.65 million (31.3%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $13.37 million (43.6%)
Admin
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to support its Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) program and to
enhance its operator certification and capacity development programs.
• Funds were used to support increased local health training, a noncommunity water systems project, increased
coliform monitoring, the consumer confidence report program, improved data management, and increased
enforcement of Safe Drinking Water Act regulations.
• Funds were also used to assist small, rural communities with developing their system capacity to achieve and
maintain compliance with drinking water regulations.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, enhance the capacity of
systems, and implement a source water protection program.
• The state used funds to assist systems in water system improvement planning, loan application processes, and
other aspects of system development as part of the state's capacity development strategy.
• Funds were also used to enhance the state's technical investigations program via sanitary surveys and special
purpose investigations.
Washingt
on
-------
Lead Agency:
Bureau for Public Health
Cooperating Agencies:
Water Development Authority
gmia
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Provide West Virginia with the infrastructure replacements and upgrades necessary to achieve a goal of
upgrading water quality for public water customers and providing water to private customers whose water is
not in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on a 2% rate and adjusted as needed
to address affordability. Weighted annual average interest
rates for the program have ranged from 0.3% to 1.4% over
the last two years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.
• The state's priority system considers three categories: public
health, regulatory compliance, and affordability.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $983 million, $779 million of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
more than $263 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 13 loans,
ranging from $305,000 to $7-6 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 54% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 71% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• In cooperation with the Appalachian Regional Commission and the West Virginia Development Office, the
DWSRF program provided a $1.79 million disadvantaged assistance loan to the City of Gary to make
improvements to its existing water treatment plant and to install new water mains. The project will ensure
the delivery of safe drinking water to approximately 674 customers and will allow the city to sell water to the
City of Anawalt and the McDowell County Public Service District, which serves customers in unincorpo-
rated areas.
• TheTown of Marlinton, population 1,375, received a $705,400 disadvantaged assistance loan for a project
that included the takeover of operations of the Campbelltown water system that was under an EPA Adminis-
trative Order. The Campbelltown system had been under continual boil water advisories for no disinfection
and no monitoring.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
1.00%, 1.00%
$42. 7 million
$27.1 million
$5.4 million
NA
$28.2 million
13, $22 million
7, $7.2 million
8, 62%
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on capacity development,
promoting source water protection, and
providing technical assistance to small
systems.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to establish a Training and Technical
Assistance program through a contract
with the West Virginia Rural Water
Association (WVRWA). The program
provides technical, financial, and
managerial training to small water
systems throughout the state.
• A Capacity Development Conference
was organized for small systems that
highlighted all of the aspects of the
state's capacity development program.
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $5.1 million (18.8%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.85 million (75.5%)
Admin
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), operator
certification, and capacity development programs and to make enhancements to its data management system.
• Funding has allowed the PWSS program to provide on-site technical assistance for any system that requests
it. Funds have also been used to provide increased training opportunities for operators, including regulatory
updates and hands-on applications.
• Funds supporting the state's capacity development program have been used to target the technical, financial,
and managerial needs of small systems and help them address those needs through assistance programs and
partnerships with state agencies and professional and trade organizations.
• Hardware and software improvements were made to the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS),
which will make information more readily accessible and user-friendly.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state reserved funds from this set-aside to delineate and assess source water protection areas and to
implement a wellhead protection program.
• Many systems are in the preliminary stage of implementing programs to protect ground water that is used as
a source of drinking water. The state has used funds to expand existing programs for those systems involved
in the wellhead protection program.
• The state is in the process of developing a source water assessment report for every public water supply.
Reports will include a map showing the source water protection area and the locations of source water
intakes; a list of significant contamination sources; and a brief narrative describing the state's findings.
West Virginia
-------
Lead Agency:
Department of Natural Resources
Cooperating Agencies:
Department of Administration
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• Maintain a program for ensuring that all public water systems are operated properly.
• Manage the fund to protect its long-term integrity and maintain it in perpetuity.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are based on 55% of the state's market rate.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have ranged
from 2.4% to 2.9% over the last three years.
• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers
lower interest rates.
• The state's priority system considers five categories: acute
public health risks, chronic public health risks, secondary
contaminants and system compliance, system capacity, and
affordability.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $2.7 billion, $1.2 billion of which
was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
more than $167 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in December 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 15 loans,
ranging from $229,742 to $19-4 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 60% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 67% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Oshkosh had a 100-year-old water system that was vulnerable to microbial contaminants. To
alleviate this threat, a new water treatment plant was built with DWSRF loans totaling $25-6 million to
ensure a safe water supply for the city's 55,000 residents.
• The Village of Matton, a disadvantaged community with a population of 431, was served by a system that
experienced violations of maximum contaminant levels for nitrate. A water main extension, new well, and
new telemetry system were constructed with a DWSRF loan of $230,000 to bring the system back into
compliance.
Program at a Glance (through June
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01)
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
Grants Received
State Contributions
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
Total Funds Available
Total Loans Executed (#, $)
Loans to Small Systems (#, $)
Projects Completed (#, %)
30, 2001)
3.31%, 1.34%
$81 .9 million
$71 .5 million
$14.3 million
NA
$98.9 million
15, $72.8 million
9, $12.5 million
14, 93%
-------
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $10.4 million (14.6%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$3.77 million (36.2%)
Admin
SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
LA
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on providing technical assistance
to small systems and promoting source
water and wellhead protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to provide technical assistance to small
systems in operator education and
certification, non-compliance tracking,
and communication between local
systems.
• Non-municipal systems benefited from
the development of one-on-one
assistance programs. These programs,
provided by the Wisconsin Rural Water
Association, involved training on
consumer confidence reports, operator
certification, and capacity development.
• The University of Wisconsin also
provided education and training
sessions statewide on new water system regulations.
• The American Water Works Association was contracted to create a statewide coalition of small systems as a
means of sharing information that promotes compliance.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to implement its capacity development and operator certification
programs.
• The state used funds to extend existing programs that support the capacity of systems. Efforts focused on
educating system operators about capacity development and on working to eliminate statewide factors that
diminish capacity.
• The state also revised its operator certification training program and held public meetings on operator
certification.
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement programs for
source water and wellhead protection.
• The state's source water assessment activities included hydrogeologic flow modeling for 15 counties;
contaminant source inventorying; the creation of maps of system sources, delineation areas, and possible
contaminant sources; and the implementation of the Great Lakes Surface Assessment Water Protocol.
• The state's entered into a contract with the U.S. Geological Survey to delineate wellhead protection areas for
public water systems. The state also produced a public education video entitled "An Ounce of Prevention"
which promotes the need for wellhead protection and describes how to prepare a wellhead protection plan.
-------
Lead Agency:
State Loan Investment Board
Cooperating Agencies:
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of State Lands and Investments
Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001
Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%
Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01)
$42.7 million
Grants Received
$42.7 million
State Contributions
$8.5 million
Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds
NA
Total Funds Available
$49.2 million
Total Loans Executed (#,!
12, $29.2 million
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program
• To build and maintain a permanent, self-sustaining state revolving fund program that will serve as a cost-
effective and convenient source of financing for drinking water projects in the state.
Structure of Loan Program
• The state operates a direct loan program.
• Interest rates are set in the enabling legislation at 4.0%.
Weighted average interest rates for the program have been
about 4.0% over the last three years.
• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance
program.
• The state's priority system considers four categories: public
health issues, compliance issues, system deficiencies, and
affordability.
Project Needs and Demand
• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
identified a total need of $433 million, $277 million of
which was for small systems.
• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for
more than $148 million in projects.
Funding for Projects
• The state received its first grant in September 1998.
• The first loan was executed in March 1999- Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 12 loans,
ranging from $111,500 to $9-6 million, to publicly-owned systems.
• 58% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 57% of which went to
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Project Examples
• The City of Torrington received a $435,000 loan to install an additional reverse osmosis unit. This unit will
help to ensure that the city provides safe water to its 5,651 residents.
• The City of Evanston received a $9-6 million loan to expand their water treatment plant. The new plant will
serve approximately 12,000 people.
Loans to Small Systems (#,:
7, $7.8 million
Projects Completed (#, %)
3, 25%
-------
Structure of Set-aside Program
• The state has focused use of its set-
asides on promoting source water
protection.
Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)
• The state has reserved funds to pay for
training small system operators on
water system operations, management,
and finance.
State Program Management (SPM)
• The state did not reserve any funds
under this set-aside.
Local Assistance and Other State
Programs (LA)
• The state used funds from this set-aside
to develop and implement a source
water assessment and protection
(SWAP) program.
• The state entered into contracts to
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $3.12 million (7.3%)
Set-asides expended (% of reserved)
$0.46 million
(14.7%)
1.26
0.16
Admin SSTA SPM
All figures in millions of dollars
0.1
LA
determine the Global Positioning System location of drinking water sources and to perform well information
research, completing the preliminary work necessary prior to delineation. Approximately 300 ground water
sources have been delineated.
Funds were also used to conduct outreach activities to encourage public water systems to participate in the
SWAP
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Drinkii
:er NIMS Reports
-------
Appendix B: OWN IMS Reports
Appendix B contains selected summary reports from the DWSRF National Information Management
System (DWNIMS). The reports reflect cumulative data from the inception of the program through
June 30, 2001 (state fiscal year 2001). Each report shows the national total and a state by state
accounting of the data. The quality of the data is assessed through two primary review mechanisms.
First, a data quality report that checks for data entry and logical errors is generated automatically for
each data submission by states. Second, the data files are reviewed by EPA Headquarters and Regional
staff to identify potential reporting errors. Comments are provided to states who are asked to verify and
correct errors or omissions.
The full suite of DWNIMS reports, which include annual and cumulative summary reports for the
national program, reports sorted by EPA region, data element definitions and formulas, and state agency
contact information are posted on the DWSRF website at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html.
The website is updated annually in late November to reflect data collected through June 30 of each year.
The reports listed on the following page are included in the appendix. The data in the reports reflect
the state fiscal year 2001 data set frozen on January 11, 2002.
-------
Fund Activities
B-1 DWSRF Investment
B-2 DWSRF State Contributions
B-3 DWSRF Funds Available for Projects (Net Sources)
B-4 Comparison of DWSRF Funds Available for Projects and Assistance Provided to Projects
B-5 Comparison of DWSRF Funds Available for Projects and Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which
Have Leveraged
B-6 Comparison of DWSRF Funds Available for Projects and Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which
Have Not Leveraged
B-7 Comparison of the DWSRF Program Milestones and Funds Available for Projects
B-8 Comparison of the National DWSRF Program Milestones and Assistance Provided to Projects
B-9 DWSRF Assistance Agreement and Project Starts
B-10 DWSRF Assistance for Refinancing Local Debt Obligations
B-11 Interest Rates for DWSRF Assistance
B-12 Fees Charged on DWSRF Assistance
B-13 DWSRF System Project Assistance by Category (e.g., treatment, source, storage)
B-14 DWSRF Assistance Provided by Selected Category (e.g., disadvantaged, private)
B-15 DWSRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities
B-16 DWSRF Assistance by Community Size Category
B-17 Annual U.S. DWSRF Population Served
B-18 DWSRF Coordinated Funding
Set-Aside Activities
B-19 DWSRF Net Set-Asides Awarded
B-20 DWSRF Set-Aside Expenses
B-21 DWSRF Administrative Expense Set-Aside
B-22 DWSRF Set-Aside for Small System Technical Assistance
B-23 DWSRF Set-Aside for Program Management
B-24 DWSRF Set-Aside for Local Assistance and Other State Programs (1452(k) Activities)
National Summary
B-25 DWSRF Program Information - National Summary
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Appendix B-l: Drinking Water SRF Investment, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
(Millions of Dollars)
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Federal
Capitalization
Grants
3,648.4
48.4
49.4
47.6
44.3
317.6
57.3
43.8
27.1
132.5
57.0
34.9
36.5
143.2
62.0
52.1
56.4
46.6
40.8
35.0
37.9
124.6
145.6
79.3
42.4
State
Contributions
773.4
9.1
9.9
9.5
9.0
63.5
11.6
8.8
2.5
28.0
8.2
7.6
7.3
27.9
12.6
10.4
11.3
9.4
6.3
7.0
8.0
24.9
30.6
18.5
15.0
Net Transfers
with CWSRF
147.2
12.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Leveraged
Bonds1
1,484.7
62.0
0.0
7.9
0.0
0.0
121.3
29.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
70.0
24.5
123.9
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.0
160.9
151.1
21.1
0.0
Total
6,053.7
132.4
59.3
65.0
53.3
381.1
198.2
82.1
29.7
160.5
65.2
42.5
43.8
176.6
144.7
87.0
191.6
56.0
47.1
46.7
56.5
310.4
327.3
118.9
57.4
Debt Service
Reserve
434.4
14.3
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
35.3
16.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.9
54.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
62.6
70.2
1.8
0.0
SRF Investment
Net of Debt
Service Reserve
5,619.3
118.0
59.3
62.5
53.3
381.1
162.9
65.8
29.7
160.5
65.2
42.5
43.8
176.6
144.7
73.1
137.4
56.0
47.1
46.6
56.5
247.8
257.1
117.1
57.4
Includes amounts used to fond debt service reserves
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
dwinvst
-------
Appendix B-l: Drinking Water SRF Investment, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
(Millions of Dollars)
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Federal
Capitalization
Grants
41.5
45.0
43.0
34.9
36.1
82.4
27.3
249.8
72.5
34.9
114.6
49.6
63.6
148.1
44.6
27.1
38.9
42.7
53.2
239.6
34.9
34.9
87.5
97.8
27.1
71.5
42.7
State
Contributions
12.5
9.2
9.7
7.0
8.0
12.7
7.0
120.0
14.5
2.5
28.2
12.2
5.9
29.6
8.9
5.4
7.8
7.1
10.6
30.0
7.0
6.6
7.5
18.3
5.4
14.3
8.5
Net Transfers
with CWSRF
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.9
0.0
66.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
0.0
Leveraged
Bonds 1
68.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
59.7
0.0
568.1
0.0
11.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
122.1
63.0
52.6
41.9
44.1
175.7
34.4
1,004.1
86.9
49.2
142.8
61.8
69.5
177.7
53.6
32.6
46.7
49.8
63.9
269.6
41.9
41.5
95.0
116.1
32.6
100.1
51.2
Debt Service
Reserve
12.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
148.7
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SRF Investment
Net of Debt
Service Reserve
109.9
63.0
52.6
41.9
44.1
173.8
34.4
855.4
86.9
48.9
142.8
61.8
69.5
177.7
53.6
32.6
46.7
49.8
63.9
269.6
41.9
41.5
95.0
116.1
32.6
100.1
51.2
Includes amounts used to fond debt service reserves
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
dwinvst
-------
Appendix B-2: Drinking Water SRF State Contributions, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
(Millions of Dollars)
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Total State
Contributions
773.4
9.1
9.9
9.5
9.0
63.5
11.6
8.8
2.5
28.0
8.2
7.6
7.3
27.9
12.6
10.4
11.3
9.4
6.3
7.0
8.0
24.9
30.6
18.5
15.0
Cash or
Appropriations
546.4
0.0
9.3
9.5
9.0
63.5
11.6
0.0
2.5
28.0
8.2
7.6
7.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.4
6.3
0.0
8.0
24.9
30.6
8.0
15.0
Bonds Retired
Outside
DWSRF Fund
113.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.4
0.0
Bonds Retired
From
DWSRF Fund
111.2
9.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.6
10.4
11.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pre-existing
Loans
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other
Sources
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
dwmatchst
-------
Appendix B-2: Drinking Water SRF State Contributions, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
(Millions of Dollars)
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total State
Contributions
12.5
9.2
9.7
7.0
8.0
12.7
7.0
120.0
14.5
2.5
28.2
12.2
5.9
29.6
8.9
5.4
7.8
7.1
10.6
30.0
7.0
6.6
7.5
18.3
5.4
14.3
8.5
Cash or
Appropriations
12.5
0.0
2.3
0.0
8.0
12.7
7.0
120.0
9.2
0.0
13.2
5.6
0.0
0.0
8.9
5.4
7.8
1.4
10.6
9.6
7.0
6.6
7.5
18.3
5.4
0.0
8.5
Bonds Retired
Outside
DWSRF Fund
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
4.5
5.9
29.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
0.0
Bonds Retired
From
DWSRF Fund
0.0
9.2
7.3
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
15.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
20.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pre-existing
Loans
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other
Sources
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
dwmatchst
-------
Appendix B-3: Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects, Net Sources, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
(Millions of Dollars)
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Federal
Capitalization
Grants
3,648.4
48.4
49.4
47.6
44.3
317.6
57.3
43.8
27.1
132.5
57.0
34.9
36.5
143.2
62.0
52.1
56.4
46.6
40.8
35.0
37.9
124.6
145.6
79.3
42.4
State
Contributions
773.4
9.1
9.9
9.5
9.0
63.5
11.6
8.8
2.5
28.0
8.2
7.6
7.3
27.9
12.6
10.4
11.3
9.4
6.3
7.0
8.0
24.9
30.6
18.5
15.0
Net Transfers with
CWSRF
147.2
12.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Less Net
Reserved for
Set-Asides
-575.8
-6.7
-5.1
-8.0
-12.4
-30.8
-9.4
-13.6
-7.6
-16.3
-13.0
-7.5
-7.4
-9.6
-6.2
-4.8
-7.2
-8.0
-9.5
-8.6
-8.7
-18.8
-20.6
-9.2
-4.8
Net Leveraged
Bonds*
1,050.3
47.6
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
86.0
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
70.0
10.6
69.6
0.0
0.0
4.6
0.0
98.3
80.9
19.3
0.0
Net Loan
Principle
Repayments2
57.1
0.4
6.1
0.7
0.0
0.2
4.5
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.0
2.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.0
0.1
1.1
0.8
0.0
4.9
0.7
1.2
Net Interest
Earnings3
120.5
4.5
1.3
2.0
0.7
0.1
3.5
0.0
0.1
2.8
0.1
0.8
0.0
2.3
3.1
1.4
6.4
0.4
1.1
0.6
3.4
13.7
4.4
3.4
3.9
SRF Funds
Available for
Projects
5,221.0
116.3
61.6
57.2
41.6
350.6
161.5
52.6
22.2
147.2
52.4
36.1
36.4
171.2
142.2
70.5
137.4
48.3
38.8
39.8
52.0
242.8
245.8
112.0
57.8
1 Net leveraged bonds is the amount of leveraged bond proceeds available to fund projects, less debt service reserves.
2 Net loan principal repayments is the amount of loan principal repayments that remin in the DWSRF after payment of principal on leveraged bonds.
3 Net interest earnings is the amount of interest earnings from loans and investments that remain in the DWSRF after payment of interest expense on all bonds(leveraged and state match) and principal on
state match bonds.
1/11/02
Page 1 of :
dwfanetst
-------
Appendix B-3: Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects, Net Sources, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
(Millions of Dollars)
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Federal
Capitalization
Grants
41.5
45.0
43.0
34.9
36.1
82.4
27.3
249.8
72.5
34.9
114.6
49.6
63.6
148.1
44.6
27.1
38.9
42.7
53.2
239.6
34.9
34.9
87.5
97.8
27.1
71.5
42.7
State
Contributions
12.5
9.2
9.7
7.0
8.0
12.7
7.0
120.0
14.5
2.5
28.2
12.2
5.9
29.6
8.9
5.4
7.8
7.1
10.6
30.0
7.0
6.6
7.5
18.3
5.4
14.3
8.5
Net Transfers with
CWSRF
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.9
0.0
66.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
0.0
Less Net
Reserved for
Set-Asides
-8.8
-5.3
-9.0
-7.2
-8.2
-9.0
-8.5
-27.2
-14.9
-3.2
-14.3
-11.0
-10.3
-45.9
-4.2
-4.3
-3.5
-3.3
-11.4
-35.4
-7.0
-6.7
-14.1
-30.7
-5.1
-10.4
-3.1
Net Leveraged
Bonds*
56.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.8
0.0
419.4
0.0
11.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Net Loan
Principle
Repayments2
0.0
1.9
1.1
0.4
3.2
1.3
0.0
6.7
0.6
-0.6
1.1
0.4
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.9
0.8
1.2
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.1
5.6
0.4
Net Interest
Earnings3
0.0
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.1
4.2
0.5
27.8
1.9
0.4
2.8
0.9
0.9
4.4
0.0
0.4
1.1
1.3
1.3
2.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
2.3
0.7
3.5
0.7
SRF Funds
Available for
Projects
101.1
60.5
45.2
35.5
39.3
170.3
26.5
862.7
74.6
45.4
132.3
52.0
60.2
140.2
49.4
29.6
45.1
48.9
53.8
237.6
35.3
35.5
81.1
88.2
28.2
98.9
49.2
1 Net leveraged bonds is the amount of leveraged bond proceeds available to fond projects, less debt service reserves.
2 Net loan principal repayments is the amount of loan principal repayments that remin in the DWSRF after payment of principal on leveraged bonds.
3 Net interest earnings is the amount of interest earnings from loans and investments that remain in the DWSRF after payment of interest expense on all bonds(leveraged and state match) and principal on
state match bonds.
1/11/02
Page 2 of :
dwfanetst
-------
Appendix B-4: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects
and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Millions of Dollars
Federal
Capitalization
Grants'
3,072.6
41.7
44.3
39.7
31.9
286.8
48.0
30.2
19.5
116.2
44.0
27.4
29.1
133.7
55.8
47.3
49.2
38.6
31.3
26.4
29.2
105.8
125.1
70.0
37.7
SRF Funds
Available
for Projects
5,221.0
116.3
61.6
57.2
41.6
350.6
161.5
52.6
22 2
147.2
52.4
36.1
36.4
171.2
142.2
70.5
137.4
48.3
38.8
39.8
52.0
242.8
245.8
112.0
57.8
SRF Assistance
Provided to
Projects
3,764.3
89.0
55.0
102.3
10.5
98.5
137.0
31.3
7.4
143.9
37.0
7.8
18.2
132.8
126.8
32.3
121.0
15.8
16.6
29.8
37.7
161.0
144.1
106.9
37.5
Number of
SRF Assistance
Agreements
1,776
52
34
54
3
21
26
15
8
44
28
1
7
82
44
30
62
11
6
38
22
35
57
71
61
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of Federal
Capitalization Grants
123%
213
124
258
33
34
286
104
38
124
84
29
63
99
227
68
246
41
53
113
129
152
115
153
100
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of SRF Funds
Available
72%
77
89
179
25
28
85
60
33
98
71
22
50
78
89
46
88
33
43
75
72
66
59
95
65
1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
dwfaapst
-------
Appendix B-4: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects
and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
Federal
Capitalization
Grants'
32.6
39.6
34.0
27.7
27.9
73.4
18.9
222.6
57.6
31.7
100.3
38.6
53.4
102.2
40.5
22.8
35.4
39.4
41.8
204.2
27.9
28.2
73.4
67.1
22.0
61.1
39.6
SRF Funds
Available
for Projects
101.1
60.5
45.2
35.5
39.3
170.3
26.5
862.7
74.6
45.4
132.3
52.0
60.2
140.2
49.4
29.6
45.1
48.9
53.8
237.6
35.3
35.5
81.1
88.2
28.2
98.9
49.2
SRF Assistance
Provided to
Projects
64.1
43.2
44.8
31.8
30.2
124.7
3.9
722.3
48.4
40.8
120.5
31.5
29.4
149.0
36.7
10.2
26.0
31.6
28.3
163.5
20.4
25.3
51.7
61.7
22.0
72.8
29.2
Number of
SRF Assistance
Agreements
17
32
49
7
37
39
5
207
38
20
48
10
28
97
9
4
9
28
25
24
8
60
39
91
13
15
12
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of Federal
Capitalization Grants
196
109
132
115
108
170
21
324
84
129
120
82
55
146
91
45
74
80
68
80
73
90
70
92
100
119
74
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of SRF Funds
Available
63
71
99
90
77
73
15
84
65
90
91
61
49
106
74
34
58
65
53
69
58
71
64
70
78
74
59
1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
dwfaapst
-------
Appendix B-5: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects
and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which Have Leveraged
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Total
Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Millions of Dollars
Federal SRF Funds SRF Assistance
Capitalization Available for Provided to
Grants1 Projects Projects
999.5 2,557.6 2,033.4
41.7 116.3 89.0
39.7 57.2 102.3
48.0 161.5 137.0
30.2 52.6 31.3
55.8 142.2 126.8
47.3 70.5 32.3
49.2 137.4 121.0
26.4 39.8 29.8
105.8 242.8 161.0
125.1 245.8 144.1
70.0 112.0 106.9
32.6 101.1 64.1
73.4 170.3 124.7
222.6 862.7 722.3
31.7 45.4 40.8
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of Federal
Capitalization Grants
203%
213%
258%
286%
104%
227%
68%
246%
113%
152%
115%
153%
196%
170%
324%
129%
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of SRF Funds
Available
80%
77%
179%
85%
60%
89%
46%
88%
75%
66%
59%
95%
63%
73%
84%
90%
SRF Funds
Available Without
Leveraging
(Millions of Dollars)
1,507.3
68.6
51.9
75.5
39.3
72.2
59.9
67.8
35.1
144.5
165.0
92.6
45.1
112.5
443.3
33.9
SRF Assistance as
a Percent of SRF
Funds Available
Without Leveraging
135%
130%
197%
181%
80%
176%
54%
179%
85%
111%
87%
115%
142%
111%
163%
120%
1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides
1/11/02
Page 1 of 1
dwfalevst
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Appendix B-6: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects
and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which Have Not Leveraged
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Total
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Millions of Dollars
Federal
Capitalization
Grants'
2,073.0
44.3
31.9
286.8
19.5
116.2
44.0
27.4
29.1
133.7
38.6
31.3
29.2
37.7
39.6
34.0
27.7
27.9
18.9
57.6
100.3
38.6
53.4
102.2
40.5
22.8
35.4
39.4
SRF Funds
Available for
Projects
2,663.4
61.6
41.6
350.6
22.2
147.2
52.4
36.1
36.4
171.2
48.3
38.8
52.0
57.8
60.5
45.2
35.5
39.3
26.5
74.6
132.3
52.0
60.2
140.2
49.4
29.6
45.1
48.9
SRF Assistance
Provided to
Projects
1,730.8
55.0
10.5
98.5
7.4
143.9
37.0
7.8
18.2
132.8
15.8
16.6
37.7
37.5
43.2
44.8
31.8
30.2
3.9
48.4
120.5
31.5
29.4
149.0
36.7
10.2
26.0
31.6
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of Federal
Capitalization Grants
83%
124%
33%
34%
38%
124%
84%
29%
63%
99%
41%
53%
129%
100%
109%
132%
115%
108%
21%
84%
120%
82%
55%
146%
91%
45%
74%
80%
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of SRF Funds
Available
65%
89%
25%
28%
33%
98%
71%
22%
50%
78%
33%
43%
72%
65%
71%
99%
90%
77%
15%
65%
91%
61%
49%
106%
74%
34%
58%
65%
1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
dwfanlevst
-------
Appendix B-6: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects
and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which Have Not Leveraged
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
Federal
Capitalization
Grants1
41.8
204.2
27.9
28.2
73.4
67.1
22.0
61.1
39.6
SRF Funds
Available for
Projects
53.8
237.6
35.3
35.5
81.1
88.2
28.2
98.9
49.2
SRF Assistance
Provided to
Projects
28.3
163.5
20.4
25.3
51.7
61.7
22.0
72.8
29.2
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of Federal
Capitalization Grants
68%
80%
73%
90%
70%
92%
100%
119%
74%
SRF Assistance
as a Percent
of SRF Funds
Available
53%
69%
58%
71%
64%
70%
78%
74%
59%
1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
dwfanlevst
-------
Appendix B-7: Comparison of the Drinking Water SRF Program Milestones and SRF Funds Available for Projects, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Millions of Dollars
SRF Funds
Available
For Projects
5,221.0
116.3
61.6
57.2
41.6
350.6
161.5
52.6
22.2
147.2
52.4
36.1
36.4
171.2
142.2
70.5
137.4
48.3
38.8
39.8
52.0
242.8
245.8
112.0
57.8
SRF
Assistance
Provided
3,764.3
89.0
55.0
102.3
10.5
98.5
137.0
31.3
7.4
143.9
37.0
7.8
18.2
132.8
126.8
32.3
121.0
15.8
16.6
29.8
37.7
161.0
144.1
106.9
37.5
SRF Project
Starts
3,247.3
85.6
55.0
89.6
10.5
98.5
137.0
31.3
1.6
132.3
37.0
7.8
10.2
119.5
126.8
32.3
84.2
12.5
16.6
29.0
37.7
146.9
144.1
106.9
34.9
SRF Project
Disbursements
2,195.5
59.4
30.4
39.7
6.3
56.4
38.9
19.0
0.5
67.2
18.3
7.8
7.1
81.8
57.0
21.2
65.7
6.4
10.0
24.1
22.4
114.8
114.6
88.6
30.1
SRF Project
Completed
1,405.2
43.2
14.2
35.9
2.5
45.7
61.9
5.2
0.4
2.0
5.0
7.8
0.0
37.0
14.2
12.0
37.7
0.0
0.0
24.2
17.9
73.3
76.4
77.7
23.9
SRF
Loan Principal
Repayments
103.7
1.8
6.1
0.9
0.0
0.2
9.2
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.0
2.0
1.1
0.8
2.8
0.0
0.1
1.4
0.8
3.2
4.9
1.6
1.2
As a Percent of SRF Funds Available for Projects
SRF
Assistance
Provided
72%
77
89
179
25
28
85
60
33
98
71
22
50
78
89
46
88
33
43
75
72
66
59
95
65
SRF Project
Starts
62%
74
89
157
25
28
85
60
7
90
71
22
28
70
89
46
61
26
43
73
72
61
59
95
60
SRF Project
Disbursements
42%
51
49
69
15
16
24
36
2
46
35
22
19
48
40
30
48
13
26
60
43
47
47
79
52
SRF Project
Completed
27%
37
23
63
6
13
38
10
2
1
9
22
*
22
10
17
27
*
*
61
34
30
31
69
41
SRF Loan
Principal
Repayments
2%
2
10
2
*
*
6
1
*
*
*
1
*
1
1
1
2
*
*
4
2
1
2
1
2
* Less than 0.5%
1/11/02
Page 1 of :
dwmilefast
-------
Appendix B-7: Comparison of the Drinking Water SRF Program Milestones and SRF Funds Available for Projects, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
SRF Funds
Available
For Projects
101.1
60.5
45.2
35.5
39.3
170.3
26.5
862.7
74.6
45.4
132.3
52.0
60.2
140.2
49.4
29.6
45.1
48.9
53.8
237.6
35.3
35.5
81.1
88.2
28.2
98.9
49.2
SRF
Assistance
Provided
64.1
43.2
44.8
31.8
30.2
124.7
3.9
722.3
48.4
40.8
120.5
31.5
29.4
149.0
36.7
10.2
26.0
31.6
28.3
163.5
20.4
25.3
51.7
61.7
22.0
72.8
29.2
SRF Project
Starts
64.1
43.2
44.8
31.8
27.1
71.5
1.9
501.1
48.4
14.0
120.5
25.1
11.0
149.0
28.8
10.2
26.0
30.0
17.1
163.5
20.4
24.1
51.7
27.8
22.0
72.8
11.5
SRF Project
Disbursements
12.7
31.8
28.0
25.0
13.7
38.5
0.2
567.2
41.3
9.2
61.7
23.1
9.3
81.8
0.0
7.4
22.4
20.0
6.3
37.8
5.5
18.4
36.8
21.4
13.7
69.4
5.3
SRF Project
Completed
5.4
17.2
6.5
22.4
5.6
23.8
1.4
401.8
13.5
9.1
70.9
1.8
1.0
32.8
0.0
5.2
9.6
19.7
3.8
0.0
1.0
15.9
26.3
7.0
9.7
70.5
5.0
SRF
Loan Principal
Repayments
1.4
1.9
1.1
0.4
3.2
2.0
0.0
37.6
0.6
0.1
1.1
0.4
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.9
0.8
1.2
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.1
5.6
0.4
SRF
Assistance
Provided
63
71
99
90
77
73
15
84
65
90
91
61
49
106
74
34
58
65
53
69
58
71
64
70
78
74
59
As a Percent
SRF Project
Starts
63
71
99
90
69
42
7
58
65
31
91
48
18
106
58
34
58
61
32
69
58
68
64
32
78
74
23
ot SRI1 tunds Available for Projects
SRF Project
Disbursements
13
53
62
70
35
23
1
66
55
20
47
44
15
58
*
25
50
41
12
16
15
52
45
24
48
70
11
SRF Project
Completed
5
28
14
63
14
14
5
47
18
20
54
4
2
23
*
18
21
40
7
*
3
45
33
8
34
71
10
SRF Loan
Principal
Repayments
1
3
2
1
8
1
*
4
1
*
1
1
*
3
*
3
2
2
*
*
*
1
*
1
*
6
1
* Less than 0.5%
1/11/02
Page 2 of :
dwmilefast
-------
Appendix B-8: Comparison of the National Drinking Water SRF Program Milestones and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Millions of Dollars
SRF Funds
Available
For Projects
5,221.0
116.3
61.6
57.2
41.6
350.6
161.5
52.6
22.2
147.2
52.4
36.1
36.4
171.2
142.2
70.5
137.4
48.3
38.8
39.8
52.0
242.8
245.8
112.0
57.8
SRF
Assistance
Provided
3,764.3
89.0
55.0
102.3
10.5
98.5
137.0
31.3
7.4
143.9
37.0
7.8
18.2
132.8
126.8
32.3
121.0
15.8
16.6
29.8
37.7
161.0
144.1
106.9
37.5
SRF Project
Starts
3,247.3
85.6
55.0
89.6
10.5
98.5
137.0
31.3
1.6
132.3
37.0
7.8
10.2
119.5
126.8
32.3
84.2
12.5
16.6
29.0
37.7
146.9
144.1
106.9
34.9
SRF Project
Disbursements
2,195.5
59.4
30.4
39.7
6.3
56.4
38.9
19.0
0.5
67.2
18.3
7.8
7.1
81.8
57.0
21.2
65.7
6.4
10.0
24.1
22.4
114.8
114.6
88.6
30.1
SRF
Project
Completions
1,405.2
43.2
14.2
35.9
2.5
45.7
61.9
5.2
0.4
2.0
5.0
7.8
0.0
37.0
14.2
12.0
37.7
0.0
0.0
24.2
17.9
73.3
76.4
77.7
23.9
SRF Loan
Principal
Repayments
103.7
1.8
6.1
0.9
0.0
0.2
9.2
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.0
2.0
1.1
0.8
2.8
0.0
0.1
1.4
0.8
3.2
4.9
1.6
1.2
As a Percent of SRF Assistance Provided to Projects
SRF Project
Starts
86%
96
100
88
100
100
100
100
22
92
100
100
56
90
100
100
70
79
100
97
100
91
100
100
93
SRF Project
Disbursements
58%
67
55
39
60
57
28
61
7
47
49
100
39
62
45
66
54
41
60
81
59
71
80
83
80
SRF Project
Completions
37%
49
26
35
24
46
45
17
5
1
13
100
0
28
11
37
31
0
0
81
48
45
53
73
64
SRF Loan
Principal
Repayments
3%
2
11
1
0
*
7
1
*
*
*
4
0
1
1
2
2
0
*
5
2
2
3
1
3
* Less than 0.5%
1/11/02
Page 1 of :
dwmileapst
-------
Appendix B-8: Comparison of the National Drinking Water SRF Program Milestones and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
SRF Funds
Available
For Projects
101.1
60.5
45.2
35.5
39.3
170.3
26.5
862.7
74.6
45.4
132.3
52.0
60.2
140.2
49.4
29.6
45.1
48.9
53.8
237.6
35.3
35.5
81.1
88.2
28.2
98.9
49.2
SRF
Assistance
Provided
64.1
43.2
44.8
31.8
30.2
124.7
3.9
722.3
48.4
40.8
120.5
31.5
29.4
149.0
36.7
10.2
26.0
31.6
28.3
163.5
20.4
25.3
51.7
61.7
22.0
72.8
29.2
SRF Project
Starts
64.1
43.2
44.8
31.8
27.1
71.5
1.9
501.1
48.4
14.0
120.5
25.1
11.0
149.0
28.8
10.2
26.0
30.0
17.1
163.5
20.4
24.1
51.7
27.8
22.0
72.8
11.5
SRF Project
Disbursements
12.7
31.8
28.0
25.0
13.7
38.5
0.2
567.2
41.3
9.2
61.7
23.1
9.3
81.8
0.0
7.4
22.4
20.0
6.3
37.8
5.5
18.4
36.8
21.4
13.7
69.4
5.3
SRF
Project
Completions
5.4
17.2
6.5
22.4
5.6
23.8
1.4
401.8
13.5
9.1
70.9
1.8
1.0
32.8
0.0
5.2
9.6
19.7
3.8
0.0
1.0
15.9
26.3
7.0
9.7
70.5
5.0
SRF Loan
Principal
Repayments
1.4
1.9
1.1
0.4
3.2
2.0
0.0
37.6
0.6
0.1
1.1
0.4
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.9
0.8
1.2
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.1
5.6
0.4
As a Percent of SRF Assistance Provided to Projects
SRF Project
Starts
100
100
100
100
90
57
48
69
100
34
100
80
37
100
78
100
100
95
60
100
100
95
100
45
100
100
39
SRF Project
Disbursements
20
74
62
79
45
31
5
79
85
22
51
73
32
55
*
72
86
63
22
23
27
73
71
35
62
95
18
SRF Project
Completions
8
40
14
70
19
19
36
56
28
22
59
6
3
22
0
51
37
62
13
0
5
63
51
11
44
97
17
SRF Loan
Principal
Repayments
2
4
2
1
11
2
*
5
1
*
1
1
*
3
0
9
3
4
*
*
*
2
*
1
*
8
1
* Less than 0.5%
1/11/02
Page 2 of :
dwmileapst
-------
Appendix B-9: Drinking Water SRF Assistance Agreement and Project Starts, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Number of Assistance Agreements
Total
1,776
52
34
54
3
21
26
15
8
44
28
1
7
82
44
30
62
11
6
38
22
35
57
71
61
Starts Completions
1,572
43
34
46
3
21
26
15
4
24
27
1
6
81
44
30
44
9
6
35
22
34
57
71
60
810
32
11
28
1
8
12
5
1
5
10
1
0
39
9
12
19
0
0
28
12
21
36
51
40
Number of Projects
Total
1,846
52
34
54
3
21
26
15
8
44
27
1
7
82
44
30
62
11
4
57
22
35
57
94
61
Completions
838
32
11
28
1
8
12
5
1
5
10
1
0
39
9
12
19
0
0
44
12
21
36
66
40
Initiating
Principal
Repayments
856
33
7
30
0
7
23
5
2
5
12
1
0
45
10
18
26
0
1
35
10
19
49
51
36
1/11/02
Page 1 of :
statst
-------
Appendix B-9: Drinking Water SRF Assistance Agreement and Project Starts, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Number of Assistance Agreements
Total
17
32
49
7
37
39
5
207
38
20
48
10
28
97
2
4
9
28
25
24
8
60
39
91
13
15
12
Starts Completions
17
32
49
7
36
17
4
186
38
17
48
8
9
97
1
4
9
23
16
24
8
47
39
57
13
15
8
3
22
15
3
12
9
3
141
18
13
34
3
2
30
0
3
3
16
10
0
2
32
20
10
8
14
3
Number of Projects
Total
17
32
49
7
36
58
5
207
38
20
48
10
28
96
7
9
9
27
25
24
8
65
39
91
13
15
12
Completions
3
22
15
3
12
9
3
141
18
13
34
3
2
30
0
5
3
15
10
0
2
28
20
10
8
14
3
Initiating
Principal
Repayments
3
23
21
1
13
13
3
140
13
8
17
4
2
71
0
4
5
14
5
5
3
9
10
24
5
12
3
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
statst
-------
Appendix B-10: Drinking Water SRF Assistance for Refinancing Local Debt Obligations, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Amount of SRF Assistance
(Millions of Dollars)
Total SRF
Assistance
3,764.3
89.0
55.0
102.3
10.5
98.5
137.0
31.3
7.4
143.9
37.0
7.8
18.2
132.8
126.8
32.3
121.0
15.8
16.6
29.8
37.7
161.0
144.1
106.9
37.5
Total
Refinancing
450.3
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
40.8
0.0
1.1
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.4
0.0
Refinancing
Short-Term
Debt
57.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.4
0.0
Refinancing
Long-Term
Debt
392.6
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
40.8
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SRF Refinancing as
a Percent of SRF
Assistance Provided
Refin Refin
Total ST LT
Refin Debt Debt
12.0% 1.5% 10.4%
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.4 0.0 0.4
0.0 0.0 0.0
41.4 0.0 41.4
0.0 0.0 0.0
3.5 0.0 3.5
63.0 58.0 5.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
21.0 21.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
6.9 6.9 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of SRF
Assistance Agreements
Total SRF
Assistance
Agreements
1,776
52
34
54
3
21
26
15
8
44
28
1
7
82
44
30
62
11
6
38
22
35
57
71
61
Total
Refin
106
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
4
0
Refin
ST
Debt
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
4
0
Refin
LT
Debt
82
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of SRF Refinancing
Agreements as a Percent of Total
SRF Assistance Agreements
Total
Refinancing
6.0%
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
14.3
0.0
6.7
37.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
Refinancing Refinancing
Short-term Long-term
Debt Debt
1.4% 4.6%
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.9
0.0 0.0
0.0 14.3
0.0 0.0
0.0 6.7
25.0 12.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
18.4 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
5.6 0.0
0.0 0.0
* Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
dwrefmst
-------
Appendix B-10: Drinking Water SRF Assistance for Refinancing Local Debt Obligations, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amount of SRF Assistance
(Millions of Dollars)
Total SRF
Assistance
64.1
43.2
44.8
31.8
30.2
124.7
3.9
722.3
48.4
40.8
120.5
31.5
29.4
149.0
36.7
10.2
26.0
31.6
28.3
163.5
20.4
25.3
51.7
61.7
22.0
72.8
29.2
Total
Refinancing
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
336.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
42.7
0.6
Refinancing
Short-Term
Debt
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.1
0.6
Refinancing
Long-Term
Debt
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
336.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
3.6
0.0
SRF Refinancing as
a Percent of SRF
Assistance Provided
Refin Refin
Total ST LT
Refin Debt Debt
0.0 0.0 0.0
4.7 0.0 4.7
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
46.5 0.0 46.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.6 0.0 1.6
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
16.0 0.0 16.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
4.1 0.0 4.1
0.0 0.0 0.0
58.7 53.7 4.9
2.0 2.0 0.0
Number of SRF
Assistance Agreements
Total SRF
Assistance
Agreements
17
32
49
7
37
39
5
207
38
20
48
10
28
97
9
4
9
28
25
24
8
60
39
91
13
15
12
Refin
Total ST
Refin Debt
0 0
6 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
60 0
0 0
4 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
0 0
8 7
4 4
Refin
LT
Debt
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
Number of SRF Refinancing
Agreements as a Percent of Total
SRF Assistance Agreements
Total
Refinancing
0.0
18.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
53.3
33.3
Refinancing
Short-Term
Debt
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.7
33.3
Refinancing
Long-term
Debt
0.0
18.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
6.7
0.0
* Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
dwrefmst
-------
Appendix B-ll: Interest Rates for Drinking Water SRF Assistance, by State1
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
(Percent)
State
National DWSRF Average2
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Weighted Average Interest
1997 1998
4.5% 3.2%
-
3.8
3.4
-
-
4.1
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
2.9
-
-
3.8
-
-
1.6
-
-
2.5
-
4.5 4.2
1999
2.9%
3.8
3.6
2.6
-
-
3.8
2.6
-
3.0
1.7
-
4.0
2.6
3.1
-
3.7
-
-
1.6
3.0
-
2.5
3.0
3.3
Rate
2000
2.8%
3.8
4.2
2.8
3.5
2.3
4.5
2.7
3.0
3.3
1.5
4.8
4.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.1
3.8
3.5
1.1
3.0
-
2.5
3.0
3.4
2001
2.4%
3.9
2.5
3.0
3.5
1.5
4.1
2.7
3.7
3.4
1.5
1.6
2.0
2.9
3.0
3.7
3.9
2.1
3.5
0.4
1.8
-
2.5
3.5
3.0
State Market Interest Rate
1997 1998
5.7% 5.2%
-
3.8
8.0
-
-
5.2
-
-
-
4.2
-
-
5.8
-
-
5.2
-
-
4.8
-
-
5.2
-
-
1999
5.1%
5.3
3.6
8.0
-
-
4.7
5.2
-
5.1
4.7
-
4.0
5.2
3.4
-
5.1
-
-
5.5
5.8
-
5.2
4.8
5.2
2000
5.8%
5.3
4.2
8.0
6.0
5.1
5.6
5.4
5.9
5.7
5.0
5.8
4.0
5.0
3.4
5.5
4.6
5.8
6.0
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.2
2001
5.3%
5.4
2.5
8.0
5.5
5.3
5.0
5.4
6.1
5.7
5.2
5.6
4.0
5.8
3.4
5.8
4.3
5.8
5.0
5.0
5.3
5.3
6.0
5.5
4.9
1 Based on dollar amount of SRF assistance provided to projects.
2 National DWSRF Average for the Market Interest Rate is based on Bond Buyer index for 20 year general obligation (GO) bonds with a rating equivalent to
Moody's Aa and Standard and Poor's AA-minus. Data is the average of the reported weekly Bond Buyer 20-bond GO index for each fiscal year ending June 30.
Note: A dash (-) indicates that no new loan or other assistance agreements were entered into during that fiscal year.
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
dwratest
-------
Appendix B-ll: Interest Rates for Drinking Water SRF Assistance, by State1
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
(Percent)
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Weighted Average Interest Rate
1997 1998 1999
4.5
2.3
0.3
.
3.5
2.3
.
3.2 3.1
2.6
2.5
4.3
2.8
2.3
1.4 2.0
.
6.0
4.0 3.6
3.9 3.6
3.1 2.5
.
-
0.2
3.0
2.7
.
2.5
4.0
2000
3.5
2.3
3.2
3.6
4.0
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.5
4.2
4.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.1
3.5
2.4
1.9
3.8
-
2.0
1.3
3.0
0.3
2.9
4.0
2001
3.2
2.3
3.2
3.6
3.5
2.6
2.0
3.0
2.6
2.5
3.9
2.9
3.3
2.1
2.0
2.8
3.5
3.5
2.1
1.9
-
2.4
1.2
2.7
1.4
2.4
4.0
State Market Interest Rate
1997 1998 1999
4.4
4.5
4.0
.
4.8
4.7
.
4.9 4.7
5.1
5.0
5.1
4.6
5.1
5.0 4.8
6.6
7.3
5.9 5.4
5.4 5.1 5.4
5.5 5.2
.
-
4.8 5.0
5.0 5.0
4.8
.
5.4
4.0
2000
5.8
4.5
4.0
5.4
5.7
5.7
6.0
5.3
5.5
5.2
5.7
4.8
5.7
5.4
7.4
6.9
5.4
6.1
4.5
5.5
5.6
5.2
5.3
5.5
-
5.4
4.0
2001
4.8
4.5
4.0
5.4
5.6
5.2
6.1
5.1
5.3
4.5
5.5
4.8
5.3
4.8
5.1
4.0
6.3
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.6
4.9
-
5.4
4.0
1 Based on dollar amount of SRF assistance provided to projects.
2 National DWSRF Average for the Market Interest Rate is based on Bond Buyer index for 20 year general obligation (GO) bonds with a rating equivalent to
Moody's Aa and Standard and Poor's AA-minus. Data is the average of the reported weekly Bond Buyer 20-bond GO index for each fiscal year ending June 30.
Note: A dash (-) indicates that no new loan or other assistance agreements were entered into during that fiscal year.
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
dwratest
-------
Appendix B-12: Fees Charged on Drinking Water SRF Assistance, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Fees Charged on DWSRF Assistance
(Millions of Dollars)
Total Fee
Income
S20.98
0.19
0.00
0.77
0.33
0.00
2.11
0.00
0.06
0.62
0.05
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.80
0.00
0.17
0.27
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.10
1.86
Fees
Included
in Loans
$12.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.79
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.86
Fees not
Included
in Loans
S7.94
0.18
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.00
0.06
0.10
0.05
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.08
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
Interest
Earnings
from Account
S0.90
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.14
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Expenses Paid from Fee Accounts
(Millions of Dollars)
Total
Expenses
from Fees
S8.12
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
Administer
the Fund
S8.01
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
State
Match
SO.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Other
Eligible
Purposes
SO. 11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Expenses as a
Percent of Total Fee Income
Total
Expenses
38.7%
44.7
-
0.0
0.0
-
61.1
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
0.0
82.5
-
0.0
84.6
0.0
-
-
0.0
40.7
Administer
the Fund
38.2%
44.7
-
0.0
0.0
-
61.1
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
0.0
69.5
-
0.0
84.6
0.0
-
-
0.0
40.7
Other
State Eligible
Match Purposes
0.0% 0.5%
0.0 0.0
-
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
-
0.0 0.0
-
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
-
-
-
0.0 0.0
0.0 13.0
-
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
-
-
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
* Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
feesst
-------
Appendix B-12: Fees Charged on Drinking Water SRF Assistance, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Fees Charged on DWSRF Assistance
(Millions of Dollars)
Total Fee
Income
0.07
0.74
0.26
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
5.73
1.01
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.40
0.39
0.00
3.22
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.01
0.00
0.04
Fees
Included
in Loans
0.07
0.68
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.71
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.28
0.36
0.00
3.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.01
0.00
0.02
Fees not
Included
in Loans
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
2.77
0.91
0.04
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
Interest
Earnings
from Account
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.10
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Expenses Paid from Fee Accounts
(Millions of Dollars)
Total
Expenses
from Fees
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
1.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Administer
the Fund
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
1.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
State
Match
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Other
Eligible
Purposes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Expenses as a
Percent of Total Fee Income
Total
Expenses
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
-
61.6
0.0
0.0
5.2
51.7
-
-
0.0
25.0
0.0
-
44.0
0.0
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
Administer
the Fund
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
-
61.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
51.7
-
-
0.0
25.0
0.0
-
44.0
0.0
-
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other
State Eligible
Match Purposes
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
-
0.0 0.0
-
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 5.2
0.0 0.0
-
-
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
-
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
-
-
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
* Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
feesst
-------
Appendix B-13: Drinking Water SRF System Project Assistance by Category, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
(Millions of Dollars)
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Total
$3,764.3
89.0
55.0
102.3
10.5
98.5
137.0
31.3
7.4
143.9
37.0
7.8
18.2
132.8
126.8
32.3
121.0
15.8
16.6
29.8
37.7
161.0
144.1
106.9
37.5
Planning and
Design Only
S20.5
0.0
0.3
4.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
Construction
Treatment
$1,611.8
38.8
6.5
47.1
3.8
59.9
116.1
3.9
0.9
68.0
8.0
7.8
8.7
0.0
46.6
18.3
43.2
12.1
3.6
7.8
21.9
121.6
51.3
63.5
7.8
Transmission and
Distribution
$1,184.4
24.1
38.4
24.0
2.9
26.0
20.0
19.2
5.4
56.0
16.7
0.0
5.6
0.0
25.6
6.8
47.1
2.7
7.3
3.0
12.8
23.7
70.1
15.8
16.3
Source
$199.1
6.5
0.5
4.9
0.0
5.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
12.1
9.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
20.7
2.4
3.4
0.0
2.8
9.3
1.3
5.9
13.0
8.7
5.5
Storage
$355.3
19.5
9.3
6.3
2.6
5.9
0.9
4.8
1.0
3.1
3.1
0.0
3.5
0.0
14.0
4.7
22.4
0.7
1.3
8.3
1.8
9.9
8.5
18.8
7.3
Purchase of
Systems
$59.5
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Restructuring
$24.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Land
Acquisition
$12.2
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
Other
$297.5
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
2.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
132.8
7.5
0.0
4.9
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.1
1/11/02
Page 1 of 4
dwprojst
-------
Appendix B-13: Drinking Water SRF System Project Assistance by Category, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
(Millions of Dollars)
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
64.1
43.2
44.8
31.8
30.2
124.7
3.9
722.3
48.4
40.8
120.5
31.5
29.4
149.0
36.7
10.2
26.0
31.6
28.3
163.5
20.4
25.3
51.7
61.7
22.0
72.8
29.2
Planning and
Design Only
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Construction
Treatment
42.4
23.4
15.6
27.8
7.5
56.8
0.0
237.6
18.2
5.8
65.8
17.2
16.1
10.8
28.0
5.9
11.2
10.7
18.5
89.2
10.0
5.6
4.3
12.7
10.9
64.1
28.3
Transmission and
Distribution
13.6
9.9
14.0
3.9
10.7
53.3
1.1
298.7
22.4
9.2
24.6
8.2
7.1
51.5
5.4
3.2
10.6
16.2
8.0
54.9
6.4
14.0
41.4
14.7
7.1
4.4
0.4
Source
3.3
2.2
2.8
0.1
5.5
2.2
1.7
24.6
2.9
10.2
0.0
3.1
0.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.1
4.5
0.6
1.2
0.3
11.4
1.0
2.5
0.1
Storage
3.2
1.8
11.9
0.1
3.3
12.4
1.1
58.4
4.9
15.6
25.3
3.1
5.2
14.0
3.2
0.2
3.4
4.0
1.3
8.6
3.1
2.5
3.8
3.3
2.4
1.3
0.5
Purchase of
Systems
0.0
3.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
Restructuring
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Land
Acquisition
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.2
0.3
0.1
1.1
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
51.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
67.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.3
17.4
0.3
0.6
0.0
1/11/02
Page 2 of 4
dwprojst
-------
Appendix B-13: Drinking Water SRF System Project Assistance by Category, by State
Amount of SRF Assistance by Category as a Percent of Total DWSRF Assistance
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Total
100.0%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Planning and
Design Only
0.5%
0.0
*
3.9
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
Construction
Treatment
42.8%
43.6
11.8
46.0
36.3
60.9
84.7
12.4
12.5
47.2
21.7
100.0
47.8
0.0
36.8
56.7
35.7
76.5
21.7
26.3
58.0
75.5
35.6
59.4
20.8
Transmission and
Distribution
31.5%
27.1
69.9
23.5
27.4
26.4
14.6
61.3
72.7
38.9
45.1
0.0
30.7
0.0
20.2
21.1
38.9
17.3
43.9
10.1
33.9
14.7
48.7
14.8
43.5
Source
5.3%
7.3
0.9
4.8
0.0
5.2
*
0.0
2.0
8.4
24.3
0.0
2.3
0.0
16.3
7.6
2.8
0.0
16.9
31.1
3.4
3.7
9.0
8.1
14.6
Storage
9.4%
21.9
17.0
6.2
24.6
6.0
0.6
15.3
12.9
2.1
8.3
0.0
19.1
0.0
11.1
14.6
18.5
4.6
7.5
28.0
4.7
6.1
5.9
17.5
19.5
Purchase of
Systems
1.6%
0.0
0.0
1.1
5.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Restructuring
0.6%
0.0
0.0
10.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Land
Acquisition
0.3%
0.0
0.0
2.6
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
*
0.0
0.0
1.2
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
Other
7.9%
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.5
0.0
11.1
0.0
1.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
5.9
0.0
4.1
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
*
*
* Less than 0.5%
1/11/02
Page 3 of 4
dwprqj st
-------
Appendix B-13: Drinking Water SRF System Project Assistance by Category, by State
Amount of SRF Assistance by Category as a Percent of Total DWSRF Assistance
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Planning and
Design Only
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
7.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Construction
Treatment
66.1
54.1
34.9
87.2
24.9
45.6
0.0
32.9
37.6
14.2
54.6
54.4
54.9
7.3
76.4
58.1
42.9
34.0
65.4
54.5
48.9
22 3
8.3
20.6
49.4
88.1
96.7
Transmission and
Distribution
21 2
22.9
31.3
12.2
35.3
42.7
28.7
41.4
46.2
22.6
20.4
26.0
24.2
34.5
14.8
31.4
40.8
51.3
28.3
33.5
31.2
55.4
80.1
23.9
32.5
6.0
1.4
Source
5.1
5.0
6.2
*
18.3
1.8
42.9
3.4
6.0
25.0
0.0
9.9
2.0
3.5
0.0
*
3.1
1.8
*
2.8
3.1
4.7
0.6
18.5
4.4
3.4
*
Storage
5.0
4.2
26.6
*
10.9
9.9
28.4
8.1
10.2
38.2
21.0
9.7
17.5
9.4
8.8
1.5
13.2
12.8
4.5
5.3
15.4
9.8
7.3
5.3
11.1
1.7
1.7
Purchase of
Systems
0.0
8.8
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
Restructuring
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Land
Acquisition
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
0.7
1.5
*
2.1
3.5
*
0.0
0.0
Other
2.5
0.0
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.3
0.0
8.9
0.0
0.0
*
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
28.2
1.6
0.8
0.0
1 Less than 0.5%
1/11/02
Page 4 of 4
dwprqj st
-------
Appendix B-14: Drinking Water SRF Assistance Provided by Selected Category, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
(Millions of Dollars)
Total
Assistance
Provided
$3,764.3
89.0
55.0
102.3
10.5
98.5
137.0
31.3
7.4
143.9
37.0
7.8
18.2
132.8
126.8
32.3
121.0
15.8
16.6
29.8
37.7
161.0
144.1
106.9
37.5
Disadvantaged
Conimunites
S618.9
0.0
7.8
4.5
10.5
38.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
18.9
19.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
93.1
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
12 2
17.2
0.0
4.1
5.5
0.0
System
Compliance
$1,408.3
15.8
3.8
73.3
10.5
98.5
4.0
4.6
3.1
17.5
7.9
0.0
9.0
0.0
10.4
15.8
4.9
0.1
0.0
18.8
12.7
0.0
21.0
40.0
0.7
Private
Systems
$134.3
0.0
0.0
14.8
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.7
4.3
16.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Creation of
New Systems
$84.6
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
Consolidation
of Systems
$458.7
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
8.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
4.6
0.0
1.0
0.0
27.6
1.4
2.1
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
6.0
22.3
7.1
0.0
As a Percent of Total Assistance Provided
Disadvantaged
Communities
16.4%
0.0
14.2
4.4
100.0
39.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
13.1
52.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.5
0.0
0.0
44.6
0.0
41.1
45.8
0.0
2.9
5.2
0.0
System
Compliance
37.4%
17.7
6.8
71.7
100.0
100.0
2.9
14.6
42.0
12.1
21.3
0.0
49.6
0.0
8.2
49.0
4.0
0.8
0.0
63.1
33.7
0.0
14.6
37.5
2.0
Private
Systems
3.6%
0.0
0.0
14.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
5.5
58.5
11.3
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Creation of
New Systems
2.2%
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
58.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
Consolidation
of Systems
12.2%
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
8.2
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
12.5
0.0
5.6
0.0
21.8
4.2
1.8
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
3.7
15.5
6.6
0.0
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
assistst
-------
Appendix B-14: Drinking Water SRF Assistance Provided by Selected Category, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
(Millions of Dollars)
Total
Assistance
Provided
64.1
43.2
44.8
31.8
30.2
124.7
3.9
722.3
48.4
40.8
120.5
31.5
29.4
149.0
36.7
10.2
26.0
31.6
28.3
163.5
20.4
25.3
51.7
61.7
22.0
72.8
29.2
Disadvantaged
Conimunites
0.0
15.8
44.4
0.0
14.5
0.0
2.7
79.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
24.3
0.0
0.0
6.0
2 2
0.0
62.8
12.3
12 2
42.5
29.0
10.4
8.1
0.0
System
Compliance
0.0
20.8
2.2
0.0
7.2
3.4
0.0
446.0
2.6
13.5
59.5
31.5
26.9
82.6
36.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.8
149.4
0.0
2.4
51.0
14.4
15.6
23.5
28.8
Private
Systems
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
6.2
22.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
45.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
2.1
0.0
11.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Creation of
New Systems
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
67.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Consolidation
of Systems
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
210.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
0.1
36.2
36.7
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
42.9
0.0
0.9
33.1
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
As a Percent of Total Assistance Provided
Disadvantaged
Communities
0.0
36.6
99.2
0.0
48.1
0.0
68.9
11.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.1
16.3
0.0
0.0
23.0
7.0
0.0
38.4
60.5
48.2
82.2
47.1
47.4
11.1
0.0
System
Compliance
0.0
48.2
4.9
0.0
24.0
2.8
0.0
61.7
5.3
33.0
49.4
100.0
91.4
55.4
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
62.8
91.4
0.0
9.5
98.7
23.4
71.1
32.3
98.6
Private
Systems
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
20.7
18.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.5
30.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.1
8.1
0.0
19.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Creation of
New Systems
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Consolidation
of Systems
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.1
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.4
24.3
100.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
26.2
0.0
3.7
64.0
0.0
21.1
0.0
0.0
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
assistst
-------
Appendix B-15: Drinking Water SRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Amount of SRF Assistance in Millions of Dollars
Total
SRF
Assistance
3,764.3
89.0
55.0
102.3
10.5
98.5
137.0
31.3
7.4
143.9
37.0
7.8
18.2
132.8
126.8
32.3
121.0
15.8
16.6
29.8
37.7
161.0
144.1
106.9
37.5
Disadvantaged
Communities1
618.9
0.0
7.8
4.5
10.5
38.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
18.9
19.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
93.1
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
12.2
17.2
0.0
4.1
5.5
0.0
Assistance
with Principal
Forgiveness
213.7
0.0
7.8
0.0
0.0
10.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.9
18.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.5
6.2
0.0
4.1
5.5
0.0
Assistance
with > 20 yr
Repayment
218.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
9.4
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
Amount of Principal Forgiven
Millions of
Dollars
93.2
0.0
7.8
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
1.4
0.0
0.1
2.2
0.0
As a
Percent of
Grant Awards
2.6%
0.0
15.8
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.1
13.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.9
3.6
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
Number of SRF Agreements
Total
SRF
Assistance
1,776
52
34
54
3
21
26
15
8
44
28
1
7
82
44
30
62
11
6
38
22
35
57
71
61
Disadvantaged
Communities
455
0
10
2
3
6
0
0
1
20
22
0
0
0
28
0
0
6
0
21
6
0
3
5
0
Assistance
with Principal
Forgiveness
187
0
10
0
0
3
0
0
0
20
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
2
0
3
5
0
Assistance
with > 20 yr
Repayment
175
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
3
0
3
0
0
Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities includes all types of assistance provided to systems identified as disadvantaged by the State,
including principal forgiven, > 20 yr repayments and lower interest rates.
1/11/02
Page 1 of 4
disadvst
-------
Appendix B-15: Drinking Water SRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amount of SRF Assistance in Millions of Dollars
Total
SRF
Assistance
64.1
43.2
44.8
31.8
30.2
124.7
3.9
722.3
48.4
40.8
120.5
31.5
29.4
149.0
36.7
10.2
26.0
31.6
28.3
163.5
20.4
25.3
51.7
61.7
22.0
72.8
29.2
Disadvantaged
Communities1
0.0
15.8
44.4
0.0
14.5
0.0
2.7
79.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
24.3
0.0
0.0
6.0
2.2
0.0
62.8
12.3
12.2
42.5
29.0
10.4
8.1
0.0
Assistance
with Principal
Forgiveness
0.0
0.0
16.5
0.0
9.6
0.0
0.0
18.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.2
9.3
12.2
27.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Assistance
with > 20 yr
Repayment
0.0
13.2
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
11.7
0.0
0.0
6.0
1.9
0.0
27.8
0.0
12.2
38.6
2.1
10.4
0.0
0.0
Amount of Principal Forgiven
Millions of
Dollars
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.3
1.9
4.0
15.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
As a
Percent of
Grant Awards
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
5.5
11.5
17.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Number of SRF Agreements
Total
SRF
Assistance
17
32
49
7
37
39
5
207
38
20
48
10
28
97
2
4
9
28
25
24
8
60
39
91
13
15
12
Disadvantaged
Communities
0
13
48
0
18
0
4
82
0
0
0
0
12
24
0
0
1
5
0
8
6
25
32
30
8
6
0
Assistance
with Principal
Forgiveness
0
0
24
0
16
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
25
21
0
0
0
0
Assistance
with > 20 yr
Repayment
0
4
6
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
10
7
0
0
1
4
0
3
0
24
31
4
8
0
0
Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities includes all types of assistance provided to systems identified as disadvantaged by the State,
including principal forgiven, > 20 yr repayments and lower interest rates.
1/11/02
Page 2 of 4
disadvst
-------
Appendix B-15: Drinking Water SRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Total
SRF
Assistance
100.0%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Percent of Total
Disadvantaged
Communities1
16.4%
0.0
14.2
4.4
100.0
39.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
13.1
52.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.5
0.0
0.0
44.6
0.0
41.1
45.8
0.0
2.9
5.2
0.0
SRF Assistance
Assistance
with Principal
Forgiveness
5.7%
0.0
14.2
0.0
0.0
10.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.1
50.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.7
16.4
0.0
2.9
5.2
0.0
Assistance
with > 20 yr
Repayment
5.8%
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.1
25.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
Amount of Principal Forgiven
As a Percent of As a
Total SRF Percent of
Assistance Grant Awards
2.5% Not Applicable
0.0
14.2
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.1
20.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.3
3.6
0.0
*
2.1
0.0
Total
SRF
Assistance
100%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent of Total
Disadvantaged
Communities
26%
0
29
4
100
29
0
0
13
45
79
0
0
0
64
0
0
55
0
55
27
0
5
7
0
SRF Agreements
Assistance
with Principal
Forgiveness
11%
0
29
0
0
14
0
0
0
45
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
9
0
5
7
0
Assistance
with > 20 yr
Repayment
10%
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
13
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
14
0
5
0
0
Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities includes all types of assistance provided to systems identified as disadvantaged by the
State, including principal forgiven, > 20 yr repayments and lower interest rates.
1/11/02
Page 3 of 4
disadvst
-------
Appendix B-15: Drinking Water SRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
SRF
Assistance
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Percent of Total
Disadvantaged
Communities1
0.0
36.6
99.2
0.0
48.1
0.0
68.9
11.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.1
16.3
0.0
0.0
23.0
7.0
0.0
38.4
60.5
48.2
82.2
47.1
47.4
11.1
0.0
SRF Assistance
Assistance
with Principal
Forgiveness
0.0
0.0
36.8
0.0
31.7
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
45.8
48.2
52.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Assistance
with > 20 yr
Repayment
0.0
30.5
6.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.2
7.8
0.0
0.0
23.0
6.1
0.0
17.0
0.0
48.1
74.7
3.3
47.4
0.0
0.0
Amount of Principal Forgiven
As a Percent of As a
Total SRF Percent of
Assistance Grant Awards
0.0
0.0
9.6
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
9.4
15.9
29.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
SRF
Assistance
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent of Total
Disadvantaged
Communities
0
41
98
0
49
0
80
40
0
0
0
0
43
25
0
0
11
18
0
33
75
42
82
33
62
40
0
SRF Agreements
Assistance
with Principal
Forgiveness
0
0
49
0
43
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
63
42
54
0
0
0
0
Assistance
with > 20 yr
Repayment
0
13
12
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
36
7
0
0
11
14
0
13
0
40
79
4
62
0
0
Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities includes all types of assistance provided to systems identified as disadvantaged by the
State, including principal forgiven, > 20 yr repayments and lower interest rates.
1/11/02
Page 4 of 4
disadvst
-------
Appendix B-16: Drinking Water SRF Assistance by Community Size Category, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Amount of SRF Assistance
Millions of Dollars
Population Population Population
Less than 501 to 3,301 to
Total 501 3,300 10,000
$3,764.3 S128.5 S700.5 S697.6
89.0 6.2 10.3 12.8
55.0 0.4 8.1 14.1
102.3 1.6 11.8 18.1
10.5 0.0 6.5 0.0
98.5 2.7 9.4 0.0
137.0 2.0 8.9 5.9
31.3 1.6 2.4 3.5
7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0
143.9 2.3 22.1 10.8
37.0 2.1 7.2 7.6
7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
18.2 1.7 8.3 1.8
132.8 0.0 18.3 30.9
126.8 1.8 30.6 23.1
32.3 1.8 11.6 16.2
121.0 6.7 37.4 31.9
15.8 0.0 0.0 2.1
16.6 0.0 0.0 7.6
29.8 3.8 16.6 4.1
37.7 0.4 12.1 1.8
161.0 0.6 5.6 25.5
144.1 0.4 16.8 49.9
106.9 2.5 35.6 42.2
37.5 0.0 12.3 10.4
Population
Less than
10,001
$1,526.6
29.2
22.6
31.6
6.5
12.0
16.9
7.4
7.4
35.3
16.9
0.0
11.8
49.3
55.5
29.6
76.0
2.2
7.6
24.5
14.3
31.7
67.0
80.4
22.7
Population Population
10,001 to 100,001
100,000 and Above
$1,496.1 $741.6
59.7 0.0
2.0 30.4
42.8 27.9
4.0 0.0
40.7 45.8
72.9 47.3
15.4 8.5
0.0 0.0
49.7 58.9
7.4 12.7
7.8 0.0
6.4 0.0
79.7 3.8
56.9 14.5
2.7 0.0
37.8 7.2
13.6 0.0
9.0 0.0
5.3 0.0
20.4 2.9
104.1 25.2
61.8 15.3
10.0 16.5
14.8 0.0
Number of SRF Assistance Agreements
Population Population Population
Less than 501 to 3,301 to
Total 501 3,300 10,000
1,776 311 654 373
52 1 16 16
34 1 8 13
54 14 21 11
30 20
21 6 40
26 5 73
15 4 32
81 70
44 10 16 8
28 7 10 5
10 00
73 21
82 0 34 25
44 5 22 8
30 5 17 6
62 11 28 14
11 0 16
60 05
38 11 21 4
22 4 62
35 2 29
57 1 15 22
71 8 43 18
61 0 27 17
Population
Less than
10,001
1,338
33
22
46
2
10
15
9
8
34
22
0
6
59
35
28
53
7
5
36
12
13
38
69
44
Population Population
10,001 to 100,001
100,000 and Above
353 85
19 0
1 11
4 4
1 0
8 3
6 5
2 4
0 0
5 5
3 3
1 0
1 0
22 1
6 3
2 0
8 1
4 0
1 0
2 0
9 1
19 3
17 2
1 1
17 0
1/11/02
Page 1 of 4
dwcsizest
-------
Appendix B-16: Drinking Water SRF Assistance by Community Size Category, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amount of SRF Assistance
Millions of Dollars
Population Population Population
Less than 501 to 3,301 to
Total 501 3,300 10,000
64.1 0.0 7.3 23.3
43.2 3.4 7.0 20.0
44.8 5.4 17.4 12.8
31.8 0.8 0.1 3.3
30.2 2.8 9.2 4.6
124.7 0.0 0.4 11.1
3.9 0.2 0.0 0.5
722.3 32.2 145.0 135.3
48.4 0.7 15.4 7.9
40.8 1.1 7.9 3.5
120.5 0.9 5.5 6.1
31.5 0.0 5.9 11.7
29.4 2.2 17.4 5.9
149.0 3.7 58.8 37.1
36.7 0.0 3.0 2.9
10.2 0.0 0.0 0.2
26.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
31.6 2.2 3.6 9.2
28.3 0.0 3.3 18.5
163.5 0.5 8.9 26.6
20.4 1.0 5.4 3.0
25.3 5.5 19.0 0.8
51.7 12.6 26.4 11.3
61.7 13.0 22.7 7.4
22.0 0.0 4.9 2.2
72.8 1.3 6.2 5.0
29.2 0.3 0.2 7.2
Population
Less than
10,001
30.6
30.4
35.6
4.1
16.6
11.5
0.7
312.6
23.9
12.5
12.5
17.7
25.4
99.6
5.8
0.2
0.3
15.0
21.8
36.0
9.3
25.3
50.4
43.1
7.2
12.5
7.8
Population Population
10,001 to 100,001
100,000 and Above
33.5 0.0
12.8 0.0
9.2 0.0
0.0 27.8
13.6 0.0
89.4 23.8
1.2 2.0
162.8 246.9
21.8 2.7
28.4 0.0
90.5 17.5
13.9 0.0
4.0 0.0
30.4 19.1
6.2 24.6
0.0 10.0
25.7 0.0
6.8 9.8
6.5 0.0
112.4 15.2
5.1 6.0
0.0 0.0
1.3 0.0
18.5 0.0
14.8 0.0
40.9 19.4
21.4 0.0
Number of SRF Assistance Agreements
Population Population Population
Less than 501 to 3,301 to
Total 501 3,300 10,000
17 0 67
32 8 11 9
49 15 23 7
72 11
37 6 17 2
39 0 18
52 01
207 47 82 37
38 2 14 12
20 3 11 2
48 5 13 10
10 0 34
28 5 19 3
97 14 36 24
20 00
41 01
90 10
28 7 10 7
25 0 8 11
24 2 56
82 21
60 29 28 3
39 19 13 6
91 37 29 8
13 0 52
15 3 33
12 3 13
Population
Less than
10,001
13
28
45
4
25
9
3
166
28
16
28
7
27
74
0
2
1
24
19
13
5
60
38
74
7
9
7
Population Population
10,001 to 100,001
100,000 and Above
4 0
4 0
4 0
0 3
12 0
25 5
1 1
34 7
9 1
4 0
15 5
3 0
1 0
16 7
0 2
0 2
8 0
2 2
6 0
10 1
2 1
0 0
1 0
17 0
6 0
5 1
5 0
1/11/02
Page 2 of 4
dwcsizest
-------
Appendix B-16: Drinking Water SRF Assistance by Community Size Category, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Percent of Total SRF Assistance
Population Population Population
Less than 501 to 3,301 to
Total 501 3,300 10,000
100% 3% 19% 19%
100 7 12 14
100 1 15 26
100 2 12 18
100 0 62 0
100 3 10 0
100 1 7 4
100 5 8 11
100 * 100 0
100 2 15 8
100 6 19 21
100 0 0 0
100 10 46 10
100 0 14 23
100 1 24 18
100 6 36 50
100 6 31 26
100 0 * 13
100 0 0 46
100 13 56 14
100 1 32 5
100 * 3 16
100 * 12 35
100 2 33 40
100 0 33 28
Population
Less than
10,001
41%
33
41
31
62
12
12
24
100
25
46
0
65
37
44
92
63
14
46
82
38
20
47
75
60
Population Population
10,001 to 100,001
100,000 and Above
40% 20%
67 0
4 55
42 27
38 0
41 46
53 35
49 27
0 0
35 41
20 34
100 0
35 0
60 3
45 11
8 0
31 6
86 0
54 0
18 0
54 8
65 16
43 11
9 15
40 0
Percent of Total SRF Assistance Agreements
Population Population Population
Less than 501 to 3,301 to
Total 501 3,300 10,000
100% 18% 37% 21%
100 2 31 31
100 3 24 38
100 26 39 20
100 0 67 0
100 29 19 0
100 19 27 12
100 27 20 13
100 13 88 0
100 23 36 18
100 25 36 18
100 0 0 0
100 43 29 14
100 0 41 30
100 11 50 18
100 17 57 20
100 18 45 23
100 0 9 55
100 0 0 83
100 29 55 11
100 18 27 9
100 6 6 26
100 2 26 39
100 11 61 25
100 0 44 28
Population
Less than
10,001
75%
63
65
85
67
48
58
60
100
77
79
0
86
72
80
93
85
64
83
95
55
37
67
97
72
Population Population
10,001 to 100,001
100,000 and Above
20% 5%
37 0
3 32
7 7
33 0
38 14
23 19
13 27
0 0
11 11
11 11
100 0
14 0
27 1
14 7
7 0
13 2
36 0
17 0
5 0
41 5
54 9
30 4
1 1
28 0
1 Less than 0.5%
1/11/02
Page 3 of 4
dwcsizest
-------
Appendix B-16: Drinking Water SRF Assistance by Community Size Category, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent of Total SRF Assistance
Population Population Population
Less than 501 to 3,301 to
Total 501 3,300 10,000
100 0 11 36
100 8 16 46
100 12 39 28
100 2 * 10
100 9 30 15
100 0 * 9
100 5 0 12
100 4 20 19
100 1 32 16
100 3 19 9
100 1 5 5
100 0 19 37
100 7 59 20
100 2 39 25
100 0 8 8
100 * 0 2
100 0 1 0
100 7 11 29
100 0 12 65
100 * 5 16
100 5 26 15
100 22 75 3
100 24 51 22
100 21 37 12
100 0 22 10
100 2 8 7
100 1 1 25
Population
Less than
10,001
48
70
80
13
55
9
17
43
49
31
10
56
86
67
16
2
1
48
77
22
46
100
97
70
33
17
27
Population Population
10,001 to 100,001
100,000 and Above
52 0
30 0
20 0
0 87
45 0
72 19
31 52
23 34
45 6
69 0
75 15
44 0
14 0
20 13
17 67
0 98
99 0
22 31
23 0
69 9
25 29
0 0
3 0
30 0
67 0
56 27
73 0
Percent of Total SRF Assistance Agreements
Population Population Population
Less than 501 to 3,301 to
Total 501 3,300 10,000
100 0 35 41
100 25 34 28
100 31 47 14
100 29 14 14
100 16 46 5
100 0 3 21
100 40 0 20
100 23 40 18
100 5 37 32
100 15 55 10
100 10 27 21
100 0 30 40
100 18 68 11
100 14 37 25
100 0 0 0
100 25 0 25
100 0 11 0
100 25 36 25
100 0 32 44
100 8 21 25
100 25 25 13
100 48 47 5
100 49 33 15
100 41 32 9
100 0 38 15
100 20 20 20
100 25 8 25
Population
Less than
10,001
76
88
92
57
68
23
60
80
74
80
58
70
96
76
0
50
11
86
76
54
63
100
97
81
54
60
58
Population Population
10,001 to 100,001
100,000 and Above
24 0
13 0
8 0
0 43
32 0
64 13
20 20
16 3
24 3
20 0
31 10
30 0
4 0
16 7
0 100
0 50
89 0
7 7
24 0
42 4
25 13
0 0
3 0
19 0
46 0
33 7
42 0
1 Less than 0.5%
1/11/02
Page 4 of 4
dwcsizest
-------
Appendix B-17: Annual U.S. Drinking Water SRF Population Served
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Total All Years
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Population Served
Total
65,330,607
96,879
9,669,799
16,794,896
20,753,311
18,015,722
Community
Systems
65,306,523
96,879
9,660,384
16,787,922
20,745,666
18,015,672
Non-Community
Systems
24,084
0
9,415
6,974
7,645
50
Disadvantaged
Communities
2,278,926
0
61,863
441,519
1,047,872
727,672
System
Compliance
26,675,832
0
7,653,801
1,182,350
10,001,577
7,838,104
As a Percent of Total Population Served
Community Non-Community
Systems Systems
100.0%
100.0% 0.0%
99.9% 0.1%
100.0% *
100.0% *
100.0% *
Disadvantaged
Communities
3.5%
0.0%
0.6%
2.6%
5.0%
4.0%
System
Compliance
40.8%
0.0%
79.2%
7.0%
48.2%
43.5%
* Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 1 of 1
popservus
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Appendix B-18: Drinking Water SRF Coordinated Funding, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Millions of Dollars
Total
Coordinated
Funding
S679.7
1.2
81.4
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
7.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
34.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.3
13.7
0.0
4.4
33.3
0.0
DWSRF
Portion
S366.3
0.8
38.6
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
21.4
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
8.3
0.0
2.1
25.4
0.0
DWSRF Portion
as a Percent of
Total Coordinated
Funding
54%
65
47
48
-
-
-
-
51
51
-
-
45
-
62
87
-
-
-
52
60
-
48
76
-
Number of Agreements
Receiving
Total DWSRF Coordinated
Agreements Funding
1,776
52
34
54
3
21
26
15
8
44
28
1
7
82
44
30
62
11
6
38
22
35
57
71
61
267
1
22
2
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
9
0
16
1
0
0
0
18
6
0
1
14
0
Percentage of
DWSRF Agreements
with Coordinated
Funding
15%
2
65
4
0
0
0
0
25
7
0
0
29
0
36
3
0
0
0
47
27
0
2
20
0
* Less than 0.5%.
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
coordst
-------
Appendix B-18: Drinking Water SRF Coordinated Funding, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
Total
Coordinated
Funding
0.0
33.2
7.4
0.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
89.2
31.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.9
65.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.7
24.4
0.0
14.9
3.0
17.3
11.8
78.3
6.7
0.0
DWSRF
Portion
0.0
14.2
3.7
0.0
7.9
0.0
0.0
81.0
12.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.2
40.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.8
1.6
0.0
11.9
0.9
12.8
1.8
21.9
3.8
0.0
DWSRF Portion
as a Percent of
Total Coordinated
Funding
_
43
50
-
65
-
-
91
40
-
-
-
44
63
-
-
-
46
6
-
80
28
74
15
28
57
-
Number of Agreements
Receiving
Total DWSRF Coordinated
Agreements Funding
17
32
49
7
37
39
5
207
38
20
48
10
28
97
2
4
9
28
25
24
8
60
39
91
13
15
12
0
14
7
0
10
0
0
37
10
0
0
0
11
37
0
0
0
16
5
0
6
3
9
1
11
2
0
Percentage of
DWSRF Agreements
with Coordinated
Funding
0
44
14
0
27
0
0
18
26
0
0
0
39
38
0
0
0
57
20
0
75
5
23
1
85
13
0
1 Less than 0.5%.
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
coordst
-------
Appendix B-19: Drinking Water SRF Net Set-Asides Awarded, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Millions of Dollars
Federal
Capitalization
Grants
3,648.41
48.38
49.38
47.65
44.35
317.60
57.33
43.75
27.14
132.48
57.02
34.90
36.50
143.24
62.01
52.12
56.44
46.60
40.80
35.00
37.89
124.64
145.62
79.28
42.43
Total Net
Set-Asides
Awarded1
575.84
6.69
5.07
7.99
12.42
30.76
9.36
13.56
7.60
16.27
12.99
7.53
7.40
9.58
6.23
4.81
7.20
8.04
9.54
8.56
8.74
18.83
20.56
9.25
4.76
Administrative1
135.39
1.94
1.98
1.90
1.77
9.34
1.87
1.75
1.09
5.30
2.28
1.40
1.46
5.73
1.79
2.08
2.26
1.86
1.63
1.39
1.60
3.95
5.92
3.17
1.70
Small
Systems
Technical
Assistance1
54.18
0.67
0.36
0.78
0.67
4.67
0.86
0.88
0.54
2.65
1.14
0.70
0.52
0.00
0.70
1.04
1.13
0.68
0.77
0.69
0.64
2.01
1.16
0.95
0.85
State
Program
Management1
146.64
1.19
0.00
0.93
3.33
0.93
1.01
4.38
2.04
5.39
5.70
3.49
1.25
0.00
1.42
0.00
2.40
2.48
4.08
2.72
2.51
7.88
3.55
0.41
0.57
Local
Assistance
and 1452(k)
Activities1
239.63
2.89
2.74
4.37
6.65
15.81
5.61
6.56
3.93
2.93
3.87
1.95
4.18
3.85
2.31
1.69
1.41
3.01
3.06
3.76
3.98
4.98
9.94
4.71
1.65
As a Percent of Federal Capitalization Grants
Total Net
Set-Asides
Awarded
15.8%
13.8%
10.3%
16.8%
28.0%
9.7%
16.3%
31.0%
28.0%
12.3%
22.8%
21.6%
20.3%
6.7%
10.0%
9.2%
12.8%
17.3%
23.4%
24.5%
23.1%
15.1%
14.1%
11.7%
11.2%
Administrative
3.7%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
2.9%
3.3%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
2.9%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.2%
3.2%
4.1%
4.0%
4.0%
Small
Systems
Technical
Assistance
1.5%
1.4%
0.7%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.4%
0.0%
1.1%
2.0%
2.0%
1.5%
1.9%
2.0%
1.7%
1.6%
0.8%
1.2%
2.0%
State
Program
Management
4.0%
2.5%
0.0%
2.0%
7.5%
0.3%
1.8%
10.0%
7.5%
4.1%
10.0%
10.0%
3.4%
0.0%
2.3%
0.0%
4.3%
5.3%
10.0%
7.8%
6.6%
6.3%
2.4%
0.5%
1.3%
Local
Assistance
and 1452(k)
Activities
6.6%
6.0%
5.6%
9.2%
15.0%
5.0%
9.8%
15.0%
14.5%
2.2%
6.8%
5.6%
11.5%
2.7%
3.7%
3.2%
2.5%
6.5%
7.5%
10.7%
10.5%
4.0%
6.8%
5.9%
3.9%
1 Set-aside amounts awarded net of any transfers of set-aside amounts into/(out of) the set-aside category.
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
satotst
-------
Appendix B-19: Drinking Water SRF Net Set-Asides Awarded, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
Federal
Capitalization
Grants
41.47
44.96
42.96
34.90
36.10
82.37
27.34
249.83
72.45
34.90
114.62
49.64
63.63
148.07
44.64
27.14
38.88
42.69
53.22
239.62
34.90
34.90
87.51
97.80
27.14
71.50
42.69
Total Net
Set-Asides
Awarded1
8.82
5.34
8.99
7.25
8.18
8.97
8.48
27.22
14.88
3.19
14.32
11.04
10.27
45.90
4.16
4.30
3.49
3.33
11.45
35.40
6.98
6.71
14.15
30.65
5.10
10.40
3.12
Administrative1
1.66
1.80
1.72
1.40
0.84
3.29
1.09
9.99
2.90
1.40
4.58
1.86
2.41
5.92
1.79
1.09
1.56
1.71
2.13
4.97
1.40
1.40
3.50
4.49
0.79
2.86
1.71
Small
Systems
Technical
Assistance1
0.83
0.59
0.86
0.67
0.72
0.60
0.55
5.00
1.45
0.54
1.85
0.93
1.27
2.96
0.89
0.40
0.45
0.30
1.06
0.00
0.70
0.70
1.63
2.25
0.53
1.23
0.16
State
Program
Management1
4.15
1.48
1.48
2.70
1.21
2.28
2.73
6.31
3.88
0.00
0.00
2.41
1.82
14.81
0.23
1.18
0.00
0.02
5.32
16.39
2.88
1.29
1.18
11.23
1.96
2.04
0.00
Local
Assistance
and 1452(k)
Activities1
2.19
1.48
4.94
2.49
5.41
2.79
4.10
5.92
6.65
1.26
7.88
5.84
4.77
22.21
1.26
1.63
1.48
1.31
2.93
14.04
2.00
3.32
7.84
12.68
1.83
4.27
1.26
As a Percent of Federal Capitalization Grants
Total Net
Set-Asides
Awarded
21.3%
11.9%
20.9%
20.8%
22.7%
10.9%
31.0%
10.9%
20.5%
9.2%
12.5%
22.2%
16.1%
31.0%
9.3%
15.8%
9.0%
7.8%
21.5%
14.8%
20.0%
19.2%
16.2%
31.3%
18.8%
14.6%
7.3%
Administrative
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
2.3%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
3.7%
3.8%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
2.1%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.6%
2.9%
4.0%
4.0%
Small
Systems
Technical
Assistance
2.0%
1.3%
2.0%
1.9%
2.0%
0.7%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.5%
1.2%
0.7%
2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
2.3%
2.0%
1.7%
0.4%
State
Program
Management
10.0%
3.3%
3.4%
7.7%
3.4%
2.8%
10.0%
2.5%
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
2.9%
10.0%
0.5%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
6.8%
8.3%
3.7%
1.3%
11.5%
7.2%
2.9%
0.0%
Local
Assistance
and 1452(k)
Activities
5.3%
3.3%
11.5%
7.1%
15.0%
3.4%
15.0%
2.4%
9.2%
3.6%
6.9%
11.8%
7.5%
15.0%
2.8%
6.0%
3.8%
3.1%
5.5%
5.9%
5.7%
9.5%
9.0%
13.0%
6.7%
6.0%
2.9%
1 Set-aside amounts awarded net of any transfers of set-aside amounts into/(out of) the set-aside category.
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
satotst
-------
Appendix B-20: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside Expenses, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Set-Aside Expenses
(Millions of Dollars)
Total
244.62
2.47
2 25
3.98
3.21
9.27
1.55
3.73
2.95
7.19
5.79
1.95
4.40
4.71
0.46
1.63
1.25
1.96
2.62
5.02
4.89
9.95
13.76
6.75
2.69
Administrative
75.33
0.60
1.02
1.44
0.64
5.31
0.94
1.15
0.71
3.16
0.60
0.52
0.90
2.81
0.25
0.21
0.78
1.12
0.93
0.97
1.45
2.87
3.19
2.71
1.62
Small
Systems State
Technical Program
Assistance Management
24.26
0.30
0.13
0.40
0.03
2.12
0.12
0.47
0.32
1.30
0.62
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.36
0.00
0.27
0.47
0.53
0.93
0.49
0.53
0.51
67.79
0.61
0.00
0.22
1.20
0.23
0.00
1.30
1.08
1.63
2.97
0.94
0.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.10
1.45
1.69
3.84
1.98
0.18
0.00
Local
Assistance
and 1452(k)
Activities
77.24
0.96
1.10
1.92
1.35
1.61
0.49
0.81
0.84
1.10
1.60
0.49
2.30
1.90
0.21
0.88
0.10
0.84
0.32
2.14
1.21
2.30
8.10
3.32
0.56
Total
42.5%
37.0
44.4
49.8
25.9
30.1
16.6
27.5
38.8
44.2
44.6
25.9
59.5
49.2
7.4
33.9
17.3
24.3
27.5
58.6
55.9
52.8
66.9
73.0
56.5
As a Percent of Net
Administrative
55.6%
31.3
51.7
75.5
36.2
56.8
50.1
65.4
65.7
59.7
26.3
37.6
62.0
49.0
14.0
10.2
34.5
59.9
56.9
69.6
90.9
72.6
53.9
85.4
95.7
Amount Awarded for Each Set-Aside
Small
Systems
Technical
Assistance
44.8%
44.5
35.9
50.9
4.0
45.4
14.3
54.1
58.5
48.9
54.6
0.4
70.0
-
0.0
51.1
32.2
0.0
35.3
67.1
82.1
46.6
42.4
55.9
59.8
State
Program
Management
46.2%
51.2
-
23.8
35.9
24.5
0.0
29.7
53.1
30.3
52.1
26.9
67.2
-
0.0
-
0.1
0.0
27.0
53.3
67.5
48.7
55.8
43.8
0.0
Local
Assistance
and 1452(k)
Activities
32.2%
33.2
40.1
44.0
20.2
10.2
8.8
12.3
21.3
37.5
41.4
24.9
55.0
49.4
9.1
52.5
7.2
27.9
10.5
56.8
30.4
46.1
81.5
70.6
33.9
* Less than 0.05%
1 Set-aside amounts awarded net of any transfers of set-aside amounts into/(out of) the set-aside category.
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
saexpst
-------
Appendix B-20: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside Expenses, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Set-Aside Expenses
(Millions of Dollars)
Total
4.89
2.53
2.00
2.77
3.51
6.94
4.22
15.54
6.50
1.39
5.31
5.95
4.09
12.48
0.69
1.27
1.54
1.08
5.35
17.70
4.16
3.05
5.78
13.37
3.85
3.77
0.46
Administrative
1.05
1.28
0.98
0.86
0.58
3.29
0.61
7.78
1.18
0.93
1.65
1.21
1.58
3.27
0.34
0.18
0.90
0.95
1.01
2.35
0.67
1.12
1.45
2.43
0.45
0.98
0.36
Small
Systems
Technical
Assistance
0.54
0.29
0.22
0.34
0.64
0.12
0.63
1.91
1.07
0.32
0.87
0.58
0.24
1.15
0.11
0.06
0.16
0.13
0.44
0.00
0.42
0.44
0.48
1.30
0.53
0.46
0.00
State
Program
Management
2.35
0.60
0.40
0.89
0.86
1.73
1.85
2.23
2.17
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.47
3.74
0.05
0.57
0.00
0.00
2.70
13.06
1.93
0.40
0.94
6.17
1.98
0.25
0.00
Local
Assistance
and 1452(k)
Activities
0.95
0.37
0.41
0.68
1.44
1.79
1.12
3.63
2.09
0.13
2.80
2.96
1.80
4.32
0.20
0.45
0.48
0.00
1.20
2.29
1.14
1.09
2.91
3.47
0.90
2.08
0.10
Total
55.5
47.3
22 3
38.3
42.9
77.3
49.8
57.1
43.7
43.5
37.1
53.9
39.8
27.2
16.7
29.4
44.2
32.5
46.7
50.0
59.6
45.5
40.8
43.6
75.5
36.2
14.7
As a Percent of Net
Administrative
63.5
71.0
56.8
61.4
68.9
100.0
56.1
77.8
40.7
66.9
35.9
65.0
65.4
55.2
19.0
16.3
57.8
55.4
47.4
47.4
48.1
80.5
41.5
54.0
56.8
34.3
21.0
Amount Awarded for Each Set-Aside
Small
Systems
Technical
Assistance
65.1
48.7
25.5
51.0
88.0
20.6
115.7
38.3
73.9
59.5
47.0
62.3
18.7
38.9
12.4
15.6
36.5
44.1
41.4
-
60.8
62.8
29.3
57.8
99.6
37.3
0.0
State
Program
Management
56.7
40.3
27.2
32.9
70.8
75.8
67.5
35.3
55.9
-
-
49.8
25.6
25.2
21.4
48.6
-
21.5
50.7
79.7
66.8
31.1
79.7
55.0
101.2
12.1
-
Local
Assistance
and 1452(k)
Activities
43.4
24.8
8.2
27.6
26.6
64.1
27.4
61.3
31.4
10.6
35.5
50.7
37.8
19.5
15.6
27.7
32.3
0.0
41.0
16.3
56.9
32.7
37.1
27.4
49.2
48.7
7.9
* Less than 0.05%
1 Set-aside amounts awarded net of any transfers of set-aside amounts into/(out of) the set-aside category.
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
saexpst
-------
Appendix B-21: Drinking Water SRF Administrative Expense Set-Aside, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Millions of Dollars
Net Amount
Awarded
S135.39
1.94
1.98
1.90
1.77
9.34
1.87
1.75
1.09
5.30
2.28
1.40
1.46
5.73
1.79
2.08
2.26
1.86
1.63
1.39
1.60
3.95
5.92
3.17
1.70
DWSRF
Administrative
Expenses
S74.50
0.60
1.02
1.44
0.64
5.31
0.94
1.15
0.71
3.16
0.60
0.52
0.90
2.81
0.23
0.21
0.78
1.12
0.93
0.97
1.45
2.87
3.19
2.71
1.62
Technical
Assistance
S0.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Expenses
S75.33
0.60
1.02
1.44
0.64
5.31
0.94
1.15
0.71
3.16
0.60
0.52
0.90
2.81
0.25
0.21
0.78
1.12
0.93
0.97
1.45
2.87
3.19
2.71
1.62
Remaining
Amount
S60.05
1.33
0.95
0.47
1.13
4.03
0.94
0.60
0.37
2.13
1.68
0.87
0.56
2.92
1.54
1.87
1.48
0.75
0.70
0.42
0.15
1.08
2.73
0.46
0.07
Expenses as
a Percent of
Net Amount
Awarded
55.6%
31.3
51.7
75.5
36.2
56.8
50.1
65.4
65.7
59.7
26.3
37.6
62.0
49.0
14.0
10.2
34.5
59.9
56.9
69.6
90.9
72.6
53.9
85.4
95.7
1 Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 1 of :
saadmst
-------
Appendix B-21: Drinking Water SRF Administrative Expense Set-Aside, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
Net Amount
Awarded
1.66
1.80
1.72
1.40
0.84
3.29
1.09
9.99
2.90
1.40
4.58
1.86
2.41
5.92
1.79
1.09
1.56
1.71
2.13
4.97
1.40
1.40
3.50
4.49
0.79
2.86
1.71
DWSRF
Administrative
Expenses
1.05
1.28
0.98
0.86
0.58
3.29
0.51
7.78
1.18
0.93
1.65
1.21
1.34
3.27
0.34
0.18
0.90
0.95
1.01
2.35
0.67
1.12
0.98
2.43
0.45
0.98
0.36
Technical
Assistance
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Expenses
1.05
1.28
0.98
0.86
0.58
3.29
0.61
7.78
1.18
0.93
1.65
1.21
1.58
3.27
0.34
0.18
0.90
0.95
1.01
2.35
0.67
1.12
1.45
2.43
0.45
0.98
0.36
Remaining
Amount
0.61
0.52
0.74
0.54
0.26
0.00
0.48
2.22
1.72
0.46
2.94
0.65
0.84
2.66
1.45
0.91
0.66
0.76
1.12
2.61
0.72
0.27
2.05
2.07
0.34
1.88
1.35
Expenses as
a Percent of
Net Amount
Awarded
63.5
71.0
56.8
61.4
68.9
100.0
56.1
77.8
40.7
66.9
35.9
65.0
65.4
55.2
19.0
16.3
57.8
55.4
47.4
47.4
48.1
80.5
41.5
54.0
56.8
34.3
21.0
* Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 2 of :
saadmst
-------
Appendix B-22: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Small System Technical Assistance, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Millions of Dollars
Net Amount
Awarded
54.18
0.67
0.36
0.78
0.67
4.67
0.86
0.88
0.54
2.65
1.14
0.70
0.52
0.00
0.70
1.04
1.13
0.68
0.77
0.69
0.64
2.01
1.16
0.95
0.85
Expenses
24.26
0.30
0.13
0.40
0.03
2.12
0.12
0.47
0.32
1.30
0.62
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.36
0.00
0.27
0.47
0.53
0.93
0.49
0.53
0.51
Remaining
Amount
29.92
0.37
0.23
0.38
0.64
2.55
1.02
0.40
0.23
1.35
0.52
0.70
0.22
0.00
0.70
0.51
0.77
0.68
0.50
0.23
0.12
1.07
2.47
0.42
0.34
Number
of Systems
Receiving
Assistance
55,574
236
63
1,613
30
3,340
1,715
644
221
6,710
1,301
0
2,474
0
0
1,555
502
0
1,559
2,329
1,240
3,187
829
2,342
1,844
Expenses as
a Percent of
Net Amount
Awarded
44.8%
44.5
35.9
50.9
4.0
45.4
14.3
54.1
58.5
48.9
54.6
*
70.0
-
0.0
51.1
32 2
0.0
35.3
67.1
82.1
46.6
42.4
55.9
59.8
* Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
sasstst
-------
Appendix B-22: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Small System Technical Assistance, by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
Net Amount
Awarded
0.83
0.59
0.86
0.67
0.72
0.60
0.55
5.00
1.45
0.54
1.85
0.93
1.27
2.96
0.89
0.40
0.45
0.30
1.06
0.00
0.70
0.70
1.63
2.25
0.53
1.23
0.16
Expenses
0.54
0.29
0.22
0.34
0.64
0.12
0.63
1.91
1.07
0.32
0.87
0.58
0.24
1.15
0.11
0.06
0.16
0.13
0.44
0.00
0.42
0.44
0.48
1.30
0.53
0.46
0.00
Remaining
Amount
0.29
0.30
0.64
0.36
0.09
0.48
-0.09
3.08
0.38
0.22
0.98
0.41
1.03
1.81
0.78
0.34
0.29
0.17
0.62
0.00
0.27
0.26
1.15
0.95
0.00
0.77
0.16
Number
of Systems
Receiving
Assistance
28
290
205
155
607
164
886
565
10,854
380
219
1,900
127
0
292
210
31
250
881
0
1,996
515
666
0
619
0
0
Expenses as
a Percent of
Net Amount
Awarded
65.1
48.7
25.5
51.0
88.0
20.6
115.7
38.3
73.9
59.5
47.0
62.3
18.7
38.9
12.4
15.6
36.5
44.1
41.4
-
60.8
62.8
29.3
57.8
99.6
37.3
0.0
* Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
sasstst
-------
Appendix B-23: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Program Management, by State
July 1,1996 through June 30,2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Millions of Dollars
Net
Amount
Awarded
146.64
1.19
0.00
0.93
3.33
0.93
1.01
4.38
2.04
5.39
5.70
3.49
1.25
0.00
1.42
0.00
2.40
2.48
4.08
2.72
2.51
7.88
3.55
0.41
0.57
PWSS
Administration
42.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
1.30
0.46
1.03
0.53
0.70
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.10
0.79
1.69
1.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
SWP
Technical
Assistance
12.17
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.60
1.53
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.43
0.00
1.22
0.65
0.00
0.00
Capacity
Development
7.26
0.05
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.04
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
1.16
0.63
0.00
0.00
Operator
Certification
Programs
5.61
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.87
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.14
0.70
0.18
0.00
Total
Expenses
67.79
0.61
0.00
0.22
1.20
0.23
0.00
1.30
1.08
1.63
2.97
0.94
0.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.10
1.45
1.69
3.84
1.98
0.18
0.00
Remaining
Amount
78.86
0.58
0.00
0.71
2.13
0.71
1.01
3.07
0.96
3.76
2.73
2.55
0.41
0.00
1.42
0.00
2.40
2.48
2.98
1.27
0.82
4.04
1.57
0.23
0.57
Expenses as
a Percent of
Net Amount
Awarded
46.2%
51.2
-
23.8
35.9
24.5
0.0
29.7
53.1
30.3
52.1
26.9
67.2
-
0.0
-
0.1
0.0
27.0
53.3
67.5
48.7
55.8
43.8
0.0
* Less than 0.05%
2/11/02
Page 1 of
saspmst
-------
Appendix B-23: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Program Management, by State
July 1,1996 through June 30,2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
Net
Amount
Awarded
4.15
1.48
1.48
2.70
1.21
2.28
2.73
6.31
3.88
0.00
0.00
2.41
1.82
14.81
0.23
1.18
0.00
0.02
5.32
16.39
2.88
1.29
1.18
11.23
1.96
2.04
0.00
PWSS
Administration
2.35
0.24
0.40
0.36
0.10
0.00
1.16
0.00
1.68
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.00
0.00
2.70
10.89
1.62
0.19
0.65
6.17
1.32
0.14
0.00
SWP
Technical
Assistance
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.45
0.76
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.13
0.13
0.07
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Capacity
Development
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
0.00
1.78
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.02
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.32
0.07
0.00
Operator
Certification
Programs
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.26
0.68
0.45
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.00
0.33
0.04
0.00
Total
Expenses
2.35
0.60
0.40
0.89
0.86
1.73
1.85
2.23
2.17
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.47
3.74
0.05
0.57
0.00
0.00
2.70
13.06
1.93
0.40
0.94
6.17
1.98
0.25
0.00
Remaining
Amount
1.80
0.88
1.08
1.81
0.35
0.55
0.89
4.09
1.71
0.00
0.00
1.21
1.35
11.07
0.18
0.61
0.00
0.02
2.62
3.32
0.96
0.89
0.24
5.06
-0.02
1.79
0.00
Expenses as
a Percent of
Net Amount
Awarded
56.7
40.3
27.2
32.9
70.8
75.8
67.5
35.3
55.9
-
-
49.8
25.6
25.2
21.4
48.6
-
21.5
50.7
79.7
66.8
31.1
79.7
55.0
101.2
12.1
-
* Less than 0.05%
2/11/02
Page 2 of
saspmst
-------
Appendix B-24: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Local Assistance and Other State Programs (1452(k) Activities), by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
U.S. Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Millions of Dollars
Net
Amount
Awarded
239.63
2.89
2.74
4.37
6.65
15.81
5.61
6.56
3.93
2.93
3.87
1.95
4.18
3.85
2.31
1.69
1.41
3.01
3.06
3.76
3.98
4.98
9.94
4.71
1.65
Loans for Loans for SWP Area Technical or Total
SWPLand Incentive-Based Delineation/ Wellhead Financial Expenses/ Remaining
Acquisition SWP Measures Assessment Protection Assistance Commitments Amount
1.86 0.00 49.20 14.91 11.27 77.24 162.39
0.00 0.00 0.65 0.31 0.00 0.96 1.93
0.00 0.00 1.04 0.06 0.00 1.10 1.64
0.00 0.00 1.27 0.54 0.11 1.92 2.45
0.00 0.00 0.84 0.50 0.00 1.35 5.31
0.00 0.00 1.61 0.00 0.00 1.61 14.20
0.00 0.00 0.36 0.04 0.08 0.49 5.11
0.00 0.00 0.19 0.50 0.12 0.81 5.75
0.00 0.00 0.38 0.46 0.00 0.84 3.09
0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.83
0.00 0.00 0.39 0.12 1.09 1.60 2.27
0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 1.46
0.00 0.00 1.99 0.26 0.04 2.30 1.88
0.00 0.00 1.90 0.00 0.00 1.90 1.95
0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.21 2.10
0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.80
0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.31
0.36 0.00 0.06 0.43 0.00 0.84 2.17
0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.32 2.74
1.30 0.00 0.39 0.36 0.08 2.14 1.62
0.00 0.00 0.42 0.48 0.32 1.21 2.77
0.00 0.00 0.90 0.97 0.44 2.30 2.68
0.00 0.00 4.80 3.30 0.00 8.10 1.84
0.00 0.00 1.21 2.11 0.00 3.32 1.38
0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.56 1.09
# of Systems Number of
Receiving Acres of Land
Assistance Acquired
for SWP for SWP
8 1,400
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 180
0 0
4 1,169
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
# of Systems
Receiving Loans
for Incentive-
Based SWP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
# of Systems
Receiving
Tech/Financial
Assistance
5,611
0
0
0
0
0
616
278
0
0
2,789
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
688
37
0
0
0
Expenses as
a Percent of
Net Amount
Awarded
32.2%
33.2
40.1
44.0
20.2
10.2
8.8
12.3
21.3
37.5
41.4
24.9
55.0
49.4
9.1
52.5
7.2
27.9
10.5
56.8
30.4
46.1
81.5
70.6
33.9
1 Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 1 of 2
salast
-------
Appendix B-24: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Local Assistance and Other State Programs (1452(k) Activities), by State
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Millions of Dollars
Net
Amount
Awarded
2.19
1.48
4.94
2.49
5.41
2.79
4.10
5.92
6.65
1.26
7.88
5.84
4.77
22.21
1.26
1.63
1.48
1.31
2.93
14.04
2.00
3.32
7.84
12.68
1.83
4.27
1.26
Loans for Loans for SWP Area Technical or Total
SWPLand Incentive-Based Delineation/ Wellhead Financial Expenses/ Remaining
Acquisition SWP Measures Assessment Protection Assistance Commitments Amount
0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.24
0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.37 1.11
0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41 4.53
0.00 0.00 0.25 0.33 0.10 0.68 1.80
0.00 0.00 1.09 0.35 0.00 1.44 3.97
0.00 0.00 1.79 0.00 0.00 1.79 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.53 0.30 0.30 1.12 2.98
0.00 0.00 1.85 0.00 1.78 3.63 2.29
0.00 0.00 0.87 1.22 0.00 2.09 4.56
0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.13 1.12
0.00 0.00 2.76 0.04 0.00 2.80 5.09
0.00 0.00 2.08 0.88 0.00 2.96 2.88
0.00 0.00 1.28 0.52 0.00 1.80 2.96
0.00 0.00 1.19 0.22 2.91 4.32 17.89
0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.06
0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.45 1.18
0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.48 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31
0.00 0.00 0.81 0.13 0.26 1.20 1.73
0.00 0.00 2.29 0.00 0.00 2.29 11.76
0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.84 1.14 0.86
0.20 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.70 1.09 2.24
0.00 0.00 1.45 0.00 1.46 2.91 4.94
0.00 0.00 2.82 0.00 0.65 3.47 9.21
0.00 0.00 0.46 0.44 0.00 0.90 0.93
0.00 0.00 2.03 0.05 0.00 2.08 2.19
0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.16
# of Systems Number of
Receiving Acres of Land
Assistance Acquired
for SWP for SWP
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 51
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
# of Systems
Receiving Loans
for Incentive-
Based SWP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
# of Systems
Receiving
Tech/Financial
Assistance
0
0
0
155
0
0
69
614
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
172
0
18
102
64
0
0
0
0
Expenses as
a Percent of
Net Amount
Awarded
43.4
24.8
8.2
27.6
26.6
64.1
27.4
61.3
31.4
10.6
35.5
50.7
37.8
19.5
15.6
27.7
32.3
-
41.0
16.3
56.9
32.7
37.1
27.4
49.2
48.7
7.9
1 Less than 0.05%
1/11/02
Page 2 of 2
salast
-------
Appendix B-25
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
Federal and State Investment
For Federal Fiscal Year Ending September 30 of:
1997 1998 1999 2000
2001
Data Entered by EPA
Federal Grants (Dollars)
1 Date of Last Award in the Year
2 Total Annual Federal Grants
3 *Cumulative Federal Grants
Transfer of Federal Funds Between DWSRF and CWSRF
4 Amount of Federal Funds Transferred into DWSRF Fund
5 Amount of Federal Funds Transferred out of DWSRF Fund
6 "Net Transfer into/(out of) DWSRF
7 'Cumulative Net Transfer into/tout of) DWSRF
Quarterly Outlays (Dollars)
$358,688,795
$358,688,795
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,212,086,566
$1,570,775,361
$0
$0
$0
$0
$768,100,787
$2,338,876,148
$0
$0
$0
$0
$825,466,036
$3,164,342,184
$12,059,287
$0
$12,059,287
$12,059,287
$774,452,276
$3,938,794,460
$0
$0
$0
$12,059,287
8
9
10
11
12
13
First Quarter Outlays
Second Quarter Outlays
Third Quarter Outlays
Fourth Quarter Outlays
'Total Annual Outlays
'Cumulative Outlays
$0
$0
$1,091
$177,364
$178,455
$178,455
$2,326,772
$7,448,804
$25,468,367
$56,006,286
$91,250,228
$91,428,683
$63,960,220
$81,537,395
$100,390,887
$138,862,697
$384,751,198
$476,179,881
$135,259,176
$108,396,519
$113,792,136
$219,642,717
$577,090,548
$1,053,270,429
$169,739,653
$133,346,768
$185,445,359
$250,157,726
$738,689,506
$1,791,959,935
* Calculated values.
Page 1 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
Federal and State Investment
DWSRF Fund Investment Summary (Calculated Values)
14 *Annual Capitalization Grants
15 *Cumulative Capitalization Grants
Adjustments to the DWSRF Fund
1 6 "Annual Net Transfers with CWSRF into/(out of) the DWSRF Fund (from line 43)
1 7 "Annual Amount (Awarded) for Set-Asides (from line 111)
18 "Annual Amount of Transfers into DWSRF Fund from Set-Asides (from line 1 13)
1 9 "Annual Net Federal Contributions Adjusted for Transfers and Set-Asides
20 "Cumulative Net Federal Contributions Adjusted for Transfers and Set-Asides
21 "Annual State Contributions
22 "Cumulative State Contributions
23 "Annual Net Investments for the DWSRF Fund
24 'Cumulative Net Investments for the DWSRF Fund
25 'State Contributions as a % of Grants - Annual
26 'State Contributions as a % of Grants - Cumulative
Outlays (Dollars)
27 "Annual
28 "Cumulative
State Match Contributions Deposited (Dollars)
29 Cash or Appropriations
30 Bonds Retired Outside the DWSRF Fund
31 Bonds Retired from the DWSRF Fund
32 Pre-existing Loans
33 Other Sources
34 'Total Annual Match Contributions
35 'Cumulative Hatch Contributions
Additional Match for State Program Management Activities (Dollars)
36 Credit for 1993 Funding Used
37 Cash Contributions Deposited
38 Contributions as In-Kind Services
39 'Total Annual Additional Contribution
40 'Cumulative Additional Contribution
Net Transfer of Funds with CWSRF into/lout of) the DWSRF Fund
41 "Annual Net Transfer of Federal Funds with CWSRF into/(out of) the DWSRF Fund
42 Annual Net Transfer of Non-Federal Funds with CWSRF into/(out of) the DWSRF Fund
43 'Total Annual Net Amount Transferred
44 'Cumulative Total Net Amount Transferred
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of.
1997
$64,662,61 1
$64,662,61 1
$0
($10,121,078)
$0
$54,541,533
$54,541,533
$30,019,548
$30,019,548
$84,561,081
$84,561,081
46%
46%
$178,455
$178,455
$19,365,448
$10,654,100
$0
$0
$0
$30, 01 9, 548
$30,019,548
$638,810
$0
$4,150,439
$4,789,249
$4,789,249
$0
$0
$0
$0
1998
$716,148,998
$780,811,609
$0
($139,360,464)
$0
$576,788,534
$631,330,067
$165,642,118
$195,661,666
$742,430,652
$826,991,733
23%
25%
$35,421,307
$35,599,761
$132,112,578
$25,048,780
$8,480,760
$0
$0
$165,642,118
$195,661,666
$7,011,667
$3,060,526
$11,933,451
$22,005,644
$26,794,893
$0
$0
$0
$0
1999
$1,058,699,740
$1,839,511,349
$8,171,526
($179,138,276)
$840,495
$888,573,485
$1,519,903,552
$201,851,537
$397,513,203
$1,090,425,022
$1,917,416,755
19%
22%
$301,894,787
$337,494,548
$140,507,967
$27,089,080
$34,254,490
$0
$0
$201,851,537
$397,513,203
$8,087,721
$4,735,967
$14,053,940
$26,877,628
$53,672,527
$0
$8,171,526
$8,171,526
$8,171,526
2000
$893,957,467
$2,733,468,816
$87,417,113
($128,381,058)
$11,727,306
$864,720,828
$2,384,624,380
$175,482,504
$572,995,707
$7,040,203,332
$2,957,620,087
20%
21%
$496,310,527
$833,805,076
$116,072,121
$28,265,776
$31,115,447
$0
$29,160
$775,482,504
$572,995,707
$9,980,369
$3,841,661
$18,230,743
$32,052,773
$85,725,294
$12,059,287
$75,357,826
$87,417,113
$95,588,639
2001
$914,943,044
$3,648,411,860
$51,600,786
($136,024,494)
$4,615,179
$835,134,515
$3,219,758,895
$200,399,565
$773,395,272
$1,035,534,080
$3,993,154,167
22%
21%
$708,174,497
$1,541,979,573
$138,299,594
$22,596,580
$37,360,191
$0
$2,143,200
$200,399,565
$773,395,272
$11,715,442
$4,828,931
$25,132,942
$41,677,315
$127,402,609
$0
$51,600,786
$51,600,786
$147,189,425
* Calculated values.
Page 2 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
Set-Asides
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of.
1997 1998 1999
2000
2001
Administrative Expenses (Dollars)
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Amount Awarded for Inclusion in Workplans
*Annual Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded
Amount Transferred to/(from) Administrative Expenses
'Annual Amount Awarded and Transferred
'Cumulative Amount Awarded, Including Transfers
Annual Expenses - DWSRF Administration
Annual Expenses - Technical Assistance
'Total Annual Administrative Expenses
'Cumulative Administrative Expenses
'Remaining Awarded Amount
$3,161,828
4.9%
$0
$3,161,828
$3,161,828
$327,240
$0
$327,240
$327,240
$2,834,588
$30,762,370
4.3%
$0
$30,762,370
$33,924,198
$7,738,469
$0
$7,738,469
$8,065,709
$25,858,489
$36,894,378
3.5%
($1,290)
$36,893,088
$70,877,286
$20,784,220
$42,313
$20,826,533
$28,892,243
$47,925,043
$34,164,915
3.8%
($126,951)
$34,037,964
$704,855,250
$22,658,686
$348,139
$23,006,825
$57,899,068
$52,956,782
$30,531,637
3.3%
($6)
$30,537,637
$735,386,887
$22,988,196
$446,906
$23,435,702
$75,334,770
$60,052,777
Small Systems Technical Assistance
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Amount Awarded for Inclusion in Workplans
"Annual Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded
Amount Transferred to/(from) Small Systems Technical Assistance
'Annual Amount Awarded and Transferred
'Cumulative Amount Awarded, Including Transfers
Annual Expenses - Small System Technical Assistance
'Cumulative Small Systems Technical Assistance Expenses
'Remaining Awarded Amount
Annual Number of Systems Receiving Assistance
'Cumulative Number of Small Systems Receiving Technical Assistance
$515,500
0.8%
$0
$575,500
$575,500
$0
$0
$575,500
0
0
$11,465,333
1.6%
$0
$11,465,333
$11,980,833
$671,135
$677, 735
$77,309,698
1,252
7,252
$18,290,214
1.7%
$0
$78,290,274
$30,277,047
$4,374,029
$5,045,765
$25,225,882
16,068
77,320
$12,358,710
1.4%
($1,956,977)
$70,407,733
$40,672,780
$9,089,525
$74,734,690
$26,538,090
20,923
38,243
$13,785,142
1.5%
($281,532)
$73,503,670
$54, 776,390
$10,123,738
$24,258,429
$29,977,967
17,331
55,574
State Program Management (Dollars)
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Amount Awarded for Inclusion in Workplans
"Annual Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded
Amount Transferred to/(from) State Program Management
'Annual Amount Awarded and Transferred
'Cumulative Amount Awarded, Including Transfers
Annual Expenses - PWSS Administration
'Cumulative Expenses - PWSS Administration
Annual Expenses - Source Water Protection Technical Assistance
'Cumulative Expenses - Source Water Protection Technical Assistance
Annual Expenses - Capacity Development
'Cumulative Expenses - Capacity Development
Annual Expenses - Operator Certification Programs
'Cumulative Expenses - Operator Certification Programs
'Total Annual State Program Management Expenses
'Cumulative State Program Management Expenses
'Remaining Awarded Amount
$2,577,500
4.0%
$0
$2,577,500
$2,577,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,577,500
$21,594,160
3.0%
$483,000
$22,077,760
$24,654,660
$1,599,206
$1,599,206
$643,531
$643,531
$98,298
$98,298
$214,682
$214,682
$2,555,777
$2,555,777
$22,098,943
$45,996,143
4.3%
$0
$45,996,743
$70,650,803
$9,797,246
$11,396,453
$2,082,215
$2,725,746
$1,118,426
$1,216,724
$988,521
$1,203,203
$73,986,408
$76,542, 725
$54,708,678
$41,607,723
4.7%
($5,286,983)
$36,320,740
$706,977,543
$15,834,920
$27,231,372
$3,821,233
$6,546,979
$2,581,511
$3,798,234
$1,994,015
$3,197,218
$24,237,678
$40,773,804
$66,797,739
$40,536,940
4.4%
($863,562)
$39,673,378
$746,644,927
$15,513,298
$42,744,670
$5,624,004
$12,170,984
$3,465,404
$7,263,639
$2,412,060
$5,609,278
$27,074,767
$67,788,577
$78,856,350
* Calculated values.
Page 3 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
Set-Asides
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (1452(k) Activities)
81 Amount Awarded for Inclusion in Workplans
82 "Annual Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded
83 Amount Transferred to/(from) 1 452(k) Activities
84 * Annual Amount Awarded and Transferred
85 *Cumuiative Amount Awarded, including Transfers
Loans for Source Water Protection Land Acquisition/Conservation Easements
86 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans
87 "Cumulative Dollar Amount of Loans
88 Annual Number of Systems Receiving Assistance
89 "Cumulative Number of Systems Receiving Assistance
90 Annual Number of Acres of Land Acquired for SWP
91 "Cumulative Number of Acres of Land Acquired for SWP
Loans for Incentive-Based Source Water Protection Measures
92 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans
93 "Cumulative Dollar Amount of Loans
94 Annual Number of Systems Receiving Assistance
95 "Cumulative Number of Systems Receiving Assistance
Source Water Protection Area Delineation/Assessment
96 Annual Expenses - SWP Area Delineation/Assessment
97 "Cumulative Expenses - SWP Area Delineation/Assessment
Wellhead Protection Programs
98 Annual Expenses -Wellhead Protection Programs
99 Annual Dollar Amount of Wellhead Protection Loans
100 Annual Number of Wellhead Protection Loans
1 01 "Cumulative Expenses/Loans - Wellhead Protection Programs
Technical or Financial Assistance to PWSs for Capacity Development
102 Annual Expenses - Technical or Financial Assistance to PWSs
1 03 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans under the Capacity Development Strategy
1 04 Annual Number of Loans under the Capacity Development Strategy
1 05 "Cumulative Expenses/Loans - Technical or Financial Assistance to PWSs
1 06 Annual Number of Systems Receiving Assistance
1 07 "Cumulative Number of Systems Receiving Assistance
108 'Total Annual 1452(k) Activity Dollars
109 'Cumulative 1452(k) Activity Dollars
1 10 'Remaining Awarded Amount
Set-Aside Summary
1 1 1 'Annual Total Awarded Amount for Set-Asides
1 12 'Cumulative Total Awarded Amount for Set-Asides
1 1 3 'Annual Net Transfers from Awarded Amounts to DWSRF Fund
1 14 'Cumulative Net Transfers from Awarded Amounts to DWSRF Fund
1 1 5 'Annual Net Total Amount Awarded for Set-Asides
116 'Cumulative Net Total Amount Awarded for Set-Asides
117 'Cumulative Net Total Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded
1 1 8 'Total Annual Set-Aside Activity Dollars Expended/Committed
119 'Cumulative Set-Aside Activity Dollars Expended/Committed
120 'Cumulative Remaining Awarded Amount for Set-Asides
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of.
1997 1998 1999
$3,866,250
6.0%
$0
$3,866,250
$3,866,250
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
$0
0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
$3,866,250
$10,121,078
$10,121,078
$0
$0
$10,121,078
$10,121,078
15.7%
$327,240
$327,240
$9,793,838
$75,538,601
10.5%
($483,000)
$75,055,601
$78,921,851
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
$1,059,365
$1,059,365
$232,903
$0
0
$232,903
$451,322
$0
0
$451,322
734
734
$1, 743,590
$1,743,590
$77, 178,261
$139,360,464
$149,481,542
$0
$0
$139,360,464
$149,481,542
19.1%
$12,708,912
$13,036,152
$136,445,390
$77,957,541
7.4%
($839,205)
$77,118,336
$156,040, 187
$570,000
$570,000
2
2
435
435
$0
$0
0
0
$9,649,854
$10,709,219
$2,586,812
$0
0
$2,819,716
$2,186,107
$226,450
7
$2,863,879
1,096
1,830
$75,279,224
$76,962,873
$739,077,374
$779,738,276
$328,679,878
$840,495
$840,495
$178,297,781
$327,779,323
77.8%
$54,406, 794
$67,442,346
$260,336,977
2000
$40,249,710
4.5%
($4,356,395)
$35,893,375
$797,933,502
$1,063,778
$1,633,778
4
6
945
1,380
$0
$0
0
0
$16,129,598
$26,838,817
$5,016,673
$0
0
$7,836,389
$3,321,338
$197,227
6
$6,382,445
1,200
3,030
$25,728,675
$42,697,429
$749,242,073
$728,387,058
$457,000,876
$77,727,306
$72,567,807
$776,653,752
$444,433,075
76.3%
$82,056,644
$749,498,990
$294,934,085
2001
$51,170,775
5.6%
($3,470,079)
$47,700,696
$239,634,798
$225,000
$1,858,778
2
8
20
1,400
$0
$0
0
0
$22,357,142
$49,195,959
$6,977,293
$100,000
1
$14,913,681
$4,762,826
$127,980
3
$11,273,250
2,581
5,611
$34,550,247
$77,247,669
$762,392,529
$736,024,494
$593,025,370
$4,675,779
$77,782,980
$737,409,375
$575,842,390
75.8%
$95,723,848
$244,622,839
$337,279,557
* Calculated values.
Page 4 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
DWSRF Fund Assistance
1997
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:
1998 1999
2000
2001
Binding Commitments
121 Annual Dollar Amount
122 *Cumulative Dollar Amount
123 Annual Number of Binding Commitments
124 "Cumulative Number of Binding Commitments
Type of DWSRF Assistance Provided (Dollars)
125 Executed Loan Commitments
126 Refinance Short-term Debt
127 Refinance Long-term Debt
128 Guarantee or Purchase Insurance
129 *Total Annual Assistance
130 'Cumulative Assistance
Type of DWSRF Assistance Provided
(Number of Assistance Agreements)
131 Executed Loan Commitments
132 Refinance Short-term Debt
133 Refinance Long-term Debt
134 Guarantee or Purchase Insurance
135 *Total Annual Number of Agreements
136 'Cumulative Number of Agreements
Assistance by Population Size (Dollars)
137 Less than 501
138 501 to 3,300
139 3,301 to 10,000
140 10,001 to 100,000
141 100,001 and Above
142 'Total Annual Assistance
143 'Cumulative Assistance
Assistance by Population Size
(Number of Assistance Agreements)
144 Less than 501
145 501 to 3,300
146 3,301 to 10,000
147 10,001 to 100,000
148 100,001 and Above
149 'Total Annual Number of Agreements
150 'Cumulative Number of Agreements
$19,700,619
$19,700,619
10
10
$324,139,770
$343,840,389
165
175
$255,743,357
$3,555,530
$78,730,152
$887,366 $338,029,039
$887,366 $338,916,405
$887,366
133
2
36
0
171
172
$14,937,598
$95,380,716
$82,999,703
$97,261,240
$47,449,782
$338,029,039
$338,916,405
30
62
45
28
6
171
172
$1,051,353,200
$1,395,193,589
494
669
$679,728,762
$34,198,700
$192,069,901
$0
$905,997,363
$1,244,913,768
411
11
15
0
437
$20,668,245
$165,095,806
$152,973,352
$265,888,483
$301,371,477
$905,997,363
$1,244,913,768
70
177
93
81
16
437
609
$1,341,780,773
$2,736,974,362
624
1,293
$1,186,172,996
$9,642,143
$8,501,260
$0
$1,204,316,399
$2,449,230,167
551
5
12
0
568
1,177
$39,553,454
$200,990,232
$199,694,118
$570,252,640
$193,825,955
$1,204,316,399
$2,449,230,167
103
199
111
126
29
568
1,177
$1,303,288,113
$4,040,262,475
619
1,912
$1,191,460,756
$10,259,434
$113,337,544
$0
$1,315,057,734
$3,764,287,900
574
6
19
0
599
1,776
$53,336,148
$238,993,010
$261,040,289
$562,699,176
$198,989,111
$1,315,057,734
$3,764,287,901
108
216
123
118
34
599
1,776
* Calculated values.
Page 5 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
DWSRF Fund Assistance
1997
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:
1998 1999
2000
2001
Drinking Water System Project Assistance
(Dollars in each category) Section moves to page 5 of printout
151 Planning and Design Only
Construction
152 Treatment
153 Transmission & Distribution
154 Source
155 Storage
156 Purchase of Systems
157 Restructuring
158 Land Acquisition
159 Other
160 'Total Annual Dollar Amount
161 'Cumulative Dollar Amount
Drinking Water System Project Assistance
(Number in each category)**
162 Planning and Design Only
Construction
$0
$745,869
$6,812,094
$4,104,081
$8,853,536
$0
$173,127
$0
$714,239
$0
$0
$0
$0
$887,366
$887,366
$146,992,583
$84,398,367
$16,795,191
$35,767,382
$9,208,306
$2,066,852
$319,080
$41,735,409
$338,029,039
$338,916,405
$359,092,837
$342,249,431
$40,108,508
$59,176,439
$879,194
$1,004,648
$1,054,938
$95,619,273
$905,997,363
$1,244,913,768
$552,347,172
$307,597,899
$73,934,688
$138,992,100
$18,519,198
$20,549,643
$4,477,481
$83,794,135
$1,204,316,399
$2,449,230,167
$553,378,470
$450,011,422
$68,309,117
$120,653,257
$30,881,166
$338,652
$6,326,821
$76,305,292
$1,315,057,734
$3,764,287,900
14
35
34
35
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
Treatment
Transmission & Distribution
Source
Storage
Purchase of Systems
Restructuring
Land Acquisition
Other
'Total Annual Number
'Cumulative Number
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
62
74
33
47
3
7
10
81
331
333
144
201
93
109
2
6
30
136
756
1,089
208
283
113
180
6
5
37
155
1,021
2,110
199
355
127
189
7
1
61
144
1,118
3,228
* Calculated values.
** Assistance Agreements may be counted in more than
one category when they fund more than one category.
Page 6 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
DWSRF Fund Assistance
Number of Projects Funded
1 73 Annual Number of Projects Receiving Assistance
1 74 "Cumulative Number of Projects
DWSRF Project Starts
175 Annual Dollar Amount
176 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
1 77 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements
1 78 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
DWSRF Project Completions
179 Annual Dollar Amount
180 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
1 81 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements
1 82 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
1 83 Number of Projects Completed
1 84 "Cumulative Number of Projects Completed
Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities
1 85 Annual Dollar Amount of Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities
186 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
1 87 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements
1 88 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
Assistance with Principal Forgiveness
1 89 Annual Dollar Amount of Assistance with Principal Forgiveness
190 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
191 Annual Dollar Amount of Principal Forgiven
192 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
1 93 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements with Principal Forgiveness
1 94 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
Assistance with Greater than 20-Year Repayment
1 95 Annual Dollar Amount of Assistance with > 20-Year Repayment
196 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
1 97 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements with > 20-Year Repayment
1 98 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
Population Served in Disadvantaged Communities Receiving Assistance
1 99 Population Served
200 "Cumulative Population Served
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of.
1997 1998 1999 2000
1
1
$0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
173
174
$281,949,839
$281,949,839
133
133
$122,543,791
$122,543,791
57
57
59
59
$23,206,278
$23,206,278
20
20
$8,432,084
$8,432,084
$8,272,175
$8,272,175
12
12
$6,176,084
$6,176,084
4
4
61,863
61,863
457
631
$705,903,569
$987,853,408
387
520
$228,262,142
$350,805,933
134
191
137
196
$86,874,073
$110,080,351
104
124
$31,968,690
$40,400,774
$12,042,395
$20,314,570
52
64
$32,366,187
$38,542,271
38
42
441,519
503,382
601
1,232
$1,020,212,533
$2,008,065,941
526
1,046
$529,621,206
$880,427,139
295
486
310
506
$226,629,809
$336,710,160
170
294
$50,059,242
$90,460,016
$23,482,962
$43,797,532
55
119
$59,567,534
$98,109,805
50
92
1,047,872
1,551,254
2001
614
1,846
$1,239,222,778
$3,247,288,719
526
1,572
$524,757,341
$1,405,184,480
324
810
332
838
$282,160,073
$618,870,233
161
455
$123,246,562
$213,706,578
$49,363,114
$93,160,646
68
187
$120,269,709
$218,379,514
83
175
727,672
2,278,926
* Calculated values.
Page 7 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
DWSRF Fund Assistance - Specific Project Information
Assistance for System Compliance
201 Annual Dollar Amount
202 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
203 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements
204 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
205 Annual Population Served
206 "Cumulative Population Served
Assistance to Private Systems
207 Annual Dollar Amount
208 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
209 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements
2 1 0 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
Assistance to Systems by Type
211 Annual Number of Community Systems
212 "Cumulative Number of Community Systems
213 Annual Number of non-Community Systems
214 "Cumulative Number of non-Community Systems
215 Annual Population Served by Community Systems
216 "Cumulative Population Served by Community Systems
217 Annual Population Served by non-Community Systems
218 "Cumulative Population Served by non-Community Systems
Assistance for the Creation of New Systems
219 Annual Dollar Amount
220 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
221 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements
222 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
Assistance for the Consolidation of Systems
223 Annual Dollar Amount
224 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
225 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements
226 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
227 Annual Number of Systems Eliminated
228 "Cumulative Number of Systems Eliminated
Assistance to Indian Tribes
229 Annual Dollar Amount
230 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
231 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements
232 "Cu mu lative Nu mber of Agreements
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of.
1997 1998 1999
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
1
1
0
0
96,879
96,879
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
$160,689,881
$160,689,881
73
73
7,653,801
7,653,801
$14,016,143
$14,016,143
14
14
159
160
6
6
9,660,384
9,757,263
9,415
9,415
$8,829,228
$8,829,228
3
3
$61,051,181
$61,051,181
19
19
33
33
$0
$0
0
0
$213,881,468
$374,571,349
140
213
1,182,350
8,836,151
$32,058,761
$46,074,904
36
50
392
552
11
17
16,787,922
26,545,185
6,974
16,389
$18,508,800
$27,338,028
10
13
$54,462,481
$115,513,662
28
47
66
99
$0
$0
0
0
2000
$432,399,124
$806,970,473
184
397
10,001,577
18,837,728
$35,953,800
$82,028,704
48
98
548
1,100
5
22
20,745,666
47,290,851
7,645
24,034
$34,700,120
$62,038,148
18
31
$168,330,580
$283,844,242
53
100
148
247
$0
$0
0
0
2001
$601,377,815
$1,408,348,288
229
626
7,838,104
26,675,832
$52,287,554
$134,316,258
62
160
566
1,666
2
24
18,015,672
65,306,523
50
24,084
$22,572,918
$84,611,066
15
46
$174,885,223
$458,729,465
57
157
78
325
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
1
1
* Calculated values.
Page 8 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
Fund Information
Leveraged Bonds (Excludes State Match)
233 Gross Leveraged Bonds Issued - Annual
234 Net Leveraged Bonds Issued - Annual
235 Cost of Leveraged Bond Issuance - Annual
236 Leveraged Bond Principal Repaid - Annual
Debt Service Reserve for Leveraged Bonds
237 "Annual Change
238 Balance at End of Reporting Period
239 Net Change in Gross Bonds Resulting from Refunding - Annual
240 DWSRF Funds Used for Refunding (Excludes Bonds) - Annual
241 "Gross Leveraged Bonds Issued - CumulatN/e
242 "Net Leveraged Bonds Issued - Cumulative
243 "Cost of Leveraged Bond Issuance - Cumulative
244 "Leveraged Bond Principal Repaid - Cumulative
245 "Net Change in Gross Bonds Resulting from Refunding - Cumulative
246 "DWSRF Funds Used for Refunding (Excludes Bonds) - Cumulative
247 "Leveraged Bonds Outstanding - Balance at End of Reporting Period
State Match Bonds to be Repaid by DWSRF Fund
248 "Match Bonds Issued - Annual
249 Match Bond Principal Repaid -Annual
250 "Match Bonds Issued - Cumulative
251 "Match Bond Principal Repaid - Cumulative
252 "Match Bonds Outstanding - Balance at End of Reporting Period
Interest Paid on Leveraged and Match Bonds
253 Interest Paid from Capitalized Interest Account and Other DWSRF Funds - Annual
254 Interest Paid from Capitalized Interest Account - Annual
Interest Paid from DWSRF Funds, Excluding
Capitalized Interest Account Funds
255 "Annual Dollar Amount
256 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of.
1997 1998 1999 2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$215,835,729
$211,404,827
$3,327,803
$600,000
$31,836,939
$31,836,939
$0
$0
$215,835,729
$211,404,827
$3,327,803
$600,000
$0
$0
$215,235,729
$8,480,760
$0
$8,480,760
$0
$8,480,760
$2,114,554
$455,000
$1,659,554
$1,659,554
$510,690,797
$494,477,838
$9,364,339
$5,190,000
$108,588,547
$140,425,486
$0
$0
$726,526,526
$705,882,665
$12,692,142
$5,790,000
$0
$0
$720,736,526
$34,254,490
$0
$42,735,250
$0
$42,735,250
$26,684,555
$900,040
$25,784,515
$27,444,069
$367,068,156
$359,804,808
$7,880,655
$11,777,484
$148,570,737
$288,996,223
$0
$0
$1,093,594,682
$1,065,687,473
$20,572,797
$17,567,484
$0
$0
$1,076,027,198
$31,115,447
$111,169
$73,850,697
$111,169
$73,739,528
$40,954,305
$3,571,740
$37,382,565
$64,826,634
2001
$425,921,105
$419,000,796
$8,854,339
$29,037,176
$145,388,553
$434,384,776
$0
$0
$1,519,515,787
$1,484,688,270
$29,427,136
$46,604,660
$0
$0
$1,472,911,127
$37,360,191
$1,384,490
$111,210,888
$1,495,659
$109,715,229
$58,134,109
$2,495,553
$55,638,556
$120,465,190
"Calculated Values
Page 9 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
Fund Information
DWSRF Project Assistance Disbursed
257 Annual DWSRF Fund Disbursements (Excludes 1452(k) Loans)
258 "Cumulative DWSRF Fund Disbursements
259 Annual 1452(k) Loan Disbursements
260 "Cumulative 1452(k) Loan Disbursements
DWSRF Loans -All Loans Except 1452(k) Loans
Maintained in a Separate Account
261 Number of Projects Initiating Principal Repayments
262 "Cumulative Number of Projects Initiating Principal Repayments
263 Principal Repayments - Annual
264 Interest Payments - Annual
265 "Principal and Interest - Annual
266 "Principal Repayments - Cumulative
267 "Interest Payments - Cumulative
268 "Principal and Interest - Cumulative
269 Weighted Average Interest Rate on DWSRF Executed Loan Commitments
270 State Market Interest Rate
DWSRF 1452(k) Loans - Separately Maintained 1452(k) Loans Only
271 Principal Repayments - Annual
272 Interest Payments - Annual
273 "Principal and Interest - Annual
274 "Principal Repayments - Cumulative
275 "Interest Payments - Cumulative
276 "Principal and Interest - Cumulative
277 Weighted Average Interest Rate on 1 452(k) Loans
Interest Earnings on Investments
278 Annual Interest Earnings on Investments in DWSRF Fund (Except 1452(k) Funds)
279 "Cumulative Interest Earnings on Investments in DWSRF Fund
280 Annual Interest Earnings on 1452(k) Loan Account Investments
281 "Cumulative Interest Earnings on 1452(k) Loan Account Investments
Fees Charged on DWSRF Assistance
282 Annual Income from Fees Included in Loans
283 Annual Income from Fees not Included in Loans
284 Annual Interest Earnings from Fee Account
285 "Total Annual Income from Fees
286 "Cumulative Income from Fees
Expenses Paid from DWSRF Fee Accounts
287 Annual Expenses Paid from Fee Account to Administer DWSRF Fund
288 "Cumulative Expenses Paid to Administer DWSRF Fund
289 Annual Amount Paid from Fee Account for State Match
290 "Cumulative Amount Paid from Fee Account for State Match
291 Annual Expenses Paid from Fee Account for Other Eligible DWSRF Purposes
292 "Cumulative Expenses Paid for Other Eligible DWSRF Purposes
DWSRF Administrative Expenses Paid from Funds Other than DWSRF or Fees
293 Annual Other State Funded Administrative Expenses
294 "CumulatN/e Other State Funded Administrative Expenses
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:
1997 1998 1999 2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4.5%
-
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35,941
$35,941
$66,904,096
$66,904,096
$0
$0
11
11
$635,883
$1,475,038
$2,110,921
$635,883
$1,475,038
$2,110,921
3.2%
-
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,105,528
$4,105,528
$0
$0
$745,275
$187,223
$1,676
$934,174
$934,174
$248,248
$248,248
$0
$0
$0
$0
$189,154
$225,096
$544,781,378
$611,685,474
$589,960
$589,960
106
117
$11,984,454
$23,462,424
$35,446,878
$12,620,337
$24,937,462
$37,557,799
2.9%
-
$0
$7,467
$7,467
$0
$7,467
$7,467
1.9%
$22,700,437
$26,805,965
$2,156
$2,156
$919,504
$1,756,925
$46,431
$2,722,860
$3,657,034
$1,752,370
$2,000,618
$0
$0
$17,652
$17,652
$262,543
$487,638
$661,917,741
$1,273,603,215
$797,079
$1,387,039
268
385
$23,453,720
$32,927,438
$56,381,158
$36,074,057
$57,864,900
$93,938,957
2.9%
-
$64,365
$23,418
$87,783
$64,365
$30,885
$95,250
1.3%
$41,133,821
$67,939,787
$6,351
$8,507
$4,486,663
$2,730,276
$217,013
$7,433,952
$11,090,986
$2,461,688
$4,462,306
$0
$0
$39,123
$56,775
$113,970
$601,608
2001
$921,863,182
$2,195,466,397
$335,705
$1,722,744
471
856
$67,592,865
$54,081,589
$121,674,454
$103,666,923
$111,946,488
$215,613,411
2.5%
-
$159,863
$21,031
$180,894
$224,228
$51,916
$276,144
1.5%
$62,568,146
$130,507,932
$13,053
$21,560
$5,991,640
$3,268,884
$632,364
$9,892,888
$20,983,874
$3,548,048
$8,010,354
$0
$0
$52,078
$108,853
$41 1 ,476
$1,013,084
* Calculated values.
Page 10 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
Other Drinking Water Programs (Separate from DWSRF)
Coordinated DWSRF Funding with Other State or Federal Funding Sources
295 Amount of Coordinated Funding
296 *Cumulative Amount of Coordinated Funding
297 Number of DWSRF Assistance Agreements Receiving Coordinated Funding
298 "Cumulative Number of DWSRF Assistance Agreements Receiving Coordinated
Funding
299 DWSRF Portion of Coordinated Funding
300 "Cumulative DWSRF Portion of Coordinated Funding
State Funded Drinking Water Loan Programs
(Separate from DWSRF - Similar Eligibilities)
301 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans
302 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
303 Annual Number of Loans
304 "Cumulative Number of Loans
State Funded Drinking Water Grant Programs
(Separate from DWSRF - Similar Eligibilities)
305 Annual Dollar Amount of Grants
306 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
307 Annual Number of Grants
308 "Cumulative Number of Grants
Total State Funded Drinking Water Programs
(Separate from DWSRF - Similar Eligibilities)
309 "Dollar Amount of Loans and Grants - Annual
310 "Dollar Amount of Loans and Grants - Cumulative
311 "Number of Loans and Grants -Annual
312 "Number of Loans and Grants - Cumulative
State Funded Drinking Water Loan Programs
(Separate from DWSRF - Dissimilar Eligibilities)
313 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans
314 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
315 Annual Number of Loans
316 "Cumulative Number of Loans
State Funded Drinking Water Grant Programs
(Separate from DWSRF - Dissimilar Eligibilities)
317 Annual Dollar Amount of Grants
318 "Cumulative Dollar Amount
319 Annual Number of Grants
320 "Cumulative Number of Grants
Total State Funded Drinking Water Programs
(Separate from DWSRF - Dissimilar Eligibilities)
321 "Dollar Amount of Loans and Grants - Annual
322 "Dollar Amount of Loans and Grants - Cumulative
323 "Number of Loans and Grants -Annual
324 "Number of Loans and Grants - Cumulative
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:
1997 1998 1999
$0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
$126,826,303
$126,826,303
72
72
$23,318,861
$23,318,861
77
77
$150,145,164
$150,145,164
149
149
$57,919,693
$57,919,693
33
33
$6,089,502
$6,089,502
8
8
$64,009,195
$64,009,195
41
41
$93,316,736
$93,316,736
36
36
$60,885,490
$60,885,490
$92,934,385
$219,760,688
119
191
$29,868,198
$53,187,059
105
182
$122,802,583
$272,947,747
224
373
$92,497,444
$150,417,137
28
61
$29,669,402
$35,758,904
25
33
$122,166,846
$186,176,041
53
94
$211,137,683
$304,454,419
101
137
$131,341,939
$192,227,429
$139,670,365
$359,431,053
137
328
$75,546,409
$128,733,468
170
352
$215,216,774
$488,164,521
307
680
$79,188,666
$229,605,803
49
110
$107,084,593
$142,843,497
71
104
$186,273,259
$372,449,300
120
214
2000
$187,934,726
$492,389,145
66
203
$82,385,088
$274,612,517
$160,185,848
$519,616,901
125
453
$70,772,707
$199,506,175
139
491
$230,958,555
$719,123,076
264
944
$79,772,034
$309,377,837
13
123
$74,577,208
$217,420,705
66
170
$154,349,242
$526,798,542
79
293
2001
$187,297,565
$679,686,710
64
267
$91,642,719
$366,255,236
$193,500,541
$713,117,442
165
618
$61,794,485
$261,300,660
145
636
$255,295,026
$974,418,102
310
1,254
$33,129,359
$342,507,196
16
139
$51,389,219
$268,809,924
83
253
$84,518,578
$611,317,120
99
392
* Calculated values.
Page 11 of 12
1/10/02
-------
Drinking Water SRF Program Information
National Summary
Fund Analysis
For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:
1997 1998 1999
2000
2001
DWSRF Funds Available for Projects
376 "Annual (New Funds)
377 "Cumulative
DWSRF Assistance as a % of Funds Available
378 "Annual
379 "Cumulative
Outlays as a % of Capitalization Grants
380 "Annual
381 "Cumulative
Disbursements as a % of Funds Available
382 "Annual
383 "Cumulative
Project Starts as a % of Funds Available
384 "Annual
385 "Cumulative
Project Completions as a % of Funds Available
386 "Annual
387 "Cumulative
Loan Principal Repayments as a % of Funds Available
388 "Annual
389 "Cumulative
Disbursements as a % of DWSRF Assistance
390 "Annual
391 "Cumulative
Project Starts as a % of DWSRF Assistance
392 "Annual
393 "Cumulative
Project Completions as a % of DWSRF Assistance
394 "Annual
395 "Cumulative
Loan Principal Repayments as a % of DWSRF Assistance
396 "Annual
397 "Cumulative
Project Completions as a % of Project Starts
398 "Annual
399 "Cumulative
$84,561,081 $925,955,435 $1,503,487,114 $1,299,681,164
$84,561,081 $1,010,516,516 $2,514,003,630 $3,813,684,794
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
37%
34%
5%
4%
7%
7%
30%
13%
12%
0%
0%
20%
20%
83%
83%
36%
36%
0%
0%
43%
43%
60%
50%
28%
18%
36%
24%
47%
39%
15%
14%
1%
1%
60%
49%
78%
79%
25%
28%
1%
1%
32%
36%
93%
64%
48%
28%
51%
33%
78%
53%
41%
23%
2%
1%
55%
52%
85%
82%
44%
36%
2%
1%
52%
44%
$1,407,328,702
$5,221,013,496
93%
72%
39%
42%
62%
37%
27%
5%
2%
70%
58%
94%
40%
37%
5%
3%
42%
43%
* Calculated values.
Page 12 of 12
1/10/02
-------
References
-------
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Part 35, Subpart L. "Drinking Water State Revolving Funds."
DWSRF National Information Management System. Data collected through June 2001. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html.
US EPA. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. EPA 816-R-02-
020. September 2002.
US EPA. 2001. Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 9. pp.
2823-2825. January 12, 2001.
US EPA. 2001. Drinking Water Infrastructure State Needs Survey; Second Report To Congress. EPA
816-R-01-004. February 2001.
US EPA. 2000. Implementation of Transfers in the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund Programs; Report To Congress. EPA 816-R-00-021. October 2000.
US EPA. 2000. Drinking Water State Revolving Funds; Interim Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol.
65, No. 152, pp. 48285-48312. August?, 2000.
US EPA. 2000. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program; Case Studies in Implementation
III. Disadvantaged Communities. EPA 816-R-00-005. August 2000.
US EPA. 2000. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program; Case Studies in Implementation
II. Capacity Assessment. EPA 816-R-00-004. July 2000.
US EPA. 2000. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program; Case Studies in Implementation I.
Public Participation. EPA816-R-00-001. April 2000.
US EPA. 1999. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program Policy Announcement:
Eligibility of Reimbursement of Incurred Costs for Approved Projects. Federal Register. Vol. 64,
No. 7, pp. 1802-1804. January 12, 1999.
US EPA. 1999. Prioritizing Drinking Water Needs: A compilation of State priority systems for the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program. EPA 816-R-99-001. January 1999.
US EPA. 1998. Final Guidelines for Implementation of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Program. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No 214, pp. 59844-59868. November 5, 1998.
US EPA. 1998. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program Policy Announcement:
Eligibility of Using DWSRF Funds to Create a New Public Water System. Federal Register. Vol.
63, No. 212, pp. 59299-59300. November 3, 1998.
US EPA. 1998. Information for States on Developing Ajfordability Criteria for Drinking Water. EPA
816-R-98-002. February 1998.
-------
US EPA. 1997. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program Guidelines. EPA 816-R-97-005.
February 1997.
US EPA. 1997. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey; First Report to Congress. EPA
812-R-97-001. January 1997.
US GAO. 2002. Drinking Water: Key Aspects ofEPA's Revolving Fund Program Need to Be
Strengthened. GAO-02-135. January 2002.
US GAO. 2000. Drinking Water: Spending Constraints Could Affect States Ability to Implement
Increasing Program Requirements. GAO/RCED-00-199. August 2000.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Where to go for
more information about
the DWSRF program
Visit the EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
website at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html to find -
Policy and Guidance Documents ~ Fact Sheets ~
Reports ~ Funding Information ~ EPA & State Contacts ~
Links to State Programs
or
Contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 -800-426-4791
Office of Water (4606M)
www.epa.gov/safewater
Printed on Recycled Paper
EPA-918-R-03-009
May 2003
------- |