United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(WH-547)
EPA 430/09-91-024
November 1991
1990 Needs Survey
Report To Congress
Assessment Of Needed
Publicly Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities In The
United States-
Including Federally Recognized
Indian Tribes And
Alaska Native Villages
-------
Document is available for sale to the public through:
Dr. Howe, U.S. EPA Instruction Resource Center,
1200 Chambers Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212
National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
HOY 27 1991
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Dan Quayle
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1990
Needs Survey report on the "Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the United States - Including
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages."
This report is required by Sections 205(a) and 516 (b)(1) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA).
The 1990 Needs Survey, a joint effort by the States and EPA,
summarizes the capital investment required to build or improve
needed municipal wastewater treatment facilities. These
estimates address needs both for facilities eligible for State
Revolving Funds (SRF) under Title VI of the CWA, as well as needs
for the traditional eligibilities for construction grant funds
under Title II.
The 1990 estimates reported for the traditional
eligibilities are based on estimates documented in our 1988 Needs
Survey with adjustments made for inflation and any needs met by
Federal grants or loans since 1988. Supplemental estimates of
eligible needs were provided by States and address costs for
revised planning and growth, new enforceable requirements, and
new eligibilities under the SRF program.
This report also highlights the results of an assessment of
the wastewater treatment and collection needs of all Federally
recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages. This
assessment, which updates EPA's first assessment of Indian needs
submitted to Congress in January 1989, is based on a survey done
by the Indian Health Service as well as separate estimates
supplied by several Indian Tribes.
-------
I would be pleased to further discuss the results of this
survey at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 2 7 1991
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas P. Foley
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1990
Needs Survey report on the "Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the United States - Including
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages."
This report is required by Sections 205(a) and 516 (b)(l) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA).
The 1990 Needs Survey, a joint effort by the States and EPA,
summarizes the capital investment required to build or improve
needed municipal wastewater treatment facilities. These
estimates address needs both for facilities eligible for State
Revolving Funds (SRF) under Title VI of the CWA, as well as needs
for the traditional eligibilities for construction grant funds
under Title II.
The 1990 estimates reported for the traditional
eligibilities are based on estimates documented in our 1988 Needs
Survey with adjustments made for inflation and any needs met by
Federal grants or loans since 1988. Supplemental estimates of
eligible needs were provided by States and address costs for
revised planning and growth, new enforceable requirements, and
new eligibilities under the SRF program.
This report also highlights the results of an assessment of
the wastewater treatment and collection needs of all Federally
recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages. This
assessment, which updates EPA's first assessment of Indian needs
submitted to Congress in January 1989, is based on a survey done
by the Indian Health Service as well as separate estimates
supplied by several Indian Tribes.
-------
I would be pleased to further discuss the results of this
survey at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
-------
1990 Needs Survey
Report to Congress
Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities in the United States -
Including Federally Recognized Indian Tribes
and Alaska Native Villages
November 1991
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Washington, DC 20460
Tele. (202) 260-5837
Prepared Under Contract Number 68-03-3476
-------
Acknowledgements
Many dedicated individuals have been involved in the 1990 Needs Survey. Though it is
impossible to acknowledge the hard work of everyone, we would like to thank the EPA
Regional and State Needs Survey Coordinators and the EPA Regional Indian Needs
Assessment contacts for their active support and continuing interest in the Needs Survey.
Thanks are also extended to Dr. Richard Barror of the Indian Health Service and the IHS
Area Offices.
Regional and State Needs Survey Coordinators:
Region I - Hosur Chikkalingaiah
Connecticut - Dennis Greci
Maine - Dennis Purington
Massachusetts - Brian Jeans
New Hampshire - Franz Vail
Rhode Island - Ray Pena
Vermont - Nopodon Sundarabhaya
Region HI - Thomas O. Maher
Delaware - Roy R. Parikh
Dist. of Columbia - Mohsin Siddique
Maryland - John Rhoderick/Kim Cornelius
Pennsylvania - C.T. Fasting
Virginia - Kathy Maybee
West Virginia - Rosalie Ortega
Region V - William Tansey
Illinois - James R. Leinicke
Indiana - Paul Serguta
Michigan - Beverly Leyrer
Minnesota - Marco Graciana
Ohio - Orville Ball
Wisconsin - Dick Kalnicky
Region VII - Kelly Beard-Tittone
Iowa - Wayne Reed
Kansas - Rod Geisler
Missouri - Doug Garrett
Nebraska - Richard Johnson
Region IX - Denise Odenwalder
Arizona - Ron Frey
California - Cindy Williams
Hawaii - Dennis Tulang
Nevada - James B. Williams, Jr.
U.S. Territories - Denise Odenwalder
Region II - Ray Kvalheim
New Jersey - Chet Feehan
New York - Mark Burdyl
Puerto Rico - Eva Hernandez
Virgin Islands - Francine Lang
Region IV - Ben Chen
Alabama - David Hutchinson
Florida - Gary Powell
Georgia - Verona Barnes
Kentucky - Hamid Beykzadeh
Mississippi - Jon Huey
North Carolina - Daniel Blaisdell
South Carolina - Fred Soland
Tennessee - Bill Dobbins
Region VI - Gene Wossum
Arkansas - Frank Spears
Louisiana - Michael Vince
New Mexico - Cordelia Snow
Oklahoma - Glen Jones
Texas - Bill Allen
Region VIII - Minnie Adams
Colorado - BUI McKee
Montana - Gerri Reeves
North Dakota - Rod Beck
South Dakota - Jim Wendte
Utah - Roger Bishop
Wyoming - Shawn Sullivan
Region X - Dick Hetherington
Alaska - Lori Telfer
Idaho - Alan Stanford
Oregon - Ruby Lane
Washington - Sarah Bradley
111
-------
Acknowledgements
(continued)
Regional Indian Needs Assessment Contacts:
Tony Ciccarelli, Region I
Muhammad Hatim, Region II
Ben Chen, Region IV
Mary Lu Lageman, Region V
Marvin Waters, Region VI
Kelly Beard-Tittone, Region VII
Terry Griffith, Region VIII
Denise Odenwalder, Region IX
Geoff Keeler, Region X
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Page
1990 Needs Survey 5
Introduction 5
What Is the Needs Survey? 5
What Were the Major Objectives? 6
What Is the Scope? 6
Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities 7
What Is a Need? 7
What Are the Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities? 8
What Are the Needs to Correct Significant Noncompliance? 8
How Have the Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities Changed? 10
Supplemental State Estimates 11
What Is a Supplemental State Estimate? 11
What Are the Supplemental State Estimates? 12
Indian Needs Assessment 15
Introduction 15
What Is the Indian Needs Assessment? 15
What Were the Major Objectives? 15
What Is the Scope? 15
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
Indian Needs 17
What Is an Indian Need? 17
What Are the Indian Needs? 18
How Are the Indian Needs Distributed? 20
How Have the Indian Needs Changed? 21
Indian Needs Assessment Methodology 23
What Is the Methodology? 23
What Are the Data Sources? 23
Glossary 25
Appendices 33
A. Documentation Types A-l
B. Summary of 1990 Needs Survey Estimates B-l
C. Summary of 1988 Needs Survey Estimates C-l
VI
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities 2
2 Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities for
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities 8
3 Design Year Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities,
1986 Through 1990 Needs Surveys 10
4 Supplemental State Estimates for Publicly
Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities 12
5 Estimates for Indian Needs 18
6 Comparison of 1988 and 1989 Documented Indian Needs 21
Vll
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Current and Design Year Needs for the 9
Traditional Eligibilities
2 Design Year Supplemental State Estimates 12
3 Distribution of 1989 IMS Indian Needs by IHS Area 20
4 Distribution of Supplemental Indian Needs by IHS Area 20
vm
-------
Executive
Summary
This report provides the
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) detailed estimate
of the capital investment needed
to build publicly owned wastewater
treatment facilities to comply with
the requirements of Sections
205(a) and 516(b)(l) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). In addition,
the report provides an update of
EPA's 1988 assessment of the
wastewater treatment and
collection needs for Federally
recognized Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native Villages (hereinafter
referred to as Indians or Tribes).
1990 Needs Survey
The 1990 Needs Survey presents
cost estimates for needs eligible
under the Construction Grant and
State Revolving Fund (SRF)
programs.
The scope of the 1990 Needs
Survey was scaled down from
previous efforts. EPA adjusted
the 1988 cost estimates for Federal
grants and loans awarded and
inflated the results to 1990 dollars.
In addition, adjustments were
made for any needs that were
reported to EPA which were met
through non-Federal funding. As
a result, the cost estimates
reported in this report for the
traditional eligibilities are not
directly comparable to those in
previous surveys due to the revised
methodology. The States provided
supplemental estimates of needs
for Categories I through V eligible
under the grant and SRF
programs.
In past Surveys, States did not
submit documentation for their
separate State estimates. For the
1990 Survey, documentation
guidelines were established to
assist States in reporting
supplemental needs. These needs
are reported as Supplemental
State Estimates, which EPA did
not review or approve. They are
in addition to the EPA-adjusted
needs. Although updating of the
needs by States was optional, a
total of 40 States and Territories
submitted supplemental estimates
to EPA.
The capital investment necessary
to satisfy all categories of need for
the traditional eligibilities and
supplemental State estimates is
presented in Table 1. The total
20-year design needs for each
group are:
• $80.4 billion to satisfy needs for
the traditional eligibilities.
• $30.2 billion to satisfy the
States' supplemental estimates
of SRF eligible needs.
If these estimates were to be
added, the total need would be
$110.6 billion.
As indicated in Table 1, the total
need for the current (existing)
population is $65 billion. Of this
amount, approximately $12 billion
is needed to meet the construction
needs of facilities in significant
noncompliance with CWA
requirements, as reported in the
SRF Final Report to Congress.
Of the $80.4 billion in design year
needs for traditional eligibilities,
the needs are largest for secondary
treatment at $24.9 billion. Needs
for controlling combined sewer
overflows (CSO) are the second
largest at $16.5 billion,
representing 310 facilities with
documented needs.
After inflation, the needs for the
traditional eligibilities decreased
by $6.4 billion (7 percent) from
1988 to 1990. This reduction was
due to the adjustments for needs
that were met.
Of the $30.2 billion in
supplemental estimates, the largest
increment is also for secondary
treatment, at $12.4 billion, and the
smallest increment is for sewer
replacement/rehabilitation at $0.7
billion.
States also reported $3.2 billion in
supplemental needs for controlling
CSOs. This estimate, when
combined with the $16.5 billion,
represents a total cost of $19.7
billion for 464 combined sewer
systems.
EPA recognizes that the CSO
needs estimates presented in this
report may not accurately present
the true needs since some States
have not yet priced out the costs
of fully implementing the 1989
National CSO Strategy. The
strategy was issued in August 1989
and applies to approximately 1,100
combined sewer systems
nationwide.
-------
TABLE I
CATEGORY
I ' Secondary Treatment
II ,' Advanced Treatment
HIA Infiltration/Inflow
' '
• WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
(January 1990 Dollars la Billions)
NEEDS FOR TRADITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL
CURRENT DESIGN YEAR ESTIMATES '
114
2J
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation 3£
IVA New Collector Sewers 10.9
FVB New Interceptor Sewers 9.1
V Combined Sewer Overflows
CATEGORIES I
24.9
47
3J5
13.8
141
IfiJ
6.8
0.7
aa
33
33
MJ
* Current needs to meet construction needs of facilities in significant
noncompliance is approximately $12.0 bUlion, as reported to the SRF final
The supplemental estimates reflect
new needs identified by the States,
revised cost estimates due to
changed plans, the addition of
reserve capacity, and the
satisfaction of previously identified
needs through State and local
financing that did not involve
Federal assistance.
The 1987 Amendments to the
CWA allow SRFs to fund activities
related to new enforceable
requirements and certain' new
eligibilities. The new enforceable
requirements address control of
sludge use and disposal, toxics,
and stormwater. Estimates of
needs for control of toxics and
sludge are included in the
supplemental State estimates. The
new SRF eligibilities address
control of nonpoint sources of
pollution and ground-water,
estuarine, and certain wetlands
protection activities. Only a few
States submitted needs for these
new eligibilities as part of their
supplemental estimates. Several
States indicated that because of
the newness of these eligibilities,
needs estimates were still being
developed. In addition, some
States indicated they were
developing strategies to address
these SRF eligibilities. To avoid
any misrepresentation of these
needs, EPA did not include any
cost estimates in this report for
the new SRF eligibilities.
Similarly, estimates for stormwater
control are not included.
In general, while the Needs Survey
focuses primarily on the capital
costs required to meet the needs
of the Nation's wastewater
infrastructure, municipalities can
sometimes dramatically reduce
total project costs by implementing
various water use efficiency
practices. Included are short and
long-term water use reduction,
water recycling, and wastewater
reclamation and reuse. For
example, these practices may
result in the deferral of expanding
existing facilities or the downsizing
of new facilities. Municipalities
should consider comparing the
cost of increasing municipal water
use efficiency with the cost of
building new treatment capacity
before implementing new projects.
Indian Needs
Assessment
In January 1989, EPA submitted a
report to Congress on the
wastewater treatment and
collection needs of all Federally
recognized Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native Villages. The
assessment was required by
Section 518(b) of the CWA and
was conducted in cooperation with
the Indian Health Service (IHS).
Indian Tribes expressed concern
that not all of their needs were
included. They requested that the
assessment be updated to be more
inclusive and that the results be
transmitted to Congress in the
1990 report. A major objective of
this assessment was to ensure that
all needs are reported for all
Tribes and Villages.
At the time this assessment was
conducted, EPA used the most
recent (1989) IHS estimates
available as the foundation for this
assessment and supplemented the
data with estimates of needs from
Tribes and other sources.
-------
The estimates of the capital
investment required to address the
current Indian needs are:
• $633 million to satisfy the IHS
documented needs.
• $89 million to satisfy the
Indians' estimates of
supplemental needs.
Subsequent to the EPA survey,
IHS has performed a more recent
assessment based on 1990 data,
which shows documented needs
have dropped from $633 million in
1989 to $578 million in 1990.
The IHS-reported needs represent
estimates documented using
established IHS criteria. The
supplemental needs were provided
to EPA directly by Indian Tribes
and other sources. EPA did not
establish documentation criteria
for the supplemental needs and
relied on the sources of the data
for accuracy of the estimates
provided.
The largest portion of the IHS
reported needs is concentrated in
Alaska, at approximately $468
million, or 74 percent. The large
needs in Alaska represent
construction of entirely new
facilities due to inadequate
wastewater treatment and
collection in many Villages. Many
of these needs were not previously
reported due to the high cost of
constructing wastewater facilities
in Alaska, where project feasibility
is affected by the remote location
of many Villages and the
difficulties in constructing these
facilities in arctic conditions.
Supplemental needs are also
highest in Alaska, at $26.8 million,
or about one-third of the total.
The needs represent the cost to
provide wastewater treatment and
collection for approximately 1,800
projects for 452,000 Indians and
Alaska Natives.
The net increase in documented
Indian needs is $363 million from
1988 to 1989. The major increase
is attributable to a change in the
IHS estimating procedures, which
no longer contain a cost-
effectiveness component. In this
assessment, IHS estimated the
costs of providing piped indoor
wastewater treatment and
collection facilities for most homes
and communities. Some of these
project costs would not be eligible
under the rules which apply to
State participation in the Title II
or VI grant programs. Previously,
IHS sought to estimate the cost
only of projects that were
economically and technically
feasible to fund and construct.
Overall, this assessment identified
212 projects, or approximately
$242 million in needs, for Tribes
with no previously reported needs.
The majority of these needs, $219
million, were for 92 projects in
Alaska.
-------
1990 Needs
Survey
Introduction
What Is the Needs
Survey?
This report summarizes the EPA's
biennial assessment of the cost of
constructing all publicly owned
wastewater treatment works
necessary to meet the goals of the
CWA. This report is required by
Sections 205(a) and 516(b)(l) of
the Act. The 1990 Needs Survey,
a joint effort of the States and
EPA, is the tenth Survey since
enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972.
Previous Surveys were based on
Construction Grant program
eligibilities under Title II of the
CWA. Cost estimates presented
in prior Surveys served as a basis
for congressional allotment of
funds to address the provisions of
the CWA.
The 1987 Amendments to the
CWA established the SRF
program under Title VI. As
funding under the Construction
Grant program phases out, SRF
loans become the principal funding
source for construction of
wastewater treatment and
collection projects. The 1987
Amendments also established new
enforceable requirements and
other categories of needs eligible
for funding under the SRF
program. The new enforceable
requirements address control of
sludge use and disposal, toxics,
and stormwater. The new SRF
eligibilities address control of
nonpoint sources of pollution and
ground-water, estuarine, and
wetlands protection. The 1990
Needs Survey addresses SRF
eligible needs as well as updates to
the needs for the traditional
eligibilities.
The Needs Survey database
contains cost and technical
information on approximately
27,300 wastewater treatment and
collection facilities nationwide,
including facilities with unmet
needs and those for which needs
have already been met.
The Needs Survey is used
extensively to assist the Federal
government and the States in
program planning, policy
evaluation, and program
management. Private firms, pubh'c
interest groups, and trade
associations use Needs Survey
information in marketing, cost
estimating, and policy formulation.
A clarifier at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant in San Jose, California.
-------
What Were the Major
Objectives?
The major objectives of the 1990
Needs Survey were to update the
1988 documented needs for the
traditional eligibilities, and to
collect cost estimates for needs
now eligible under the SRF
program.
In previous Surveys, States were
encouraged to update technical
data on wastewater facilities, such
as flow, treatment levels, and
pollutant characteristics. This
report does not include summaries
of technical data as in the past.
Technical data collection was not
required, and many States opted
not to update these data due to
resource constraints and the first-
time effort to identify needs for
SRF funding.
What Is the Scope?
In the 1986 and 1988 Surveys,
States provided cost and technical
data, along with supporting
documentation, for projects
eligible for construction grants
under Title II of the CWA. EPA
reviewed the cost estimates and
documentation for accuracy,
national consistency, and
conformance with acceptable
criteria and either approved or
rejected the States' estimates.
The scope of the 1990 Needs
Survey was scaled down from
previous efforts. The 1990 Survey
approach was changed in three
ways. First, States were not asked
to update their 1988 cost estimates
for the traditional eligibilities.
Rather, EPA adjusted the 1988
needs estimates for Federal grants
and loans awarded and inflated
the results to 1990 dollars. In
addition, adjustments were made
for needs estimates reported to
EPA that were met through non-
Federal funding. Second, States
were asked to submit, on an
optional basis, supplemental
estimates of needs for SRF
funding, including needs for
Categories I through V, new
enforceable requirements, and
other SRF eligibilities.
Third, in an effort to ensure some
level of consistency among the
State estimates, the 1990 Needs
Survey workgroup, with EPA
involvement, developed a list of
suggested documentation
guidelines for State use in
documenting estimates (see
Appendix A). In recognition of
this effort to ensure consistency
and reliability, the previous usage
of "Separate State Estimates" has
been modified to "Supplemental
State Estimates." EPA did not
require the States to submit
documentation for these
supplemental estimates.
-------
Needs for the
Traditional
Eligibilities
What Is a Need?
A "need" for the traditional
eligibilities is a cost estimate for
building a publicly owned
wastewater treatment facility that
is eligible for Federal financial
assistance under Title II of the
CWA. The 1988 cost estimates
for Categories I through V were
adjusted for grants and loans
awarded and inflated to 1990
dollars. They represent the 1990
needs for the traditional
eligibilities for facilities used in the
conveyance, storage, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of
municipal wastewater. These
estimates include constructing
entirely new facilities and
enlarging, upgrading, abandoning,
and replacing existing facilities.
The estimates are for the
following categories of needs:
• Category I —
Secondary Treatment
• Category II —
Advanced Treatment
• Category IIIA --
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
• Category IIIB --
Replacement/Rehabilitation
of Sewers
• Category IVA --
New Collector Sewers
• Category IVB -
New Interceptor Sewers
• Category V —
Combined Sewer Overflows
Detailed explanations of each
category are provided in the
Glossary.
Needs for the traditional
eligibilities do not include needs
that are newly eligible under Title
VI (i.e., needs for stormwater
management, nonpoint source
pollution control, etc.). They do
not include costs that are ineligible
for Federal assistance under Titles
II or VI, such as house
connections to sewers and the
acquisition of land if not part of a
treatment process. Additionally,
the estimates do not include costs
for operation and maintenance.
Funding eligibility for Categories
IIIB(replacement/rehabilitationof
sewers), IVA (new collector
sewers), and V (combined sewer
overflows) is restricted. However,
in the 1988 Survey, costs for these
categories were included, because
the CWA provided a governor
with discretionary funding
authority to use up to 20 percent
of a State's construction grant
allotment for these project
categories. Because these needs
were eligible for funding under
this authority, the entire need was
reported in the Survey.
In the previous two Surveys, EPA
reviewed State-submitted
documentation for each facility
and for each category of need to
ensure that it had an existing
problem and was eligible for
funding. Only facilities with
documented water quality and/or
public health problems were
included in these Surveys. The list
of acceptable documentation types
used in the 1988 Survey is
presented in Appendix A and
explained in detail in the 1988
Needs Survey Report to Congress.
The cost estimates for the
traditional eligibilities address
needs for two time periods:
1. Current Needs - needs for
documented facilities to
satisfy the current or existing
population.
2. Design Year Needs - needs
for documented facilities to
satisfy an approximate 20-
year design life for facilities.
It should be noted that these
needs are based on the population
data from the 1988 Needs Survey.
-------
What Are the Needs
for the Traditional
Eligibilities?
EPA's cost estimate of the capital
investment necessary to address
the Nation's municipal wastewater
treatment needs is presented in
Table 2. An estimated $80.4
billion is required to satisfy the
design year needs of facilities
documented in the 1988 Needs
Survey. Of this amount, $65.0
billion is needed to satisfy the
needs of the current population.
The $15.4 billion difference
represents the cost to serve
population growth within these
service areas over the 20-year life
of the project. A State-by-State
listing of the 1990 needs for the
traditional eligibilities is presented
in Appendix B.
If only treatment needs
(Categories I and II) are
considered, the design year needs
are $29.6 billion, and the
corresponding needs for the
current population are $22.1
billion.
There are approximately 1,100
wastewater treatment facilities that
have combined sewer systems
nationwide. Of these, 310 facilities
have documented needs totaling
$16.5 billion. This reflects a
reduction of 18 facilities from the
1988 survey, where 328 facilities
had documented CSO needs.
Additional estimates which
supplement these needs are
discussed in the "What Are the
Supplemental State Estimates?"
section of the report.
TABLE 2
NEEDS FOR THE TRADITIONAL ELIGIBILITIES
FOR PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
(January 1990 Dollars in Billions)
NEEDS
CATEGORY
I Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
HIA Infiltration/Iiinow
Correction
IHB Replacement/Rehabilitation*
IVA New Collector Sewers*
IVB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflows*
CATEGORIES I - V
TREATMENT CATEGORIES I - II
SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE
DESIGN YEAR CURRENT
ms
2JS
US
47
13.8
14.1
16.5
80.4
M
10.9
M
6SJ)
22.1 •'
12.0**
* For these categories under Title II of Ihe Ctean Water Act, a governor may use up to 20 percent of a
Statef aBotinent in an? Oral year; however, combined sewer overflow project* funded under Section
201(n)(l) nay exceed thii amount.
•• Estimate reported in SRF Flint Report to Congress.
The relationship of design year
needs to current needs is shown in
Figure 1.
What Are the Needs to
Correct Significant
Noncompliance?
A subset of the current year needs
of $65 billion is the estimated
investment needed to meet the
cost of construction necessary to
bring significant noncompliers
back into compliance. As shown
in Table 2, EPA estimated this
cost at $12 billion in its SRF Final
Report to Congress. This estimate
was based on a compilation of
data from several sources.
EPA used, as a starting point, the
"significant noncompliance" list
(SNC). Facilities on the SNC list
generally have flows greater than 1
million gallons per day (mgd) and
have enforceable violations of the
CWA. The list was then refined
by determining, from EPA's
Permit Compliance System (PCS),
which facilities had outstanding
construction needs necessary to
achieve or return to compliance as
of June 30, 1990. (For example,
needs for facilities in violation of
reporting requirements or needing
corrective action in operation and
maintenance were not included.)
Added to this list was a second list
of facilities which had been
classified as SNC but, for
enforcement purposes, were no
-------
longer in SNC because they were
on enforcement schedules for
construction. These facilities still
need construction to attain
physical compliance. Finally, to
capture the construction needs for
facilities with flows of less than 1
mgd, EPA expanded the definition
of SNC to include Category I and
II needs from the 1988 Needs
Survey for this group. The $12
billion estimate is the cost of
construction to bring these three
groups of facilities into
compliance.
The SNC-related needs discussed
above only represent a "snapshot"
of needs at a given point in time.
While it is not possible to quantify
future SNC-related needs, it is
predictable that there will be
additional significant violations
that will require construction to
correct. The reasons for potential
violations include: 1) population
growth, which will generate flows
and/or pollutant loadings in excess
of design capacity; 2) obsolescence
and deterioration of existing
wastewater treatment
infrastructure; and 3) additional
requirements in the areas of toxics
control, storm water management,
and sludge disposal as regulations
are put into place and
implemented.
FIGURE 1
CURRENT AND DESIGN YEAR NEEDS
FOR THE TRADITIONAL ELIGIBILITIES
(January 1990 Dollars in Billions)
Design Year
Current
20
40
100
-------
How Have the Needs
for the Traditional
Eligibilities Changed?
After accounting for inflation, the
design year estimate for the
traditional eligibilities decreased
by $6.4 billion, approximately 7
percent, from 1988 to 1990.
Estimates from the 1988 Survey
are summarized by State in
Appendix C.
This decrease in needs since the
1988 Survey is due to the award of
Federal grants and loans as well as
some needs being met through
State and local financing. A
comparison of the design year
needs for the last three Surveys is
presented hi Table 3. It should be
noted that the methodology used
by EPA to derive the 1990 needs
for the traditional eligibilities
differs from that used in the 1986
and 1988 surveys. As a result,
1990 estimates presented in the
table may not be directly
comparable with those in previous
surveys.
•'" - • - TABLES .'"•:
DESIGN YEAR NEEDS FOR THE TRADITIONAL ELIGIBILITIES
1986 THROUGH 1990 NEEDS SURVEYS*
(January 1990 Dollars in Billions Except as Noted)
NEEDS ' •' - .;. '
CATEGORY - . • .::" ..*::';
I Secondary Treatment •
II Advanced Treatment
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation
' Ijfirii \:,. - New Cflll8iCI0l? §WwlM?$\ ; •. . • • ••
•'Rl-; ;; '•• New inteiwftorSwBas^*,. ,'•
V />'' \ Combined Sewer Overflows v" ^
CATEGORIES I - V
- V (Pfaatoal
MM
33.1
835
29.6
Note that the 1999 estimates were derived using a different methodology than
that used in previous surveys.';,;-,:;:;-,'.'•;t'•';';<•';.;;• .••'.•.' . '' ••'••"'•.' •:';.:-'-- • ;:''v,'>:v,"-'':
10
-------
Supplemental
State Estimates
What Is a
Supplemental
State Estimate?
Historically, States have had the
opportunity to submit a separate
State estimate for needs which
they believed were valid, but could
not be documented using the
EPA-accepted documentation.
These needs were not reviewed
nor approved by EPA and have
been reported separately from the
EPA documented cost estimates.
For the 1990 Needs Survey, the
concept of the separate State
estimates needed to be revised,
since States would now be
reporting needs under new
guidelines to address SRF
eligibilities. The States reported
needs for SRF eligibilities which
supplement the traditional
eligibilities. The supplemental
estimates include needs for
Categories I through V, as well as
needs for the new SRF eligibilities.
In past Surveys, States were not
required to submit documentation
for their separate State estimates.
However, to maintain a level of
national consistency for the 1990
Survey, States agreed to follow
suggested documentation
guidelines (see Appendix A) in the
reporting of supplemental needs.
The 1988 documentation was used
as the base and modified to
include additional documentation
types for the new SRF eligibilities.
The actual documentation for the
various estimates was not reviewed
by EPA.
These supplemental needs
represent an increase or decrease
to the needs for the traditional
eligibilities. They also represent
the best available estimate of
changes hi needs due to the 1987
Amendments to the CWA.
Ah1 supplemental State estimates
are presented for the design year;
current estimates are not reported
since many States maintain that
SRF eligibilities do not have the
same restrictions as those of the
Construction Grants program.
Reporting of the Supplemental
State estimates was optional. A
total of 40 States and Territories
(or approximately two-thirds of
the U.S.) participated in this
Survey effort.
In EPA's guidance to the States,
two types of supplemental
estimates were identified for the
reporting of needs. They were
incremental needs for the
traditional eligibilities (I through
V) and needs for the new SRF
eligibilities. Each type is
described below.
Incremental Needs for the
Traditional Eligibilities - These
needs include increases or
decreases to the adjusted needs
for the traditional eligibilities.
They reflect needs for new or
revised planning, reserve capacity,
and reductions to needs due to
State and local financing of
construction without Federal
assistance.
Needs for New SRF Eligibilities -
The 1987 Amendments to the
CWA allow SRFs to fund activities
related to the new enforceable
requirements and certain types of
activities that are now eligible for
SRF funding. States were invited
to provide supplemental estimates
for the following needs: (See
Glossary for a definition of each
category.)
• New Enforceable
Requirements
Stormwater control
Toxics control
Control of sludge use and
disposal
• New SRF Eligibilities
Nonpoint source pollution
control
Ground-water protection
Estuarine protection
Certain wetlands
protection activities
While States identified their needs
for stormwater control separately,
needs purely for control of toxics
and sludge use and disposal were
included in Categories I and II.
11
-------
What Are the
Supplemental
State Estimates?
The supplemental State estimate
of needs for Categories I through
V is $30.2 billion, as shown in
Table 4. If this estimate is added
to the needs for the traditional
eligibilities, the total need would
be $110.6 billion, as presented in
Appendix B. As previously
mentioned, the supplemental State
estimates are costs that reflect
either an increase or decrease to
EPA's estimate of needs for the
traditional eligibilities. Included in
these estimates are increases that
result from new or revised
planning. Also included are
decreases due to State and local
financing of construction (without
Federal assistance) and revisions
in the planning and/or design of
facilities. Some States have met
the requirements of the National
Municipal Policy (NMP) and
excluded those satisfied needs
from their estimates. The NMP
required municipal compliance by
July 1, 1988, whether or not a
municipality received Federal
funding for sewage treatment plant
construction.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of
these estimates by type of need.
Of the estimated $30.2 billion, the
largest need increments are for
secondary treatment (Category I)
and advanced treatment (Category
II) at $12.4 billion and $6.6 billion,
respectively. Needs identified to
date for control of toxics and
sludge use and disposal are
included in these categories.
The $30.2 billion in supplemental
needs includes $3.2 billion to
address needs for controlling
CSOs. This estimate, when
TABLE 4 " ' • '
SUPPLEMENTAL STATE ESTIMATES
FOR PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
(January 1990 Dollare in Billions)
DESIGN
NEEDS
CATEGQiar
i
ii
IIIA
IIIB
IVA
IVB
V
Secondary Treatment
AflN^ftBC'Bli Ti'MRilWjii
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
New Collector Sewers •' ' ;
New Interceptor Sewers '.
Combined Sewer Overflows
64
0.8
••4»-
'34-
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL STATE
ESTIMATES (Categories I. V)
FIGURE 2
DESIGN YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL STATE ESTIMATES
(January 1990 Dollars in Billions)
I
II
IIIA IIIB IVA
Categories of Need
Note: Total Supplemental State Estimates = $30.2 Billion
IVB
combined with the $16.5 billion
reported on Table 2, may not
accurately present the true needs.
Some States have not yet priced
out the costs of fully implementing
the 1989 National CSO Strategy,
12
-------
which was issued in August 1989.
The strategy applies to
approximately 1,100 combined
sewer systems nationwide. The
$3.2 billion represents newly
identified needs for 154 facilities.
This estimate also includes
additional needs due to revised
planning for 60 of the 310 facilities
discussed in the traditional
eligibilities section.
A detailed listing of the
supplemental State estimates is
also presented in Appendix B.
Although the 1990 Survey invited
the optional reporting of new
types of eligible needs (e.g.,
nonpoint source pollution control
and ground-water, estuarine, and
wetlands protection), only a few
States submitted cost estimates for
these eligibilities. Many States
indicated that because of the
newness of these eligibilities,
needs estimates were still being
developed. In addition, some
States indicated that they were
developing strategies to address
the requirements of these
programs before identifying needs.
To avoid any misrepresentation of
these needs, EPA did not include
any cost estimates in this report
for these eligibilities. Similarly,
estimates for storm water control
are not included.
13
-------
Indian
Needs
Assessment
Introduction
What Is the Indian
Needs Assessment?
This section of the report presents
EPA's 1990 assessment of the
capital costs required to address
the wastewater treatment and
collection needs for Federally
recognized Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native Villages (hereinafter
referred to as Indians or Tribes).
In 1988, EPA conducted its first
assessment of wastewater
treatment needs for all Tribes, as
required by Section 518(b) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), as
amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987. The 1988 assessment
was prepared in cooperation with
the Indian Health Service (IHS)
and reported in the Report to
Congress: Indian Wastewater
Treatment Needs Assessment and
Assistance in January 1989.
Indian Tribes expressed concern
that not all of their needs were
included in EPA's 1988
assessment. They requested that
the assessment be updated to be
more inclusive and the results
presented in the 1990 Needs
Survey Report to Congress.
For the 1990 assessment, EPA
used the most recent IHS
estimates of needs as the
foundation and requested review
of the data from EPA Regions,
States, Indian Tribes and other
sources to identify any additional
needs. At the time EPA
conducted this assessment, the
IHS 1989 estimates were the most
recent estimates available. EPA
also sought the participation of all
Tribes to the greatest extent
possible.
To address the wastewater
treatment and collection needs of
Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
Villages, the 1987 Amendments
established the Indian Set-Aside
Grant Program. Section 518(c)
authorized program funding
through a one-half percent set-
aside from the Construction Grant
program appropriations, which
ended in fiscal year 1990. Overall,
39 projects have been identified to
receive funding through this
program, accounting for the $27
million appropriated. No further
funding is authorized. However,
other sources of funding, such as
the IHS, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and the Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA) may be
available to Indians for wastewater
treatment and collection facilities.
In addition, Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native Villages are eligible
to receive State Revolving Fund
loans under Title VI of the CWA
if they are able to satisfy the loan
conditions.
What Were the
Major Objectives?
The major objectives of this Indian
Needs Assessment were to:
• Update EPA's 1988 cost
estimates of Indian
wastewater treatment and
collection needs.
• Obtain cost estimates for
Indian Tribes and Alaska
Native Villages with needs
not identified in the first
assessment.
The needs obtained consist of
IHS's 1989 documented estimates
and supplemental estimates
submitted by the Indian Tribes.
What Is the Scope?
This assessment estimates the
wastewater treatment and
collection needs of all Indian
Tribes as defined by the CWA.
Section 518(h)(2) of the Act
defines an Indian Tribe as "any
Indian tribe, band, group or
community recognized by the
Secretary of the Interior and
exercising governmental authority
over a Federal Indian
Reservation." In November 1988,
Congress expanded the eligibility
of the Indian Set-Aside Grant
Program (P.L. 100-581) to include
Tribes that currently reside on
former reservation lands in
15
-------
Oklahoma and Alaska Native
Villages.
EPA placed special emphasis on
contacting all Tribes, particularly
those in Alaska and California,
where estimates were thought to
be incomplete in the first
assessment.
The IHS focused on the
residential needs of Tribes. Needs
of the current population are
presented, rather than of the
future population, because of the
limited availability of accurate
population projections and
planning data on a nationwide
basis. The supplemental estimates
obtained from Tribes may not be
consistent with the needs reported
by IHS since they were estimated
by other sources.
Cost information, and a limited
amount of technical information, is
available on the wastewater
treatment and collection needs for
approximately 220 Indian Tribes
and 180 Alaska Native Villages.
Needs were identified for
approximately 1,800 projects.
16
-------
Indian Needs
What is an Indian
Need?
An Indian need is defined as an
estimate of the capital investment
necessary to provide wastewater
treatment and collection for all
Indian and Alaska Native homes
and communities. Estimates are
included for the construction of
entirely new facilities and
enlarging, upgrading, and replacing
existing facilities regardless of cost
effectiveness.
The definition of a "need" as
applied in this assessment is more
inclusive than that used in the
Survey of State needs discussed in
the previous section of this report.
Therefore, the two assessments
cannot be directly compared.
Needs for Indians may include
costs for house connections or
other costs not included in the
State Survey, and which would be
ineligible for funding under the
CWA for municipalities. They are
included in the Indian assessment
due to then- eligibility for funding
under the Indian Set-Aside Grant
Program or other Federal
programs, such as those
administered by IHS and HUD.
The IHS estimates are based on
needs which are documented using
established criteria. The estimates
were derived mainly through field
visits and consultation with Tribes,
while sanitary surveys and
feasibility studies were also used.
These needs are based on the
costs to provide piped indoor
facilities for most homes. An
exception is made for homes in
extremely remote areas,
particularly in Alaska. This differs
from the 1988 assessment which
was based on needs for facilities
that were economically and
technically feasible to fund and
construct. This did not always
involve piped facilities, particularly
in Alaska, where an alternative
system, i.e., a honey bucket haul
system, is less expensive and more
feasible to construct. This change
in IHS's cost estimating criteria
resulted from the Indian Health
Care Amendments of 1988 (P.L.
100-713).
The supplemental Indian needs
were developed by disseminating
IHS's 1989 data to the Tribes for
review to identify additional needs.
As a result, some Tribes may have
reported needs that IHS
considered, but did not include in
its assessment. IHS does not
report needs if they do not follow
IHS criteria. For example, needs
identified by Tribes for replacing
on-site septic systems with a sewer
system may not be reported if IHS
determines there is not a public
health justification. EPA did not
establish documentation criteria or
review these supplemental
estimates, but relied on the
various sources for the accuracy of
the estimates.
17
-------
What Are the Indian
Needs?
Table 5 presents estimates of the
capital investment necessary to
address the current wastewater
treatment and collection needs for
Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
Villages by IHS Area. It consists
of estimates developed by IHS and
supplemental estimates provided
by other sources.
IMS-Documented Needs
Based on needs identified by IHS
in 1989, IHS estimated that
approximately $633 million is
required to address current Indian
needs for wastewater treatment
and collection facilities. These
estimates were documented using
established criteria and are in 1989
dollars.
million, or 74 percent. Needs are
lowest in the Billings and
California Areas, at $2.3 million
and $5.2 million, respectively.
A large portion of the needs for
Alaska is concentrated in 10
projects, totalling $257 million.
The increase in needs is due to
two major factors. Needs for
some Villages were not included
in the 1988 assessment if IHS
determined that the proposed
project was not economically and
technically feasible to fund and
construct. Project feasibility was
affected by the remote location of
many Villages and the difficulties
in constructing wastewater
treatment and collection facilities
in arctic conditions.
The largest portion of the needs
reported by IHS is concentrated hi
Alaska at approximately $468
In addition, most of the needs for
Alaska represent major new
construction of piped indoor
• ; -- TABUJS; , ' :;. '.
ESTIMATES FOR INDIAN NEEDS
(Dollars in Millions)
IBS
Aberdeen
Alaska
Albuquerque
Billings
California
Nashville
(East Coast)
Navajo
Oklahoma City
Phoenix
Portland
Tucson
.DOCUMENTED
NEEDS
4683
7.9
8.9
2J
5.2
246
30.4
30.1
224
7J
6.9
TOTALS «33.«
IHS 1990 assessment shows need of $578.0 million.
18
-------
facilities, regardless of their
construction cost. Most of the
systems currently in use are pit
privies and honey bucket haul
systems. However, in some cases,
where the costs for a piped system
would be very high, the IHS
estimates are still based on
alternative systems, such as honey
bucket haul systems.
It should be noted that IHS has
just completed and submitted its
report to Congress containing its
1990 estimates which show a need
of $578 million (as compared to
$633 million in 1989). A major
portion of the decrease in this
estimate can be attributed to
needs which have been funded by
IHS and by EPA through its
Indian Grant Set-Aside Program
during 1989/90. EPA's report
continues to present the IHS 1989
estimates, since the $89 million
gathered in supplemental needs
were developed based upon those
estimates.
Supplemental TnHian Needs
EPA identified $89 million in
supplemental wastewater
treatment and collection needs for
Indian Tribes, as shown in Table
5. These needs reflect increases
and/or decreases to the IHS
reported needs as well as newly
identified needs. The
supplemental needs were derived
by subtracting the needs
documented by the IHS from
those supplied by other sources.
Of the $89 million, the largest
increment is in Alaska at $26.8
million. The smallest increments
are found in the Aberdeen,
Oklahoma City, and Phoenix
Areas, with less than $2 million
each. No supplemental needs were
identified for the Tucson Area.
The dollar base for these
supplemental estimates could not
be readily determined and is not
reported.
A honey bucket disposal point at a tundra pond in an Alaskan village.
19
-------
How Are the Indian
Needs Distributed?
Figure 3 presents a geographical
distribution of the documented
IHS reported needs by IHS Area.
The major portion, 74 percent, of
the needs is concentrated in
Alaska, while needs in the Navajo
and Oklahoma City Areas are the
next highest at 5 percent each.
Figure 4 shows the geographical
distribution of the $89 million in
supplemental Indian needs.
Again, approximately half of these
additional needs are for projects in
the Alaska and Albuquerque
Areas. Supplemental needs are
lowest in the Aberdeen, Oklahoma
City, and Phoenix Areas, at less
than 2 percent each, while needs
in the Tucson Area did not
change.
FIGURE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF 1989 IHS
INDIAN NEEDS BY IHS AREA
(1989 Dollars In Millions)
Total IHS Needs = $633 Million (1989 Dollars)
NOTE: Estimates In this figure may vary slightly from
those In other sections of this report due to rounding.
FIGURE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
INDIAN NEEDS BY IHS AREA
(Dollars In Millions)
Total Supplemental Needs = $89 Million
NOTE: Estimates In this figure may vary slightly from
those In other sections of this report due to rounding.
20
-------
How Have the
Indian Needs
Changed?
Table 6 shows a comparison of
how the documented Indian needs
changed from the 1988 assessment.
The documented needs in this
assessment more than double
those reported in 1988, with an
increase of approximately $363
million. The majority of the
change is due to a six-fold increase
in the needs reported for Alaska.
All other IHS Areas remained
constant or had relatively modest
increases in needs. The largest
decrease in needs is in the
Oklahoma City Area, with a
decrease of more than 50 percent
because of revised planning or
needs that were met.
The $363 million increase in needs
is due mainly to a change in the
criteria used by IHS to report
needs, as explained previously.
This change in criteria had the
most significant impact in Alaska,
where needs reported by IHS
increased from $69 million to $468
million. The increase is also due
to major new construction in
Alaska, as most of the systems
currently in use are pit privies and
honey bucket haul systems. In
estimating these needs IHS
assumed that most of these
systems would be replaced with
indoor plumbing and centralized
wastewater treatment, but did not
evaluate the practicality, economic
feasibility, or public health
improvement of the proposed
projects.
TABLES
COMPARISON OF 1988 AND 1989 DOCUMENTED INDIAN NEEDS
(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
1988 EPA
IHS AREA ASSESSMENT , .
Aberdeen 10
Alaska 69
Albuquerque 18
Bernini 9
Billings 3
California 5
Nashville 29
(East Coast)
Navajo 33
Oklahoma City 61
Phoenix 16
Portland 13
Tucson 4
Total 27*
* IHS 1990 assessment shows a need of $578.0 million.
ASSESSMENT*
M
4«8
*
9
2
'•"*•-.
•, -• '2S :: - • ' .
H
30
."•»'•
; 8
. • 14 ' •' -
*33
21
-------
Indian Needs
Assessment
Methodology
What Is the
Methodology?
A major objective of this
assessment was to obtain needs
estimates for all Tribes,
particularly those not identified in
the 1988 assessment. EPA used
IHS's 1989 needs estimates as the
foundation for this assessment.
Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
Villages were contacted and
provided an opportunity to review
IHS's data to identify
supplemental needs. In addition,
a special effort was made to
contact all Tribes, particularly in
Alaska and California, where data
were thought to be incomplete.
However, EPA did not require
documentation for these
supplemental estimates.
As part of the effort to identify
supplemental needs, a number of
other sources were consulted to
assist EPA in identifying all Indian
Tribes with needs. These sources
included the EPA Regional
offices, IHS Area offices, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
California Department of Housing
and Community Development, and
the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
What Are the Data
Sources?
EPA relied on data provided by
two major sources. First, EPA
used the information contained in
the IHS 1989 Sanitation
Deficiencies System (SDS) as the
foundation for the 1990 Indian
Needs Assessment. The IHS
estimates were derived mainly
through field visits and
consultation with Tribes, while
sanitary surveys and feasibility
studies were also used. The needs
are based on projects that are
considered eligible for funding by
IHS.
Second, EPA relied on estimates
of supplemental needs submitted
directly by the Tribes. Needs
provided directly by the Tribes
were included in the assessment,
and follow-up phone calls were
made to some Tribes to obtain
cost estimates, where necessary.
23
-------
Glossary
NOTE:
Definitions are provided to help the reader understand the terms
used, but are not necessarily to be used for legal purposes.
25
-------
Glossary
See Categories of Needs, Category II.
Categories of Needs
Needs estimates address the following categories:
1) Secondary Treatment (Category I)
The minimum level of treatment that must be maintained by all
treatment facilities, except those facilities granted ocean
discharge waivers under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act.
Treatment levels are specified in terms of the concentration of
conventional pollutants in the wastewater discharged from a
facility. Secondary treatment requires an 85-percent reduction in
conventional pollutant concentrations in the wastewater treated
by a facility. Needs reported in this category are necessary to
attain secondary treatment. Needs to attain incremental
reductions in conventional pollutant concentrations beyond
secondary treatment requirements are included in Category II.
2) Advanced Treatment (Category II)
A level of treatment more stringent than secondary treatment.
Advanced treatment requires greater than 85-percent reduction
in conventional pollutants, or a significant reduction in
nonconventional pollutants present in the wastewater treated by
a facility. Needs reported in this category are necessary to attain
incremental reductions in pollutant concentrations beyond basic
secondary treatment.
3) Infiltration/Inflow Correction (Category IIIA)
Control of the problem of penetration into a sewer system of
water other than wastewater from the ground through such
means as defective pipes or manholes (infiltration) or from
sources such as drains, storm sewers, and other improper entries
into the system (inflow). Included in this category are costs for
correction of sewer system infiltration/inflow problems. Costs
also are reported for preliminary sewer system analysis and for
detailed sewer system evaluation surveys.
4) Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers (Category IIIB)
Reinforcement or reconstruction of structurally deteriorating
sewers. This category includes cost estimates for rehabilitation
of existing sewer systems beyond those for normal maintenance.
Costs are reported if the corrective actions are necessary to
maintain the structural integrity of the system.
5) Collector Sewers (Category IVA)
Pipes used to collect and carry wastewater from an individual
source to an interceptor sewer that will convey the wastewater to
a treatment facility. This category includes the costs of
constructing new collector sewer systems and appurtenances.
6) Interceptor Sewers (Category IVB)
Major sewer lines receiving wastewater flows from collector
sewers. The interceptor sewer carries wastewater directly to the
treatment plant or to another interceptor. This category includes
27
-------
costs for constructing new interceptor sewers and pumping
stations necessary for conveying wastewater from collector sewer
systems to treatment facilities or to another interceptor.
7) Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) (Category V)
A discharge of a mixture of stormwater and domestic wastes that
occurs when the flow capacity of a sewer system is exceeded
during a rainstorm. Costs reported are for facilities to prevent
or control periodic bypassing of untreated wastes from sewers
that convey a combination of wastewater and stormwater to
achieve water quality objectives. This category does not include
costs for overflow control allocable to flood control or drainage
improvement, or for treatment or control of stormwater in
separate storm and drainage systems.
Collector Sewers
See Categories of Needs, Category IVA.
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)
See Categories of Needs, Category V.
Conveyance Needs
The cost estimate to construct, expand, or upgrade sewer systems for
transporting wastewater to treatment plants.
Current Needs
The cost estimate for building publicly owned wastewater treatment
facilities to serve the existing population eligible for Federal financial
assistance under the Clean Water Act.
Design Year Needs
The cost estimate for building publicly owned wastewater treatment
facilities to serve the design year population eligible for Federal financial
assistance under the Clean Water Act. The design year represents an
approximate 20-year projection of the design life for facilities in the
Needs Survey. Design year needs include current needs as a subset.
Facilities Plans
Plans and studies that directly relate to the construction of treatment
works necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act. A facilities plan
investigates needs and provides information on the cost effectiveness of
alternatives. A recommended plan and an environmental assessment of
the recommendations are also presented in a facilities plan.
A facilities plan includes a description of the treatment works for which
construction drawings and specifications are to be prepared. The
description includes preliminary engineering data, cost estimates for
design and construction of the treatment works, and a schedule for
completion of design and construction.
Honey Bucket Haul System
Any one of a variety of basic "sewer systems" widely used in Alaska Native
Villages where a bucket serves as a toilet in a house without plumbing.
Plastic garbage bags are used as a liner for the bucket. Disposal methods
28
-------
for contents of the bags may include: hand carrying filled bags to a
bunker, tundra pond, lagoon, or landfill site for disposal; or transporting
wastes by vehicle from centrally located honey bucket collection
containers to a tundra pond or lagoon.
Indian Needs
The cost estimate for constructing wastewater treatment, collection, and
disposal facilities for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages.
Indian Tribe
Any Indian tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the Secretary
of the Interior and exercising governmental authority over a Federal
Indian reservation, as defined by section 518(h) (2) of the Clean Water
Act. This includes Tribes that currently reside on former reservation
lands in Oklahoma and Alaska Native Villages, as amended by the Indian
Reorganization Act (P.L. 100-581) in November 1988.
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
See Categories of Needs, Category IIIA.
Interceptor Sewers
See Categories of Needs, Category IVB.
Lagoon
A pond in which algae, sunlight, and oxygen interact to restore wastewater
to a quality that is often equal to the effluent from the secondary
treatment stage. Lagoons are widely used by small communities to
provide wastewater treatment.
Need
The cost estimate for constructing publicly owned wastewater treatment
facilities that are potentially eligible for Federal financial assistance under
the Clean Water Act.
Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities
Documented cost estimates for the seven categories of needs for publicly
owned wastewater treatment facilities. These needs were derived by
adjusting the 1988 documented needs estimates for grants and loans
awarded between 1988 and 1990 and inflating the costs to January 1990
dollars. These needs are limited to the costs eligible for Federal financial
assistance under Title II of the Clean Water Act.
New State Revolving Fund Eligibilities
The 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act allow State Revolving
Funds (SRF) to fund certain activities that were ineligible under the
Construction Grants program. These new eligibilities include certain
nonpoint source pollution control, ground-water protection, estuarine
protection, and wetlands protection activities.
1) Estuarine Protection
Activities necessary to develop and implement Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans for protecting estuaries
under the National Estuary Program and eligible for SRF
29
-------
^%|-^_ _^—_ _ funding. Estuarine protection activities focus on restoru^
^3 HJ O v OI y maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of ti
estuary, and controlling nonpoint sources of pollution.
2) Ground-Water Protection
Activities addressed in a State's ground-water protection strategy
which must be a part of the nonpoint source management
program under Section 319(i) of the Clean Water Act to build
State institutional capabilities to protect ground-water resources
from nonpoint sources of contamination. Activities include
research, planning, ground-water assessments, demonstrations,
enforcement, technical assistance, education, and training.
Wellhead protection and underground injection control for Class
V wells, as well as water conservation programs, may be
included.
3) Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Activities to develop and implement an EPA-approved State
nonpoint source management program. Nonpoint source
pollution does not result from a discharge at a specific, single
location (such as a single pipe) but normally results from land
runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition or percolation. This
may include needs for stormwater runoff, but not if ultimately
discharged via a separate storm sewer. Also, needs for nonpoint
source pollution control do not include costs that have been
distributed in the categories for ground-water, estuaries, and
wetlands.
4) Stormwater Control
Activities to plan and implement municipal stormwater
management programs pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems. This includes structural
and non-structural measures that: 1) reduce pollutants from
runoff from commercial and residential areas that are discharged
from the storm sewer, 2) detect and remove illicit discharges and
improper disposal into storm sewers, 3) monitor pollutants in
runoff from industrial facilities that discharge to municipal
separate storm sewers, and 4) reduce pollutants in construction
site runoff that discharge to municipal separate storm sewers.
This includes the control of stormwater pollution from diffuse or
nonpoint sources that are ultimately discharged via a storm
sewer.
5) Wetlands Protection
Activities to protect and restore wetlands that are an integral
part of a nonpoint source management program or part of
implementation or development of comprehensive estuary
conservation and management plans.
Primary Treatment
The first stage of wastewater treatment, including removal of floating
debris and solids by screening and sedimentation.
30
-------
f\ I _ _ _ r^ Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers
\J IOSS9 ly See Categories of Needs, Category IIIB.
Reserve Capacity
Extra treatment capacity built into treatment plants and interceptor
sewers to accommodate flow increases due to future population growth.
Secondary Treatment
See Categories of Needs, Category I.
Separate State Estimates
Needs that were not included in the 1988 EPA estimates because these
needs were justified with documents outside the EPA-established
documentation criteria or had no written documentation.
State Revolving Fund
Revolving funds are financial institutions that make loans for specific
water pollution control purposes and use loan repayments, including
interest, to make new loans for additional water pollution control
activities. Under the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, States and
municipalities will be primarily responsible for financing, constructing, and
managing wastewater treatment facilities. The SRF program is based on
the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act which called for a phase-
out of the Construction Grants program and the initiation of the SRF
program.
Supplemental State Estimates
Cost estimates that supplement the EPA's estimate of needs for the
traditional eligibilities. These estimates include costs that are now eligible
for funding under the State Revolving Fund program under Title VI of
the Clean Water Act such as costs for reserve capacity, revised planning
and/or design, and new needs.
Treatment Facility
A structure constructed to treat wastewater prior to discharging to the
environment. Treatment is accomplished by subjecting the wastewater to
a combination of physical, chemical, and/or biological processes that
reduce the concentration of contaminants in the wastewater.
Wastewater
Dissolved or suspended waterborne waste material. Sanitary or domestic
wastewater refers to liquid material collected from residences, offices, and
institutions. Municipal wastewater is a general term applied to any liquid
treated in a municipal treatment facility. Industrial wastes refer to
wastewater from manufacturing facilities.
Wastewater Infrastructure
The plan or network for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage
in a community. The level of treatment will depend upon the size of the
community, the type of discharge, and/or the designated use of the
receiving water.
31
-------
Appendices
These Appendices contain lists of documentation types and
State and national summaries of various cost data. Appendix
A contains a summary of the types of documentation used for
the 1988 and 1990 Needs Surveys. Appendix B presents cost
data from the 1990 Needs Survey, including summaries by State
of Current and Design Year Needs for the Traditional
Eligibilities, Supplemental State Estimates, and the combined
totals. Appendix C contains a summary of the 1988 needs
estimates by State.
33
-------
List of Appendix
Tables
Page
Appendix A: Summary of 1988 and 1990 Needs Survey
Documentation
A-l Documentation Types for Supplemental A-3
State Estimates (1990 Needs Survey)
A-2 Documentation Types (1988 Needs Survey) A-5
Appendix B: Summary of 1990 Needs Survey Estimates
B-l Total for the Traditional Eligibilities B-3
and the Supplemental State Estimates
B-2 Current Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities B-5
B-3 Design Year Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities B-7
B-4 Design Year Supplemental State Estimates B-9
Appendix C: Summary of 1988 Needs Survey Estimates
C-l Current Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities C-3
C-2 Design Year Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities C-5
35
-------
Appendix A: Summary of 1988 and 1990
Needs Survey Documentation
A-l
-------
Table A-l
1990 Needs Survey
Documentation Types for Supplemental State Estimates
Table A-l lists the 27 suggested documentation types for reporting a need as a
Supplemental State Estimate in the 1990 Needs Survey. The suggested documentation types
expand upon documentation used in the 1988 Survey, and address needs eligible under the
State Revolving Fund program.
A-2
-------
Table A-l
1990 Needs Survey
Documentation Types for Supplemental State Estimates
Documentation Type
1. Capital Improvement Plan
2. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Analysis
3. Sewer System Evaluation Survey
4. Final Engineer Estimate
5. Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
6. Facilities Plan
7. Plan of Study
8.* State Priority List/Intended Use Plan
9. State-Approved Area-Wide or Regional Basin Plan with Project-Specific Information
(Examples: Plans Required by Sections 208 or 303 of the CWA)
10.* Grant or Loan Application Form
11. Municipal Compliance Plan
12. Diagnostic Evaluation Results of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Demonstrating Need
for Construction
13. Administrative Order/Court Order/Consent Decree Demonstrating Need to Construct
14. Sanitary Survey (documenting high failure rates)
15. State-Approved Local/County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan with Project-Specific
Information
16. State Certification of Excessive Flow (Preliminary I/I Study)
17. State-Approved Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan with Project-Specific Information
18. For EPA Use Only
19. Full Grant Award
20. Partial Grant Award
21.* NPDES or State Permit Requiring Corrective Action (with schedule)
22.* Municipal Stormwater Management Plan
23.* Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Assessment Report
24.* Ground-Water Protection Strategy/NPS Report
25.* Wellhead Protection Program and Plan
26.* Delegated Underground Injection Control Program and Plan
27.* Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
* Indicates minimal documentation for SRF eligibilities as recommended by 1990 Needs Survey workgroup.
A-3
-------
Table A-2
1988 Needs Survey
Documentation Types
Table A-2 lists the 17 acceptable criteria for documenting a problem or a cost estimate in
the 1988 Needs Survey. These same documentation types were used for the 1986 Survey.
A-4
-------
Table A-2
1988 Needs Survey
Documentation Types
Documentation Type
1. Capital Improvement Plan
2. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Analysis
3. Sewer System Evaluation Survey
4. Final Engineer Estimate
5. Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
6. Facilities Plan
7. Plan of Study
8. State Priority List
9. State-Approved Area-Wide or Regional Basin Plan with Project-Specific Information
(Examples: Plans Required by Sections 208 and 303 of the CWA)
10. Grant Application Form (Step 3 or 4)
11. Municipal Compliance Plan
12. Diagnostic Evaluation Results of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Demonstrating Need
for Construction
13. Administrative Order/Court Order/Consent Decree
14. Sanitary Survey (documenting high failure rates)
15. State-Approved Local/County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan with Project-Specific
Information
16. State Certification of Excessive Flow (Preliminary I/I Study)
17. State-Approved Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan with Project-Specific Information
18. For EPA Use Only
19. Full Grant Award
20. Partial Grant Award
A-5
-------
Appendix B: Summary of 1990 Needs Survey
Estimates
B-l
-------
Table B-l
1990 Needs Survey
Total for the Traditional Eligibilities and the Supplemental State Estimates
Table B-l summarizes the cost estimates for the traditional eligibilities and the supplemental
estimates presented by the States. The estimates reflect the sum of Tables B-3 and B-4.
B-2
-------
Table B-l
1990 Needs Survey
Total for the Traditional Eligibilities and the Supplemental State Estimates
(January 1990 Dollars in Millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Northern Marianas
Puerto Rico
Republic of Palau
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
I
280
71
601
289
7798
60
556
18
103
2384
303
995
75
571
262
172
195
269
473
119
224
2590
832
601
202
404
52
69
442
137
2056
41
3703
417
7
863
172
479
606
70
368
46
880
2204
401
88
779
1045
572
531
16
4
31
25
59
21
636
15
10
37292
II
146
0
85
90
127
43
1291
2
186
820
368
4
9
344
150
500
101
88
33
1
917
22
9
34
76
24
2
2
137
25
202
0*
1988
1014
0
418
103
150
115
29
86
3
108
715
67
54
306
24
52
199
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
11274
Category of Design
IIIA IIIB
96
5
2
138
526
2
26
0
0
44
45
0
12
87
58
49
70
78
61
26
124
42
74
35
63
10
0
2
2
23
245
1
198
110
0
320
13
108
17
15
26
5
194
246
40
1
96
136
29
47
1
0
0*
0
0
0
38
0
0'
3586
24
0
3
102
826
7
17
0
0
25
42
0
3
60
30
1
53
12
35
7
3
19
40
40
2
283
1
16
4
12
336
16
1514
76
4
102
12
196
6
14
0
6
23
110
4
4
38
83
28
1
2
0
0
0
0*
0*
15
0
0
4257
Year Need
IVA
248
20
52
152
514
3
346
37
-------
Table B-2
1990 Needs Survey
Current Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities
Table B-2 summarizes the EPA 1990 cost estimates of needs for the traditional eligibilities
(Categories I through V) by State for the current population. All values are given in
millions of January 1990 dollars.
The current needs represent the capital investment necessary to build all needed publicly
owned wastewater treatment facilities to serve the current population and meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. These needs include all planning, design, and
construction activities eligible for Federal financial assistance under Title n of the Clean
Water Act. These needs are derived from the current needs documented in the 1988 Needs
Survey and do not contain an allowance for future population growth and migration.
Needs estimates presented in Table B-2 may vary slightly from those presented in Table 1
and 2 due to rounding.
B-4
-------
Table B-2
1990 Needs Survey
Current Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities
(January 1990 Dollars in Millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Northern Marianas
Puerto Rico
Republic of Palau
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
I
137
33
284
87
2526
42
261
13
99
839
152
66
14
342
118
135
124
134
330
96
138
2510
746
222
150
214
11
45
54
72
1296
40
1805
254
7
491
59
200
542
17
100
29
266
1268
170
65
194
785
263
169
4
2
16
18
54
11
346
10
7
18482
II
57
0
85
16
26
39
96
2
186
234
82
3
3
273
74
20
2
47
23
1
348
15
5
28
52
0
2
2
17
7
67
0*
181
144
0
315
69
127
98
4
20
3
74
425
33
29
44
19
21
136
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
3559
Category of Design Year Need
HIA IIIB IVA
89
5
2
55
297
2
26
0
0
42
45
0
5
82
46
49
70
81
61
26
32
42
68
17
60
7
0
1
2
9
244
1
171
91
0
284
13
42
17
0*
22
2
161
229
40
1
30
135
23
51
1
0
0*
0
0
0
39
0
0«
2818
19
0
3
1
678
7
17
0«
0
25
25
0
2
41
10
1
53
12
35
7
0«
19
25
1
2
72
1
8
3
5
330
16
1640
46
4
63
12
153
6
0
0
1
10
81
4
4
10
83
16
0
1
0
0
0
0«
0«
15
0
0
3567
112
20
45
28
320
3
299
24
0
2226
54
90
12
95
162
37
42
562
249
50
32
576
392
25
62
40
15
8
12
217
295
8
1227
308
0
556
31
307
507
79
53
8
193
283
17
16
118
213
311
120
0«
5
3
2
10
3
370
0
8
10860
IVB
75
38
113
23
376
28
170
11
0
607
154
45
8
246
100
107
170
273
178
30
59
555
563
30
70
228
2
10
8
124
135
15
868
322
4
736
84
57
130
64
79
12
91
1050
18
17
118
299
163
101
0
2
2
4
3
8
343
0
3
9129
V
0
0
0
0
1082
0
402
1
0
0
83
0
1
1453
982
5
15
24
0
21
9
1783
1166
122
0
145
0
21
0
241
823
0
5962
1
0
589
0
102
118
197
0
2
10
0
0
77
214
579
14
221
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
16487
TOTAL
489
96
532
210
5305
121
1271
51
285
3973
595
204
45
2532
1492
354
476
1133
876
231
618
5500
2965
445
396
706
31
95
96
675
3190
80
11854
1166
15
3034
268
988
1418
361
274
57
805
3336
282
209
728
2113
811
798
6
9
21
24
67
22
1140
10
18
64902
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
B-5
-------
Table B-3
1990 Needs Survey
Design Year Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities
Table B-3 summarizes the EPA 1990 cost estimates of needs for the traditional eligibilities
(Categories I through V) by State for the design year population. All values are given in
millions of January 1990 dollars.
The 1990 design year needs represent the capital investment necessary to build all publicly
owned wastewater treatment facilities to serve the design year population and meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. These needs include all planning, design, and
construction activities eligible for funding under Title II of the Clean Water Act. The
design year needs are derived from those documented during the 1988 Needs Survey.
Needs estimates presented in Table B-3 may vary slightly from those presented in Tables
1, 2, and 3 due to rounding.
B-6
-------
Table B-3
1990 Needs Survey
Design Year Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities
(January 1990 Dollars in Millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Northern Marianas
Puerto Rico
Republic of Palau
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
I
186
71
601
135
3386
60
275
18
103
1915
278
119
36
459
152
160
194
181
473
119
152
2570
787
360
199
291
13
60
83
94
1522
41
1884
402
7
627
172
376
606
37
140
31
366
2112
401
66
278
977
300
223
4
4
31
25
59
21
603
15
10
24870
II
77
0
85
21
81
43
119
2
186
450
119
4
9
295
84
23
3
57
33
1
360
22
6
32
63
0
4
2
38
10
80
0"
206
184
0
350
103
136
115
4
28
3
108
691
67
30
83
24
23
193
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
4662
IIIA
89
5
2
55
297
2
26
0
0
42
45
0
5
82
46
49
70
81
61
26
32
42
68
17
60
7
0
1
2
9
244
1
171
91
0
284
13
42
17
0
22
2
161
229
40
1
30
135
23
51
1
0
0«
0
0
0
39
0
0*
2818
Category of Need
IIIB IVA
19
0
3
1
678
7
17
0*
0
25
25
0
2
41
10
1
53
12
35
7
0*
19
25
1
2
72
1
8
3
5
330
16
1640
46
4
63
12
153
6
0
0
1
10
81
4
4
10
83
16
0
1
0
0
0
0*
0*
15
0
0
3567
147
20
52
38
376
3
346
37
0
2481
80
137
17
112
229
41
46
693
330
76
35
738
464
26
82
47
18
9
18
270
376
32
2021
442
0
664
31
343
610
94
65
9
261
362
23
19
141
308
357
158
0
11
8
2
15
5
469
0
8
13802
IVB
177
104
232
34
728
40
201
24
0
1317
346
105
18
292
120
195
341
437
257
34
77
716
635
46
115
391
3
12
20
188
168
28
1050
603
5
878
133
133
151
72
144
14
384
1588
46
17
164
563
192
114
0
3
4
7
5
15
447
1
9
14143
V
0
0
0
0
1082
0
402
1
0
0
83
0
1
1453
982
5
15
24
0
21
9
1783
1166
122
0
145
0
21
0
241
823
0
5962
1
0
589
0
102
118
197
0
2
10
0
0
77
214
579
14
221
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
16487
TOTAL
695
200
975
284
6628
155
1386
82
289
6230
976
365
88
2734
1623
474
722
1485
1189
284
665
5890
3151
604
521
953
39
113
164
817
3543
118
12934
1769
16
3455
464
1285
1623
404
399
62
1300
5063
581
214
920
2669
925
960
6
18
43
34
79
41
1600
16
27
80349
' Estimate is less than $05 million.
B-7
-------
Table B-4
1990 Needs Survey
Design Year Supplemental State Estimates
Table B-4 summarizes the States' supplemental estimates of incremental needs for the
traditional eligibilities (Categories I through V) for the design year population. All values
are given in millions of January 1990 dollars.
The supplemental State estimates represent needs which are in addition to the needs for the
traditional eligibilities. These estimates include planning, design, and construction activities
eligible for Federal financial assistance under Title II (Construction grants) and Title VI
(the State Revolving Fund) of the Clean Water Act. These design year estimates address
funds necessary to provide wastewater treatment facilities for the current population, plus
population growth and migration for the next 20 years.
Needs presented in Table B-4 may vary slightly from those presented in Tables 1 and 4 due
to rounding.
B-8
-------
Table B-4
1990 Needs Survey
Design Year Supplemental State Estimates
(January 1990 Dollars in Millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Northern Marianas
Puerto Rico
Republic of Palau
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
I
94
0
0
154
4412
0
281
0
0
469
25
876
39
112
110
12
1
88
0
0'
72
20
45
241
3
113
39
9
359
43
534
0
1819
15
0
236
0
103
0
33
228
15
514
92
0
22
501
68
272
308
12
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
12422
n
69
0
0
69
46
0
1172
0
0
370
249
0
0
49
66
477
98
31
0
0
557
0
3
2
13
24
(2)
0
99
15
122
0
1782
830
0
68
0
14
0
25
58
0
0*
24
0
24
223
0*
29
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6612
IIIA
7
0
0
83
229
0
0
0
0
2
0*
0
7
5
12
0
0*
(3)
0
0
92
0
6
18
3
3
0
1
0*
14
1
0
27
19
0
36
0
66
0
15
4
3
33
17
0
0*
66
1
6
(4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1)
0
0
768
Category of Need
IIIB IVA
5
0
0
101
148
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
1
19
20
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
15
39
0
211
0*
8
1
7
6
0
(126)
30
0
39
0
43
0
14
0
5
13
29
0
0
28
0*
12
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
690
101
0
0
114
138
0
0
0
0
261
17
30
45
30
27
2
0
86
0
0'
179
0
66
89
6
81
21
(5)
4
24
52
0
497
103
0
173
0
55
0
16
30
6
50
110
0
17
132
3
527
71
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
3170
IVB
50
0
0
101
66
0
0
0
0
187
58
75
57
53
34
0«
0
86
0
4
219
0
14
38
2
61
17
4
50
19
107
0
383
292
0
244
0
51
0
5
55
(4)
22
260
0
1
118
31
273
222
1
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
0
3299
V
0
0
0
2
594
0
0
0
73
2
121
0
0
88
17
0
0
8
0
793
6
0
242
49
0
24
0
0
0
32
326
0
405
0
0
87
0
13
0
33
0
0
220
0
0
(16)
255
3
7
(148)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(3)
0
0
3233
TOTAL
326
0
0
625
5633
0
1453
0
73
1291
487
981
149
356
286
491
99
296
0
797
1128
20
391
476
27
517
75
17
513
154
1148
0
4787
1289
0
883
0
345
0
141
375
25
852
532
0
48
1323
106
1126
456
15
0
0
0
0
0
82
0
0
30194
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
B-9
-------
Appendix C: Summary of 1988 Needs Survey
Estimates
C-l
-------
Table C-l
1988 Needs Survey
Current Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities
Table C-l summarizes the results of EPA's 1988 Needs Survey for the current population. All
values are given in millions of January 1990 dollars. This table is provided as a convenience
to those who wish to compare the 1988 and 1990 Survey results. Table C-l may be compared
with Table B-2.
C-2
-------
Table C-l
1988 Needs Survey
Current Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities
(January 1990 Dollars in Millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Northern Marianas
Puerto Rico
Republic of Palau
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
I
175
48
309
123
2571
58
280
41
99
943
176
100
29
376
191
230
127
143
334
131
174
2565
825
334
162
442
18
52
57
108
1435
56
1906
275
16
600
80
219
593
17
175
52
353
1324
180
65
235
900
287
533
8
4
16
18
55
11
353
10
7
21004
II
69
0
85
21
27
69
106
2
186
262
93
3
3
273
106
53
2
52
23
1
411
15
29
53
53
1
2
2
23
7
174
0*
181
191
0
330
76
128
101
4
24
3
76
432
33
29
47
19
22
147
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
4054
IIIA
96
5
2
58
373
2
26
0
0
44
46
0
5
84
50
52
86
81
62
26
41
42
71
20
66
11
o-
1
2
9
249
1
171
91
0
289
13
46
17
0
22
3
162
255
40
1
31
135
23
58
1
0
0*
0
0
0
39
0
0*
3008
Category
IIIB
19
0
3
4
679
7
17
0*
0
25
27
0
3
41
10
2
58
12
35
11
0*
19
27
173
2
73
10
8
3
5
332
16
1647
47
11
63
12
153
9
V
0
2
19
83
4
4
10
83
18
3
2
0
0
0
0*
0*
15
0
0
3806
of Need
IVA
121
20
49
32
354
4
299
27
0
2236
59
96
16
95
198
40
44
566
255
60
51
597
400
27
64
56
20
8
12
218
313
8
1232
313
0
587
31
308
520
79
79
10
221
290
25
17
125
215
347
137
1
5
3
2
10
4
395
0
8
11309
IVB
89
39
117
30
382
29
182
14
0
631
157
46
10
247
108
149
171
274
180
49
213
642
724
103
78
262
10
11
8
149
159
15
1023
342
7
789
84
60
133
64
159
12
96
1056
21
17
123
299
175
145
5
2
2
4
4
11
362
1
3
10277
V
0
0
0
0
1082
0
407
1
0
2
83
0
1
1758
982
5
15
24
0
21
9
1783
1174
227
0
149
0«
21
0
241
823
0
5992
1
0
608
0
106
124
215
0
2
10
0
0
77
214
579
14
231
0
0
2
0
0
0
22
0
0
17005
Total
569
112
565
268
5468
169
1317
85
285
4143
641
245
67
2874
1645
531
503
1152
889
299
899
5663
3250
937
425
994
60
103
105
737
3485
96
12152
1260
34
3266
296
1020
1497
379
459
84
937
3440
303
210
785
2230
886
1254
17
11
21
24
69
26
1191
11
18
70463
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
C-3
-------
Table C-2
1988 Needs Survey
Design Year Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities
Table C-2 summarizes the results of EPA's 1988 Needs Survey for the design year population.
All values are given in millions of January 1990 dollars. This table is provided as a convenience
to those who wish to compare the 1988 and 1990 Survey results. Table C-2 may be compared
with Table B-3.
Needs presented in Table C-2 may vary slightly from those presented in Table 3 due to
rounding.
C-4
-------
Table C-2
1988 Needs Survey
Design Year Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities
(January 1990 Dollars in Millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Northern Marianas
Puerto Rico
Republic of Palau
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
I
242
98
635
197
3438
78
305
50
103
2039
319
177
67
494
233
267
198
193
493
155
190
2627
878
506
226
535
22
67
87
135
1697
57
1985
424
18
754
195
401
664
38
271
56
498
2173
413
67
328
1096
327
605
9
6
31
25
60
21
610
15
10
27908
II
96
0
85
27
82
72
133
2
186
485
134
4
9
295
118
57
3
62
33
1
424
35
32
67
67
1
5
2
43
10
207
0*
206
232
0
374
109
137
117
4
34
3
109
699
67
30
87
24
24
206
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5244
IIIA
96
5
2
58
373
2
26
0
0
44
46
0
5
84
50
52
86
81
62
26
41
42
71
20
66
11
0
1
2
9
249
1
171
91
0
289
13
46
17
0*
22
3
162
255
40
1
31
135
23
58
1
0
0*
0
0
0
39
0
0*
3008
Category of Need
IIIB IVA
19
0
3
4
679
7
17
0
0
25
27
0
3
41
10
2
58
12
35
11
0
19
27
173
2
73
10
8
3
5
332
16
1647
47
11
63
12
153
9
0
0
2
19
83
4
4
10
83
18
3
2
0
0
0
0*
o-
15
0
0
3806
158
20
57
48
413
4
346
45
0
2493
85
143
23
112
269
44
48
697
336
87
58
760
474
29
84
70
24
9
18
271
400
32
2026
449
0
699
31
345
623
94
103
10
291
371
32
20
152
311
402
187
2
11
8
2
15
6
495
0
8
14350
IVB
202
108
237
52
734
41
214
34
0
1346
352
106
21
292
128
245
341
445
279
54
232
803
797
128
124
434
13
12
20
218
195
28
1206
627
7
936
134
136
155
72
283
14
438
1594
49
17
172
564
207
166
5
3
4
7
6
25
470
1
9
15542
V
0
0
0
0
1082
0
407
1
0
2
83
0
1
1758
982
5
15
24
0
21
9
1783
1174
227
0
149
0'
21
0
241
823
0
5992
1
0
608
0
106
124
215
0
2
10
0
0
77
214
579
14
231
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
17003
Total
813
231
1019
386
6801
204
1448
132
289
6434
1046
430
129
3076
1790
672
749
1514
1238
355
954
6069
3453
1150
569
1273
74
120
173
889
3903
134
13233
1871
36
3723
494
1324
1709
423
713
90
1527
5175
605
216
994
2792
1015
1456
19
20
43
34
81
52
1656
16
27
86861
1 Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
C-5
------- |