STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF)
   FINAL REPORT TO CONGRESS

Financial Status and Operations of Water Pollution
          Control Revolving Funds
              December 1990
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Municipal Pollution Control (WH-546)
           Washington, DC 20460
            TeL (202) 245-4059

  Prepared Under Contract Number 68-C8-0023

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                        Page


SECTION ONE        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                          1-1

       1.1    Background                                                 1-1

       1.2    Status of SRF Program Implementation                         1-1

       1.3    Construction Needs of Wastewater Treatment                   1-2
             Projects

       1.4    Total Funds Available in SRFs and Other                      1-2
             Programs

       1.5    Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Needs                    1-3
             to Funds Available

       1.6    SRF Program Operations                                     1-3

       1.7    Administration of State SRF Programs                          1-4

       1.8    Impact of the SRF Program on User Fees                      1-5

       1.9    Impact of the SRF Program on Treatment                      1-5
             Plant Efficiency

       1.10   Advantages of the SRF Program                               1-6

       1.11   Issues Associated with SRF Implementation                     1-6

How Final Report Findings Differ from Interim Report  Findings                1-8


SECTION TWO        INTRODUCTION                                  2-1

       2.1    Program Background                                         2-1

       2.2    Purpose of the Report to Congress                             2-1

       2.3    Scope and Organization  of This Report                         2-2

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
SECTION TWO       (cont.)

      2.4   Status of Nationwide Implementation                        2-3

      2.5   Federal Funding                                        2-6


SECTION THREE     CONSTRUCTION NEEDS OF STATES FOR       3-1
                     COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT

      3.1   Compliance Related Needs                                3-1

      3.2   Additional SRF Eligible Needs                             3-5
SECTION FOUR      AVAILABILITY OF SRF AND OTHER            4-1
                     FUNDING FOR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS

      4.1   Availability of Funding from All Sources                     4-1

      4.2   Availability of SRF and Other State Program                 4-4
            Funding

      4.3   Current and Anticipated Uses of SRF Assistance              4-7
SECTION FIVE      COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT  5-1
                    NEEDS TO AVAILABLE FUNDS
SECTION SIX        SRF PROGRAM OPERATIONS                  6-1

      6.1   Structure of State SRF Programs                            6-1

      6.2   Special Programs for Small and/or Economically                6-7
           Distressed Communities

      6.3   Ensuring the Viability of the SRF Programs                   6-7
                                       u

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
SECTION SEVEN     ADMINISTRATION OF SRF PROGRAMS         7-1

      7.1   Agencies and Personnel Involved With SRF                   7-1
           Program Administration

      7.2   Costs Associated With SRF Program Administration             7-3
SECTION EIGHT     POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM    8-1
                    ON COMMUNITY USER FEES

      8.1   Scope of the Analysis                                     8-1

      8.2   Methodology                                            8-2

      8.3   Comparison of User Fees Under SRF and Construction          8-4
           Grants Programs

      8.4   Impact of SRF Loan Interest Rate on Level of Subsidy          8-4

      8.5   Summary of Key Findings                                  8-6
SECTION NINE      POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM    9-1
                    ON FACILITY OPERATIONS

      9.1   Anticipated Changes in Sizing, Design and Operation            9-1
           and Maintenance Costs of New Facilities
SECTION TEN       ADVANTAGES OF THE SRF PROGRAM         10-1

      10.1  Federal Government                                      10-1

      10.2  The States                                              10-1

      10.3  Communities                                            10-2
SECTION ELEVEN   ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SRF                 11-1
                    IMPLEMENTATION
                                      m

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
                                                                     Page
APPENDICES

      APPENDIX A  SRF Report to Congress Workgroup Members        A-l

      APPENDDC B  Needs Associated with New SRF Program            B-l
                     Funding Eligibilities and New
                     Enforceable Requirements

      APPENDDC C  Funds Available From SRF and Other State           C-l
                     Programs by State

      APPENDDC D  Total Federal and State Funds Available by State      D-l

      APPENDDC E  Distribution of Available Funds by Types of           E-l
                     Assistance by State

      APPENDDC F  User Fee Calculation Model                        F-l
                                        IV

-------
                                    LIST OF TABLES
                                                                            age
2-1    States with Approved SRF Programs in Order of First                   2-4
       SRF Grant Award Date

2-2    Federal Funding of SRFs                                             2-7

3-1    Construction Needs for Facilities in Significant Noncompliance           3-2

3-2    Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Needs          3-6

4-1    Federal and State Funding for Wastewater Projects                     4-2
       Aggregated for  Forty-six States

4-2    Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State                          4-5
       Funding Aggregated for Forty-six States

4-3    Planned Uses of SRF Assistance Aggregated for                        4-8
       Forty-six  States

5-1    Comparison of SNC Needs  to Federal and State                        5-2
       Funds Available for Forty-six States

5-2    Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater                5-5
       Treatment and Conveyance  Needs, Federal and State Funds
       Available, and Funds Needed for Forty-six States

6-1    Types of SRF Assistance and Administrative Costs Aggregated           6-3
       for Forty-six States

6-2    SRF Loan Structures of Forty-seven Responding States                  6-4

7-1    Employment in  Administration and Operation of SRFs                   7-2
       in Forty-five States

7-2    Comparison of Estimated SRF Administrative Costs and                 7-4
       Administrative Expense Allowances for Forty-four States

8-1    User Charge Variables, Standard Values, and Range                    8-3

8-2    Annual Household Wastewater Treatment Costs: Comparison           8-5
       of State Revolving Fund and Construction Grants Financing

8-3    SRF Interest  Rate and Construction Grant Equivalent                   8-6

-------
                                    LIST OF TABLES
                                                                           age
C-l    Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding by State         C-l




D-l    Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State         D-l




E-l    Types of SRF Assistance by State                                    E-l
                                           VI

-------
                                   LIST OF FIGURES
3-1     SRF-Eligible Funding Needs of All States:                             3-8
       Documented and Undocumented

4-1     Total Federal and State Funding Available for Wastewater              4-3
       Projects Aggregated for Forty-six States

4-2     Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding                 4-6
       Aggregated for Forty-six States
                                           Vll

-------
                                     SECTION ONE
                                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1     Background

       This Report to Congress describes the financial status and operations of State Revolving
Funds (SRFs) established pursuant to Title VI of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by
the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4).  As funding under the CWA Title n construction
grants program  is phased out, SRFs have become one of the principal funding sources for
wastewater treatment facilities, collection systems, and other water quality projects  in most
States.

       This report updates information contained in the Interim SRF Report to Congress.
Both reports address the informational requirements of Section 516(g) of the CWA.   (Section
516(g) is summarized on page 2-1 of this report.)  The interim report provided a national-level
overview of program implementation, and detailed information for nine States (Connecticut,
Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and  Virginia).
This report provides specific information, as of late 1990, for nearly^all States and  presents  an
updated overview of SRF program implementation at the national level.

       The State specific information contained in this report is based on responses  to an EPA
questionnaire that was mailed to  all States.  Forty-seven States submitted responses to the
questionnaire.  Of these, forty-six provided quantitative data on available funding, and all forty-
seven provided descriptive information about their SRF programs.
1.2    Status of SRF Program Implementation

       As of September 30, 1990, all fifty States and Puerto Rico had established SRF
programs and received capitalization grants from EPA.  Twenty-seven States had received two
grants, twelve had received three grants, and two States had received four grants. A total of
$2.8 billion in Federal funds had been awarded to these programs.  Nationwide as of September
30, 1990, SRFs  had entered into approximately 400 binding commitments to provide assistance
for construction of wastewater treatment projects as well as for several nonpoint source
activities.

       With capitalization of SRFs well under way, the current emphasis in implementing the
program is on assuring that the State programs are viable and well managed. Many of the
States with straightforward loan programs are exploring leveraging and other more sophisticated
financing techniques for possible modifications of their programs in future years. Using
program guidance developed by the Agency to assist in the conduct of annual reviews, EPA
Regional Offices have performed reviews of many SRFs.  While the findings of these reviews
are generally positive, a number of minor operational problems have been reported.  The
                                           1-1

-------
Regional Offices are continually working with the States to improve program management on
both the Federal and State levels.
1.3    Construction Needs of Wastewater Treatment Projects

       Section 516(g) of the Act requires EPA to identity facilities in significant noncompliance
(SNC) with the Act and to develop estimates of the construction costs of bringing those
facilities  into compliance.  For the  purposes of this report, EPA developed a definition  of
"significant noncompliance" which is modified  from the definition used in the enforcement
program (see Section 3.1).  EPA identified a total of 4,909 facilities nationwide which met the
definition used in this report.  The cost of construction necessary to bring these facilities back
into compliance is estimated to be  $12.3 billion.

       The above estimate of compliance-related construction needs, while responsive to the
statutory wording, does not include wastewater treatment and collection costs for facilities
currently in compliance, but which  have major wastewater funding needs as documented in the
1988 Needs Survey.1  If all documented funding requirements in Categories I through V of the
1988 Needs Survey are included, a  total of $83.0 billion will be needed to construct SRF-
eligible projects.2  Additionally, the SNC estimate does not include costs associated with new
funding eligibilities, replacement needs, and new enforceable requirements of the 1987 CWA
Amendments.   These water quality  activities, programs, and requirements, which include
nonpoint source control, sludge disposal, estuary protection, and storm sewer projects, will add
significantly to  SRF-eligible costs.  Documented estimates of the funding needs for these
activities, however, are not available.
1.4    Total Funds Available in SRFs and Other Programs

       Based on data provided by forty-six States, Federal and State funds totaling
approximately $28.6 billion will be available from 1988 to  1999 to meet SRF-eligible needs.
This total includes Federal and State contributions to SRFs, EPA construction grants, other
    1The Needs Survey is a biennial assessment of the cost of wastewater treatment and
collection systems required to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act.  The survey divides
community wastewater treatment and collection needs into five categories.

       Category I       =   Secondary Treatment
       Category n       =   Advanced Treatment
       Category IDA    =   Infiltration/Inflow Correction
       Category TTTR    =   Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers
       Category IVA    =   New Collector Sewers
       Category IVB    =   New Interceptor Sewers
       Category V       =   Combined Sewer  Overflows  (CSO)

    Includes documented needs for 50 States and Puerto Rico.

                                            1-2

-------
(non-EPA) Federal grant and loan programs, other State grant and loan programs,  and
repayments on SRF loans by local recipients.

       Of the $28.6 billion in Federal and State funding for SRF-eligible needs in the forty-six
States from  1988 to 1999, $23.7 billion will be administered through State programs.  Of this,
$17.0 billion will be available through the States' SRFs. Between 1990 and 1995, the amount of
SRF funding available annually in the forty-six States is projected by State  officials  to decrease
by about 40 percent.  State funding in general does  not appear to be increasing sufficiently to
offset the phase out of Federal SRF monies. Only fifteen of the forty-six States project further
capitalization or leveraging of their SRFs beyond 1994; of these, only nine  project additional
annual funding for  their  SRFs in an  amount equal to or greater than the annual average
provided by Federal capitalization grants from 1988 to 1994.
1.5    Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Needs to Funds Available

       For the forty-six States which provided estimates of available funding, funds available
from Federal and State sources from 1988 to 1999 are projected to be sufficient to cover all
SNC needs in forty-three of the forty-six States and from  52 to 84 percent of the needs in the
remaining three States. However, it is methodologically inappropriate to compare the SNC-
related needs to the total funding available during 1988 to 1999.  The SNC-related needs
represent a "snapshot" as  of June 30, 1990.  While it is not  possible to quantify future SNC-
related needs, it is predictable that there will be additional significant violations through 1999
that will  require construction to correct  The reasons for potential violations include population
growth which will generate flows and/or pollutant loadings in excess  of design capacity.  During
this period, some number of treatment plants will reach the end of their useful lives and face
the need for major rehabilitation or replacement.  Finally, additional regulations in the area of
toxics control, stormwater management and sludge disposal will generate  significant violations
that will  require construction to correct.

       It was possible, however, to make some additional comparisons  of funding availability
and need using data contained in the 1988 Needs Survey. Federal and State funding covers an
average of only 35 percent of the 77.6 billion of Category I to V design  year needs documented
for the forty-six States in  the 1988 Needs Survey.  The 65 percent gap between  available
Federal and State funds and Category I to V needs represents the amount that may need to be
funded from local sources between 1988  and 1999 if aU needs are to be  met.  Local sources
provided approximately 40 percent of the financing for such projects in the mid  1980s.
1.6    SRF Program Operations

       All forty-seven States which responded to the SRF questionnaire offer SRF loans at
below-market interest rates.  Loan repayments are used to fund additional loans (with the
exception of repayments used to retire SRF program debt). The key structural and operating
characteristics of the States' programs include:
                                            1-3

-------
               Method of Obtaining Matching Funds - States obtain matching funds in a variety
               of ways.  The most commonly used methods are State appropriations, State
               general obligation bonds, and SRF program revenue bonds.  Other approaches
               include pledging the loan repayments of an existing wastewater treatment loan
               program and obtaining the State match directly from the loan recipients.

               Use of Leveraging - Over one quarter of the SRF programs currently borrow to
               provide additional lendable funds.  Additional States plan to consider some  type
               of leveraging in the  future.

               Types of Assistance  - The States plan to provide assistance primarily in the form
               of loans.  States also plan to use a small portion of funds for refinancing existing
               debt.  States with leveraged programs will use some funds to secure bond issues.

               Interest Rates - All of the State programs offer loans at below-market interest
               rates, although two of the States offer some SRF loans at up to market rates.
               Interest charges typically range from 2 to 5-1/2 percent.  Approximately one third
               of the States vary interest rates based on a  community's ability to  pay.

               Type of Projects Funded  - States used virtually all SRF funds for  sewage
               treatment and collection system projects through FY 1990.  Several States intend
               to use a portion of their SRF funds for nonpoint source control programs in the
               future.  One State, Wyoming, intends to use all of its SRF funds for nonpoint
               source control activities from 1991 to 1994.   A few States also plan to use a
               small percentage of their SRF funds for estuarine activities.

               Measures to Assure  Fund Viability - States uniformly view the soundness of their
               loan portfolios as the critical factor in assuring long-term viability  of the SRFs.
               States carefully scrutinize applicants to evaluate their creditworthiness.  States
               require communities to pledge revenues from a range of sources to assure loan
               repayments.  User fees and full faith and credit are commonly used as assurances
               for repayment  In the event of default, several States reported that they can
               intercept  other State assistance to the recipient.
1.7    Administration of State SRF Programs

       SRF program administration requires a  mix of technical, financial, and general
administrative personnel.  In the forty-five States that reported staffing figures, staff size varied
from 2 to 70 people in FYs  1989-1990.  Most of the States anticipate significant staff expansion
over the next several years as personnel shift from the construction grants to the SRF programs
and the number of projects and the amount of money in the SRF programs increase.

       The CWA restricts the cumulative total of SRF funds used for administrative expenses
to four percent of the amount of capitalization grant awards.  The adequacy of the four percent
SRF administrative expense allowance varies significantly among the States. The majority of the
States should  not have difficulty covering their  projected administrative expenses during the

                                            1-4

-------
1989 to 1994 time period.  Sixteen States,  however, do not expect to cover their administrative
costs with the .four percent allowance during the 1989 to 1994 time  period; over 75 percent of
administrative costs are covered in seven of these sixteen States. After the allotment of the
final Federal capitalization grants in 1994,  States will have to rely primarily on alternative
funding sources or unused allowances "banked" from previous years  to cover their administrative
expenses. States typically have not developed specific plans to fund these costs after 1994.
Many States currently charge loan closing fees or other types of fees to help  pay their
administrative expenses.  Several additional States plan to begin charging fees to help cover
their administrative costs in the future.
1.8    Impact of the SRF Program on User Fees

       Very few facilities financed with SRF loans have been completed.  Therefore, actual
data on the user fee impact of the SRF program are not available.  For purposes of this report,
a financial model is used to assess the impact of SRF funding on user fees.  The model
simulates  the user fee impact of SRF funding versus  construction grants funding for a range of
community sizes. In the analysis, user fees are assumed to cover all debt service and operation
and maintenance costs for a  new wastewater treatment facility (excluding land).

       The analysis shows that SRF loans generally provide less of a subsidy to communities
than construction grant funding.  This occurs despite  the expanded eligibility of project funding
under the SRF program.  If  SRF loans are issued at  four percent interest, a common rate
charged for SRF loans, user  fees are  expected to be  approximately 20 percent higher than
projects constructed with construction grants assistance.  However, SRF loans still provide a
substantial subsidy.  On average, user fees for treatment facilities constructed with a 4 percent
SRF loan will be approximately 14 percent lower than facilities constructed with market rate
financing.
1.9    Impact of the SRF Program on Treatment Plant Efficiency

       Because wastewater treatment plants have only recently been funded with SRF program
assistance, there are no actual data available on the efficiency of SRF-financed treatment plants.
However, many State officials expect that SRF-financing will lead to lower-cost facilities because
communities must finance the entire cost of the facility.  Most officials anticipate a reduction in
the use of innovative and alternative technologies because, unlike the construction grants
program, the SRF program offers no special incentives for such projects.  The potential impact
of a shift toward  lower-cost, non-innovative facilities on treatment plant efficiency is unclear.
However, State officials indicated that  they expect no major changes in treatment plant
efficiency.
                                            1-5

-------
 1.10   Advantages of the SRF Program

       The SRF program offers many financial and environmental advantages to Federal, State,
 and local governments. The revolving nature of the SRFs creates a perpetual source of low
 cost financing.  The funds invested now for the capitalization of SRFs will work for many years
 to assist  communities in meeting their needs, providing more money for more communities than
would one-time loans or grants.

       For the Federal government, the program furthers the long-standing national policy of
 providing financial assistance for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities.  SRFs also
 facilitate the goal of transferring the responsibility for funding these activities back to the States
 and municipalities.  With this increased responsibility, the States  also have increased flexibility
 to design and operate their  SRFs to address the water quality concerns most important to them
 and their communities.

       For communities receiving SRF assistance,  below market  interest rates are the single
most  important advantage of the program.  This reduced cost of capital enables some projects
 to be completed that otherwise would not be affordable and reduces the  level of user fees
required to repay project debt.
1.11   Issues Associated with SRF Implementation

       The overall implementation of the SRF program has been smooth.  The number of
issues associated with implementation has been reduced as people and institutions become more
familiar with program requirements. There do not appear to be any fundamental flaws in the
structure of the SRF program or any significant impediments to successful implementation that
have not been  adequately managed.

       State officials in the SRF programs identified a number of areas of concern that affect
their ability to  implement their programs. Many of these concerns arise from Federal and State
statutes, regulations, and policies.

       Of primary concern to most officials was Federal funding of the SRF program.  The
States believe that funding the program at less than the full authorized levels will reduce their
ability to accomplish the goals of the CWA, including the 1987 Amendments. They also report
that uncertainty in the level of funding due to the appropriations process makes planning
difficult for  them and their communities.

       Several  States mentioned that they anticipate difficulty in providing SRF assistance to
economically distressed communities because these communities may be unable to repay loans
even at very low interest rates.  Many of these communities were unable to accept a grant
under the construction grants program because they could not finance the local share.
Similarly, they will not be able  to repay a loan under the SRF program even at low interest
rates because the subsidy will be even less than it was under the construction grants program.
                                            1-6

-------
       The States report that the application of "cross-cutters" (i.e., Federal laws and authorities
that exist independently of the SRF program, but apply to certain activities undertaken under
the program) adds significantly to administrative and project costs. In addition, the States are
having difficulty monitoring and assuring compliance with  cross-cutters because at any time,
Federal laws can be enacted  that apply  to the SRF program, and a permanent list of these
authorities cannot  be identified.  States  recommend that Congress consider exempting the SRF
program from all Federal cross-cutters.  As an alternative, some State officials recommend that
compliance with cross-cutters be based on the intent of law rather than specific requirements,
and be determined by the Governor of  each State.

       The States believe that Federally mandated Title n requirements on the SRF program
can also increase project costs. The most frequently mentioned requirement in this regard is
the Davis-Bacon Act.

       The letter of credit (LOG) payment process was also cited as an impediment.  Several
States expressed concern about the loss of interest earnings on Federal  funds caused by the
LOG process.  Also, States mentioned that the LOG process becomes cumbersome because
States have to comply with their own  overlapping fiscal and accounting procedures which can
impede  the quick transfer of funds. Thus, although the LOG  itself as a method of payment is
not causing delays beyond the maximum of 36 hours necessary to make  the electronic transfer
of funds, delays are occurring in some States  due to State processing problems associated with
the cash disbursements.

       Several States reported that the  statutory restriction on the use of SRF funds for
administrative  costs is an impediment  to establishing effective SRFs.  The  CWA restricts the
amount of money in an SRF that can be used for administrative expenses to four percent of all
capitalization grant awards  received by the fund.  A number of States expect that the allowed
amount will be inadequate  to cover the  full costs of administering their funds during the period
of Federal capitalization. As discussed in  Subsection 1.7 of this executive  summary, quantitative
data show that twenty-eight of the responding States should be able to pay all of their
administrative  expenses with the four  percent allowance during the period of Federal
capitalization.

       Land eligibility was  also cited as an impediment The purchase of land for a wastewater
treatment facility is not an  eligible cost  under the SRF program unless the land is integral to
the treatment  process or used for sludge disposal.  This statutory restriction means communities
must obtain separate financing for land.

       The CWA  also requires that recipients of SRF assistance provide a dedicated source of
revenue to cover loan repayments. Because of this, some States reported that it may be
difficult to fund nonpoint source and  estuarine  activities.  To address this  concern, EPA has
completed  a case study guidebook that presents examples  of how expanded use activities can be
funded under the SRF program.
                                            1-7

-------
               How Final Report Findings Differ from Interim Report Findings
       The State Revolving Fund Interim Report to Congress pointed out that the nine States
which it reviewed in detail should not be considered representative of all States. Many of the
findings in this final report, based on analyses of all of the States for which information is
available,  are the same as those presented in the interim report; certain  findings in this report,
however, differ from those presented in the interim report.  The contrasts are summarized
below.

       The relative contribution of leveraged monies  to overall SRF funds is  greater in this
final report than it was in the interim report.  For  the nine States reviewed in the interim
report, leveraged funds accounted for 23 percent of available  SRF funds from 1988 to 1999.
For the forty-six States that provided funding estimates for this final report, leveraging accounts
for 37 percent of total SRF funds from 1988 to 1999.  Loan repayments, which contributed 23
percent to available SRF funds from 1988 to 1999 in  the interim report, contribute only 11
percent to total SRF funds during that time period for the forty-six States covered in this final
report.  Loan repayments are often used to retire the  debt from leveraged SRF program bonds.

       In the interim report, the nine States projected that their SRF assistance would be used
to fund a higher percentage of wastewater  treatment projects  and a  lower percentage of
wastewater collection and conveyance projects in the 1988 to  1999 time period than the forty-
six States  in this final report project.  The percentage  of SRF assistance projected to be used
for nonpoint source control program activities is higher for the forty-six States in this final
report than for the nine States in the interim report.   Additionally, the forty-six States project
that a small percentage of SRF assistance will be used for estuarine protection activities
whereas estuarine protection activities were not projected to receive SRF assistance by the nine
interim report States.

       In the interim report, all nine States had a gap between available Federal and State
funding for wastewater projects from 1988 to 1999  and Category I to V design year wastewater
project needs as reported in the 1988 needs survey; in this final report, five States project
sufficient Federal and State funding to cover all of their Category I to V wastewater project
needs in the 1988 to 1999 time period.

       In the interim report, staff size appeared to be related to the use of leveraging, with
leveraged  programs reporting larger administrative staffs.  In this final report,  leveraging does
not appear significantly linked with staff size; some of the programs with the smallest staffs
leverage their funds. However, leveraging does appear to be  related to administrative costs.
More than half of the States that operate leveraged programs estimated administrative expenses
exceeding the 4 percent administrative cost allowance in the 1989 to  1994 time period.
                                            1-8

-------
                                      SECTION TWO
                                     INTRODUCTION
2.1    Program Background

       Title VI of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987
(P.L. 100-4), authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to make capitalization grants to States
for State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds (SRFs). The SRF program is intended to
support a long-standing national policy to  provide financial assistance for the  construction of
publicly owned wastewater treatment works  (POTWs). This new program,  however, is
fundamentally different from  the Title n construction grants program that has provided financial
assistance for many years and received its  last appropriation in FY 1990.

       Unlike the construction grants program under which EPA provides  grant assistance
directly to municipalities for wastewater treatment projects, the SRF program is designed to give
individual States the responsibility for developing and operating their own programs, including
providing financial assistance  for POTW construction and other eligible activities. Financial
assistance provided by SRFs can include loans and various forms of credit enhancements, but
not grants.  A key element of SRFs is their "revolving" nature—most disbursements return to
the program to provide assistance to additional recipients.  SRF assistance can be used for a
broader range of water quality management activities than construction grants assistance,  such as
the implementation of nonpoint source management programs and the development and
implementation of conservation and management plans under the estuary protection program.

       The  SRF program is a significant step in the transfer of responsibility for financing
wastewater treatment facilities from the Federal  government to the  States and municipalities.
The CWA allows flexibility in the program; each SRF is designed and operated to  address the
water quality needs in a particular State and its communities.  EPA cooperates with and
provides technical assistance to States in establishing their programs.
2.2    Purpose of the Report to Congress

       Section 516(g) of the CWA requires EPA to prepare a Report to Congress on the
financial status and operations of the State SRFs.  In accordance with Section 516(g), the
report must provide:

       (A)    an inventory of the facilities that are in significant noncompliance with the
              enforceable requirements of the CWA;

       (B)    an estimate of the cost of construction necessary to bring such facilities into
              compliance with such requirements;
                                            2-1

-------
        (C)     an assessment of the availability of sources of funds for financing such needed
               construction, including an estimate of the amount of funds available for providing
               assistance for such construction through September 30,  1999, from the water
               pollution control revolving funds  established by the States under Title VI of the
               CWA;

        (D)     an assessment of the operations,  loan portfolio, and loan conditions of such
               revolving funds;

        (E)     an assessment of the effect on user fees of the assistance provided by such
               revolving funds compared to the  assistance provided with funds appropriated
               pursuant to Section 207 of the CWA; and

        (F)     an assessment of the efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treatment
               works constructed with assistance provided by such revolving funds compared to
               the efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treatment works constructed
               with assistance provided under Section 201 of the CWA.

        The report was to be prepared in cooperation with the State water pollution control
planning and financing agencies.  EPA formed a workgroup of State and EPA Regional Staff
directly involved  in the SRF program to  assist in the development of this report.  The
workgroup participated in the development of the approach and commented on draft
questionnaires  and a draft of the report.  Workgroup participants are identified in Appendix A.
2.3    Scope and Organization of This Report

       This report provides a national-level overview of SRF program implementation and
presents detailed information on the SRF programs in forty-seven States.  This final report
addresses the informational requirements of Section 516(g) of the CWA, and updates
information contained in the Interim SRF Report to Congress.

       The interim report contained detailed information on the SRF programs in nine States
(Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia)
as of June,  1989.  To provide information for the interim report, each of the nine States
completed a program questionnaire; additionally, program officials were interviewed during EPA
site visits  to each State.  The information contained in this final report is based on
questionnaires received from forty-seven States, follow-up phone conversations with program
officials from many of those States, and the information collected for the interim report.
Information in this final report is 'based on the status of State programs as of late 1990.

       This report is organized to respond to Section 516(g) of the CWA and  to provide
additional information that may be of use to Congress in evaluating the SRF program.

       •      Section Three estimates the cost of bringing facilities that are currently in
              significant noncompliance into compliance with the enforceable requirements of
                                            2-2

-------
              the CWA and discusses new enforceable requirements and new funding
              eligibilities of the CWA [responsive to Sections 516(g)(2)(a) and 5l6(g)(2)(b)].

              Section Four discusses the funds available to address these needs from State
              SRFs and other sources [responsive to Section 516(g)(2)(c)].

              Section Five  compares available funds to the funding needs required for
              compliance with the CWA [also responsive to Section 516(g)(2)(c)].

              Sections Six and Seven describe the operation and administration of State SRFs
              [responsive to Section 516(g)(2)(d)].

              Section Eight provides an assessment of the impact of SRF funding on user fees
              in comparison to construction grants funding [responsive to Section 516(g)(2)(e)].

              Section Nine provides an assessment of the  impact of SRF financing on the
              efficiency  of POTW operation and maintenance  [responsive to Section
              516(g)(2)(f)].

              Section Ten describes the advantages of the SRF program to the Federal
              government, States, and communities.

              Section Eleven presents a discussion of the impediments States have encountered
              in implementing their SRFs.
2.4    Status of Nationwide Implementation

       To initiate an SRF program, States must apply for a capitalization grant from EPA
The capitalization grant is the Federal seed money that  the State uses to establish its revolving
loan fund.  To qualify for the capitalization grant, the State must provide matching funds equal
to at least 20 percent of the grant and conform to the applicable Title VI program
requirements.

       As of September 30, 1990, all  fifty States and Puerto Rico had established SRF
programs and received capitalization grants from EPA.  (The District of Columbia, the U.S.
Virgin  Islands, and the Trust Territories have been authorized by Congress to receive CWA
Title VI funds without having to establish an SRF.)  Twenty-seven States had received two
grants,  twelve had received three grants, and two States  had received four grants  (Table 2-1).
A total of $2.8 billion in Federal funds had been awarded to these programs.  Nationwide as of
September 30, 1990, SRFs had entered into approximately 400 binding commitments to provide
assistance for construction of wastewater treatment projects as well as for several nonpoint
source  activities.

       It is clear that a successful transition has been made from the construction grants
program to the SRF program in most States. With capitalization of SRFs well under way, the
current emphasis  in implementing the program is on assuring that the State programs are viable

                                           2-3

-------
                   TABLE 2-1

       States With Approved SRF Programs
     In Order of First SRF Grant Award Date(a)
STATE
Tennessee(b)
Texas (b)
Georgia
New Mexico
Utah
Virginia
Connecticut
Louisiana
New Jersey
Nebraska
South Carolina
Alaska
Arkansas
South Dakota
Oklahoma
Kentucky
North Carolina
Minnesota
Alabama
Florida
Kansas
Iowa
New Hampshire
Vermont
Mississippi
Maine
Illinois
Missouri
FIRST
SRF GRANT
AWARD DATE
March 1988(c)
March 1988(d)
April 1988(d)
May 1988(c)
June 1988(d)
June 1988(d)
September 1988(d)
September 1988(d)
October 1988(d)
October 1988(e)
November 1988(d)
November 1988(e)
December 1988(d)
March 1989(e)
March 1989(e)
March 1989(e)
March 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
May 1989(e)
May 1989(e)
May 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
Continued
                    2-4

-------
         TABLE 2-1, continued

   States With Approved SRF Programs
In Order of First SRF Grant Award Date(a)


























(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
FIRST
SRF GRANT
STATE AWARD DATE
Ohio June 1989(e)
California June 1989(d)
Michigan July 1989(e)
Idaho August 1989(e)
Maryland August 1989(e)
Colorado August 1989(e)
Wisconsin September 1989(e)
Pennsylvania September 1989(e)
Massachusetts September 1989(e)
Indiana September 1989(f)
Hawaii September 1989(e)
Nevada September 1989(e)
Puerto Rico September 1989(f)
Oregon ' September 1989(e)
Washington September 1989(e)
New York March 1990(f)
North Dakota August 1990(0
West Virginia August 1990(f)
Wyoming September 1990(f)
Montana September 1990(f)
Rhode Island September 1990(f)
Arizona September 1990(f)
Delaware September 1990(f)
Status as of September 30, 1990
Received the first grants in the program
State has received four capitalization grants
State has received three capitalization grants
State has received two capitalization grants
State has received one capitalization grant
                 2-5

-------
and well managed.  Many of the States with straightforward loan programs are exploring
leveraging and other more sophisticated financing techniques for possible modifications of their
programs in future years. EPA, through its Regional Offices, is assisting the States in this
process through a mission support contract that provides SRF training and the advice  and
support of financial and  legal professionals.

       Using program guidance developed by  the Agency to assist in the conduct of these
reviews, the Regional Offices have performed  reviews of many SRFs.  While the findings of
these reviews  are generally positive, a number of minor operational problems have been
reported.  The Regional Offices are working with the States to address these problems and
make necessary improvements.
2.5    Federal Funding

       Federal funding for State SRFs includes both Title VI allotments and Title II transfers
as authorized by Section 205(m).  The latter category consists of funds transferred at State
discretion from the construction grants allotment to the SRF program.  As of September 30,
1990, Federal funding for the SRF programs totaled $2.8 billion (see Table 2-2).  All funds
committed in FY 1988 were Title II funds transferred at State discretion to their SRF
programs; Title VI funds were not authorized until FY 1989. Thus far, approximately 33
percent of Federal contributions to SRF programs have come from Title n transfers and
approximately 67 percent from Title VI allotments. Many States chose to transfer the
maximum allowable amount of their  Title H funds to SRFs in FY 1989 and FY 1990.
                                            2-6

-------
                                                    TABLE 2-2
                                               Federal Funding of SRFs
                                          ($ Millions as of September 30, 1990)
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
REALLOTED/
DEOBLIOATED
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TITLE 11
TRANSFERS
(FYs •87,'88>'89,>90)
0.0
4.4
0.0
14.1
110.1
6.6
49.7
0.2
54.8
57.7
0.3
0.0
13.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.3
12.0
0.1
0.0
61.3
0.2
0.0
TITLE VI
1989 ALLOTMENT(a)
10.5
5.6
6.3
6.1
67.5
8.6
11.6
4.6
31.8
15.9
7.3
4.6
42.7
22.7
12.8
8.8
12.0
10.4
7.3
22.8
32.0
40.6
17.3
TITLE VI
1990 AI.LOTMI-NT(u)
10.9
5.8
6.6
6.3
69.8
7.8
12.0
4.7
32.9
16.5
7.5
4.7
44.1
0.0
13.2
8.8
12.4
10.7
7.5
23.6
33.1
42.0
17.9
TOTAL
FEDERAL
SRFGRANTS(b)
21.5
15.8
12.9
26.6
247.4
23.0
73.2
9.5
119.6
90.1
15.1
9.3
100.0
22.7
26.0
17.6
51.0
33.1
14.9
46.4
126.5
82.7
35.3
to
     Continued

-------
                                                  TABLE 2-2, continued
                                                 Federal Funding of SRFs
                                            ($ Millions as of September 30, 1990)
STATE
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Ilampshir
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
Virginia
REALLOTED/
DEOBLIGATED
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
2.6
TITLE II
TRANSFERS
(FYs '87,'88,'89,*90)
13.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
124.4
12.0
0.0
21.1
0.0
9.2
9.3
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
21.7
0.0
35.9
172.7
12.9
73.1
TITLE VI
1989 ALLOTMENT(u)
8.5
26.1
4.6
4.8
4.6
9.4
38.5
4.6
104.1
17.0
4.6
53.1
7.6
10.7
37.4
12.3
6.3
9.7
4.6
13.7
43.1
4.9
19.3
TITLE VI
1990 ALLOTMENT(u)
8.8
27.0
4.7
4.9
4.7
9.7
41.9
4.8
107.7
17.6
4.7
54.9
7.9
11.0
38.6
0.0
6.5
10.0
4.7
14.2
44.6
5.1
20.0
TOTAL
n;m;iiAL
SKFGKANTS(b)
31.0
53.2
9.3
9.7
9.3
19.5
204.8
21.4
211.8
55.7
9.3
117.2
24.7
25.0
76.0
12.3
13.4
41.3
9.3
63.7
262.2
22.9
114.9
to
00
       Continued

-------
                                                           TABLE 2-2, continued
                                                          Federal Funding of SRFs
                                                   ($ Millions as of September 30, 1990)


STATE
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL

REALLOTED/
DEOBLIGATED
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
6.3
TITLE 11
TRANSFERS
(FYs '%1,'W,'%9,'90)
1.3
1.0
0.0
0.1
2.2
924.9

TITLE VI
1989 ALLOTMENT(a)
4.6
16.5
14.7
25.5
4.6
925.0

TITLE VI
1990 ALLOTMENT(a)
4.7
17.0
6.2
26.4
4.7
912.2
TOTAL
FEDERAL
SRFGRANTS(l))
10.6
34.4
20.9
52.0
12.1 '
2,768.3
to
        (a)  This figure generally represents the Title VI allotment minus 1% or $100,000, whichever is greater. The 1 % or $100,000 is
            reserved under Section 604(b) of the CWA for planning under Sections 205(j) and 303(e).
        (b)  Totals vary due to rounding.

-------
                                      .-ifr u
                                      SCTION THREE
                        CONSTRUCTION NEEDS  OF STATES FOR
                     COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT
       Sections 516(g)(2)(a) and (b) of the Act require EPA to prepare an inventory of
facilities currently in significant noncompliance with enforceable requirements of the Act and an
estimate of the cost of construction necessary to bring such facilities into compliance.  Section
3.1 provides the required.inventory and cost estimates.  Section 3.2 provides  estimates of SRF-
eligible construction needs for all facilities regardless of their compliance status.
3.1     Compliance Related Needs

       Significant noncompliance (SNC) is a term used by EPA to identify facilities covered
under the National Pollution  Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which are in serious
and/or repeated violation of effluent limits, compliance schedule milestones, reporting
requirements or other administrative or judicial requirements.  Facilities in significant
noncompliance may require construction or other corrective actions in order to come back into
compliance. This report deals with those SNC facilities which need construction in order to
return to compliance.

       EPA's estimate of "significant noncompliance," as used in this report, represents facilities
needing construction to comply with the enforceable requirements of the CWA as of June 30,
1990.  The estimates indicate the number of facilities in SNC that have outstanding construction
needs, and the cost of the construction needed to achieve compliance at those facilities.

       To  arrive at the SNC estimates, EPA prepared a list of facilities in significant
noncompliance (SNC) with outstanding construction needs as reported in its Permit Compliance
System (PCS) national database as of June 30, 1990.  EPA also prepared a list of facilities in
PCS with a "resolved pending" (RP) enforcement status as of June 30,  1990.  This second list
consists of facilities  that had been, but are  no  longer, classified as SNC because they are  on
enforceable construction schedules. These facilities were included in the construction cost
estimate because they were not yet back into compliance as of June 30, 1990.

       The SNC and RP  lists do not include facilities with flows of less than 1  million  gallons
per day (mgd) unless there is a significant impact on water quality. Therefore, EPA has  for the
purposes of this report expanded its definition of significant noncompliance to include facilities
with flows of less than 1 mgd with secondary treatment (Category I) and/or advanced treatment
(Category JJ) needs based on the 1988 Needs  Survey. (See Section 1.3 for a definition of the
Needs Survey categories.)

       Table 3-1 shows the number of facilities in  the fifty States and Puerto Rico that meet
the SNC definition used in this report. The cost of construction needed to bring these facilities
into compliance is estimated to be $12.3 billion.  The construction costs for each of the three

                                            3-1

-------
                                                       TABLE 3-1
                                Construction Needs for Facilities in Significant Noncompliance
Resolved Pending
SNC Facilities With
Construction Needs

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

Number
11
0
0
7
4
1
8
1
1
2
0
0
3
19
0
1
3
6
7
0
11
3
4
4
3
1
0
Estimated Cost
($ Thousands)
61,950
0
0
26,300
927,620
40,000
196,000
500
30,660
15,250
0
0
8,000
80,600
0
300
9,350
16,100
63,400
0
689,500
22,200
91,230
7,100
59,530
6,500
0
Facilities With
Construction Needs

Number
1
0
0
4
5
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
6
0
0
0
15
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
Estimated Cost
($ Thousands)
11,500
0
0
23,000
36,050
3,750
1,000
0
0
13,000
120,470
0
0
31,540
0
0
0
124,500
6,000
0
10,000
12,900
0
3,500
19,000
4,450
4,200
Categories I and II
Needs for Facilities
with Flows Less
Than

Number
122
9
8
159
37
34
15
2
47
74
10
35
234
293
167
78
179
163
41
58
26
67
161
127
174
26
48
1 MGD(a)
Estimated Cost
($ Thousands)
96,343
25,833
15,428
98,264
737,587
25,120
39,244
13,691
183,485
134,526
75,465
17,875
197,487
163,315
136,605
58,541
157,141
190,093
48,975
36,202
165,322
1 10,806
203,597
108,112
80,957
13,692
12,359
Total

Number
134
9
8
170
46
36
24
3
48
77
12
35
237
318
167
79
182
184
49
58
38
72
165
132
178
28
49
SNC Needs
Total Cost
($ Thousands)
169,793
25,833
15,428
147,564
1,701,257
68,870
197,000
14,191
214,145
162,776
195,935
17,875
205,487
275,455
136,605
58,841
166,491
330,693
118,375
36,202
864,822
145,906
294,827
118,712
159,487
24,642
16,559
Continued

-------
                                                            TABLE 3-l^lntinued
                                        Construction Needs for Facilities in Significant Noncompliance
Resolved Pending
SNC Facilities With
Construction Needs

State
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
Puerto Rico
TOTAL

Number
0
4
10
0
9
3
0
14
5
0
5
2
0
4
6
15
0
1
5
1
4
1
0
0
189
Estimated Cost
($ Thousands)
0
164,370
115,090
0
236,120
21,800
0
122,480
11,600
0
55,590
32,000
0
10,500
38,000
247,000
0
500
19,300
3,800
9,270
6,000
0
0
3,445,510
Facilities With
Construction Needs

Number
0
0
0
3
7
0
0
0
0
2
6
1
1
2
4
21
0
0
3
3
1
5
0
0
103
Estimated Cost
($ Thousands)
0
0
0
28,000
659,100
0
0
0
0
11,650
20,530
420
500
19,300
17,950
145,100
0
0
7,500
625,000
7,000
344,550
0
0
2,311,460
Categories I and II
Needs for Facilities
with Flows Less
Than

Number
3
16
37
9
127
110
25
316
61
40
228
1
49
155
114
439
20
13
94
42
205
102
9
8
4,617
1 MGD(a)
Estimated Cost
($ Thousands)
667
54,630
182,175
8,289
338,287
171,013
7,266
453,322
59,882
51,166
343,162
8,348
85,315
44,026
142,587
834,909
107,199
13,961
133,130
46,988
255,864
75,920
4,876
38,960
6,608,007
Total

Number
3
20
47
12
143
113
25
330
66
42
239
4
50
161
124
475
20
14
102
46
210
108
9
8
4,909
SNC Needs
Total Cost
($ Thousands)
667
219,000
297,265
36,289
1,233,507
192,813
7,266
575,802
71,482
62,816
419,282
40,768
85,815
73,826
198,537
1,227,009
107,199
14,461
159,930
675,788
272,134
426,470
4,876
38,960
12,325,733
w
     (a)  These estimates include surface water discharging facilities only.

-------
categories of SNC defined for this report are concentrated among a small group of States that
differs for each category.  Eight States account for over 78 percent of SNC construction  needs.
For RP facilities, more than 87 percent of the needs are concentrated in six States.  Forty-eight
percent of the Categories I and n treatment needs for facilities with flows  less than  1 MGD
occur in seven States.  The total need for this latter category of facilities represents over 53
percent of the total SNC need  as defined in this report; the number of facilities in this category
accounts for over 94 percent of the facilities inventoried.  For the remainder of this  report,  the
aggregated construction needs for the three groups of facilities shown in Table 3-1 will be
referred to as "SNC needs."

       While  Table 3-1 provides an estimate of the cost of construction required to  correct
significant violations (as required under  Section 516(g)  of the Act), States strongly assert  that a
comparison of SNC-related needs with SRF funding availability is not a  reasonable measure  of
the ability of SRF programs to  meet current and future municipal sewage treatment
construction needs.

       The Agency developed the concept of "SNC" as a method for  setting priorities for its
enforcement effort.  The reasons why certain types of violations  are included in the definition
are based on enforcement considerations rather than on construction needs. Thus, repeated
failure to monitor or report  effluent data is a significant violation but does  not require
construction to correct.  Conversely, major and legitimate construction needs exist independently
of significant violations. For example, Houston, Texas, is not considered to be in significant
violation, although it has been fined by the State and is under administrative order to correct its
stormwater overflow problems.  Inclusion of Houston's  construction needs would add about
$800 million to the estimate of  Texas' SNC needs presented in Table  3-1.   Further, the 1987
Amendments expanded eligibilities under the SRF program to include funding required for
compliance with new enforceable requirements of the Act (e.g., storm sewers)  and for the
implementation of new programs (e.g., nonpoint source control programs).  These potential
demands on SRF funds are also not included in the SNC cost estimates in Table 3-1.

       Since the SNC-related needs shown in Table 3-1 represent  a "snapshot" of needs as of
June 30, 1990, it would be methodologically inappropriate to compare these needs alone to the
total funding available during 1988-1999.  While it is not possible to quantify future SNC-
related needs, it is predictable that there will be additional significant violations through 1999
that will require construction to correct. The reasons for potential violations include population
growth which will generate flows and/or pollutant loadings in excess of design capacity. During
this period, some number of treatment plants will  reach the end  of their useful lives  and face
the need for major rehabilitation or replacement.  Finally, additional regulations in the area  of
toxics control, stormwater management and sludge disposal will generate significant violations
that will require construction to correct.

       In order to provide additional perspective on the adequacy  of SRF program funds, the
next section addresses SRF-eligible funding needs  beyond those associated with the correction
of significant violations.
                                            3-4

-------
3.2    Additional SRF Eligible Needs

       As described above, many communities with major construction needs have not
experienced compliance problems in the past  and are, therefore, not included on EPA's SNC or
RP lists.  The Needs Survey, required by Section 205(a) and 516(b)(l) of the CWA, is a
biennial assessment of the cost of constructing all publicly-owned wastewater treatment works
necessary to meet the goals of the  CWA regardless of compliance status. The  1988 Needs
Survey showed a design year1 need of $83.0 billion to satisfy all currently documented
needs2 nationwide through the year 2008 (see Table 3-2).3  The 1987 Amendments to the CWA
allow SRF's to fund certain activities not eligible under the construction grants  program and not
included in the $83.0  billion needs cited above.  Additionally,  EPA has  or will soon promulgate
rules related to new enforceable requirements as specified  in the 1987 Amendments.

       The major categories of new eligibilities are nonpoint source control and programs for
the protection of ground-water, estuaries and  wetlands.  The primary programs  with new
enforceable requirements are those addressing stormwater,  toxics discharges, and sludge use and
    lMDesign year" needs reflect the total needs for documented facilities to satisfy the design
year population. Year 2008 is used as the design year to better approximate a 20-year design
life for facilities in the Needs Survey.
        be incorporated into the Needs Survey, an estimate of construction needs must
conform to a number of criteria, including:

       •      The projects included in the needs estimate must address a documented public
              health or water quality problem.

       •      The projects must be required to rectify a current problem (e.g., needs solely for
              future growth requirements cannot be included).  However, if a project has a
              legitimate current need, the cost for meeting future growth needs is included in
              the survey.

       •      The needs must be project-specific (e.g., needs for a county-wide problem are
              not acceptable).

Wastewater treatment needs are reported in five categories in the 1988 Needs Survey.

Category I    -       Secondary Treatment
Category n    -       Advanced Treatment
Category IQA -       Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Category IVA -       New Collector Sewers
Category IVB -       New Interceptor  Sewers
Category V    -       Combined Sewer Overflows

    'Includes fifty States and Puerto Rico.


                                           3-5

-------
          TABLE 3-2

Category I to V Wastewater Treatment
      and Conveyance Needs
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
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
Puerto Rico
TOTALS
1988 Design
Year Needs
($ Millions, 1988)
781
221
979
370
6,539
196
1,392
127
6,186
1,007
413
124
2,958
1721
646
720
1,457
1,189.
341
919
5,836
3,321
1,106
548
1,222
69
114
165
854
3,754
130
12,721
1,799
34
3579
476
1,273
1,644
408
684
87
1,467
4,975
583
209
957
2,685
976
1,399
18
1592
82,971
             3-6

-------
disposal. The costs of meeting the needs for these new eligibilities and enforceable
requirements (which are discussed in more detail in Appendix B) as well as the costs for
maintaining compliance at existing facilities are not included in the 1988 Needs Survey. These
new eligibilities and other requirements, however, will add substantially to SRF-eligible needs.
Figure 3-1  shows that the SNC needs, described in Section 3.1, are only a part of the SRF
eligible financing requirements nationwide.
                                            3-7

-------
                            Figure  3 — 1
         SRF-Eligible  Funding  Needs of  All States
            Documented and Undocumented  (a)
                              Undocumented
                             Toxics and Sludge
                             Estuaries, Wetlands
                               Ground Water
                              Nonpoint Source
                              Undocumented
                             Plant Renovation
                              Undocumented
                             Combined Sewer
                              Overflow (CSO)
                            Categories	IH
                              8^3 Million
|  | Undocumented needs

£~] Documented needs

Note: Figure is not to Scale.

(a) Includes fifty States and Puerto Rico.
                                  3-8

-------
                                     SECTION FOUR
                  AVAILABILITY OF SRF AND OTHER FUNDING FOR
                                  ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
       Funding for wastewater treatment, collection, and conveyance projects comes from a mix
of Federal, State, and local sources.  Prior to the 1987 CWA Amendments, the construction
grants program provided the largest share of Federal funding for these projects.  With the
phaseout of the construction grants program, SRFs will shift the relative contribution for
wastewater project funding away from Federal sources towards  State and local sources.  In
addition to changing the funding source mix for wastewater projects, the SRF program expands
the scope of wastewater and other water quality projects and activities eligible for  CWA
financial  assistance (see Section 3.4).
4.1     Availability of Funding from All Sources

       Wastewater treatment, collection, and conveyance projects can receive funding from the
construction grants program, State  SRF programs, other State programs, other (non-EPA)
Federal sources, and local sources.   Other Federal sources include the Farmers Home
Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Economic
Development Administration.  Local sources could include municipal appropriations, user fees,
impact fees, and debt financing.

       Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 show the total amount of funding for wastewater projects
coming from Federal and State sources, including CWA Titles II and VI, other Federal sources,
and other State sources in the forty-six States that provided funding data. SRF loan
repayments, which come from local sources and represent a portion of the total local source
funding contribution, are included in Table 4-1 under State funding. For the period 1988 to
1999, approximately $28.6 billion (1988 dollars) in Federal and State funding is projected to be
available for wastewater treatment  and conveyance projects in the forty-five States. For the
States  in aggregate, CWA Titles n and VI monies contribute approximately $9.5 billion from
1988 to 1999.  Other Federal sources play a small but consistent role, contributing an additional
$2.2 billion during that time period. State funding, which declines from  1991 to 1994 and then
slightly increases, contributes  approximately $16.9 billion from 1988 to 1999.  It should be noted
that several States were unable to provide estimates of funding from a range of Federal and
State sources.

       The funding provided by each source varies throughout the 1988 to  1999 time period.
CWA Titles n and VI  funding for  the forty-six States  declines from $1.9 billion in 1988 to $517
million in 1994 (the last year of capitalization grants) to zero thereafter, based on the
authorizations specified in the 1987 CWA Amendments.  State funding peaks at $2.9 billion in
1991 then declines to $1.5 billion in 1994 because most States plan to  reduce their matching
fund contributions as Federal capitalization grant contributions decline.  After 1995, funding


                                           4-1

-------
                                                              TABLE 4-1
                                     Federal and State Funding for Wastewater Projects(a)
                                                 Aggregated for Forty-six States(b)
                                                              ($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal(e)
State(f)
TOTAL(g)
Actual
1988 1989 1990
1,881 1,829 1,594
277 261 276
1,163 1,894 1,973
3,321 3,984 3,842
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(c)
2,029 1,597 1,059 517 0
255 244 241 238 192
2,910 2,181 1,877 1,464 1,534
5,194 4,021 3,177 2,218 1,725
Total
10,506
2,749
21,129
34,384
1988 Constant(d)
Dollar Total
9,455
2,228
16,961
28,644
(a)   Table excludes funds not considered available for wastewater project funding, including debt service reserves and monies used to repay State bonds.
      Most States projected CWA Title II and VI funding at authorized levels from 1991 to 1994. Six states estimated 1990 funding at authorized levels.
      Several states were unable to project funding contributions for some "other Federal" and "State" programs. Several States expressed concern about
      projecting available funds ten years into the future, and stated that the figures provided are best estimates.

(b)   Delaware, Montana,  North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.

(c)   Annual average.

(d)   Current year dollars for 1989 to 1999 discounted assuming 4.5% annual inflation, the average inflation rate for Stale and local government
      purchases from 1982 to 1988.

(e)   Includes Farmers Home Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Economic Development Administration.

(f)   SRF loan repayments, which come from local sources,  are included under State funding.

(g)   Totals vary due to rounding.

-------
                                     Figure 4-1
      Total Federal and State Funding Available for  Wastewater  Projects
                       Aggregated for Forty—six  States(a)
    0
         1988
1989     1990
1991     1992
    Year
           i         r
1993     1994   1995 to
                1999 (b)
                State
            CWA Title  II and VI
                       Other Federal
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding projections for this report, (b) Annual average.
 Note: Figure presents nominal dollar data not adjusted for inflation.

-------
from State sources increases slightly as higher levels of loan repayments flow back into the
SRFs and are available for relending.  In general the States do not plan to provide  additional
funding of SRFs to replace Federal capitalization grants after they are discontinued  in 1994. It
should be noted, however, that fifteen States do plan to further capitalize their SRFs after the
Federal capitalization period.  Of these, nine will provide future capitalization  at a level
substantially greater than the average annual Federal capitalization of their fund from 1988 to
1984; the other six at a level less than one-half of average Federal capitalization (See State
specific funding data in Appendix C).

       During the mid-1980s, local sources contributed approximately 40  percent of the
financing for wastewater treatment projects.1  Because nearly half of the States were unable to
project local source funding other than that provided by SRF loan repayments, and  because
many States that did project local funding indicated that their projections were highly uncertain,
Table 4-1 does not include local funding projections.  Section Five of this report provides
estimates of the amount of local funding that may be needed to meet wastewater collection and
conveyance needs in the forty-six States.  Funding for wastewater  projects from all sources for
each of the forty-six States is presented  in Appendix D.
4.2    Availability of SRF and Other State Program Funding

       Much of the available funding detailed in Section 4.1 is administered through State
programs including SRFs, non-SRF State loan programs, and State grants. Table 4-2 shows the
amount of actual and projected funding available through SRF and other State programs
aggregated for  the forty-six States from 1988 to 1999. Figure 4-2 presents a graphic illustration
of these data.  The States project that their programs will provide funding totalling $23.7  billion
(in 1988 dollars) from 1988 to 1999.

       In most of the forty-six States, the SRF programs have or will become the predominant
source of State funding for wastewater projects.  The States' SRFs are comprised of funds from
Federal capitalization grants  (including Title n transfers), State match and overmatch monies,
SRF leveraging, loan repayments, and interest earnings.  Collectively  these sources are expected
to contribute approximately $19.5 billion to SRFs in the forty-six States from 1988 to 1999.  Of
this, approximately $2.4 billion is projected to be held in debt service reserve accounts, leaving a
total of approximately $17.0  billion in SRF funds available for project assistance during that
time period.

       Federal capitalization grants contribute to SRF capitalization through 1994 and, at
authorized levels,  are projected to provide 35 percent of all SRF funds in the forty-six States
for the period  1988 to 1999.  State match and overmatch monies together contribute about 16
percent of SRF funds available for this time period.  Leveraging contributes about 37 percent
and loan repayments  contribute about 11 percent to the 1988 to 1999 SRF total.  The
percentage contributed by loan repayments increases rapidly throughout the time period,
however, rising to 33% for 1995-1999.  Overall, available SRF and other  State program funding
drops after 1994, the last year of Federal capitalization  funding.
    ^U.S. EPA. Environmental Investments:  The Cost of a Clean Environment.  Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.  December 1990.

                                            4-4

-------
                                                   Estimated Availability of SRWnd Other State Funding(a)
                                                                         in Forty-six States(b)
                                                                               ($ Millions)
le has data from 42para but it has a footnote w/an extra row so it can't be used to import from Paradox.
FUNDING SOURCE:
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(e)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
P'lf SRF Ayatlabie(l>: %»]f^{ -* * * -
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
•. .s s\ \ •••• ;. s-. $ ^ •£ j A-. ^. A .;. _^ •. ,% ^ vs ^ v. •- \
%% x ^n^yr^ATu^frY'' ^ "* ^ ^ % •/ s s s <• x% f
Actual
1988 1989 1990
349 1,116 1,168
61 218 222
57 267 275
67 401 725
0 16 7
025
534 2,019 2,402
(14) (196) (283)
vt ^ 'C'irt "1 tt'i^J 'i 1 it fi
x f iffjf* jt-t."TjTj *t* i A.y
571 556 482
421 631 539
'l>512 : 3JX& \ 3,140
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(c)
1,987 1,576 1,049 512 0
376 307 196 95 0
47 47 178 194 *285
1,688 1,293 850 777 645
34 108 225 325 482
18 23 26 27 30
4,151 3,355 2,524 1,930 1,443
(632) (465) (318) (257) (172)
^ $>ffl 2,890 2,206 1,673 1,270
235 240 147 135 135
1,143 627 573 167 128
4,«°7 3,757 2>26 1,976 1,534
Total
7,757
1,475
2,493
9,027
3,127
250
24,128
(3,028)
21,101
3,042
4,743
28,886
1988 Constant(d)
Dollar Total
6,784
1,290
1,899
7,132
2,199
184
19,487
(2,439)
17,049,
2,629
4,067
23,744
 (a)  Table excludes funds not considered available for wastewater project funding, including monies used to repay State bonds. Most States projected CWA
     VI funding at authorized levels from 1991 to 1994. Six states estimated 1990 funding at authorized levels. Several states were unable to project
     funding contributions for some "other Federal" and "State" programs. Several States expressed concern about projecting available funds ten ycurs into
     the future, end stated that the figures provided are best estimates.

 (b)  Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
 (c)  Annual average.
 (d)  Current year dollars for 1989 to 1999 discounted assuming 4.5% annual inflation, the average inflation for State and local government purchases from
     1982 to 1988.
 (e)  SRF loan repayments are from local funds.
 (f)  Represents the amount of SRF money available to finance eligable projects during the time period covered.
 (g)  Totals vary due to rounding.

 *   This figure represents the overmatch contributions  of six States.

-------
                                   Figure 4-2
        Estimated Availability of SRF and  Other State  Funding
      For Project Assistance Aggregated for Forty-six States(a)
0
                                                                I         i
     1988     1989     1990    1991     1992     1993     1994   1995 to
                                      v                             1999 (b)
                                      Year
        State Grants
State Match
                                                  SRF Levg. (c)
                            SRF Cap.
                            Grant
                   Other State
                   Sources
SRF Overmatch

SRF Int. Earnings
       LKd SRF Loan     L_
            Repayments

(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding estimates for this report,  (b) Annual average.
(c) Levgeraged funds are net of debt service reserve funds regardless of the actual source of debt service reserves.
Note: Figure presents nominal  dollar data not adjusted for inflation.

-------
       As shown in Table 4-2, total SRF funds available annually for wastewater treatment and
conveyance are projected to decrease about 40 percent in nominal terms, from $2.4 billion to
$1.4 billion, between 1990 and 1995; due to inflation, the decrease will be greater.  Total State
funding will decrease by over 50 percent during that same time period.  Although SRF loan
repayments will increase beyond  1995, this increase is not expected to be sufficient to offset the
phase-out of Federal SRF funds  within the time frame of this analysis.  Additional  State
capitalization and/or leveraging may be necessary to maintain level funding for wastewater
treatment and conveyance.  However,  as reported in the SRF Report to Congress
Questionnaires, most States do not plan to provide increased assistance for wastewater
treatment projects after the end  of the federal capitalization period.  As discussed in Subsection
4.1, of the forty-six States, fifteen States projected future capitalization  of the SRF at various
levels beyond 1994.

       In addition to SRF assistance, many States will continue to provide financial assistance
using State grants and/or  other non-SRF programs, although these programs will provide less
assistance as SRFs become more established.  Appendix C shows the estimated amount of SRF
and other State program  funding to be provided from 1988 to  1999 for each of the forty-six
States.
4.3    Current and Anticipated Uses of SRF Assistance

       State SRF programs may provide assistance for wastewater treatment projects,
wastewater collection and conveyance projects (including CSO and storm water projects),
implementation of approved NFS and ground water control activities, and planning and
implementation of approved estuary protection activities.  States must, however, use SRF funds
"in the fund as a result of capitalization grants" (i.e., the capitalization grant, repayments of the
first  round of loans awarded from the grant, and the State match) for wastewater treatment
projects on the National Municipal Policy (NMP) list, or otherwise satisfy the "First Use"
requirements,  before these funds can be used to  provide assistance for any other projects or
activities.  First use requirements are satisfied by a State when all NMP  facilities are in
compliance, are on enforceable schedules, have enforcement actions filed, or have a funding
commitment during or prior to the first year covered in a State's most recent SRF Intended
Use  Plan.

       The forty-six States are using the majority of their SRF assistance for wastewater
treatment projects.  Table 4-3 shows the actual and projected SRF funding used  for the
different types of eligible projects and activities.  In 1988, over 85 percent of SRF  assistance
went to treatment projects.  After 1995 the States estimate that treatment projects will account
for 61 percent of SRF assistance.  Most of the remaining funds will be used for wastewater
collection and conveyance projects, including CSO and storm water projects.  Wastewater
collection and conveyance projects account for 28.5 percent of projected SRF assistance for
1991 to 1994 and 31.9 percent for 1995 to 1999.   Beginning in 1989, the States report that a
small percentage of SRF assistance will be used for NPS activities.  One State, Wyoming,
intends to use all of its available SRF funds for NPS activities in the 1991 to 1994 time period.
The  States project using only  a very small percentage of SRF assistance  for estuarine protection
activities.
                                            4-7

-------
                                                TABLE 4-3

                   Planned Uses of SRF Assistance Aggregated for Forty-six States(a)
                                                 (SMillions)

TYPE OF PROJECT/ACTIVITY
Wastewater Treatment
Projects (Section 212)
(% of Total)
Wastewater Collection &
Conveyance (Section 212)
(% of Total)
Nonpoint Source & Ground
Water (Section 3 19)(b)
(% of Total)
Estuarine Activities
(Section 320)
(% of Total)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
398.9
85.4%
68.0
14.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
466.9
100%
1989
773.8
81.3%
176.6
18.6%
1.3
0.1%
0
0.0%
951.7
100%
1990
1,285.6
76.6%
389.9
23.2%
1.4
0.1%
0.04
0.0%
1,678.2
100%
1991-1994
Aggregated
7,387.1
69.0%
3,055.1
28.5%
200.6
1.9%
60.16
0.6%
10,703.1
100%
1995-1999
Aggregated
4,171.3
61.2%
2,174.6
31.9%
439^
6.4-%
30.16
0.4%
6,814.3
100%
Note:    Funds used for administrative expenses and debt service reserves are not included in this table. The
         amount of money used for funding projects in individual years may differ from SRF funding available in
         those years because project funding schedules are not necessarily tied to available funds year-by-year.

(a)       Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.


(b)       Wyoming intends to use all of its available SRF funds for NPS activities in the 1991 to 1994 time period.
                                                   4-8

-------
                         ss. '• ->
                          '"-
                                     SECTION FIVE
     COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS TO AVAILABLE FUNDS
       This section compares the wastewater treatment and conveyance needs of the forty-six
States that provided funding data to the total projected funding available from Federal  and State
sources  in those States.   The section  also estimates  the  amount  of  local funding that may be
needed, in addition to Federal and State funding, to meet documented needs.

       Table 5-1 compares the needs of SNC facilities in the forty-six States to funding available
during 1988-1999.  The SNC needs data are derived from Table 3-1 as explained in Section 3.1.
Table 5-1  shows that SRF funds are adequate to cover SNC needs in forty-three of the States and
from 52 to 84  percent of the needs in the remaining three  States.  As pointed out in Section
Three, however, the SNC-related needs represent a "snapshot" as of June 30, 1990; there will be
additional significant violations through 1999 that will require construction to correct. Furthermore,
SRF funding extends far beyond the requirements of SNC facilities.

       Table 5-2 compares the design year Category I through V wastewater treatment needs in
the forty-six States to funding available  during 1988-1999. The design year needs data are derived
from the  1988  Needs Survey. The table shows the proportion  of Category I  to V design year
needs covered  by  Federal and State funds.  The gap between  Federal and State funding and
wastewater treatment needs, which represents the amount that may need to be funded by local
sources, is shown in the right hand column of Table 5-2.

       For the forty-six  States in aggregate, total Federal and State  funding  of $27.3 billion is
sufficient  to cover 35 percent of all Category I to V design year needs, which total 77.6 billion.1
Local funding, therefore, may need to  provide $50.3 billion or 65 percent of all Category I to V
needs. The proportion of design year  needs covered  by Federal and  State sources varies  widely
among the States.  Five States project sufficient funding from Federal and State sources  in the
1988 to 1999 time  period to completely cover their Category I-V design year needs. Eight States
project available Federal and State funds to meet 75 to 99 percent of their design year needs. Five
States project coverage of 50 to 74 percent of their design year needs;  Seventeen project coverage
of 24 to 50 percent of these needs.  FJeven States project Federal and State funding to  cover less
than 25 percent of their design year needs; of these, two project coverage of only 12 percent of
their design year needs. One of  these two States, Michigan, did not provide 1995 to 1999 funding
data and would, therefore, show  a smaller gap if more complete funding estimates were available;
the other State, Florida, provided more complete projections and thus appears to have needs in
excess of  available funds as indicated in the table.
    'In five States, available funds are sufficient to cover over 100 percent of Category I-V design
year needs. The $27.3 billion funding total is net of the funds that exceed design year needs in
those four States since it is assumed the funds exceeding Category I-V design year needs in those
States will not be available to meet design year needs in the other States.

                                            5-1

-------
                                          TABLE 5-1
                        Comparison of SNC Needs to Federal and State Funds Available
                                          For Forty-six(a) States
                                             ($ Millions, 1990)
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
^^ Maryland

Total SNC
Needs
170
26
15
148
1,701
69
197
214
163
196
18
205
275
137
59
166
331
118
36
Actual
SRF(c)
251
69
85
71
945
149
707
490
248
101
53
532
256
229
83
205
328
59
579
and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999
Other
State
0
32
0
100
97
9
177
17
248
0
39
484
166
0
0
80
0
142
45

Other
Federal
111
5
67
128
385
57
0
252
248
1
52
208
279
84
63
111
121
0
98
Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
362
106
151
298
1,427
215
884
759
744
101
144
1,223
701
313
146
395
449
201
722
Inued

-------
                                               TABLE
ontinued
                             Comparison of SNC Needs to Federal and State Funds Available
                                               For Forty-six(a) States
                                                 ($ Millions,  1990)
STATE
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee

Total SNC
Needs
865
146
295
119
159
17
1
219
297
36
1,234
193
71
63
419
41
86
74
199
Actual
SRF(c)
220
334
482
123
769
48
54
79
1,101
81
3,309
196
342
119
363
56
152
59
220
and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999
Other
State
1,682
0
222
3
151
8
0
115
118
14
68
27
377
50
695
0
0
2
207

Other
Federal
80
70
146
76
157
48
26
39
34
15
405
167
24
101
368
27
14
24
108
Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
1,982
404
849
202
1,077
105
80
234
1,253
110
3,783
390
743
271
1,427
83
167
86
535
Continued

-------
                                                 TABLE 5-1, continued

                            Comparison of SNC Needs to Federal and State Funds Available
                                                 For Forty-six(a) States
                                                    ($ Millions, 1990)


STATE
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL(d)
(a) Delaware,

Total SNC
Needs
1,227
107
14
160
676
272
426
5
11,665
Montana,
Actual


SRF(c)
845
79
44
352
170
138
1,802
73
17,049
and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999

Other Other
State Federal
177
36
56
184
424
0
413
32
6,696 4,
North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for
(b) Funds available data are from Table D-l. All
funds have been discounted to 1988




294
17
23
98
91
31
122
24
899
this report.

Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
1,315
132
123
634
685
169
2,338
129
28,644


(c)
(d)
Dollars. Funds not considered available for wastewater project funding, including debt
service reserves and monies used to repay State bonds are excluded. Some of Virginia's
non-SRF funds included in their total funds figure have been targeted for wastewater
conveyance projects, and thus may not be available to fund treatment needs. Several
States were unable to provide Federal funding estimates for some non-EPA Federal programs
and non-SRF State programs.

SRF monies include loan repayments from  local sources.  Loan repayments account for 12% of SRF funds
from 1988 to 1999.  Michigan, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island did not provide SRF funding projections
for the 1995 to 1999 time period.
Totals vary due to rounding.

-------
                                TABLE 5-2
      Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
     Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
                            For Forty-six(a) States
                              (SMillions, 1988)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999 Total Federal
Design and State
Year Needs(c) Other Other Funds Available Funding
STATE Cat. I-V SRF(d) State Federal 1988 to 1999 Gap(e)
Alabama 781
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Alaska 221
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Arizona 979
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Arkansas 370
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
California 6,539
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Colorado 196
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Connecticut 1,392
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Florida 6,186
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Georgia 1,007
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Hawaii 413
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Idaho 124
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Illinois 2,958
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
251
32%
69
31%
85
9%
71
19%
945
14%
149
76%
707
51%
490
8%
248
25%
101
24%
53
42%
532
18%
0
0%
32
14%
0
0%
100
27%
97
1%
9
5%
177
13%
17
0%
248
25%
0
0%
39
31%
484
16%
111
14%
5
2%
67
7%
128
35%
385
6%
57
29%
0
0%
252
4%
248
25%
1
0%
52
42%
208
7%
362
46%
106
48%
151
15%
298
81%
1,427
22%
215
110%
884
63%
759
12%
744
74%
101
25%
144
116%
1,223
41%
419
54%
115
52%
828
85%
72
19%
5,112
78%
(19)
-10%
508
37%
5,427
88%
263
. 26%
312
75%
(20)
-16%
1,735
59%
Continued
                                       5-5

-------
                            TABLE 5-2, continued

       Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
     Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
                            For Forty-six(a) States
                               (SMillions, 1988)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999 Total Federal
Design
Year Needs(c)
STATE Cat. I-V SRF(d)
Indiana 1,721
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Iowa 646
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Kansas 720
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Kentucky 1,457
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Louisiana 1,189
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Maine 341
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Maryland 919
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Massachusetts 5,836
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Michigan 3,321
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Minnesota 1,106
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Mississippi 548
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Missouri 1,222
(%ofCat. I-V Need)
256
15%
229
35%
83
12%
205
14%
328
28%
59
17%
579
63%
220
4%
334
10%
482
44%
123
22%
769
63%
and State
Other Other Funds Available
State Federal 1988 to 1999
166
10%
0
0%
0
0%
80
5%
0
0%
142
42%
45
5%
1,682
29%
0
0%
222
20%
3
1%
151
12%
279
16%
84
13%
63
9%
111
8%
121
10%
0
0%
98
11%
80
1%
70
2%
146
13%
76
14%
157
13%
701
41%
313
48%
146
20%
395
27%
449
38%
201
59%
722
79%
1,982
34%
404
12%
849
77%
202
37%
1,077
88%
Funding
Gap(e)
1,020
59%
333
52%
574
80%
1,062
73%
740
62%
140
41%
197
21%
3,854
66%
2,917
88%
257
23%
346
63%
145
12%
Continued
                                      5-6

-------
                           TABLE 5-2, continued

      Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
     Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
                           For Forty-six(a) States
                              (SMillions, 1988)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999 Total Federal
Design and State
Year Needs(c) Other Other Funds Available
STATE Cat. I-V SRF(d) State Federal 1988 to 1999
Nebraska
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Nevada
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New Hampshire
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New Jersey
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New Mexico
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New York
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
North Carolina
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Oklahoma
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Oregon
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Pennsylvania
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Rhode Island
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
South Carolina
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
114

165

854

3,754

130

12,721

1,799

476

1,273

1,644

408

684

48
42%
54
33%
79
9%
1,101
29%
81
62%
3,309
26%
196
11%
342
72%
119
9%
363
22%
56
14%
152
22%
8
7%
0
0%
115
13%
118
3%
14
11%
68
1%
27
2%
377
79%
50
4%
695
42%
0
0%
0
0%
48
42%
26
16%
39
5%
34
1%
15
12%
405
3%
167
9%
24
5%
101
8%
368
22%
27
7%
14
2%
105
92%
80
49%
234
27%
1,253
33%
110
85%
3,783
30%
390
22%
743
156%
271
21%
1,427
87%
83'
20%
167
24%
Funding
Gap(e)
9
8%
85
51%
620
73%
2,501
67%
20
15%
8,938
70%
1,409
78%
(267)
-56%
1,002
79%
217
13%
325
80%
517
76%
Continued
                                        5-7

-------
                            TABLE 5-2. continued

       Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
     Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
                            For Forty-six(a) States
                              (SMfflions, 1988)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999 Total Federal
Design
Year Needs(c)
STATE Cat. I-V SRF(d)
South Dakota 87
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Tennessee 1,467
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Texas 4,975
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Utah 583
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Vermont 209
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Virginia 957
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Washington 2,685
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
West Virginia 976
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Wisconsin 1,399
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Wyoming 18
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
TOTAL 77,570
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
59
68%
220
15%
845
17%
79
14%
44
21%
352
37%
170
6%
138
14%
1,802
•129%
73
406%
17,049
22%
Other
State
2
2%
207
14%
177
4%
36
6%
56
27%
184
19%
424
16%
0
0%
413
30%
32
177%
6,696
9%
and State
Other Funds Available
Federal 1988 to 1999
24
28%
108
7%
294
6%
17
3%
23
11%
98
10%
91
3%
31
3%
122
9%
24
132%
4,899
6%
86
98%
535
36%
1,315
26%
132
23%
123
59%
634
66%
685
26%
169
17%
2,338
167%
129
715%
27,289 (g)
35%
Funding
Gap(e)
1
2%
932
64%
3,660
74%
451
77%
86
41%
323
34%
2,000
74%
807
83%
(939)
-67%
(111)
-615%
50,281
65%
Continued
                                        5-8

-------
                             FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 5-2
(a)  Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information
    for this report.

(b)  Funds available data are from Table D-l.  All funds have been discounted to 1988
    Dollars.  Funds not considered available for wastewater project funding, including debt
    service reserves and monies used to repay State bonds are excluded. Some of Virginia's
    non-SRF funds included in their total funds figure have been targeted for wastewater
    conveyance projects, and thus may not be available  to fund treatment needs. Several
    States were unable to provide Federal funding estimates for some non-EPA Federal programs
    and non-SRF State programs.

(c)  For a discussion of design year needs, see Footnote #1 and #2, Section 3.2.

(d)  SRF monies include loan repayments from local sources. Loan repayments account
    for 12% of SRF funds from 1988 to 1999.  Michigan, New  Hampshire, and Rhode
    Island did not provide SRF funding projections for the 1995 to 1999 time period.

(e)  Derived by subtracting actual and projected 1988  to 1999 SRF, other State, and Federal
    funding from design year needs.

(f)  State's available funds exceed Category I-V design  year needs.

(g)  Total equals sum of State and Federal funds for forty-one States whose Category I-V
    design year needs exceed available funds, plus funds equaling design year needs in five
    States whose funds exceed needs.  Available funds in excess of design year needs  in any
    one State are assumed not to help meet needs in any other State.
                                                5-9

-------
       In the  mid-1980s,  localities  typically provided approximately 40 percent of such funds.2
The approximate 65 percent local funding share for the forty-five States in aggregate therefore
represents an increase  of over 50 percent  in the  level of local funding needed for wastewater
treatment and conveyance for the  period  covered.   Further,  localities will  be responsible for
repaying SRF loans.  Based on the final composition of grant and loan funding, localities will
ultimately be responsible for paying  well over 65 percent of the cost of wastewater treatment and
conveyance.

       SRF-eligible needs in the forty-six States will greatly exceed the design year needs presented
in Table 5-2.  New needs are expected to arise between 1988 and 1999 due to economic growth
and wastewater treatment plant renovation  and expansion.  The latter needs  are likely to be
significant because many treatment plants built in the 1970's will be reaching their design  capacity
during the 1990s.   In addition, funding needs arising from the  new funding eligibilities and new
enforceable requirements (e.g., toxics control, stormwater  management, and sludge disposal) will
add substantially to the documented needs. Appendix B to this report discusses  the new eligibilities
and new enforceable requirements.
    ^.S. EPA.  Environmental Investments:  The Cost of a Clean Environment.  Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation,  December 1990.
                                            5-10

-------
                                      SECTION SEX
                              SRF PROGRAM OPERATIONS
       This section discusses how the States operate their SRF programs.  Program structure is
described in Section 6.1.  Section 6.2 discusses special programs for small and economically
distressed communities, and Section 6.3 describes the mechanisms used to ensure the viability of
the States'  SRFs.
6.1    Structure of the State SRF Programs

       All of the forty-seven States that responded to the SRF questionnaire offer SRF loans
at below-market interest rates.  Loan repayments, except  for those required to retire program
debt, are used to fund additional loans.  While the SRFs  have  some basic similarities, the
programs differ in several ways, including their manner of obtaining matching funds, their use of
leveraging, and their method of determining interest rates.
       Method of Obtaining Matching Funds

       The States have adopted several different approaches toward generating matching funds.
The most commonly used methods are State appropriations, State general obligation (G.O.)
bonds, and State or SRF program revenue bonds. Of the forty-six States that provided data on
their method of obtaining State matching funds, 21 obtained their match with State
appropriations,  12 with G.O. bonds, 5 with revenue bonds, and 1 with a combination of State
appropriations and revenue bonds. The  remaining 7 States use a variety of other methods
which include pledging the loan repayments of existing wastewater treatment loan programs and
requiring SRF loan  recipients to provide their own matching funds.  One State, Washington,
obtains its State match through a  tax on tobacco products.

       The method a State uses to supply the match affects the amount of lendable funds in
the SRF in the long term.  Funds provided by a State G.O. bond or appropriation generally do
not need to be paid back by the SRF. Therefore, when these funds are loaned by the SRF,
the repayments are  available to fund additional loans.  In cases where loans are made with
matching funds provided by SRF revenue bonds or similar debt instruments, less money will be
available to fund additional loans if SRF interest earnings are  used to repay the SRF debt.
       Leveraging

       For most States, the SRF capitalization grant and the State match constitute all available
capitalization for program assistance.  SRF programs in 13 of the forty-seven States that
responded to the questionnaire issue debt to provide additional lendable funds.  Some of the
States that  are not currently leveraging indicated that they intend to consider this option in the
future.
                                           6-1

-------
       Each of the leveraged SRF programs is different.  States have designed leveraging
structures that best address their particular needs and achieve their program goals.  All of the
leveraged SRF programs developed to date, however, fit into one of two general categories:
reserve fund leveraging or blended rate  leveraging.

       The reserve fund approach, which is the most common of the two, uses some or all of
the capitalization grant and/or the State matching funds as a reserve fund within the SRF that
serves two purposes. First, these monies secure a revenue bond issue, the proceeds of which
are deposited into  the SRF and lent to  SRF assistance recipients.  In addition, the reserve fund
produces investment interest earnings that are used along with loan repayments to pay  debt
service on  the bonds.  It is this feature that allows the SRF to charge less interest on loans
than it must pay on its bonds, effectively providing an interest rate subsidy to communities.

       An SRF program that leverages  using the blended rate approach provides an interest
rate subsidy through a different mechanism. The SRF in this  case also issues revenue bonds,
but secures the bonds through a traditional debt service reserve fund from bond proceeds and
lends the balance of the proceeds to recipients at the market interest rate of the bonds.  The
capitalization  grant and State matching funds are lent to the assistance recipient at zero percent
interest.  Each recipient receives half of its loan assistance from capitalization and match funds
at zero percent  and half of its loan  assistance form bond proceeds at market rate.  The
effective interest rate on the SRF loan produced by this "blending" is below market rates and
provides a  subsidy to communities borrowing from the program.
       Types of Assistance

       Table 6-1 presents the estimated distribution of available funds among the various types
of SRF assistance.  The data are aggregated for the forty-six States that provided information
on types of SRF assistance.  (Appendix E provides these data for each of the forty-six States.)
The States intend to provide most of their financial assistance through loans. Twenty-two of
the States indicated that loans would be the only form of financial assistance provided. Twenty-
four States plan to use a small amount of program funds for refinancing.  States that leverage
through revenue bonds will often  use some funding to secure program indebtedness.  As Table
6-1 shows, the portion of aggregate funds  committed as revenue or security for  SRF debt is
expected to increase beginning in  1991 as  additional States  implement leveraged SRFs. While
this shift leads to a corresponding decrease in the portion of funds used for loans the overall
impact of the increase in leveraging is a significant increase in the amount of funds lent.
       Interest Rates

       All States offer SRF loans at below market rates, although two of States reportedly
offer some of their SRF loans at up to market rates.  The vast majority of SRF loans are
issued  at interest rates of 2 to 5-1/2 percent  The range of interest rates and methods of setting
loan interest rates are presented in  Table 6-2. Sixteen States report  that they adjust their
interest rates based on the economic condition of the community (see discussion in Section 6.2).

       In setting interest rates for SRF loan  recipients, States must set rates low enough to
make the program attractive to communities,  but high enough to ensure the long term viability
of the  fund.  The differing approaches used by the States reflect their perception of this

                                            6-2

-------
                                              TABLE 6-1
                          Types of SRF Assistance and Administrative Costs
                                  Aggregated for Forty-six States(a)
                                              (SMillions)

TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
(% of Total)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
(% of Total)
d^^Kitee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
(% of Total)
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
(% of Total)
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
(% of Total)
Administrative Expenses
(max. 4% of cap grant)(b)
(% of Total)(c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
428.2
88%
37.9
8%
0.0
0%
14.1
3%
0.0
0%
7.4
2%
487.6
100%
1989
939.0
92%
26.3
3%
0.0
0%
33.1
3%
0.0
0%
18.4
2%
1,016.8
100%
1990
1,533.2
82%
152.8
8%
0.0
0%
135.5
7%
0.0
0%
40.2
2%
1,861.7
100%
1991-1994
Aggregated
9,153.0
72%
1,486.5
12%
0.0
0%
1,808.7
14%
0.0
0%
206.0
2%
12,655.1
100%
1995-1999
Aggregated
5,914.6
80%
765.1
10%
0.0
0%
640.3
9%
0.0
0%
79.6
1%
7,399.5
100%
Total
17,967.9
77%
2,468.6
11%
0.0
0%
2,631.6
11%
0.0
0%
351.7
2%
23,420.7
100%
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio, did not provide funding information for this report.

(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization
       it awards received by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is
      lited to 4% of all grant awards minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(c) Note that this figure is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

                                                      6-3

-------
TABLE 6-2
SRF Loan Interest Rate Structures of Forty-seven Responding States(a)
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
Rate
5%
4% to 5%
5%
3.5% to 4.0%
50% of market
4%; 65% of market
2%
2% to 5%
3% below market
2%
3.5%
4%
2.5% to 4.0%

4.86%
60% of market
2.3% to 4.3%
5.5%
2% below market
53% -70% of market
45% "grant equivalency"
2%
0% to 6.05%
3%
50% of market
Explanation
Uniform rate on all loans.
Interest rate set at 66% of Municipal Bond Index for State G.O. bonds at time loan is signed.
Uniform rate on all loans.
Uniform rate of 4% on all loans except for I&A projects, which are charged only 3.5% interest.
Interest rate set at 1/2 that of most recent sale of State GO bonds; G.O bond interest can not exceed 12%.
Direct loans - 4%; leveraged program loans - 65% of market.
Additional subsidy of 20 to 50% State grant for all projects.
Rate varies depending on communities' ability to pay and cost per household in relation to income.
3% below General Obligation 20-Bond Index for tax-exempt 20-yr bonds.
Uniform rate on all loans. Varies FY to FY.
Uniform rate on all loans set at 50% of State GO bond on market at end of June each year.
Uniform rate on all loans.
2.5% charged for compliance needs existing as of 10/89; 1/2 market rate for others.
Undetermined at this time.
Rate varies FY to FY based on State bond interest.
State sets rate based on 60% of prior 3 month average of 20 Bond Buyers Index.
Interest rate depends on median household income of county. <
Rate subject to change annually based on review committee recommendations.
Rate set 2% below Bond Bank's cost of funds.
Interest rate depends on median household income of county. Rates may be as low as 0% in certain cases.
Rate may vary based on cost of borrowing. Additional subsidy (State grant) depends on communities' ability to pay.
Uniform rate on all loans.
Rate varies depending on communities' ability to pay, household income, sewer service fees, and poverty.
Uniform rate on all loans.
SRF interest rate equals 50% of market rate.
Continued

-------
TABLE 6-2, continued
SRF Loan Interest Rate Structures of Forty-seven Responding States(a)
State:
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Rate
3.5% to market
65% of market
Variable
3.5% to 4.0%
5%
0% to 2/3 of market
lesser of 1/2 market or 4%
60% of market
0% then 3%
1 % to 75 % of market rate
4% below market; variable
4.5% and 2%
3%
0% to market rate
2% to 5.75%
0% to market Rate
0% to 80% of market
0% to 7%
0%to5%
0% to 4%
0% to 7.5%
0%
Explanation
Rate varies depending on median household income, existing debt, and option of accelerated payback.
Uniform rate on all loans. *
Rate varies 1st 5yrs., 1/6 of GO Bond index Istyr., 2/6 the 2nd, etc., after 6 yrs its set 1% higher than the index.
Varies from funding cycle to funding cycle based on cost of borrowing.
Uniform rate on all loans.
Rate varies based on communities' ability to pay and interest rate on EFC bonds.
Rate is set at the lesser of 50% of market (based on 20 year bond index) or 4%.
Varies depending on interest rate on 20 year tax exempt revenue bonds.
For first 5 years - 0%; from years 5 to 20 - 3%.
Rate varies depending on communities' ability to pay; unemployment rate, user fees, economic distress factors.
High risk loans-variable rate, low risk-4% below market with a longer repayment.
Rate varies annually based on State G.O. bonds. For hardship cases, 2% flat rate.
Uniform rate on all loans.
Rate varies based on communities' ability to pay.
Except for hardship loans the rate depends on interest rate on TWDB bonds for state match and overmatch.
Rate varies depending on communities' ability to pay.
Rate is 0% for CSO's, otherwise up to 80% of market based on treasurers discresion.
Rate varies depending on communities' ability to pay.
Rate varies depending on communities' ability to pay; also varies based on term of loan.
Rate varies depending on communities' ability to pay; source of state match.
Rate varies depending on community ability to pay, and environmental priority by type of project.
Uniform rate on all loans.
(a) Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio, did not provide interest rate information for this report.

-------
trade-off.  Some States reported that the high cost of program requirements  (described in detail
in Section Eleven) had to be offset by very low interest rates  to make the SRF program
attractive in their State.  Various analyses have estimated that an interest rate subsidy of 2-3%
to loan recipients (compared to the rate they can obtain in the market) is necessary to offset
these costs.

       The low, subsidized interest rates offered by SRF programs, however, reduce the level
of funding available in  the SRF in future years.  After initial capitalization, SRFs will rely to a
large extent on loan repayments to provide capital from which to make additional loans. While
the initial SRF capitalization funds will be maintained by the principal portion of the
repayments, the growth or decline of the fund depends directly on the rate of interest charged
to recipients.  In general, to maintain a level amount of actual project purchasing power, an
SRF would have to charge an average  interest rate equal to the inflation  rate (which since 1982
has averaged 4.5 percent per year for State and local government purchases1).  There would  be
some fluctuation in the amount available for loans each year, based on the repayment
schedules, but  an SRF  charging interest at the inflation rate would, over time, provide a steady
source of loan assistance.

       An SRF with a loan portfolio that has an average interest rate below the inflation rate
will lose purchasing power without additional State capitalization. In  addition to inflation, SRF
program expenses such as the purchase of local debt insurance, allowable  administrative costs,
and SRF loan defaults, could diminish lendable SRF funds over time  in the absence of
adequately high interest charges or further capitalization.  Therefore,  a State  that makes a
policy decision to provide loans below the inflation rate will need to make the financial
commitment to provide further capitalization if it desires  to maintain the fund in real terms.  If
a State desires to increase the size of the fund in real terms, it must provide  further
capitalization, charge interest rates in excess of inflation,  or both. It appears that the policies
adopted by many States will not maintain or increase the fund. As  noted in  Subsection 4.1,
only fifteen States plan to provide further capitalization of their SRF through leveraging or
"overmatch" beyond 1994. Of these, nine will provide future capitalization at a level
substantially greater than the average annual Federal capitalization of their fund from 1988 to
1994; the other six at a level less  than  one-half of average Federal capitalization. And Table 6-
2 indicates that many SRF programs make loans at interest rates below reasonably expected
rates of inflation.

       The determination of interest rates is  left exclusively to each State. All of the States
have incorporated some interest rate subsidy into SRF program design. About 20% of the
States have set current interest rates that can be expected to be significantly  below inflation
rates.  However, some of these States have already established policies for additional
capitalization of their SRFs that will offset such subsidies. EPA is currently assessing
capitalization levels necessary to maintain various fund values for all the States.  As part of the
SRF annual review process, EPA will monitor the impact of various interest rate structures on
the financial condition of SRFs.
           on U.S. Department of Commerce News.  U.S. Bureau of Economic Analyses.
BEA 90-33.  July 27, 1990.
                                             6-6

-------
       States that issue bonds to leverage their SRFs would have another concern in protecting
the long term viability of their funds.  If loans are made at a rate less than that at which the
bonds are issued, loan repayments will not be adequate to repay the bonds.  Additional funds
will have to be provided to make up the difference. Some States use investment earnings from
their  debt service reserve funds for this purpose. While leveraging an SRF provides a
significantly greater amount of loan  assistance in the early years of the program than does an
unleveraged fund, the  use of loan repayments to retire  leverage bond  debt will limit the capital
growth of the fund, as well as the long-term balance of lendable funds.  Additional State
capitalization in future years will be  necessary if the State wants  to expand its leveraged
amount.
6.2    Special Programs for Small and/or Economically Distressed Communities

       State officials reported that many economically distressed communities throughout the
country cannot afford SRF loans even at very low interest rates.  These communities include
the colonias2 in Texas, Indian lands, and some very small communities in Minnesota, among
others.  Many States take the needs of these communities into account in developing and
operating the SRF and related programs.  Sixteen States consider the economic condition of the
community in setting interest rates for SRF loans.  Ten of these States  indicated that they may
offer zero interest SRF loans to economically distressed communities.  An eleventh State,
Wyoming, offers zero interest on all SRF loans, including loans to economically distressed
communities.

       In addition to offering special interest rates, several States operate other loan or grant
programs that provide  additional subsidies to economically distressed communities.  Of the forty-
five States that responded to questions regarding small and economically distressed communities,
twenty-six indicated they provide State grant funding to help small and/or economically
distressed communities meet their wastewater  project needs.  While several of these State
programs provide substantial assistance, the  principal form of subsidy  for wastewater treatment
in small and/or economically distressed communities in many States  is the low rate of interest
offered under the  SRF program.
6.3    Ensuring the Viability of the SRF Programs

       All of the States plan to operate their SRF programs through 1999 and beyond.  In
their responses to the questionnaire, States primarily approach the viability of their SRFs in
terms of securing reliable  loan repayment streams.  It appears that most States intend to ensure
the long-term viability of their programs through sound management of their loan portfolios.
    *In the area immediately adjacent to the international boundary with Mexico, there are
over 200,000 people living in small communities known as "colonias".  These communities are
economically distressed and either have inadequate water and sewage service or lack these
services altogether.  In the Agency's appropriation for fiscal year 1990, Congress authorized the
State of Texas to establish a special revolving fund to serve residents  of these communities.
The special revolving fund has been capitalized from the construction grant allotment for Texas.

                                            6-7

-------
The CWA requires that all SRF loan recipients specify a dedicated source of revenue to repay
the loan.  The States employ several other measures to assure the long term viability of their
SRFs.

       All of the States give careful consideration to affordability before  issuing a loan under
the SRF program.  All States either review credit information or undertake their own financial
review of applicants before issuing loans.  States uniformly view the soundness of their loan
portfolio as the most important factor in the long-term viability of their programs.

       In addition to financial review, States use some combination  of community pledges
and/or assurances to secure loans.  All States require communities to pledge user fees,  the full
faith and credit of the community, or both, before issuing a loan.  Some States  require
communities to pledge both user fees and full faith and credit (the "double barrel" pledge) for
every loan.

       Some States purchase insurance on their SRF debt to help protect the long term
viability of their programs.  (Note that this insurance is for SRF program debt such as leverage
or match bonds.  This is different from the purchase of insurance for local debt obligations as a
form of SRF assistance as presented in Table 6-1.)  While these insurance policies add to
program costs, they also lower the interest rates charged on the bonds by providing an
additional level of protection to the fund and the holders of SRF program bonds.  At least one
State requires loan recipients to maintain a loan repayment reserve.

       An important aspect of loan portfolio management is the reduction of potential losses
through late payments and loan defaults.  There are several common elements in State plans
for anticipating and reacting to problems with loans:

       •       States typically plan to review annual audited statements and/or community user
               fees to ensure that communities are operating in a fiscally  sound manner and are
               charging sufficient fees to cover their indebtedness.

       •       When potential problems are spotted, States will work with the community to
               rectify the problem and prevent a default.  The State may  encourage  an increase
               in user fees.  Many States indicated that they would consider restructuring or
               refinancing in the event of serious problems.

       •       States will, in general, use all recourse allowed under State law in the  event of a
               default.  This recourse typically includes suing the community, seeking a court
               order to require the community to raise user fees, and withholding state-shared
               tax revenues or other State funding to the community.

Because the program is so new, it is not possible to provide any statistics  concerning  the
frequency of late payments, default, or other loan problems.  None of the States report any
problems, as yet, with their current loans.
                                            6-8

-------
                  C               SECTION SEVEN
            ,
-------
                                               TABLE 7-1
                             Employment in Administration and Operation of SRFs
                                           In Forty-five States(a)
                                               FY 1989-1990

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
(b) West Virginia
Wisconsin
(c) Wyoming
TOTAL
(% of Total)
Annual Full Time Employee Equivalents
Staff Function
Admin.
6
0.5
0.75
10
7.2
2.4
4
9
3
3
1.03
1
5
1.5
2
6
5
3
6.5
9
4.5
7.2
2.5
1.1
1.07
2
23.5
2
22.38
6
3.1
2.02
5
0
3.7
1
3.95
7.2
1
0.91
6.8
1.3
1.6
9
1.5
206.21
29%
Technical
Support
4
0.7
0.75
7
18.4
1.65
12
19
6
6
1.22
2
20
2.5
0.2
6
5
3.5
9
25
11.5
14
1
1
0.75
4
33
1
23.25
24
1.8
0.1
10
3
9.87
2.5
5.5
14.8
3
0.97
10.5
7.4
2.2
7
3
345.06
48%
Financial Management
Accounting
3
0.1
0
1
4.3
0.15
5
4.5
1
1
0.25
1.1
6
1
0.2
0
2
2
3
3
2
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.75
1
8
1.25
10
1
0
0.1
2
0
1.4
1
1.25
2.9
1
0.34
1.5
0.25
1
0.05
1
78.59
11%
Finance
6
0.2
0
1
0
2.2
1
2.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.1
0
0.5
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
1.1
0
0.5
0
1
6
0
4.25
1
0.4
0.1
3
1
1
1
0.25
2.4
0
1.3
3
1.5
1
2
1
63.55
9%
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
13
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
5.5
0.2
0
0
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
27.75
4%
Total
19
1.5
1.5
19
29.9
6.4
23
35
10.25
10.75
3
4.2
31
5.5
5.4
26
16
10.5
20.5
39
22
23.5
4
3.1
2.57
8
70.5
4.25
59.88
36
5.5
2.42
20
4
15.97
11
11.15
27.3
5
3.52
23.3
10.45
5.8
18.05
6.5
721.16
100%
(a)  Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide employment
    data for this report.

(b)  West Virginia's figures represent projected FY 1991 staffing.

(c)  Wyoming's figures represent projected FY 1991 staffing.

                                                  7-2

-------
After the equivalency requirements1 of the last capitalization grant are met, States may change
the nature and number of SRF program staff if the workload decreases.  States that begin to
leverage may need to add staff with financial expertise.
7.2    Costs Associated With SRF Program Administration

       Annual administrative expenses for 1989 to 1995 for forty-four States that provided cost
projections are presented in Table 7-2.  Included in each State's estimates are all direct and
indirect costs associated with SRF program administration. Also shown are each State's  SRF
administrative expense allowances.  The allowances for 1989 and  1990 are an amount equal to
four percent of the actual capitalization grants  awarded.  The allowances  for 1991 to 1994 are
estimated based on the authorized capitalization grant.2  Program requirements limit the  amount
of SRF funds spent on administrative expenses in a given year to four percent of the
cumulative capitalization grant amount, less previous expenditures of SRF funds on
administration. States can accumulate or  "bank" any unused portion of their expense allowance
for use in future years.

       The table shows that the cumulative SRF administrative expense allowance will be
adequate in some States and not in others.  Based on State estimated administrative expenses
and SRF capitalization grant awards at authorized amounts, twenty-eight States are expecting to
have sufficient allowances from their capitalization grants to cover their projected administrative
costs for the 1989 to  1994 time period.  Of the sixteen States, highlighted in Table 7-2, that are
projected to experience shortfalls between their expected administrative expenses and the four
percent capitalization grant allowance, over 75  percent of the administrative costs are covered
in seven States, from 50 to 75 percent of costs are covered in six States, and less than 50
percent of costs are covered in the remaining three States.

       While leveraging does not appear  to have  a significant impact on staff size, it does
appear to increase program  administration expenses.  Nearly half of the States  projected to
experience administrative expenses in excess of their four percent administrative cost allowance
between 1989 and 1994 operate leveraged programs.

       It is important to note that no funds from capitalization grants are shown for 1995 or
subsequent years.  After the final Federal grant allotment, States will have to rely on alternative
funding sources or banked allowances to cover  their administrative expenses. Projected
administrative expenses for 1995 are shown in Table 7-2.
    'The equivalency requirements are 16 statutory CWA Title H requirements included in
Section 602(b)(6) that cover wastewater treatment projects constructed in whole or in part with
funds "directly made available by" Federal SRF capitalization grant awards.  These incorporate
requirements regarding the type of technologies, analyses, and issues which must be taken into
account by such projects.  After States have committed funds equal to the total amount of
capitalization grant  awards, additional SRF-funded wastewater treatment  projects are not subject
to these requirements.

    2Where States projected capitalization grants at less than authorized amounts, the
allowances are based on four percent of the amount of capitalization grant funding which they
project.
                                             7-3

-------
                                          TABLE 7-2

                                         Comparison of
                            Estimated SRF  Administrative Costs And
                 Administrative Expense AUowances(a) For Forty-four(b) States
                                         ($ Thousands)
                                     Actual
                                                            Projected
                                               1989 to
                                                1994      Projected
STATE
                                  1989
          1990
1991    1992    1993    1994  TOTAL
                                          1995
Alabama
      Estimated Admin. Costs          27      81      120     140    203    340       911
      Administrative Allowance       424     436      828     624    416    208     2,936
                                                                                              625
Alaska
      Estimated Admin. Costs           0      50       88     118     219    267       743
      Administrative Allowance       406     232      485     436     291    145     1,994
                                                                                              322
Arizona,
 *'""  Estimated Admia. Costs
                                 * :  ' ' f** <•,«••%•••:
                                    V  ••
             '" "700     tOO ;   2fojQO
                                                             TOO
Arfean&a*  -, >   , -f, ,.:   -
  ,  .....B^tmatetf Admnu Costs ,
    "" ASmffilstrative Allowance'
                   041; -,4,221,, -
                                                               : ' ' 31*'
                                                                                            '1*450
California
      Estimated Admin. Costs
      Administrative Allowance
    0    1,626
5,104    4,792
2,862   3,142   3,268   3,398    14,296
6,944   5,208   3,472   1,736    27,256
                                                                                            3,534
                                                                             •
                                                                          196
                                                                                  ^749
                                                                                 ,2,849
                                                                                            1,159
Cosneetkart'  .  , ..,  .. ,
   '   y r  "' , % ' », < *      ^
 "  "  EsHmateii Admin.. Costs
 •^  •• f v jy f x-w>^ «f\fj.v Vv« f f < S-, '$ s A J- fff
                                                                                            2,568
   ..- Administrative Allowance
                                                                               *  11,726
                                                                                            3,800
Georgia
      Estimated Admin. Costs        606      954    1,240   1,210     990   1,030     6,030
      Administrative Allowance     1,224     1,560    1,624   1,228     812    404     6,852
                                                                                              990
Continued
                                              7-4

-------
                                    TABLE 7-2, continued

                                        Comparison of
                           Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
                Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-four(b) States
                                        ($ Thousands)
                                    Actual
                                                      Projected
                                                                         1989 to
                                                                           1994
STATE
                            1989
                                    1990
 1991   1992    1993   1994  TOTAL
         Projected
           1995
 lawaii
      Estimated Admin. Costs(d)        0     303      309     324    341     358    1,634
      Administrative Allowance       292     292      472     356    236     120    1,768
                                                                                        376
 daho
      Estimated Admin. Costs          0       60      150     220    300     350    1,080
      Administrative Allowance       180      188      476     356    236     116    1,552
                                                                                        400
 llinois
Estimated Admin. Costs         63      430    1,229
Administrative Allowance     2,000    2,000    4,000
                                                         1,668  2,554   3,234    9,178
                                                         3,000  2,000   1,000   14,000
                                                                                      3,532
          tfj; Costs
 ,",','•/'"'•'•''''''•     '•
Administrative Allowance
                                  200
                                                                         584
 owa
     Estimated Admin. Costs          0      165      200     220    242    266     1,093
     Administrative Allowance       508      528     1,324     992    660    332     4,344
                                                                                        293
 .ansas
     Estimated Admin. Costs(e)      160     340      873     655    436    218     2,682
     Administrative Allowance       340     352      876     660    440    220     2,888
                                                                                        325
{entucky
     Estimated Admin. Costs
     Administrative Allowance
                                                                                      1,190
vlaryland
     Estimated Admin. Costs
     Administrative Allowance
                            200
                            912
                                     684
                                     944
  773   1,417   1,351   1,172
2,348   1,760   1,176     584
5,597
7,724
Continued
                                            7-5

-------
                                TABLE 7-2, continued

                                    Comparison of
                        Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
              Administrative Expense AUowancps(a) For Forty-four(b) States
                                    ($ Thousands)




Actual
STATE
Michigan
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Minnesota^
Estimated A f Sffff "*• v f -• vf ff, & ffff •K^VrVf'^ff^-f'^ff -V
* J\udXDXS-Er9uV£r -A OcRgflgGfe
* *V..ri...r».W~»* T W * »»« V "- tT>*"*r _.
Nevada
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
fclew Jeisey "';"'',,"'-, £ ^'"\ '" ' '--
„ Bs^iiateiJ Ati»i£5S^^> '
'" , AdoMnistratlve Anowaow
New Mexico
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
New York
Estimated Admin. Costs(i)
Administrative Allowance
1989

0
1,620

2,340 '
692
•* •"
'19.-
<&» ''

0
1,000
f >
"<•.-.' A*
152" '-"

0
183
- -% --
i,656"rr
-'2,604 /-

0
344

0
4,160
1990

400
1,676

2,600
716
f ***
,579
' <532

66
1,040
<••••> ^x •- ••
*~w>
-196

0
190
•- % \
T4i?o
'a,$52-

75
344

3,770
4,320
1991

1,000
3,352

2,650
, 1J60
' .
- /$9&
' 724

490
2,080
;-'-->255- -
^ - 488 "

46
477
f s, ". f
~^Aii&> ,
** -3,724 -

240
344

5,551
8,680



Projected
1992

1,100
3,132

2,350
1,320
'
999
648

700
1,560
375
1364

320
357
•* •.
'Kiw
2,'«40

280
344

5,877
7,960
1993

1,150
2,088

2,650
$80
'-,
1»107
432

900
1,040
'! "$?
' <'3M

350
238
"''",
: :5,Mo
-1,844

320
240

6,213
5,320
1994

1,200
1,044

2/700
440
'
, M$?
216

1,100
520
* -4*0
V-120

390
119

* .A010
' 920

360
120

6,504
2,640
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL 1995

4,850
12,912

15,590
5,808
-
' 4,861
3,260

3,256
7,240
;, / 1.«3
, 1,604

1,106
1,564
-
.', '2^,700
15,324

1,275
1,736

27,915
33,080

1,250


2,700


1,259


1,200
4
43<>


430


6,070


404


6,886

Continued
                                     7-6

-------
                                TABLE 7-2, continued

                                    Comparison of
                        Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
              Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-four(b) States
                                    ($ Thousands)




Actual
STATE
North Carolina
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Oklahoma
Estimated1 Admia, Costs
Administrative Allowance
Oregon
Estimated Admin. Costs(j)
Administrative Allowance
Pennsylvania
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Rhode Island
Estimated Admin Costs
Administrative Allowance
South Carolina
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
South 1>«fco$a % ",, ,,% ,x ,.., , x " ,' ,
f f V f }ff f .. -. -*$f fffff s £• •. ^ '*•+,''-*.*
j2sotIMtwiJ£l Aotttiyi, COSES- ''•'"
•" •• -• ***,•' f * * f >* * f ? * ** fff$ ff(ff
^••x- jv f f ^\t{fl^ffi^j^|*^tfVfe j^f lQ$^£t}00 •* 'ff
Tennessee
Estimated Admin. Costs(k)
Administrative Allowance
Texas
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Utah
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
1989

17
908

n
' 304

0
561

100
1,494

50
264

491
914
'
>. f fj$ : ff -ff t A <.
" "-20Q/-"
ffS yfj.jtf .•
~» -i?^ v

147
608

880
3,308

128
284
1990

181
1,320

371
314

50
441

462
1,546

75
271

611
765
- >;•<,
f f f f f. f f
r/'-aoQ,

" ".-336

286
948

1,424
2,912

180
252
1991

519
1,760

304
784

200
1,096

1,070
2,538

250
652

685
820
•• '


f f f •. _, tftj
- 472-

600
1,164

2,104
4,308

225
484



Projected
1992

905
1,320

314
588

400
824

1,700
2,856

300
489

567
739
s ,, ,
V f •*
'? '/460
f yf -v""
"-rWb'

758
1,034

2,984
3,176

300
364
1993

1,162
880

800
392

470
548

2,590
1,904

350
326

690
493

f f f f
	 400
f f f S VJ- ff t
~~ -,33fr

930
689

3,634
2,052

300
240
1994

1,331
440

900
196

490
276

3,360
952

350
163

713
245
,;'"„,
, '? ' >K .
7 '400 ";
f f f f^ef-^fr f
— ~^0 '

1,138
344

3,967
588

250
120
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL 1995

4,114
6,628

2,710
2,578

1,610
3,745

9,282
11,290

1,375
2,165

3,757
3,976
A
/ f
-' "2,000
f f f
- -1,612-- -

3,858
4,787

14,993
16,344

1,383
1,744

1,747


1,000


510


3,970


500


725

-
s
"400
'
, , „

1,428


4,223


150

Continued
                                      7-7

-------
                                      TABLE 7-2, continued
                                           Comparison of
                             Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
                 Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-four(b) States
                                           ($ Thousands)




Actual
STATE
Vermont
Esiiraated Admin., Costs
Administrative Allowance
Virginia
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Washington
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
West Virginia
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Wiscottgia, *> <-,',., , ,, 	 ._ ,.. ' ,
Estimated Adriiin:< Costs "

, " A^mmistrative AHowaaoe
Wyoming
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
1989

80
J83

560
1,228

0
664

0
0
-. .-
"tOG"

QCJft

0
183
1990

85
192

600
1,080

232
668

100
800
*" f W
" m '755;

I..00G ;>

0
194
1991

487
380

600
1,924

390
1,680

400
1,912
Wf*. w* *"*
-'^75-'v

v2,490 "

200
477



Projected
1992
•"
588
356

800
1,444

490
1,240

600
1,136
f s % ••
*l,S^&s%

, !,$80;

240
358
1993

657
237

800
960

800
840

800
756
_.
"2>iQ0 '

U40-

260
238
1994
"
74S
11$

800
480

800
400

1,000
380

2^230

H40

260
119
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL 1995

2,644
1,467

4,160
7,116

2,712
5,492

2,900
4,984

8>879

3,200

960
1,570
-
750


800


980


1,000
|
1
2,400 '



260

Note: The administrative allowance is based on actual capitalization grants awarded for FY 1989 and 1990, and on
      4 percent of the authorized capitalization grant funding for 1991 to 1994 for most states. For states that
      projected capitalization grant funding at less than authorized amounts, the allowance is based on four
      percent of the projected amount.  Shaded States project administrative costs exceeding the 4 % allowance in
      the 1989 to 1994 time period.
(a)    Administrative expense allowance represents the total Federal source of funds available for administering SRFs.
(b)    Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide
      administrative cost estimates for this report.
      1989 administrative costs for five months.
      1990 administrative costs for three months.
      In fiscal year 1989 many  "start up" costs were paid with proceeds from the State Match Revenue Bond issue.
      Excludes bond issuance costs paid from bond proceeds.
      1990 administrative costs for ten months.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
(g)
(b)
(0
0)
(k)
New Jersey's administrative costs are estimated based on 1988 cost and staffing data, and staff increase
projections, supplied by New Jersey DEP. New Jersey's 1988 costs cover most, but not all, SRF employees.
Actual costs may be higher than those estimated here.
1990 administrative costs for nine months.
1990 administrative costs for nine months.
1988 administrative costs for three months.
                                            7-8

-------
       SRF program representatives made recommendations regarding the short-term (up to
FY 1995) and long-term (after FY 1995) funding of administrative costs.  For the short term,
19 States recommended increasing the four-percent ceiling or allowing four percent of the
authorized, rather than the appropriated amount.  While this would allow additional SRF funds
to be used for administrative expenses, it is neither normal practice nor prudent to  pay the
operating costs of a revolving loan program with its capital funds.  Doing so can jeopardize  the
fiscal integrity of the capital account because it is an open-ended, consumptive use of funds.
As an effective alternative, representatives from ten States recommended that their SRF
programs charge a loan closing or similar fee.  Two States recommended a separate Federal
grant for administrative costs.

       For the long term, States  suggested a variety of funding methods, although they have
not yet developed specific plans.  Twenty-one States recommended instituting  a closing or other
type of fee to cover administrative costs. Ten States have already implemented a loan closing
fee.  It should be noted that any  such fees collected must be kept out of the SRF itself so that
they will  not be counted towards  or limited by the four-percent ceiling. Several States
recommended the following administrative cost  funding mechanisms, some of which (marked by
an asterisk) are not currently allowed or viable  in the SRF program:

       •      using State appropriations;

       •      using fund reserves';

       •      transferring unused 205(g) funds (Federal grant funds for States to implement
              certain Title II program management activities);

       •      using a portion of  the debt service payments'; and

       •      having the Federal government provide funds matching State appropriations for
              administrative costs on a  dollar for dollar basis (up to 10 percent of the actual
              loans made).
                                           7-9

-------
                                     SECTION EIGHT
      POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM ON COMMUNITY USER FEES
       As explained in Section Six, SRF programs offer loans at below-raarket rates for eligible
projects. By contrast, the construction grants program generally provided a 55 percent grant for
the eligible cost of projects1 coupled in many cases with a State grant.  This section examines
the impact on user fees of a shift from construction  grants funding to SRF funding for a typical
facility.   Because the SRF programs have been operating only a short time and data are not
yet available on SRF-financed facilities, an analytical modeling approach is used to assess the
impact of the SRF program on user fees. The sections that follow describe the scope and
methodology of the analysis and present  the analytical results.
8.1  Scope of the Analysis

       This analysis assesses the incremental financial burden placed on households resulting
from SRF loan financing of wastewater treatment facilities compared to construction grant
funding.  It is based on theoretical typical facilities and compares user fees for identical facilities
built with SRF  assistance versus construction grant funding.  Although some changes in design
may occur as the source of funding assistance changes from construction grants to SRF loans,
interviews with  State officials suggest these changes will be minor.  One possible change is more
construction of reserve capacity.2 Reserve capacity was not eligible under the construction
grants program  after 1984 except in  certain grandfathered phased or segmented projects.
Reserve capacity is eligible for funding with SRF monies. As a result  of the differing
eligibilities of reserve  capacity, the analysis assumes that a slightly higher percentage of costs are
eligible under SRF financing in comparison to construction grants financing.

       Land costs,  except for  those  to acquire land that is an integral  part of the treatment
process or used for sludge disposal, are ineligible under both the SRF and construction grants
programs.  Since there will be no change in a community's ability to finance land costs with the
switch to SRF funding,  this item is not  included in the analysis. The costs assessed here are
limited, therefore,  to construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the wastewater
treatment facilities.

       Under the  construction grants program, States have typically provided a 10  to 15 percent
State grant to municipalities.   Under the SRF, States must provide a 20 percent  match to
receive a capitalization grant from EPA.  It is not anticipated that many States will provide
grants to municipalities  as a general  rule in conjunction with an SRF loan.  However,  some
States anticipate the continuation of separate grant programs for special circumstances, such as
    'Innovative or alternative projects could receive a 75 percent grant.

    2Extra treatment capacity built into treatment plants and interceptor sewers to
accommodate flow increases due to future population growth.
                                        8-1

-------
communities which are economically distressed.  As a result, the user fee impact analysis
presented here assumes no State grants under the SRF program.

       There is no provision in the analysis for existing debt, which can vary significantly from
one community to the next. The incremental cost calculated here for the new facility could
represent all of the financial burden for wastewater treatment in a  community, or only a
fraction of that burden.
8.2    Methodology

       To assess the impact of user fees under the SRF program, a model which simulates user
fees was developed.  The model  is structured to simulate user fees  under the construction
grants program and under the  SRF program.  The variables which the model uses to derive the
user fees  are identified in Table  8-1.  The first column in Table 8-1 lists each of the different
variables.  The second column presents the value for each variable  most commonly found under
both the construction grants and SRF programs.  The values in the second column were used
to calculate the user fees presented in this chapter.  The third column presents the  range of
values for the variables depending on particular conditions in a State.

       Based on the input variables in Table 8-1 the model calculates other values used in the
analysis.   These calculated values include facility capital cost, daily flow rate, and the number of
hook-ups.  Output  from the model includes the annual cost of capital financing (assuming level
debt service), the annual O&M cost, and the total annual user fees per household under the
construction grants  and SRF programs.  The user fee calculated by  the model represents the
annual incremental  costs of construction and O&M for a new facility; it does not include land
costs or costs of existing debt service.

       Appendix F contains a  sample input-output page from the model, the formulas used in
the model and  a description of the standard variable values  and  their sources, including a
detailed description of the capital and O&M cost curves and their derivations. The  model
presented in Appendix F is designed so the user can input any of the variables presented in
Table 8-1  and calculate the impact on user fees.  The capital cost curve is an inflated version of
EPA's Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants:  1973-1978. developed
to describe construction  grants-funded projects.3 The O&M cost curve is derived from a user
fee survey of 161 construction  grants-funded projects  in EPA Region DL  EPA is currently
undertaking a comprehensive national survey of user fees and O&M costs.
    3Cost curves reflect the capital cost of the components of a secondary treatment facility for
all community size categories.
                                        8-2

-------
                                       TABLE 8-1

                     User Charge Variables, Standard Values, and Range
     VARIABLE
STANDARD
VALUE
ESTIMATED
RANGE
     SRF interest rate:

     Market interest:

     Persons/household:

     Gallons/person/day:


     Loan period:

     Percent total costs
      eligible under a 55%
      construction grant:

     Percent total costsb
      funded by State grant
      under  construction
      grants  program:

     Percent total costs
      eligible under SRF:

     Percent total costs funded
      by State grant in con-
      junction with SRF loans:

     Population served
     by facility:
4%

8%'

Fixed at 2.64

90-110 depending on
community size

20 vrs
90%
15%
100%
0%
Fixed at one of the
following:
1,000; 2,500;
10,000; 100,000
0-9%

7-11%
90-110 depending on
community size

5-20 yrs
75-100%
0-25%
0-50%
'Recent cost of borrowing funds in the municipal bond market
""Applies to all eligible costs.
                                       8-3

-------
8.3     Comparison of User Fees Under the SRF and Construction Grants Programs

        The results of a  comparison of user fees under SRF and construction grants financing
for facilities serving five community population sizes are presented in Table 8-2.  The results
reflect  the standard values displayed above in Table 8-1.

        In Table 8-2. user fees are calculated as the household's proportional share of two cost
components:  the  annualized cost of the capital expenditure and the annual operation and
maintenance cost.  The  SRF and construction grants programs subsidize only the capital
expenditure portion. But as Table 8-2 illustrates, it is the second cost, O&M. that often drives
the user fees.  The O&M costs account  for approximately 60 percent of user fees under the
SRF program and  about 73 percent of user fees under the construction grants program.

        Table  8-2 also shows that the size of the community served by a facility has a substantial
impact  on user fees under both the SRF program and the construction grants program.  User
fees for facilities serving communities with a population of 1,000 are over 3 times greater than
user fees for facilities serving communities of 100,000.  This disparity in user fees across
community sizes is not altered significantly under the SRF loan program, due in part to the
predominance of O&M  costs in the overall user fee.

        Table  8-2 indicates that user fees are higher under the SRF program than under the
construction grants program.  The difference in user fees under a 4 percent loan compared to a
55 percent construction  grant ranges from  $72 annually for facilities serving communities of
1,000 to $22 annually for facilities serving communities of 100,000. This represents a 21
percent increase for a community of 1,000 and a 19 percent increase for a community of
100,000.
8.4  Impact of SRF Loan Interest Rate on Level of Subsidy

       The interest rate charged on SRF loans has a significant impact on user fees. One way
of quantifying the value of the SRF loan subsidy is by expressing the loan interest rate in terms
of a "grant equivalent"  For example, a 4 percent SRF loan, a common rate charged for SRF
loans, is equivalent to a grant subsidy of 16 percent under the construction grant program
(assuming a 15 percent State grant is provided along with the construction grant). A zero
interest SRF loan is equivalent to a 42 percent construction grant, while a 6 percent interest
SRF loan is equivalent to a  1 percent construction grant. Table 8-3 shows various SRF loan
interest rates and their construction grant equivalents.

       Another way to quantify the value  of the SRF loan  subsidy is to compare projected user
fees for facilities constructed with SRF loans to facilities constructed with market rate financing.
A facility designed to serve a community of 1,000 constructed with  an SRF loan using a 4
percent interest rate would  have an annual user fee of $351, whereas the same facility financed
with a market rate loan charging 8 percent interest would have an  annual user fee of $407.
Thus, the SRF reduces annual user fees  by 14 percent  For a facility designed to serve a
community of 100,000, annual user fees would be $116 with a 4 percent SRF loan compared
with $134 for a market rate  loan, a savings of 13 percent
                                          8-4

-------
°
TABLE 8-2
Annual Household Wastewater Treatment Costs: Comparison of State Revolving Fund
and Construction Grants Financing

POPULATION
SERVED BY
FACILITY
1,000
2,500
10,000
100,000
($ Per Household Per
HOUSE-
HOLD
CAPITAL , CAPITAL USER(a)
FINANCING FINANCING FEE
COST (SUF) COST (CG) O&M COST (SRF)
146 75 204 351
122 62 184 306
89 45 122 211
47 24 70 116
Year)
HOUSE-
HOLD
USER(a)
FEE
(CG)
279
247
167
94

DIFFERENCE PERCENT
IN USER DIFFERENCE IN
FEE USER FEES
(SRF VS. CG) (SRF VS. CG)
71 21%
59 19%
4-1 21%
22 19%
         a)  Represents the user fee for u new wastewater treatment facility minus land costs.

            Standard variable values:

                              SRF Interest  Rate:  4%
                              Market Interest Rate: 8%
                              Gallons/Person/Day:  90-110 (depending on community size)
                              Loan Period:  20 years
                              Eligible Cost  SRF:  100%
                              Eligible Cost  CG:  90%
                              State Grant In Conjunction with SRF Loan: 0%
                              Slate Grant Under CG Program:  15%

-------
                                        TABLE 8-3

                    SRF Interest Rate and Construction Grant Equivalent*
                                                         Construction*
               SRF Interest                                Grant
                 Rate                                    Equivalent
                  0%                                      42%
                  1%                                      36%
                  2%                                      29%
                  3%                                      23%
                  4%                                      16%
                  5%                                       9%
                  6%                                       1%
'Ineligible costs financed at an 8% market rate.

This number represents the construction grant equivalent (assuming construction grants are
 coupled with a  15% State grant) necessary to achieve the same subsidy as an SRF loan at the
 interest rate shown in the same row.
8.5 Summary of Kev Findings


       Key findings of this theoretical analysis include:
              For facilities serving the community sizes examined in this analysis, the household
              user fee under a 4 percent SRF loan is approximately 20 percent greater than
              the user fee under a 55 percent construction grant.*

              The absolute dollar difference in user fees under a 4 percent SRF loan
              compared to a 55 percent construction grant* ranges from about $22 annually
              for a community of 100,000 to about $72 for a community of 1,000.
*Assuming a 15 percent State grant is provided along with the construction grant.
                                          8-6

-------
              A 4 percent SRF loans, a common rate charged for SRF loans, provides the
              same financial subsidy as a construction grant* that funds 16 percent of eligible
              cost.

              Even at zero percent interest. SRF loans cannot provide the same financial
              subsidy as a 55 percent construction grant.* Therefore, user fees will generally
              be higher under the  SRF program than the construction grants program.

              Community size has  a substantial impact on user fees under both the SRF
              program  and the construction grants program.  Because of economies of scale.
              total user fees to cover operation and maintenance in addition to capital costs
              are estimated to be about three times as great for a community of 1,000
              compared to  a community of 100,000.

              While SRF loans provide  less of a subsidy  than construction grants, SRF loans
              still provide a substantial subsidy.  User fees for facilities constructed with SRF
              loans charging 4 percent  interest will be approximately 14 percent lower on
              average than facilities constructed with market rate financing.
"Assuming a 15 percent State grant is provided along with the construction grant.
                                        8-7

-------
                                     SECTION NINE
       POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM ON FACILITY OPERATIONS
       This section summarizes the opinions of State SRF officials on whether the SRF
program will lead to changes in the operation  of wastewater treatment facilities.  Because the
SRF is a new program, program officials had minimal information about the impact of SRF
funding on facility operation.  Anticipated changes in facility sizing, design, and operating
efficiency are discussed below.
9.1     Anticipated Changes in Sizing. Design, and Operation and Maintenance Costs of New
       Facilities

       Because communities have to pay for a larger portion of project capital costs under the
SRF program than under the construction grants program, there is an incentive to construct
lower cost facilities to minimize the impact of capital costs on user fees.  Of forty-three SRF
program officials who expressed opinions on facility costs under the SRF program, nineteen
expect that costs will decrease, twenty-one expect no change, and  three expect cost increases.

       SRF officials  expressed divergent views on the effect of SRF financing on facility sizing.
SRF officials in thirteen States expect that facilities will be smaller; most of the twelve expected
that facility size would decrease because communities must repay the  loans and will, therefore,
tend to keep the size and costs of projects to a  minimum.  Twenty-six States expect no change
in facility sizing. Six States  anticipate that facilities will actually be larger because, according to
four of the six, the SRF can be used to fund reserve capacity projects that were ineligible
under the construction grants  program.  In some cases, increased facility size may result from
the expansion of existing facilities rather than the construction of larger new facilities.  Two
States anticipate that new construction will become less common, with municipalities favoring
phased improvements over new construction.

       The SRF program provides less  incentive for the use of innovative  and alternative
technologies than the construction grants program.  While several States require innovative and
alternative technology projects  be considered during the planning phase of project development,
few States offer any  direct incentive for innovative or alternative technology  projects.1  As  many
States pointed out, this is a  change from the construction grants program which provided direct
incentives for innovative and alternative technology projects (e.g.,  75 percent grants rather than
55 percent).
    'Consideration of innovative and alternative treatment technologies is one of the CWA
Title n equivalency requirements (described in Footnote 3, Section 7.1). Therefore, in all
States, projects subject to equivalency requirements must evaluate innovative and alternative
technologies.

                                            9-1

-------
       Thirty of the forty-five States that expressed opinions felt that the number of innovative
and alternative projects undertaken would decrease, twelve expected no change, and three
expected an increase.  Because the SRF is a loan program, communities assume a greater
financial risk.  The added risk and uncertainty associated with innovative technologies may
discourage their use.  Proven alternative technologies will still be chosen, however, and might
be preferred if they have lower overall costs.

       Most SRF program administrators view the O&M requirements under the construction
grants program as constructive and integral to the successful operation of facilities. In their
questionnaires, thirty-seven States said they did not expect O&M requirements to change under
the SRF program.  Nine States said that O&M requirements would change.  Five of these
States indicated that O&M programs would be more rigorous under their SRF programs. The
other four States indicated that they would not apply certain construction grant O&M
requirements within their SRF programs.

       The majority of the State program officials anticipate little or no change in the O&M
costs  of facilities built with SRF funds. While the increased debt service costs under the SRF
program are expected to increase pressure to keep O&M expenditures down, municipalities may
also wish to spend more on O&M to prolong plant life. Twenty-six States reported that they
expect O&M costs to remain about the same under the SRF program as they were under the
construction grants program.   The other eighteen States that expressed an opinion on O&M
costs  were split, with nine expecting cost decreases and ten expecting increases.
                                            9-2

-------
                    f -^ \             SECTION TEN
                    *>

                         ADVANTAGES OF THE SRF PROGRAM
       The SRF program offers benefits to all levels of government concerned about water
quality.  These benefits are both financial and environmental, helping responsible agencies and
officials to use their limited resources to achieve the goal of clean water.
10.1   Federal Government

       The SRF program provides a mechanism for the Federal government to further the
long-standing national policy of providing financial assistance for wastewater treatment and
other water quality management activities. At the same time, the program facilitates the goal of
transferring the responsibility for financing water quality construction and management from the
Federal government to State and local governments.

       The "revolving" nature of the SRFs developed under this program allows the limited
amount of Federal funds available to buy out many more water quality needs  than they would
with direct grants or one-time loans.
10.2   The States

       The primary benefit of the SRF program to the States is that it allows flexibility in
providing financial  assistance.  Each State designs its SRF to address the particular water  quality
concerns of that State and its communities.  States can structure their SRF to meet a broad
range of needs  or to focus on a limited number of needs of major concern.  By varying the
types  and terms of SRF assistance, States can reach "target" types of communities or projects.
Also,  States can integrate or coordinate the SRF with other State programs to develop a
comprehensive system for financing water quality management, tailoring the level of subsidy to
the varying needs of their communities.  The SRF loan repayment stream provides a continuing
source of funding which is not subject to annual appropriations  and  therefore allows for more
certain projections  of the availability of funds for assistance.

       Expanded eligibilities under the SRF program further increase its flexibility.  In addition
to the new types of activities and.facilities  that can be funded, SRFs, in comparison to
construction grants, can  fund a larger portion of the costs of traditional types of treatment
works.  Fewer Federal requirements apply  to SRF assistance than to construction grants, and
certain of the SRF funds carry none of the requirements of Title n. This reduction in
requirements  can reduce the cost of facilities.
                                            10-1

-------
10.3   Communities

       Low interest rates are the single most important benefit to communities mentioned by
the States.  Due to the Federal grant and State match (and in some cases leveraged funds) that
capitalize SRFs and because of the funds' fiscal strength, loan recipients can obtain interest
rates lower than they could get on their own.  This reduced cost of capital enables some
projects to be completed that otherwise would not be affordable and reduces the level of user
fees required to repay project debt.

       An example is provided by using the  model presented  in Section Eight  of this report to
calculate the debt  service costs for a community with a population of 10,000 people, building a
wastewater treatment plant with a capital cost of $4.56 million and borrowing the entire
amount.  With a 20-year, four  percent SRF loan the annual capital cost per household would
be $89.  If the community borrowed the funds at a market interest rate of eight percent, the
annual capital cost per household would be $123, or 38 percent higher  than capital cost per
household with an SRF loan.

       Some States, such as Minnesota and Virginia, charge no interest on SRF loans during
the construction period, providing even more savings in the cost of capital.  Most SRFs do not
charge closing costs, providing  an additional savings over market financing for loan recipients.

       Even in States  that charge closing costs or administrative fees, communities experience
savings because the administrative burden of capital financing  is centralized at the State level,
realizing economies of scale. State governments are more likely than municipalities to have the
management and financial institutions and expertise necessary  to access  the public finance
market at the most advantageous time and at the lowest cost.   These  reductions in financing
costs can result in significant overall savings to a community and the beneficiaries of its water
quality projects and activities.

       Other benefits  to communities mentioned by the States include starting construction
more quickly than under the construction grants program (with resultant savings in capital cost
inflation), fewer eligibility constraints, no maximum or minimum assistance amount (unless
imposed by the State), and efficient disbursements for incurred costs.

       Communities also benefit from many  features of the SRF program discussed above  as
benefits to the States.  State-specific SRF program design and expanded eligibilities allow more
communities to meet their particular needs.  The variety of assistance types (i.e., credit
enhancements) broadens the scope of the program to include  communities that do not require
direct grant or loan assistance.  Also, fewer Federal requirements and restrictions on the
assistance provided can reduce administrative complexities, costs, and time delays.

       Finally, the SRF provides a long-term funding program to meet  the water quality
management needs of many communities. The revolving nature of the fund creates a perpetual
source of affordable financing.  The funds invested now for the capitalization of SRFs will work
for many years to  assist communities in meeting their needs, providing more money for more
communities.
                                            10-2

-------
                                    SECTION ELEVEN
                  ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SRF IMPLEMENTATION
       Officials of the States' SRF programs identified a number of areas of concern that affect
their ability to effectively implement their programs.  Some of these impediments arise from
Federal and State statutes, regulations, and policies while others are inherent in a new financial
assistance program such as the SRF.  This section presents the major concerns expressed by the
States and discusses the realized or potential impact of each on the program.
       Federal Funding

       Many State officials expressed serious concern regarding the Federal funding of the SRF
program.  The FY 1989 and 1990 appropriations for  Clean Water Act Title n (funds of which
can be transferred to the SRF program) and Title VI were less than the authorized  amounts,  as
were FY 1991 Title VI amounts.  State officials believe that future appropriations will also fall
short of the authorized levels.

       State officials also expressed concern about uncertainty as to what the Federal funding
level will be from year to year.  Because the States must provide matching funds based on the
capitalization grant amount, such uncertainty makes planning difficult for both the States and
communities. In many States the budget process is not coordinated with that of the Federal
budget. If an SRF fails to obtain an appropriation or bond authorization for its match because
the State legislature goes out of session before the necessary amount can be determined,
significant delays in program implementation can occur.
       Ability to Reach Communities With Assistance

       A few States mentioned that they anticipate difficulty in providing SRF assistance to
particular communities.  Some economically distressed communities cannot afford to pay back a
loan even at  a 0 percent interest rate.  States will have to work closely with communities that
have financial capability problems to structure an assistance  package that provides adequate,
affordable funding  to meet water quality objectives and regulations.  As discussed in Subsection
6.2, such an assistance package may need to incorporate funding from other State aid programs
in addition to the SRF.  To be effective,  financial assistance for small, economically distressed
communities should also be coordinated with technical assistance outreach  programs.
       Cross-Cutting Federal Laws and Authorities

       The States report that the application of other (non-CWA) Federal laws and authorities
(e.g. National Historic Preservation Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Executive Orders
11625 and 12138, Women's and Minority Business Enterprize) to the  SRF program leads to a

                                           11-1

-------
number of difficulties.  These "cross-cutters" apply to projects funded in whole or in part by
"funds directly made available" by the Federal capitalization grant.  The States are unsure of
their responsibilities for monitoring and assuring compliance with the cross-cutters; therefore, it
is difficult to build the  appropriate procedures into their SRFs.  This concern arises because at
any time, Federal laws  can be enacted  that apply to the SRF program, and a permanent  list of
these authorities cannot be identified.  (The Agency is now examining  twenty-four cross-cutting
Federal authorities and will soon distribute a handbook describing their application in the SRF
program.)  In addition, once the State  responsibilities  and  procedures are developed, the
administrative costs of the program will increase as State officials ensure compliance.  Cross-
cutting authorities that  apply to assistance recipients may also increase  project costs and delay
project completion, according to State officials.  The States are also concerned about EPA's
role in reviewing State  project-specific  compliance actions.

       In order to facilitate compliance with other Federal laws and authorities,  EPA is
working with the appropriate Federal agencies to develop  programmatic agreements for major
cross-cutters that outline the roles and  responsibilities  of the various government entities
involved.  Several States and their representatives have recommended another approach to
managing compliance with cross-cutters. They urge that compliance be "as determined by the
Governor" of  each State and that the focus should be on certifying compliance with the intent
of law rather  than adherence to project-specific requirements.  These States  would prefer,
however, that the SRF program be exempted entirely  from cross-cutters by Congress.
       Effect of Program Requirements on Project Costs

       Several States expressed the view that the Title VI Federal requirements associated with
the SRF program  add substantially to project costs as well as administrative costs.  In particular.
the Title n "equivalency requirements" for treatment works, which apply only to "funds directly
made available" by Federal capitalization grants, are said to reduce the program's attractiveness
to communities. Texas and New Jersey officials estimate cost increases of up to 20 percent in
some communities due to Federal requirements.

       Tennessee SRF officials assert that prevailing wage rates mandated under the Davis-
Bacon Act (one of the equivalency requirements) alone could increase project costs by as much
as 30 percent.  Five other States also said that the Davis-Bacon requirements increase project
costs.  Studies reviewed by EPA show a wide variety of project cost increases due to  Davis-
Bacon.  A 1983 study by the Federal Highway Administration estimates an impact of two to
four percent, while a 1982 study by Oregon State University estimates cost increases of 26 to 38
percent in rural areas  of the country.  For water and sewerage systems in Utah,  a 1986 study by
the State  of Utah reports construction bids averaging 17.5  percent higher for projects subject to
the Davis-Bacon Act compared to those not subject to  Federal wage rates.  As these studies
suggest, the impact of Davis-Bacon wage  rate requirements varies considerably based on local
socioeconomic  and market conditions and State prevailing wage rate laws.

       Some States have chosen to apply the Federal requirements discussed above to  all
projects funded by their SRFs, not only to those projects funded by an amount equal to the
"funds directly made available" by their capitalization grants ("equivalency projects"). Although

                                            11-2

-------
not a Clean Water Act or EPA requirement, States are using this practice to facilitate the
handling of projects and to provide for equal treatment to all assistance recipients.
       Letter of Credit Process

       Payment of capitalization grants to an SRF occurs through a Federal letter of credit
(LOG). No cash is transferred to the fund until the SRF requests a cash draw, up to the
amount available in the LOG, generally as costs are incurred.  Many States indicated that this
process is an impediment to the  implementation of the SRF program for a number of reasons.

       Tennessee  and New Mexico point out, for instance, that lack of immediate cash
payments to the SRF prevents the State from earning interest on the Federal funds.  Those
interest earnings would help the  fund grow and increase the amount available for assistance.
But, in an effort to ease the pressure of program outlays on the Federal  budget deficit, the
LOG payment process was  instituted to coordinate outlays with the actual expenditure of
Federal funds.  This process complies with provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act
(31 USC 6501; Pub. L. 97-258) which require Federal agencies to "schedule the transfer of
grant money to minimize the time elapsing between transfer of the money from the Treasury
and the disbursement by a  State."

       The LOG process was cited  by several States as particularly cumbersome in regard to
the refinancing of projects. The States report that the LOG payment and cash draw provisions
generally do not correspond well with the  timing of the financial procedures of refinancing
existing local debt.  In order to facilitate the refinancing of some projects, EPA has provided
for the immediate  cash draw of a portion of each capitalization grant for this purpose.

       Another concern of some of the States is that the LOG adds one more level  of
complexity to their programs.  Under  a cash payment system, cash would  be available for
disbursement as costs are incurred.  With the LOG payment system, however, a request for a
cash draw from the LOG must be made before that cash is available for disbursement.  The
cash draw may take up to 36 hours, usually considerably less, as the funds are transferred to the
SRF.

       There have been reports  that the "LOG process" can take several weeks.  States  must
comply with their own overlapping fiscal and accounting procedures which can impede the quick
transfer of funds.   Thus, although the letter of credit itself as a method of payment is not
causing delays beyond the maximum of 36 hours necessary to make the electronic transfer of
funds, delays  are occurring  in some  States  due to State processing problems associated with the
cash disbursements.
                                           11-3

-------
       Administrative Expenses

       The CWA restricts the amount of money in an SRF that may be used for administrative
expenses to four percent of all capitalization grant awards received by the fund. The amount
available each year to cover administrative costs is four percent of all awards received up to and
including that year minus the  amount of administrative expenses paid by the fund in previous
years.

       A number of States expressed concern that the allowed amount would be inadequate to
pay the full costs of administering their fund.  This appears to  be especially true of leveraged
funds because of the additional financial operations  and management they require.  While
States  have expressed this concern, the  data presented in Section Seven indicate that twenty-
eight of forty-four responding States should be able to fund their administrative costs with the
four percent allowance through FY 1994.  The States  expressed particular concern about the
administration of the SRFs after  FY 1994, when capitalization grants are scheduled to end.

       SRF program representatives made recommendations regarding the short-term (up to
FY 1995) and long-term (after FY 1995) funding of administrative costs. For  the short term,
nineteen States recommended increasing the four-percent ceiling or allowing four percent of the
authorized,  rather than the appropriated, amount,  changes that would require legislative action.
While  this would allow additional SRF funds to be used for administrative expenses, it  is
neither normal practice nor prudent to pay the operating costs of a revolving loan program with
its capital funds.  Doing so can jeopardize  the fiscal integrity of the capital account because it is
an open-ended, consumptive use  of funds.  As an  effective alternative, representatives from ten
States  recommended that their SRF programs charge a loan closing or similar  fee.  Two States
recommended a separate Federal grant for administrative costs.

       For  the long term, States  suggested a variety of funding methods.  Twenty-one States
recommended instituting a closing or other type of fee to cover administrative costs. Ten States
have already implemented a loan closing fee.  It should be noted that any such fees collected
should be kept out of the SRF itself so that they will not be counted towards  or limited by the
four-percent ceiling.  Several study States recommended the following administrative cost
funding mechanisms, some of which (marked by an asterisk) are not currently allowed or viable
in the  SRF  program:

       •      using State appropriations;

       •      using fund reserves*;

       •      transferring unused 205(g) funds (Federal grant  funds for States to implement
              certain Title n program management activities)*;

       •      using a portion of the debt service  payments'; and

       •      having the Federal government provide  funds matching State appropriations for
              administrative costs on a dollar for  dollar basis (up to 10 percent of the actual
              loans made).

                                           11-4

-------
       Eligibility of Land

       The purchase of land for a wastewater treatment facility is not an eligible cost under the
SRF program unless the  land is integral to the treatment process or used for sludge disposal.
Several States recommended that this restriction be lifted because it makes the SRF less
attractive as a source of financing.  Since land upon which to build a facility must often be
purchased,  a community seeking assistance  from an SRF may have to Gnance land acquisition
through another source.  This increases total financing costs  for the project, especially since the
land financing is unlikely to be at a subsidized interest rate.  Minnesota mentioned that this
restriction is especially problematic for small communities.

       The restriction  on the use of SRF funds for the purchase of land is statutorily imposed
by the CWA. Therefore, legislative action would be necessary  to expand the eligibility of land
under the SRF program.
       Identification of Repayment Revenue Source

       The CWA requires that recipients of SRF assistance provide a dedicated source of
revenue to cover repayments.  While nonpoint source, ground water, and estuarine programs
are a high water quality priority in many States and are eligible for assistance under the SRF
program (see Section 3 and Appendix B), the activities associated with such "expanded uses" do
not typically provide a source of revenue to repay loans.  Because of this, some States reported
that it may be difficult to provide SRF assistance for expanded use activities. At least twelve
States, however, currently fund or plan to fund expanded use activities through their SRFs.

       Although the revenue to repay SRF loans may not be  derived directly from the funded
activities themselves, repayment sources are available.  An assistance recipient can dedicate the
proceeds of fees (e.g., permit fees, inspection fees, impact fees), taxes (e.g., property taxes, sales
taxes, pollution taxes), or fines and penalties to the repayment of an SRF loan.  EPA has
prepared a case study guidebook to present examples of how expanded use activities may  be
funded under the SRF program.
       Financial and Legal Aspects of the Program

       A number of States commented that SRFs involve more financial and legal complexity
than construction grants and many other  funding programs.  States and communities have an
increasing need for expertise in public  finance and bond and tax law to effectively utilize SRFs.
While these added complexities can increase costs, they also are the elements of the program
that increase the available forms of assistance (i.e., credit enhancements) and the amount of
funds available (i.e., leveraging). Each State should determine whether or not its water quality
needs are such that its SRF should incorporate various financial complexities.

       EPA is aware of the potential delays and problems that financial  and legal complexities
may present to the program.  In an effort to assist States  to develop and implement effective

                                           11-5

-------
SRFs, the Agency has put in place a mission support contract for use by EPA Headquarters,
Regional Offices, and, through the Regions, States.  The contract team has provided training
and the advice and support of financial managers, investment bankers, and bond attorneys
during the development and establishment of many SRFs.

       Many SRFs issue bonds to raise State match, overmatch, or leverage funds.  Some
programs purchase, refinance,  or provide security for local bonds issued for wastewater
treatment projects.  In order to minimize the cost of capital, States and municipalities may use
tax-exempt financing in these situations.   By doing so, however, SRFs become subject to the
many provisions of Federal tax laws and regulations that affect tax-exempt  bonds.  The statutory
and regulatory framework surrounding tax-exempt financing is very complex and cannot  be
covered in this report.

       Although none of the  tax laws or regulations prevent a State from  developing an SRF
and making  use of the financial mechanisms allowed under the CWA, they do restrict the
flexibility of the States in structuring their SRFs. These provisions can increase the costs of
providing assistance and administering the program.  Arbitrage tracking, for example, can be an
intricate and costly process. Delays can occur during program development and implementation
as State officials and bond counsel ensure that the  program follows the applicable laws and
regulations.  This diligence is necessary to safeguard the tax-exempt status of SRF-related
bonds.

       The  overall implementation of the SRF program has been smooth.  As with any new
program, especially one like the SRF which involves fundamental changes in the roles and
responsibilities of the Federal, State, and local governments, some operational difficulties have
arisen. However, EPA and the States have worked closely and successfully to develop solutions
that are enabling SRFs to become effective State financing programs.

       The  number of issues associated with implementation, such as those discussed above, has
been  reduced  as people and institutions become  more familiar with program requirements.
There do not  appear to be any fundamental flaws in the structure of the SRF program  or any
significant impediments to successful implementation that have not been adequately managed by
the States and EPA.
                                           11-6

-------
               APPENDIX A




SRF REPORT TO CONGRESS WORKGROUP MEMBERS

-------
                                     APPENDIX A

                 SRF REPORT TO CONGRESS WORKGROUP MEMBERS
 State Members
 C.R. Miertschin
 Construction Grants Division
 Texas Water Development Board
 P.O. Box 13231 - Capitol Station
 Austin, TX 78711-3231
 512-463-7853

 David Hanna
 Wastewater Construction Grants
 Environmental Improvement Division
 1190 St. Francis Dr.
 Harold Runnels Bldg.
 Santa Fe, NM  87504-0968
 505-827-2812

 Fred Esmond
 Division of Construction Management
 New York State Department of
 Environmental Conservation
 50 Wolf Road, Room 438
 Albany, NY 12233
 518-457-6252

 Paul Zugger, Chief
 Surface Water  Quality Division
 Department of Natural Resources
 P.O. Box 30038
 Comer of Pine and Allegan
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-1949

Doug Garrett
Department of Natural Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
205 Jefferson St.
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City,  MO 65101
314-751-5723
Alternate for Doug Garrett:

Susan Hoppel
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control
301 Central Mall South
Lincoln, NE 68508
402-471-2182
Regional Members

Roger Janson
Region I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Rm. 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3580; 8-835-3580

Lee Murphy
Region HI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(3WM-20)
841 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA  19107
215-597-3847; 8-597-3847

Richard Hoppers
Region VI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Ave., 12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX  75202
214-655-7110; 8-255-7110

Mike Muse
Region DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-974-8341; &454-8341
                                         A-l

-------
                         APPENDIX B

NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW SRF PROGRAM FUNDING ELIGIBILITIES AND
                NEW ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENTS

-------
                                      APPENDIX B
      NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW SRF PROGRAM FUNDING ELIGIBILITIES
                      AND NEW ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENTS
       This Appendix describes the potential impact of new funding eligibilities and new
requirements under the CWA on the need for SRF financing. The discussion considers these
issues primarily from  a qualitative, national perspective rather than a quantitative, State-specific
one. This approach is necessary because the cost implications of many of the new requirements
are either not  available or, when available, are very preliminary.
       B.I New Funding Eligibilities

       Nonpoint Source Pollution Control

       Congress specified in the 1987 Amendments to the CWA that States prepare
Assessment Reports to identify the significant impact that nonpoint source (NFS) pollution can
have on water bodies.  These reports should identify waters unlikely to achieve water quality
standards without NPS controls as well as the sources causing the water quality impairment. In
addition, Section 319 of the CWA requires States to develop Management Programs to address
these impairments.

       All States have submitted their Assessment Reports and Management Programs.  EPA
has approved or partially approved management programs for all jurisdictions. EPA and State
agencies will identify funds available to carry out the activities necessary for meeting water
quality standards.  Funding is authorized in the CWA to  implement these NPS control activities,
and includes grants under Section  319 and Section 201(g)(l)(B) and assistance from the SRF
program.

       To be eligible for SRF financing, NPS activity must meet three  threshold requirements:
the State must have SRF-authorizing legislation which makes Section 319 activities  eligible for
SRF assistance, the activity must be included in the State's approved  NPS Management
Program, and the activity must be  on the State's SRF Intended Use Plan (IUP).  Twelve States
have indicated they plan to  fund NPS activities through the SRF program in the future.  One
of the twelve, Wyoming, plans to use all of  its  available SRF funds for  NPS  projects from 1991
to 1994.
       Estuarine Protection

       Section 320 of the CWA established the National Estuary Program to ensure protection
of estuarine areas "threatened by pollution, development, or overuse." The program calls for
the development and implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
(CCMPs) to achieve this  protection.

                                           B-l

-------
       As of July 1990, 17 estuaries had been accepted for participation in the National
Estuary Program:

                     Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts
                     Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
                     Long Island Sound, Connecticut  and New York
                     Puget Sound, Washington
                     San Francisco Bay, California
                     Santa Monica Bay, California
                     Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds, North Carolina
                     New York/New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey
                     Delaware Bay, Delaware  and New Jersey
                     Delaware Inland Bay, Delaware
                     Sarasota Bay, Florida
                     Galveston Bay, Texas
                     Casco Bay, Maine
                     Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts
                     Indian River, Florida
                     Tampa Bay, Honda
                     Barataria-Terrebonne, Louisiana

       In coordination with the States, EPA convenes management conferences to develop
CCMPs for  estuaries included in the National Estuary Program. Conference planning activities
and actions  needed to implement the CCMPs are eligible for funding under the SRF program.
Since most of the management conferences are still assessing the status of  their estuaries, final
CCMPs have yet to be developed.  Consequently, comprehensive cost estimates for CCMP
implementation activities are not available at this time.

       The  State of Washington reported that its SRF provided funding for CCMP activities in
FY 1990. Two other States, California and Pennsylvania, indicated that they intend to fund
CCMP activities through their SRFs in the future, Additionally, Connecticut reported that  it
intends to make loans for wastewater treatment and CSO projects that will help protect Long
Island Sound;  these activities may overlap with activities identified in that estuary's CCMP.
       Ground-Water Protection

       Section 319 of the CWA emphasizes ground-water protection by encouraging States to
assess the impact of NPS problems on ground-water quality and by authorizing grants for
ground-water protection activities related to nonpoint source problems.  As an ongoing effort
under Section 106 of the CWA, EPA provides grant money to States to support the
development of State Ground-Water Protection Strategies.  Most States have submitted
Ground-Water Protection Strategies to  EPA. The Agency encourages States to keep the
Strategies current and is now starting an initiative to help the States move from strategies  to
the development of Comprehensive State Ground-Water Protection Programs.
                                           B-2

-------
       The CWA provides a mechanism for using SRF monies for ground-water protection
under the NPS program.  For ground-water protection activities to be eligible, they must be
identified in the State's  EPA-approved NPS Management Program through direct identification
or incorporation by reference to the State's Ground-Water Protection Strategy. State Ground-
Water Protection Strategies do  not generally include cost estimates.  Therefore, it is not
possible at this time to determine the  extent to which ground-water protection activities will  add
to the total cost of SRF-eligible water pollution control activities.
       Wetlands Protection

       EPA encourages states to coordinate planning and implementation of programs for
nonpoint source pollution control, ground-water protection and estuarine protection.  Although
no new program efforts were established for wetlands protection in the 1987 Amendments,
wetlands protection is also a priority concern.  Implementation of wetlands protection activities
is SRF-eligible to the extent that the activities are included as part of approved State Nonpoint
Source Management Programs or estuary CCMPs.
       Maintaining Permit Compliance

       Traditional Needs Surveys have not captured the needs associated with wastewater
treatment facilities which are compliant at the time of the survey, but in need of near term
improvements, because they are at a design capacity, near retirement, or in an area where
stream standards will be upgraded.  This is particularly critical in areas which  are experiencing
population growth.  These  needs are eligible for funding from SRFs and will  add substantially
to States' total needs for wastewater funding.
       B.2  New Enforceable Requirements

       Separate Storm Sewers

       The  1987 Clean Water Act Amendments expand the permitting program for discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers to include comprehensive storm water quality
management programs to reduce the discharge of pollutants.  Section 402(p) of the CWA
provides deadlines  for EPA to establish permit application requirements for discharges from
large municipal separate storm sewer systems (systems serving a population of 250,000 or more)
and discharges from medium municipal separate storm sewer systems (systems serving a
population between 100,000 and 250,000).  EPA is to study discharges from other  municipal
separate storm sewers and  issue regulations based on the results of these studies.

       On November 16, 1990, EPA published a final rule on permit application  requirements
in the Federal Register.  The rule covers permit application requirements for discharges from
large and  medium  municipal separate storm sewers. The requirements are sufficiently flexible
to allow the development of site-specific permit conditions.  Under the proposed  requirements,
                                           B-3

-------
municipal applicants will be required to submit proposed storm water management programs as
part of their permit application.

        The municipal stormwater management programs that municipal permittees will be
required to develop and implement as permit conditions will address a  wide range of structural
and nonstructural controls.  Structural controls include the removal of  illicit connections,
regional storm water management basins, retention and infiltration basins, and other retrofit
projects.  Nonstructural controls include developing and implementing  an ordinance to control
construction site runoff, street sweeping, operation and maintenance improvements,  public
education programs, and waste collection programs to discourage illegal dumping.

        Structural improvements to municipal separate storm sewer systems qualify for assistance
from Federal  funds authorized after FY 1990 for the SRF program.  Activities for storm water
pollution control are also eligible for SRF assistance if they are part of approved Section 319
State Nonpoint Source Management Programs or Section 320  estuary Comprehensive
Conservation  Management Plans. Structural improvements and control activities for storm
sewers  that are part of these  programs will, therefore, increase SRF-eligible needs.  Estimates
of the dollar amount of the increase are not yet available.  Initial cost  estimates should be
available after municipal applicants submit cost analyses of implementing municipal storm water
management programs. These cost  analyses are  required as part of the permit application for
large and medium-sized municipal systems.
       Discharge of Toxic Pollutants

       Section 304(1) of the CWA requires EPA and the States to address the reduction of
toxics from point source discharges. EPA promulgated requirements to implement Section
304(1) in June 1989.  Section 304(1) required States to prepare lists of water bodies not meeting
water quality standards because of point source discharges of one or  more of the 126 priority
toxic pollutants. Section 304(1) also required States to prepare lists of point sources discharging
these pollutants and to develop control strategies to reduce these discharges.

       As of July 1990, the States and EPA had identified 193  municipal facilities and 53 CSOs
or storm water drains that are discharging toxic pollutants  into impaired waters.  To comply
with new, more stringent limits on toxic pollutants, the treatment facilities will have to choose
between either enforcing more stringent pretreatment requirements or installing more advanced
technology within the facility.  Communities with CSO and storm sewer problems will have a
choice of adopting either nonstructural (e.g., street cleaning) or structural (e.g., separation of
sanitary and storm sewers) controls. With certain restrictions, these options are eligible for
assistance from SRFs.

       EPA and the States have completed identifying impaired waters and point sources of
toxic discharges  and are now completing control strategies.  After public comment, additional
water bodies and facilities have been added to States' lists, while others have  been deleted.
After the control strategies become incorporated into final permits, facilities will have three
years to comply with their new effluent limits.  Because  most facilities have yet to determine
                                            B-4

-------
necessary treatment modifications, it is not possible to assess the cost of these new controls at
this time.
       Sludge Use and Disposal Regulations

       Sludge is a byproduct of the wastewater treatment process.  Treatment facilities bear the
responsibility for disposing of sludge, which can contain toxic components. The 1987 CWA
Amendments require EPA to identify toxic pollutants of concern in sludge, establish numerical
limits for each pollutant, and determine appropriate use and disposal practices to protect human
health and the environment.

       EPA proposed regulations  in February  1989 that address five  sludge use and disposal
practices:  incineration, land application,  monofill (sludge-only), distribution and marketing, and
surface impoundments.   These new requirements may generate additional costs for treatment
facilities.  SRF programs can provide financial  assistance for the capital costs of POTW
investments.  Eligible capital costs  might  include upgrades for an existing  treatment process,
hardware purchases for sludge disposal (e.g.,  a  truck to transport the material to a  landfill), or
engineering costs associated with a capital investment project.

       As part of its regulatory development process, EPA  prepared  a regulatory impact
analysis estimating the costs to  treatment works of complying with the proposed regulations.
Data in the record provide  a basis for estimating capital costs.  The  total  capital costs (including
engineering costs)  associated with POTW compliance with the proposed sludge regulations are
estimated  to be $408.3 million (1988 dollars).   The methodology used to estimate the cost of
compliance with the proposed regulation will change, however, based on new data gathered
from a national sewage sludge survey.  Thus, this cost estimate may change.  Furthermore, this
cost estimate is for the proposed regulation; the cost associated with  the final regulation may
differ substantially.
       Ocean Dumping Ban Act

       The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 affects the State Revolving Fund program in
New York and New Jersey.  The Act requires these states to commit ten percent of their
capitalization grants  awarded for fiscal years 1990 and 1991, and ten percent of their State
match associated with those grants, to provide assistance authorized under Title VI for
identifying, developing, and implementing alternatives to ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
       Summary

       Sludge use and disposal, new toxics requirements, separate storm water sewers, NPS
pollution control, and ground-water, estuary, and wetlands protection activities all could add
substantially to SRF-eligible costs.  With the exception of the estimated $408 million for
compliance with proposed sludge  use and disposal regulations, comprehensive estimates of the
financing needs for these new eligibilities and  requirements  are not available.  It is anticipated

                                            B-5

-------
that needs associated with new funding eligibilities and new requirements will substantially
exceed the Category I through V needs estimated in the 1988 Needs Survey.
                                             B-6

-------
                r*.
                I" v  >  >•
            APPENDIX C

FUNDS AVAILABLE FROM SRF AND OTHER
     STATE PROGRAMS BY STATE

-------
                                                                TABLE C-l
                                       Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                   By State
                                                                 ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Alabama
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(b)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(c)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(d)
Mima
^^RF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(c)
State Grant Programs(e)
Other State Programs
TOTAL(d)(f)
Actual
1988













0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
10.0
1989

10.6
2.1

25.7 .


38.4
(7.2)
31.2
-
-
31.2
10.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
12.6
0.0
12.6
11.0
0.0
23.6
1990

10.9
2.2

31.0


44.1
(8.0)
36.1


36.1
5.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
7.4
0.0
7.4
12.0
0.0
19.4
Projected
1991

20.7
4.1

50.0


74.8
(14.0)
60.8


60.8
12.1
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
15.2
0.0
15.2

0.0
15.2
1992

15.6
3.1

25.0


43.7
(7.0)
36.7


36.7
10.9
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
. 0.5
13.9
0.0
13.9

0.0
13.9
1993

10.4
2.1

25.0


37.5
(7.0)
30.5


30.5
7.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
9.7
0.0
9.7

0.0
9.7
1994

5.2
1.0

25.0


31.2
(7.0)
24.2


24.2
3.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
5.8
0.0
5.8

0.0
5.8
1995-1999(a)




25.0


25.0
(7.0)
18.0


18.0


0.0
0.0
3.4
0.5
3.9
0.0
3.9

0.0
3.9
(a)   Annual average.
(b)   Alabama's SRF loan repayments are used to retire SRF bonds during the time period, and are thus not available to fund projects.
(c)   Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(d)   Totals vary due to rounding.
(e^^Alaska's State Grants are appropriated annually. Projections after 1990 are not possible.
(ij^Hotal does not include Alaska's State Grant funding after 1990.
                                                            C-l

-------
                                                           TABLE C-l, continued
                                         Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                    By  State
                                                                  ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Arizona
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Arkansas
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(d)
SRF Interest Earnings(e)
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs(f)
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1989

6.4
1.2

10.8


18.4
(6.4)
12.0


12.0

13.6
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.4
0.0
16.4
0.0
0.0
16.4
1990

6.5
1.3

10.7


18.5
(6.5)
12.0


12.0

13.9
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
16.7
0.1
9.3
26.1
Projected
1991

16.0
2.4

21.6


40.0
(12.0)
28.0


28.0

15.9
3.2
0.0
26.4
0.0
0.0
45.5
(26.4)
19.1
0.3
13.5
32.8
1992

12.0
1.6
0.0
14.4


28.0
(8.0)
20.0


20.0

11.9
2.4
0.0
15.3
0.0
0.0
29.5
(15-3)
14.3
0.2
13.5
27.9
1993

8.0
0.8

7.2


16.0
(4.0)
12.0


12.0

7.9
1.6
0.0
11.4
0.0
0.0
20.9
(11.4)
9.5
0.2
13.5
23.1
1994

4.0
0.4

3.6


8.0
(2.0)
6.0


6.0

4.0
0.8
0.0
7.6
0.0
0.0
12.4
(7.6)
4.8
0.2
13.5
18.5
1995-1999(a)




1.0
1.0

2.0

2.0


2.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
(3.5)
0.0
0.2
13.5
13.7
(a)   Annual average.
(b)   Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)   Totals vary due to rounding.
(d)   Arkansas's SRF loan repayments are used to retire SRF bonds during the time period, and are thus not available to fund projects.
(e)   Arkansas's SRF interest earnings are used to retire SRF bonds during the time period, and are thus not available to fund projects.
(f)   Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission Loan Program.
                                                           C-2

-------
                                                        TABLE C-l, continued
                                       Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                 By  State
                                                               ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
California
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs(c)
Other State Programs(d)
^K)TAL(e)
Colorado
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(e)
Actual
1988

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
1.5

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1989

127.6
25.5
-
-
-
-
153.1
-
153.1
-
5.4
158.5

11.6
0.9
0.0
6.9
0.0
0.0
19.4
(3.1)
16.3
0.8
0.0
17.1
1990

119.8
24.0
-
-
-
-
143.8
-
143.8
2.0
21.5
167.3

12.1
3.5
0.0
36.0
0.1
0.0
51.7
(16.0)
35.7
0.6
0.0
36.3
Projected
1991

173.6
34.7
-
-
-
- •
208.3
-
208.3
5.0
37.1
250.4

19.0
3.4
0.0
34.0
0.3
0.0
56.6
(17.0)
39.6
1.0
0.0
40.6
1992

130.2
26.0
-
-
10.9
-
167.1
-
167.1
10.0
3.0
180.1

14.3
2.5
0.0
24.0
0.5
0.1
41.3
(12.0)
29.3
1.0
0.0
30.3
1993

86.8
17.4
-
-
24.6
-
128.8
-
128.8
8.0
3.0
139.8

9.5
1.7
0.0
16.0
0.8
0.1
28.0
(8.0)
20.0
1.0
0.0
21.0
1994

43.4
8.7
-
-
40.8
-
92.9
-
92.9
0.0
3.0
95.9

4.8
0.8
0.0
8.0
1.3
0.1
15.0
(4.0)
11.0
1.0
0.0
12.0
1995-1999(a)

0.0
0.0
-
-
50.3
-
50.3
-
50.3
0.0
3.0
53.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
1.4
0.1
6.5
(1-4)
5.1
1.0
0.0
6.1
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.

(c)  California's Small Community Grant Program

      lifornia's Water Quality Control Fund loan program and Water Reclamation Loan Program.
          vary due to rounding.
                                                         C-3

-------
                                                         TABLE C-l, continued
                                        Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                  By State
                                                                ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Connecticut
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Florida
SRF Cap. Grant(d)
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(e)
SRF Interest Earnings(e)
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

28.1
5.6
52.8

0.0

86.5
0.0
86.5
21.6

108.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.1
1.8
1989

22.3
4.4
23.2

0.0

49.9
0.0
49.9
12.4

62.3

56.7
11.8
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
72.0
0.0
72.0
2.6
6.2
80.8
1990

23.3
4.6
70.8

0.0

98.7
0.0
98.7
24.6

123.3

58.3
12.1
(0.1)
0.0
0.0
0.2
70.5
0.0
70.5
0.9
0.2
71.6
Projected
1991

29.9
6.0
35.2

5.2

76.3
0.0
76.3
18.8

95.1

62.0
12.9
(0.9)
0.0
0.0
4.0
78.0
0.0
78.0
1.9
0.5
80.4
1992

22.3
4.4
37.6

8.2

72.5
0.0
72.5
18.0

90.5

58.0
12.2
(0.2)
0.0
10.5
5.1
85.6
0.0
85.6
0.5
0.5
86.6
1993

14.9
3.0
38.0

14.2

70.1
0.0
70.1
19.0

89.1

39.0
8.1
0.9
0.0
16.2
4.0
68.2
0.0
68.2
0.0
0.5
68.7
1994

7.4
1.5
41.3

18.7

68.9
0.0
68.9
17.2

86.1

19.0
4.1
(3.0)
0.0
22.5
4.0
46.6
0.0
46.6
0.0
0.5
47.1
1995-1999(a)



41.9

30.9

72.8
0.0
72.8
18.1

90.9
.


0.0
0.0
33.3
4.0
37.3
0.0
37.3
0.0
0.5
37.8
(a)   Annual average.
(b)   Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)   Totals vary due to rounding.
(d)   Florida's capitalization grant for 1991 projected at 80% of authorized amount.
(e)   Indicates year obligated, not year earned.
                                                           C-4

-------
                                                        TABLE C-l, continued
                                       Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                By State
                                                               ($  Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Georgia
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match(b)
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(c)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
tffc)TAL(d)
Hawaii
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989 1990

28.0 30.6 39.0



0.0 0.2 2.0

28.0 30.8 41.0

28.0 30.8 41.0
6.0 6.0 6.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
54.0 56.8 67.0

7.3 7.3
1.5 1.5
46.9



55.7 8.8

55.7 8.8


55.7 8.8
Projected
1991

40.6



3.9

44.5

44.5
6.0
20.0
70.5

11.8
2.4




14.2

14.2


14.2
1992 1993

30.7 20.3



5.2 7.9

35.9 28.2

35.9 28.2
6.0 6.0
20.0 20.0
61.9 54.2

8.9 5.9
1.8 1.2




10.7 7.1

10.7 7.1


10.7 7.1
1994

10.1



10.1

20.2

20.2
6.0
20.0
46.2

3.0
0.6


0.5
0.6
4.7

4.7


4.7
1995-1999(a)





13.5

13.5

13.5
6.0
20.0
39.5





1.3
1.3
2.5

2.5


2.5
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Georgia's State match is from non-SRF loans dedicated for repayment into the SRF. Repayments on the State match loans are included
    with SRF loan repayments.

          nts SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.

        ls vary due to rounding.
                                                          C-5

-------
                                                       TABLE C-l, continued

                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                               By State
                                                             ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Idaho
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Illinois
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
8.8

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
65.0
0.0
65.0
1989

4.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
5.5
9.8
5.5
20.8

50.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
60.1
0.0
60.1
181.4
0.0
241.5
1990

4.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
1.5
0.0
7.2

50.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
60.6
0.0
60.6
128.3
0.0
188.9
Projected
1991

11.9
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
14.6
0.0
14.6
3.0
0.0
17.6

100.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.6
122.4
0.0
122.4
74.5
0.0
196.9
1992

8.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
11.4
0.0
11.4
2.0
0.0
13.4

75.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
8.6
0.6
99.2
0.0
99.2
74.5
0.0
173.7
1993

5.9
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.1
8.5
0.0
8.5
2.0
0.0
10.5

50.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.6
78.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
0.0
78.0
1994

2.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.1
5.5
0.0
5.5
2.0
0.0
7.5

25.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
24.4
0.6
55.0
0.0
55.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
1995-1999(a)

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.1
2.6
0.0
2.6
2.0
0.0
4.6

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.0
0.6
36.6
0.0
36.6
0.0
0.0
36.6












I













(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                       C-6

-------
                                                       TABLEC-1, continued
                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                               By State
                                                             ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Indiana
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
•K)TAL(c)
Iowa
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds(d)
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988


-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.4
-
18.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


0.0
1989

22.7
4.5
-
-
-
-
27.2
0.0
27.2
7.4
—
34.6

12.7
2.5
0.0
12.6
0.0
0.0
27.8
(2.2)
25.6


25.6
1990

23.5
4.7
-
5.0

0.2
33.4
(2.0)
31.4
7.7
-
39.1

13.2
2.6
0.0
13.0
0.0
1.0
29.8
(1.0)
28.8


28.8
Projected
1991

58.5
11.6
-
15.0
-
1.0
86.1
(7.0)
79.1
10.0
10.0
99.1

33.1
6.6
0.0

0.0
1.5
41.2
0.0
41.2


41.2
1992

43.9
8.7
-
15.0
0.5
1.5
69.6
(7.0)
62.6
10.0
10.0
82.6

24.8
5.0
0.0

1.2
0.7
31.7
0.0
31.7


31.7
1993

29.3
5.8
-
15.0
2.5
1.5
54.1
(5.0)
49.1
10.0
10.0
69.1

16.5
3.3
0.0

3.8
0.4
24.0
0.0
24.0


24.0
1994

14.6
2.9
-
10.0
4.0
1.5
33.0
(2.9)
30.1
10.0
10.0
50.1

8.3
1.7
0.0

5.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
15.0


15.0
1995-1999(a)



-
0.0
4.0
1.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
25.0



20.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
25.0


25.0
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
        extent to which Iowa will leverage between 1991 and 1994 is not yet known.
                                                       C-7

-------
                                                      TABLE C-l, continued

                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                               By State
                                                             ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Kansas
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Kentucky
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

17.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
0.0
17.2
0.0
10.7
27.9
1989

8.5
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.2
0.0
10.2
0.0
0.0
10.2

21.8
6.6
0.0
0.0
15.7
0.3
44.4
0.0
44.4

35.8
80.3
1990

8.8
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
0.0
10.6
0.0
0.0
10.6

17.7
3.5
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.6
22.9
0.0
22.9

36.4
59.3
Projected
1991

21.9
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.3
0.0
26.3
0.0
0.0
26.3

29.2
5.7
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.9
37.5
0.0
37.5

1.0
38.5
1992

16.5
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.8
0.0
19.8
0.0
0.0
19.8

21.9
4.3
0.0
0.0
3.1
1.3
30.6
0.0
30.6

1.0
31.6
1993

11.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
14.2
0.0
14.2
0.0
0.0
14.2

14.6
2.8
0.0
0.0
4.6
1.9
23.9
0.0
23.9

0.0
23.9
1994

5.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
7.6
0.0
7.6
0.0
0.0
7.6

7.3
1.4
0.0
0.0
5.9
2.5
17.1
0.0
17.1

0.0
17.1
1995-1999(a)



0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0



0.0
0.0
6.8
3.0
9.8
0.0
9.8

0.0
9.8
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                      C-8

-------
                                                      TABLE C-l, continued

                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                               By State
                                                             ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Louisiana
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^MrOTAL(c)
Maine
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989

12.0 10.5
2.4 2.1


0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
14.4 12.7

14.4 12.7


14.4 12.7

7.4
1.5
0.3



9.2
(2-0)
7.2

19.0
26.2
1990

10.8
2.2


0.1
0.2
13.3

13.3


13.3

7.5
1.5
0.3



9.3
(2.5)
6.8

21.0
27.8
Projected
1991

26.0
5.2


0.5
0.3
32.0

32.0


32.0

18.0
3.6


0.2

21.8
(4.0)
17.8

36.0
53.8
1992

18.0
3.6


2.0
0.4
23.9

23.9


23.9

13.5
2.7


0.3

16.5
(3.5)
13.0

31.0
44.0
1993

12.0
2.4


3.2
0.4
18.0

18.0


18.0

9.0
1.8


0.5

11.3
(2.7)
8.6

23.0
31.6
1994

6.0
1.2


5.3
0.4
12.8

12.8


12.8

4.5
0.9


1.5

,6.9
(1.2)
5.7

11.0
16.7
1995-1999(a)




55.0
8.7
0.5
64.2

64.2

-
64.2

0.0
0.0


3.0

3.0
(0-7)
2.3

6.0
8.3
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                       C-9

-------
                                                         TABLE C-l, continued

                                        Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                  By  State
                                                                ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Maryland
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Massachusetts
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
-Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
2.0
5.6

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120.0
67.0
187.0
1989

22.8
4,6
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.8
0.0
28.8
15.5
3.4
47.7

62.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
74.0
0.0
74.0
0.0
72.0
146.0
1990

23.6
5.0
0.3
26.6
0.2
0.1
55.8
(0.9)
54.8
15.5
3.5
73.8

65.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
77.0
155.0
Projected
1991

58.7
7.0
0.0
175.1
0.9
0.4
242.1
(17.6)
224.5
0.0
4.4
228.8

82.0
16.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
(75.0)
23.0
0.0
750.0
773.0
1992

44.0
8.8
0.0
101.4
0.9
0.2
155.3
(13.2)
142.1
0.0
0.0
142.1

61.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.0
(45.0)
28.0
0.0
450.0
478.0
1993

29.4
5.9
0.0
67.8
2.3
0.1
105.4
(8.8)
96.6
0.0
0.0
96.6

41.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.0
(40.0)
9.0
0.0
400.0
409.0
1994

14.6
2.9
0.0
33.6
2.0
0.1
53.3
(4.4)
48.9
0.0
0.0
48.9

20.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
25.3
0.0
25.3
0.0
(d)
25.3
1995-1999(a)



0.0
15.0
7.7
0.0
22.7
(1.9)
20.8
0.0
0.0
20.8



0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
(d)
2.1
(a)   Annual average.
(b)   Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)   Totals vary due to rounding.
(d)   Additional State authorizations will be needed for future year program needs.
                                                         C-10

-------
                                                        TABLE C-l, continued
                                       Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                 By  State
                                                               ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Michigan
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^VOTAL(c)
Minnesota
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(d)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989

40.5
8.1
0.1
-
-
'
48.7
-
48.7
0.0
0.0
48.7

0.0 17.3
0.0 3.5
0.2
45.4


0.0 66.3
0.0 (16.8)
0.0 49.6
23.0 24.0
6.8 9.8
29.8 83.4
1990

41.9
8.4
3.1



53.4

53.4
0.0
0.0
53.4

17.9
3.6
0.7
69.8


92.0
(17.3)
74.6
9.0
6.5
90.1
Projected
1991

83.8
16.8
-
-
-
-
100.6

100.6
' 0.0
0.0
100.6

44.0
8.8
0.0
65.0


117.8
(42.5)
75.3
15.0
11.8
102.1
1992

78.3
15.6
-
-
-
-
93.9

93.9
0.0
0.0
93.9

33.0
6.6
0.0
60.0


99.6
(31.7)
67.9
15.0
11.8
94.7
1993

52.2
10.4
-
-
-
-
62.6

62.6
0.0
0.0
62.6

22.0
4.4
0.0
48.0


74.4
(21.1)
53.3
15.0
11.8
80.1
1994

26.1
2.1




28.2

28.2
0.0
0.0
28.2

11.0
2.2
0.0
48.0


61.2
(10.5)
50.7
15.0
11.0
76.7
1995-1999(a)
















0.0
48.0


48.0
0.0
48.0
15.0
2.0
65.0
(a)  Annual average. Michigan did not provide funding projections for 1995 to 1999.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
             's loan repayments are used to repay State bond issues.
                                                        C-ll

-------
                                                      TABLE C-l, continued

                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                               By State
                                                             ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Mississippi
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)

Missouri
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
3.1


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
0.0
33.0
1989

15.2
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.3
0.0
18.3
0.0
0.0
18.3


25.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
30.0
26.0
0.0
56.0
1990

15.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
19.2
0.0
19.2
0.0
0.0
19.2


26.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.0
0.0
31.0
30.0
0.0
61.0
Projected
1991

18.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.2
22.6
0.0
22.6
0.0
0.0
22.6


52.0
10.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
162.0
(51.0)
111.0
19.0
0.0
130.0
1992

16.2
3.2
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.2
21.4
0.0
21.4
0.0
0.0
21.4


39.0
8.0
0.0
75.0
0.0
1.0
123.0
(38.0)
85.0
23.0
0.0
108.0
1993

10.8
2.2
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.2
16.2
0.0
16.2
0.0
0.0
16.2


26.0
5.0
0.0
70.0
34.0
2.0
137.0
(36.0)
101.0
6.0
0.0
107.0
1994

5.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.2
10.9
0.0
10.9
0.0
0.0
10.9


13.0
3.0
10.0
95.0
31.0
2.0
154.0
(48.0)
106.0
6.0
0.0
112.0
1995-1999(a)



1.8
0.0
6.4
0.2
8.4
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
8.4 |
}



10.0
120.0
33.4
2.4
165.8
(52.8)
113.0
6.0
0.0
119.0
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                      C-12

-------
                                                      TABLE C-l, continued

                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                               By State
                                                             ($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Nebraska
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^OTAL(c)
Nevada
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988










2.2

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
1989

4.8
0.9



0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
1.8

7.5

4.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0
5.5
1990

4.9




0.1
5.0
0.0
5.0
1.2

6.2

4.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
5.7
Projected
1991

12.2
3.0



0.0
15.2
(0.3)
14.9
1.3

16.2

11.9
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
0.0
14.3
0.0
0.0
14.3
1992

9.1
4.0


0.2
0.0
13.3
(0.4)
12.9
0.3

13.2

8.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
11.6
0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
11.6
1993

6.1



0.3
0.0
6.4
0.0
6.4
0.3

6.7

6.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
9.1
0.0
0.0
9.1
1994

3.0



0.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.3

3.8

3.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
6.1
0.0
6.1
0.0
0.0
6.1
1995-1999(a)





2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.3

2.3


0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
2.8
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                         C-13

-------
                                                        TABLE C-l, continued
                                       Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                By State
                                                              ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
New Hampshire
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
New Jersey
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

-








12.2

12.2

70.3
14.1

67.0
0.0

151.4
(14.1)
137.3
0.0
56.6
193.9
1989

9.4
1.8




11.2
0.0
11.2
9.1

20.3

65.1
13.0

68.8
0.2

147.1
(6.5)
140.6
19.6
44.4
204.6
1990

9.7
1.9




11.6
0.0
11.6
11.0

22.6

84.8
17.7

94.3
0.7

197.5
(8.8)
188.7


188.7
Projected
1991

23.0
4.8




27.8
0.0
27.8
12.3

40.1

93.1
19.4

104.9
2.1

219.5
(9.7)
209.8


209.8
1992

17.0
3.6




20.6
0.0
20.6
19,1

39.7

71.0
14.8

84.0
5.6

175.4
(7.4)
168.0


168.0
1993

11.5
2.4




13.9
0.0
13.9
17.0

30.9

46.1
9.6

61.0
10.1

126.8
(4.8)
122.0


122.0
1994

5.7
1.2




6.9
0.0
6.9
13.1

20.0

23.0
4.8

40.6
15.2

83.6
(2.4)
81.2


81.2
1995-1999(a)










10.0

10.0




25.4
25.4

50.8
0.0
50.8


50.8
(a)  Annual average.  New Hampshire did not provide SRF funding projection for 1995 to 1999.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                          C-14

-------
                                                       TABLE C-l, continued
                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                By  State
                                                              ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
New Mexico
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^VOTAL(c)
New York
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(d)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

5.6
1.1
1.7

0.0

8.4
0.0
8.4
4.2
0.2
12.8

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.6
0.0
38.6
1989

8.6
1.8
0.0

0.0

10.4
0.0
10.4
3.5
0.0
13.9

104.0
20.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
124.8
0.0
124.8
15.7
0.0
140.5
1990

8.6
1.1
0.0

0.1

9.8
0.0
9.8
1.0
0.0
10.8

108.0
21.6
0.0
207.9
0.0
1.1
338.6
(69.3)
269.3
16.0
0.0
285.3
Projected
1991

8.6
1.7
0.9

0.6

11.8
0.0
11.8
1.0
0.0
12.8

226.0
45.3
0.0
794.0
1.2
7.2
1,073.7
(264.6)
809.1
0.0
0.0
809.1
1992

8.6
1.7
0.3

1.0

11.6
0.0
11.6
0.5
0.0
12.1

199.0
39.8
0.0
620.0
4.2
10.1
873.1
(206.6)
666.5
0.0
0.0
666.5
1993

6.0
1.7
0.8

2.3

10.8
0.0
10.8
0.5
0.0
11.3

133.0
26.6
0.0
500.0
8.8
12.6
681.0
(166.7)
514.3
0.0
0.0
514.3
1994

3.0
0.6
1.4

3.1

8.1
0.0
8.1
0.5
0.3
8.9

66.0
13.2
0.0
500.0
20.2
13.2
612.6
(166.7)
445.9
0.0
0.0
445.9
1995-1999(a)





5.5

5.5
0.0
5.5
0.5
0.5
6.5



0.0
307.0
54.0
14.0
375.0
(102.0)
273.0
0.0
0.0
273.0
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
           freed-up corpus allocation.
                                                         C-15

-------
                                                       TABLE C-l, continued
                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                               By  State
                                                             (S Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
North Carolina
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Oklahoma
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
3.1
3.6

9.3
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
0.0
11.1
1.2
8.6
20.9
1989

22.7
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.2
0.0
27.2
1.3
8.0
36.5

7.6
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
9.1
1.4
35.8
46.3
1990

33.0
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.6
0.0
39.6
0.2
1.3
41.1

7.9
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.4
0.0
9.4
2.0
23.0
34.4
Projected
1991

44.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
52.8
0.0
52.8
0.0
2.0
54.8

19.6
3.9
0.0
39.1
0.0
1.8
64.4
(3.9)
60.5
2.0
30.0
92.5
1992

33.0
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
39.7
0.0
39.7
0.0
2.0
41.7

14.7
2.9
0.0
68.3
0.8
1.3
88.1
(6.8)
81.3
2.5
35.0
118.8
1993

22.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
27.4
0.0
27.4
0.0
2.0
29.4

9.8
2.0
0.0
28.6
2.2
0.7
43.3
(2.9)
40.4
2.5
40.0
82.9
1994

11.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
16.5
0.0
16.5
0.0
2.0
18.5

4.9
1.0
0.0
5.8
5.1
0.4
17.2
(0.6)
16.6
2.5
45.0
64.1
1995-1999(a)



0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
5.9
0.0
5.9
0.0
2.0
7.9



0.0
40.0
5.6
1.0
46.6
(3.0)
43.6
3.0
50.0
96.6
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                         C-16

-------
                                                       TABLE C-l, continued
                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                By State
                                                              ($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Oregon
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^OTAL(c)
Pennsylvania
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs(e)
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

0.0
0.0




0.0

0.0

0.3
0.3
0.0*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
69.9
69.9
1989

14.0
2.8




16.8

16.8

2.0
18.8
37.4
7.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
45.7
0.0
45.7
292.9
338.6
1990

11.0
2.2




13.2

13.2

5.9
19.1
38.7
7.7
0.6
(d)
0.0
46.9
0.0
46.9
216.9
263.8
Projected
1991

27.4
5.5




32.9

32.9

13.0
45.9
63.5
12.7
0.0
(d)
2.3
78.5
0.0
78.5
167.3
245.8
1992

20.6
4.1


1.1

25.8

25.8

13.0
38.8
71.4
14.3
0.0
(d)
' 4.7
90.4
0.0
90.4
NA
90.4
1993

13.7
2.7


1.9

18.3

18.3

13.0
31.3
47.6
9.5
0.0
(d)
8.7
65.8
0.0
65.8
NA
65.8
1994

6.9
1.4


2.7

11.0

11.0

13.0
24.0
23.8
4.8
0.0
(d)
13.2
41.8
0.0
41.8
NA
41.8
1995-1999(a)





5.2

5.2

5.2

0.0
5.2

0.0
(d)
13.9
13.9
0.0
13.9
NA
13.9
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
            proposal under discussion.
           Department of Commerce and Non-SRF loan funds. Loan fund projection not available after 1991.
                                                          C-17

-------
                                                        TABLE C-l, continued

                                       Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                 By State
                                                               ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Rhode Island
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
South Carolina
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989 1990

6.6 6.8
1.3 1.4




7.9 8.1
0.0 0.0
7.9 8.1


0.0 7.9 8.1

0.0 22.9 19.1
0.0 4.6 3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0 27.4 22.9

0.0 27.4 22.9


0.0 27.4 22.9
Projected
1991 1992 1993

16.3 12.2 8.1-
3.2 2.4 1.6




19.5 14.6 9.8
0.0 0.0 0.0
19.5 14.6 9.8


19.5 14.6 9.8

20.5 18.5 12.3
4.2 3.7 2.5


0.0 4.3 5.2

24.7 26.5 20.0

24.7 26.5 20.0


24.7 26.5 20.0
1994 1995-1999(a)

4.1
0.8




4.9
0.0
4.9


4.9 I

6.1
1.2


5.9 10.4

13.3 10.4

13.3 10.4


13.3 10.4
(a)  Annual average.  Rhode Island did not provide funding projections for 1995 to 1999.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                           C-18

-------
                                                          TABLE C-l, continued
                                        Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                                   By State
                                                                 ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
South Dakota
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings(b)
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves(c)
SRF Available(d)
State Grant Programs(e)
Other State Programs
TOTAL(f)
Tennessee
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(d)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(f)
Actual
1988

0.0
0.0


0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4

24.8
5.0
0.3
-
-
0.1
30.3
-
30.3
8.1
69.3
107.7
1989

4.7
0.9


0.0

5.6
(1.2)
4.4
0.6
1.2
6.2

15.2
3.0
-
-
-
0.5
18.7
'
18.7
7.9
9.6
36.2
1990

5.9
1.2


0.0

7.1
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
7.1

23.7
4.7
-
-
0.1
0.7
29.2
-
29.2
8.7
6.5
44.4
Projected
1991

11.8
2.4


0.4

14.6
0.0
14.6
0.0
0.0
14.6

29.1
5.8
-
-
2.0
0.0
36.9
-
36.9
9.3
6.5
52.7
1992

9.0
1.8


0.8

11.6
0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
11.6

25.8
5.2
-
-
3.2
0.0
34.2
-
34.2
4.5
6.5
45.1
1993

5.9
1.2


1.6

8.7
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
8.7

17.2
3.5
-
-
5.8
0.0
26.4
-
26.4
6.2
6.5
39.1
1994

3.0
0.6


2.2

5.8
0.0
5.8
0.0
0.0
5.8

8.6
1.7
-
-
8.8
0.0
19.1
-
19.1
7.9
6.5
33.5
1995-1999(a)





4.3

4.3
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
4.3



-
-
14.4
0.0
14.4
-
14.4
9.6
6.5
30.5
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Interest portion of repayments goes to repay South Dakota's State Match bonds and is thus not included as it is not available to the SRF.
 c)  South Dakota's debt service reserve funds are from a State appropriation.
  )  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(e)  The amount of South Dakota's State grant funds unknown after 1990.
(f)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                             C-19

-------
                                                       TABLE C-l, continued

                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                               By State
                                                             ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Texas
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Utah
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

105.2
21.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
126.2
0.0
126.2
0.0
21.7
147.9

8.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.4

10.4
0.5
2.2
13.1
1989

82.7
16.6
66.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
165.4
0.0
165.4
0.0
20.2
185.6

7.1
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5

8.5
0.5
2.5
11.5
1990

72.8
14.6
58.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
146.2
0.0
146.2
0.0
6.4
152.6

6.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
8.1

8.1
0.5
2.5
11.0
Projected
1991

107.7
22.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
132.9
0.0
132.9
0.0
- 36.8
169.7

12.1
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.1
15.3

15.3
0.5
2.0
17.8
1992

79.4
16.5
0.0
0.0
11.3
0.0
107.2
0.0
107.2
0.0
26.7
133.9

9.1
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.2
12.8

12.8
0.5
2.8
16.1
1993

51.3
11.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.0
79.7
0.0
79.7
0.0
26.7
106.4

6.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.3
10.1

10.1
0.5
3.4
14.0
1994

14.7
5.5
0.0
0.0
29.2
0.0
49.4
0.0
49.4
0.0
26.7
76.1

3.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.3
7.2

7.2
0.5
4.1
11.8
1995-1999(a)



0.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
10.0
45.0



0.0
0.0
4.3
0.3
4.6

4.6
0.5
4.4
9.4
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.

(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                          C-20

-------
                                                      TABLE C-l,  continued

                                     Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                               By State
                                                             ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Vermont
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^TOTAL(c)
|^ 	
Virginia
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988

0.0





0.0

0.0
3.0

3.0

39.9
8.0
1.9

0.0

49.8

49.8
0.4
77.6
127.8
1989

4.6
0,9
2.1



7.6

7.6
14.8

22.4

30.7
6.1
-

0.2

37.0

37.0
0.2
33.2
70.4
1990

4.8
0.0




4.8

4.8
4.4

9.2

27.0
6.0
20.0

1.8

54.8

54.8
0.2
80.0
135.0
Projected
1991

9.5
1.9
0.1



11.5

11.5
6.6

18.1

48.1
10.0
-

5.0

63.1

63.1
0.2

63.3
1992

8.9
1.8




10.7

10.7
5.0

15.7

36.1
7.2
2.8

6.6

52.7

52.7
0.2

52.9
1993

5.9
1.2




7.1

7.1
5.0

12.1

24.0



8.8

32.8

32.8


32.8
1994 1995-1999(a)

3.0
0.6
0.5

1.0

3.6 1.5

3.6 1.5
5.0 5.0

8.6 6.5

12.0



13.3 21.1

25.3 21.1

25.3 21.1


25.3 21.1
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                          C-21

-------
                                                      TABLE C-l, continued

                                      Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                              By State
                                                             ($ Millions)

FUNDING SOURCE:
Washington
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
West Virginia
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989

16.6
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

19.9
0.0
19.9
40.0 45.0

40.0 64.9

0.0 0.0











1990

16.7
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

20.0
0.0
20.0
45.0

65.0

20.0





20.0

20.0


20.0
Projected
1991

42.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
0.0

50.4
0.0
50.4
45.0

95.4

47.8



1.0

48.8

48.8


48.8
1992

31.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.2

37.4
0.0
37.4
45.0

82.4

28.4



2.0

30.4

30.4


30.4
1993

21.0
4.2
0.0
0.0


25.2
0.0
25.2
45.0

70.2

18.9



4.0

22.9

22.9


22.9
1994 1995-1999(a)

10.0
2.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
4.0 7.4

16.0 7.4
0.0 0.0
16.0 7.4
45.0 45.0

61.0 52.4 __,

9.5



5.5 6.3

15.0 6.3

15.0 6.3


15.0 6.3
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                          C-22

-------
                                                     TABLE C-l, continued

                                     Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
                                                              By State
                                                            ($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Wisconsin
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
j^WOTAL(c)
Wyoming
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989

24.0
5,0
122.0
231.0


382.0
(151.0)
231.0
146.0 134.0

146.0 365.0
4.6
1.0
-
5.5
-
5.5
1.9 3.7
0.4 3.7
2.3 12.9
1990

25.0
5.0
121.0
231.0


382.0
(151.0)
231.0
152.0

383.0
4.8
1.0
-
5.8
-
5.8
2.1
0.9
8.8
Projected
1991

62.0
13.0
12.0
263.0


350.0
(87.0)
263.0
0.0

263.0
11.9
2.4
-
14.3
-
14.3
2.0
1.3
17.6
1992

47.0
10.0
6.0
191.0


254.0
(63.0)
191.0
0.0

191.0
9.0
1.8
-
5.0
0.2
15.9
-
15.9
2.5
0.3
18.7
1993

31.0
6.0
138.0



175.0

175.0
0.0

175.0
6.0
1.2
-
5.0
0.4
12.6
-
12.6
2.6
15.2
1994

16.0
3.0
144.0



163.0

163.0
0.0

163.0
3.0
0.6
-
5.0
0.7
9.3
-
9.3
3.0
12.3
1995-1999(a)



211.6



211.6

211.6
0.0

211.6

-
5.0
0.8
5.8
-
5.8
3.0
8.8
(a)  Annual average.
(b)  Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c)  Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                          C-23

-------
                  APPENDIX D




TOTAL FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE BY STATE

-------
                                                         TABLE D-l
                             Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
                                                          ($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Alabama
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State (c)
TOTAL
Alaska
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (d)
State (e)
TOTAL
Arizona
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Arkansas
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State (f)
TOTAL
California
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (g)
State
TOTAL
Colorado
CWA Tide H and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Connecticut
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Florida
CWA Title n and VI (h)
Odier Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
10.4 21.3 10.9
10.1 8.6 9.5
20.6 25.2
20.5 50.5 45.6
0.0 10.1 11.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
10.0 13.5 13.6
10.0 23.6 25.1
7.8 12.7 12.0
5.0 5.0 5.0
0.0 5.6 5.5
12.8 23.3 22.5
5.4 19.3 14.7
14.4 13.0 11.8
0.0 2.7 12.2
19.9 35.0 38.7
189.0 238.6 128.8
2.9 3.5 1.7
1.5 30.9 47.5
193.4 273.0 178.0
18.4 14.6 15.7
0.9 1.7 5.3
1.0 5.5 24.2
20.3 21.8 45.2
28.1 22.3 23.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
80.0 40.0 100.0
108.1 62.3 123.3
89.7 56.7 58.3
12.0 18.6 19.8
1.8 24.1 13.3
103.5 99.4 91.4
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
20.7 15.6 10.4 5.2
9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5
40.1 21.1 20.1 19.0 18.0
70.3 46.2 40.0 33.7 27.5
12.1 10.9 7.3 3.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.1 3.0 2.4 2.2 3.9
15.2 13.9 9.7 5.8 3.9
16.0 12.0 8.0 4.0
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
12.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 2.0
33.0 25.0 17.0 11.0 7.0
15.9 11.9 7.9 4.0
11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8
16.9 16.0 15.2 14.5 13.7
44.6 39.7 34.9 30.3 25.5
188.6 150.2 96.8 48.4
8.5 7.5 5.0 3.5 3.3
76.8 49.9 53.0 52.5 53.3
273.9 207.6 154.8 104.4 56.6
19.0 14.3 9.5 4.8
3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
21.6 16.1 11.5 7.2 6.1
44.5 34.0 24.7 15.7 9.8
29.9 22.3 14.9 7.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
65.2 68.2 74.2 78-7 90.9
95.1 90.5 89.1 86.1 90.9
62.0 58.0 39.0 19.0
15.3 15.7 16.2 16.7 18.4
18.4 28.6 29.7 28.1 37.8
95.7 102.3 84.9 63.8 56.2
Total
94.5
113.7
236.1
444.3
55.6
0.0
67.0
122.6
72.5
60.0
47.1
179.6
79.2
145.4
145.9
370.5
1040.4
49.1
578.6
1668.1
96.2
41.3
117.8
255.3
148.2
0.0
960.8
1109.0
382.7
206.3
333.0
922.0
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Tide VI funding at authorized levels.
(a)    Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b)    Annual average.
(c)    Since all of the repayments from Alabama's SRF loans are used to retire SRF bonds during this period, none of the repayments
      are anticipated to be available for wastewater project construction. Therefore, repayments are not included.
(d)    This information is not available to die Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
(e)    Grants are appropriated by Alaska's legislature annually. It is impossible to project these figures as they will depend on a
      number  of variables.  Therefore, State grant projections are not included.
      Since all of Arkansas' SRF loan repayments and SRF investment earnings are used to retire SRF bonds during this period, none of
      the repayments are anticipated to be available for wastewater construction.  Repayments, therefore, are not included.
      Information on HUD  funds spent for wastewater projects in California is not available; projections for future EDA program
      funding  also are not available.
(h)    Florida's FY  1991  SRF Capitalization Grant amount is based on 80% of die authorized appropriation. SRF Capitalization Grant
      amounts for FY 1992-1994 are based on 100% appropriations.
                                                            D-l

-------
                                                   TABLE D-l, continued

                             Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
                                                          ($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Georgia
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Hawaii
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Idaho
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Illinois
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State
TOTAL
Indiana
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Iowa
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal (d)
State
TOTAL
Kansas
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal (e)
State
TOTAL
Kentucky
CWA Title n and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
36.5 30.6 39.0
26.9 24.8 25.0
26.0 26.2 28.0
89.4 81.6 92.0
15.3 7.3
48.4 1.5
63.7 8.8
11.2 9.0 9.4
3.9 4.3 2.0
8.8 16.3 2.5
1_ 23.9 29.6 13.9
103.9 92.2 93.4
8.8 8.5 3.9
65.0 191.5 138.9
177.7 292.2 236.2
55.4 45.2 46.6
19.0 19.0 19.0
18.4 11.9 15.6
92.8 76.1 81.2
31.1 25.0 13.2
6.1 4.2 2.6
0.0 12.9 15.6
37.2 42.1 31.4
20.7 16.9 17.5
5.7 3.5 6.4
0.0 1.7 1.8
26.4 22.1 25.7
44.2 25.1 18.6
12.8 5.4 6.7
10.7 58.5 41.6
67.7 88.9 66.9
Projected \
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
40.6 30.7 20.3 10.1
25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
29.9 31.2 33.9 36.1 39.5
95.5 86.9 79.2 71.2 64.5
11.8 8.9 5.9 3.0
2.4 1.8 1.2 1.7 2.5
14.2 10.7 7.1 4.7 2.5
11.9 8.9 5.9 2.9
4.8 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1
5.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6
22.4 16.5 13.7 10.6 7.7
100.0 75.0 50.0 25.0
3.5 NA NA NA NA
96.9 98.7 28.0 30.0 36.6
200.4 173.7 78.0 55.0 36.6
58.5 43.9 29.3 14.6
19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0
40.6 38.7 39.8 35.5 25.0
118.1 101.6 88.1 69.1 44.0
33.1 24.8 16.5 8.3
4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
8.1 6.9 7.5 6.7 25.0
45.2 37.7 29.0 19.0 29.0
21.9 16.5 11.0 5.5
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6
4.4 3.3 3.2 2.1 2.0
28.1 21.6 16.0 9.4 3.6
32.6 21.9 14.6 7.3
7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
9.3 9.7 9.3 9.8 9.8
49.4 39.6 31.9 25.1 17.8
Total
207.8
301.7
408.8
918.3
45.0
0.0
69.7
114.7
59.2
39.9
70.0
169.1
539.5
24.7
832.0
1396.2
293.5
228 AI
325fl
84™
152.0
51.9
182.6
386.5
110.0
31.0
26.5
167.5
164.3
96.4
197.8
458.5
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a)    Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b)    Annual average.
(c)    Illinois' "Other Federal" includes EDA funding for both water and wastewater projects.
(d)    Information is not available for FmHA, EDA, and other Federal programs in Iowa.
(e)    Estimates were provided by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, not the Federal agencies providing the funds.
                                                           D-2

-------
                                                   TABLE D-l, continued

                             Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
                                                         ($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Louisiana
CWA Title n and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Maine
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Maryland
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State (d)
TOTAL
Massachusetts
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal
State (e)
TOTAL
Michigan
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Minnesota
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Mississippi
CWA Tide H and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Missouri
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
24.4 20.8 21.3
12.0 10.5 8.3
2.4 2.2 2.5
38.8 33.5 32.0
7.4 7.5
18.8 20.3
26.2 27.8
55.6 45.4 46.8
NA NA NA
5.6 24.9 50.2
61.2 70.3 97.0
80.0 62.0 65.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
187.0 84.0 90.0
267.0 146.0 155.0
0.0 113.5 41.9
8.2 11.5
0.0 121.7 53.4
42.2 34.4 35.5
8.6 9.1 9.9
29.8 66.1 72.2
80.6 109.5 117.7
22.8 17.7 16.8
5.6 4.8 4.2
3.1 3.1 3.4
31.5 25.6 24.4
64.0 51.0 52.0
8.0 4.0 7.0
33.0 31.0 35.0
105.0 86.0 94.0
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
26.0 18.0 12.0 6.0
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
6.0 5.9 6.0 6.8 64.2
41.0 32.9 27.0 21.8 73.2
18.0 13.5 9.0 4.5
35.8 30.5 22.6 12.2 8.3
53,8 44.0 31.6 16.7 8.3
58.7 44.0 29.4 14.6
NA NA NA NA NA
170.1 98.1 67.2 34.3 20.8
228.8 142.1 96.6 48.9 20.8
82.0 61.0 41.0 20.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
691.0 417.0 368.0 5.3 2.1
773.0 478.0 409.0 25.3 2.1
83.8 78.3 52.2 26.1
16.8 15.6 10.4 2.1
100.6 93.9 62.6 28.2 (f)
44.0 33.0 22.0 11.0
6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7
58.1 61.7 58.1 66.5 65.0
108.8 101.4 86.8 84.2 71.7
18.7 16.3 10.8 5.4
5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
4.5 5.2 5.4 5.5 8.4
28.5 26.8 21.5 16.2 13.7
52.0 39.0 26.0 13.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
78.0 69.0 81.0 99.0 119.0
134.0 112.0 111.0 115.0 123.0
Total
128.5
111.7
352.8
593.1
59.9
0.0
181.5
241.4
294.4
0.0
554.7
849.2
411.0
0.0
1852.8
2263.8
395.8
0.0
64.6
460.4
222.1
87.9
737.5
1047.4
108.5
62.3
72.2
243.0
297.0
54.0
1021.0
1372.0
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a)    Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b)    Annual average
(c)    Projections are not available for funding from "Other Federal" sources for Maryland.
(d)    Projections are not available for funding from SRF Investment Earnings in 1995-1999, Grant Program(s) from 1991-1999, and
      from other State programs from 1992-1999 in Maryland.
(e)    Massachusetts reports that additional State authorizations will be needed for State program needs after 1993.
(f)    Michigan did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
                                                          D-3

-------
                                                    TABLE D-l, continued

                              Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
                                                          ($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Nebraska
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Nevada'
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
New Hampshire
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State
TOTAL
New Jersey
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (d)
State
TOTAL
New Mexico
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
New York
CWA Tide II and VI (e)
Other Federal (f)
State (g)
TOTAL
North Carolina
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (h)
State
TOTAL
Oklahoma
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
11.7 9.6 4.9
1.4 3.8 4.8
2.2 2.7 1.3
15.3 16.1 . 11.0
11.3 9.1 9.4
0.4 0.4 0.8
0.0 0.9 0.9
11.7 10.4 11.2
21.3 18.0 18.6
1.2 0.1 0.3
12.2 10.9 12.9
34.7 29.0 31.8
87.8 74.0 93.4
NA NA NA
123.6 139.5 103.9
211.4 213.5 197.3
10.6 8.6 8.6
1.0 1.0 1.5
7.2 5.3 2.2
18.8 14.9 12.3
229.0 197.0 203.0
NA NA NA
38.6 36.5 177.3
267.6 233.5 380.3
35.2 22.7 33.0
12.9 12.9 14.3
3.6 13.8 8.1
51.7 49.4 55.4
18.6 15.2 15.7
11.7 38.7 26.5
30.2 53.9 42.3
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
12.2 9.1 6.1 3.0
3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
4.0 4.1 0.6 0.8 2.3
19.6 16.6 10.1 7.2 5.7
11.9 8.9 6.0 3.0
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
2.4 2.7 3.2 3.1 2.8
15.0 12.3 9.8 6.8 3.5
23.0 17.0 11.5 5.7
UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK
17.1 22.7 19.4 14.3 10.0
40.1 39.7 30.9 20.0 10.0
93.1 71.0 46.1 23.0
NA NA NA NA NA
116.7 97.0 75.9 58.2 50.8
209.8 168.0 122.0 81.2 50.8
8.6 8.6 6.0 3.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
4.2 3.5 5.3 5.9 6.5
13.8 13.1 12.3 9.9 7.5
226.0 199.0 133.0 66.0
NA NA NA NA NA
583.1 467.5 381.3 379.9 273.0
809.1 666.5 514.3 445.9 273.0
44.0 33.0 22.0 11.0
14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
10.8 8.7 7.4 7.5 7.9
68.8 55.7 43.4 32.5 21.9
19.6 14.7 9.8 4.9
72.9 104.1 73.1 59.2 96.6
92.5 118.8 82.9 64.1 96.6
Total
56.6
40.6
27.0
124.3
59.6
7.9
27.0
94.5
115.1
1.6
159.5
276.2
488.4
NA
968.8
1457.2
54.0
12.5
66.1
132.6
1253.0
0.0
3429.2
4682.2
200.9
166.0
99.4
466.3
98.5
869.2
967.7
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a)    Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this table.
(b)    Annual average.
(c)    Projections for FraH A and HUD funding for New Hampshire are unkown at this time. Funding projections for "Other Federal"
      programs are not available.
(d)    Funding projections for "Other Federal" programs are not available for New Jersey.
(e)    New York's FY 1991 SRF Capitalization Grant amount is based on 80% of the authorized appropriation.  SRF Capitalization
      Grant amounts for FY 1992-1994 are based on 100% appropriations.
(0    Funding projections for "Other Federal" programs are not available for New York.
(g)    New York's SRF Loan Repayments projections include freed-up corpus allocation.
(h)    Projections for FmHA grant and loan funds for North Carolina represent funding for wastewater facilities only.
                                                            D-4

-------
                                                   TABLE D-l, continued

                              Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
                                                          ($ Millions)
1- 	
FUNDING SOURCE:
Oregon
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Pennsylvania
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State (d)(e)
TOTAL
Rhode Island
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
South Carolina
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
South Dakota
CWA Tide n and VI
Other Federal
State (g)
TOTAL
Tennessee
CWA Tide n and VI
Odier Federal
State
TOTAL
Texas
CWA Tide n and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Utah
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
13.7 29.9 23.4
6.3 6.3 4.2
0.3 4.8 8.1
20.3 41.0 35.7
91.0 74.3 76.6
30.1 30.1 35.2
69.9 301.3 225.2
191.0 405.7 337.0
15.4 12.3 13.2
1.3 1.4
15.4 13.6 14.6
6.8 22.9 20.1
0.0 4.6 3.8
6.8 27.4 23.9
11.3 9.3 7.9
0.8 0.5 0.9
0.4 1.5 1.2
12.5 11.3 10.0
38.4 22.0 27.7
17.6 17.6 21.5
82.8 21.0 20.7
138.8 60.7 69.8
165.3 96.0 72.8
23.1 23.1 23.1
42.7 102.9 79.8
231.1 222.0 175.7
12.1 8.6 9.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
4.4 4.4 4.7
17.5 14.0 15.2
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
36.9 20.6 13.7 6.9
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.3
18.5 18.2 17.6 17.1 5.2
61.1 44.5 37.0 29.7 10.5
63.5 71.4 47.6 23.8
35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2
182.3 19.0 18.2 18.0 13.9
281.0 125.6 101.0 77.0 13.9
16.3 12.2 8.1 4.1
3.2 2.4 1.6 0.8
19.5 14.6 9.8 4.9 (f)
28.0 18.5 12.3 6.1
4.2 8.0 7.7 7.2 10.4
32.2 26.5 20.0 13.3 10.4
11.8 9.0 5.9 3.0
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5
2.8 2.6 2.8 2.8 4.3
15.5 12.5 9.6 6.7 4.8
29.1 25.8 17.2 8.6
4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
23.6 19.3 21.9 24.9 30.5
57.3 49.7 43.7 38.1 35.1
107.7 79.4 51.3 14.7
23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.3
62.0 54.5 55.1 61.4 45.0
192.8 157.0 129.5 99.2 68.3
12.1 9.1 6.0 3.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5.7 7.0 8.0 8.8 9.4
18.8 17.1 15.0 12.8 10.4
Total
145.1
66.1
110.5
321.6
448.2
236.3
903.5
1588.0
81.6
0.0
10.7
92.4
114.7
0.0
87.4
202.1
58.2
8.3
35.6
102.1
168.9
98.1
366.8
633.7
587.2
278.2
683.4
1548.8
60.4
12.0
89.9
162.3
Note:  Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a)     Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b)     Annual average.
(c)     "Other Federal" funding for Pennsylvania for 1995-1999 is unknown.
(d)     Projections for the SRF Leveraged Portions are not provided for 1990-1999, a leverage proposal is under discussion in Pennsylvania.
(e)     Projections for Non-SRF Loan Program funding are not available for  1992-1999.
(f)     Rhode Island did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
(g)     Excludes funds considered not available for wastewater project funding, including debt service reserves and monies used to repay
""      State bonds.
                                                            D-5

-------
                                                   TABLE D-l, continued

                             Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
                                                         ($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Vermont
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Virginia
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State
TOTAL
Washington
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal (d)
State
TOTAL
West Virginia
CWA Tide II and VI
Odier Federal
State
TOTAL
Wisconsin
CWA Tide II and VI
Odier Federal
State
TOTAL
Wyoming
CWA Tide II and VI
Odier Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
11.2 9.1 9.5
0.8 0.9 1.4
3.0 17.8 4.4
15.0 27.8 15.3
48.3 42.4 27.0
14.7 12.0 12.5
87.9 39.7 108.0
150.9 94.1 147.5
42.0 32.6 33.7
2.8 2.9 6.3
40.0 48.3 48.3
84.8 83.8 88.3
17.6 9.7 25.0
17.6 9.7 25.0
37.0 92.0 47.0
146.0 341.0 358.0
183.0 433.0 405.0
5.2 13.6 6.5
0.0 0.2 0.0
2.3 8.3 3.9
7.5 22.2 10.4
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
9.5 8.9 5.9 3.0
8.6 6.8 6.2 5.6 6.5
18.1 15.7 12.1 8.6 6.5
48.1 36.1 24.0 12.0
12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 NA
15.2 16.8 8.8 13.3 21.1
75.8 65.4 45.3 37.8 21.1
42.0 31.0 21.0 10.0
7.6 NA NA NA NA
53.4 51.4 49.2 51.0 52.4
103.0 82.4 70.2 61.0 52.4
47.8 28.4 18.9 9.5
1.0 2.0 4.0 5.5 6.3
48.8 30.4 22.9 15.0 6.3
62.0 47.0 31.0 16.0
201.0 144.0 144.0 147.0 211.6
263.0 191.0 175.0 163.0 211.6
18.2 9.0 6.0 3.0
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
5.6 9.8 9.2 9.3 8.8
24.3 19.1 15.6 12.7 9.2
Total
„.,'
3.1
84.9
145.1
237.9
89.2
395.2
722.3
212.3
19.6
603.6
835.5
156.9
0.0
43.8
200.7
332.0
O.OJ
2539.01
2871.0
61.4
3.8
92.3
157.5
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a)    Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b)    Annual average.
(c)    Projections are not available for funding from "Other Federal" sources for Virginia.
(d)    Projections are not available from FmHA for 1992-1999 for Washington.
                                                          D-6

-------
               ~ ,,: ,»1
           APPENDIX E

DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS BY
   TYPES OF ASSISTANCE BY STATE

-------
                                                       TABLE E-l

                                           Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        ($ Millions)
Alabama
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988










	
	
1989
28.43
( 74.1%)
2.30
( 6.0% )


7.20
( 18.8%)


0.42
( 1.1%)
38.35
( 100% )
1990
26.58
( 63.4%)
4.53
( 10.8%)


10.40
( 24.8% )


0.44
( 1.0%)
41.95
( 100% )
1991-1994
112.40
( 65.4% )
12.00
( 7.0% )


45.50
( 26.5% )


2.07
( 1.2%)
' 171.97
( 100% )
1995-1999
113.00
( 65.0% )
12.00
( 6.9% )


45.60
( 26.2% )


3.13
( 1.8% )
173.73
( 100% )

Alaska
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
• o
( 100% )
1989
12.05
( 99.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.03
( 0.2% )
12.08
( 100% )
1990
4.40
( 63.9% )
2.40
( 34.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.09
( 1.3%)
6.89
( 100% )
1991-1994
35.80
( 85.6% )
5.00
( 12.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 2.4% )
41.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
17.00
( 81.0%)
3.00
( 14.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 4.8% )
21.00
( 100% )
(a)     The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
       recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
       minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)     Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                           P-1

-------
                                                 TABLE E-l, continued

                                           Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        ($ Millions)
Arizona
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988







1989
12.00
( 58.8%)


8.20
( 40.2% )

0.20
( 1.0%)
20.40
( 100% )
1990
12.00
( 58.8%)


8.20
( 40.2% )

0.20
( 1.0%)
20.40
( 100% )
1991-1994
52.00
( 55.3% )


41.00
( 43.6% )

1.00
( 1.1%)
94.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
3.00
( 100% )


0
( 0.0% )

0
( 0.0% )
3.00
( 100% )

Arkansas
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )




0
( 0.0% )
• 0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )




0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
0.40
( 100.0%)




0
( 0.0% )
0.40
( 100% )
1991-1994
131.10
( 95.9% )
4.00
( 2.9% )



1.60
( 1.2%)
136.70
( 100% )
1995-1999
8.30
( 100.0%)




0
( 0.0% )
8.30
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant
      awards minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

-------
                                                TABLE E-l,  continued
                                          Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                       ($ Millions)
California
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
	












1989
75.50
( 100.0%)










75.50
( 100% )
1990
24.40
( 93.8% )








1.60 (b)
( 6.2% )
26.00
( 100% )
1991-1994
679.90
( 85.8% )
100.00
( 12.6% )






12.70 (b)
( 1.6%)
792.60
( 100% )
1995-1999
228.00
( 66.9%)
100.00
( 29.3% )






13.00 (b)
( 3.8% )
341.00
( 100% )

Colorado
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )


0
( 0.0% )


0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
19.38
( 55.3%)
4.40
( 12.6% )


11.00
( 31.4%)


0.24
( 0.7% )
35.02
( 100% )
1990
3.20
( 9.1%)
20.00
( 56.9% )


11.50
( 32.7% )


0.43
( 1.2%)
35.13
( 100% )
1991-1994
91.60
( 65.6% )
0
( 0.0% )


45.80
( 32.8% )


2.18
( 1.6%)
139.58
( 100% )
1995-1999
26.50
( 66.7% )
0
( 0.0% )


13.25
( 33.3%)


0
( 0.0% )
39.75
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    A total of $27,200,000 is estimated to be available for administration of the SRF from the four percent amount.

(c)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

-------
                                                 TABLE E-l, continued
                                           Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        (S Millions)
Connecticut
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
86.50
( 99.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0.84
( 1.0%)
87.34
( 100% )
1989
50.90
( 98.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.87
( 1-7%)
51.77
( 100% )
1990
98.70
( 98.9%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.14
( 1-1%)
99.84
( 100% )
1991-1994
281.80
( 99.7% )




0.80
( 0.3% )
282.60
( 100% )
1995-1999
364.00
( 100.0% )




0
( 0.0% )
364.00
( 100% )

Florida
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
54.90
( 99.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.50
( 0.9% )
55.40
( 100% )
1990
84.60
( 94.8%)
3.00
( 3.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.60
( 1.8%)
89.20
( 100% )
1991-1994 (c)
253.30
( 87.8% )
25.00
( 8.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
10.20
( 3.5% )
288.50
( 100% )
1995-1999
161.30
( 86.6% )
25.00
( 13.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
186.30
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

(c)    Estimates based on receiving 80%  of appropriations authorized in the Clean Water Act in FY  1991.

-------
                                                TABLE E-l, continued

                                          Types of SRF  Assistance by State
                                                       ($ Millions)
Georgia
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
26.00
( 95.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.10
( 4.1%)
27.10
( 100% )
1989
29.00
( 96.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.20
( 4.0% )
30.20
( 100% )
1990
32.80
( 83.5% )
5.00
( 12.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.50
( 3.8%)
39.30
( 100% )
1991-1994
68.70
( 65.0% )
33.00
( 31.2%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
4.00
( 3.8% )
105.70
( 100% )
1995-1999
67.50
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
67.50
( 100% )

Hawaii
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988







1989







1990
41.26
( 99.3% )




0.30
( 0.7% )
41.56
( 100% )
1991-1994
29.60
( 92.8% )




1.30
( 4.1%)
31.90
( 100% )
1995-1999
12.70
( 100.0% )




0
( 0.0% )
12.70
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization  grant awards.
                                                           E-5

-------
                                                 TABLE E-l, continued

                                           Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        ($ Millions)
Idaho
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
5.30
( 96.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 3.6%)
5.50
( 100% )
1990
5.50
( 96.5% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 3.5%)
5.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
34.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 2.9% )
35.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
46.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
46.00
( 100% )

Illinois
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
• o
( 100% )
1989
24.70
( 99.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.06
( 0.2% )
24.76
( 100% )
1990
91.30
( 99.5% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.43
( 0.5% )
91.73
( 100% )
1991-1994
290.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
8.60
( 2.9% )
298.60
( 100% )
1995-1999
180.00
( 97.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
4.90
( 2.7% )
184.90
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

-------
                                                TABLE E-l, continued
                                          Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                       ($ Millions)
Indiana
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )










0
( 100% )
1989
15.00
( 54.3% )
5.00
( 18.1%)


6.70
( 24.3% )


0.90
( 3.3%)
27.60
( 100% )
1990
60.00
( 62.7% )
7.50
( 7.8% )


27.07
( 28.3% )


1.13
( 1.2%)
95.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
390.00
( 67.7% )
10.60
( 1.8%)


164.29
( 28.5% )


11.01
( 1.9%)
575.90
( 100% )
1995-1999
200.00
( 95.2% )
0
( 0.0% )


0
( 0.0% )


10.00
( ' 4,8% )
210.00
( 100% )

Iowa
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )






0
( 0.0% )
• 0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )






0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
30.13 (c)
( 99.5% )
0
( 0.0% )






0.17
( 0.5%)
30.29 (d)
( 100% )
1991-1994
110.85
( 99.2% )
0
( 0.0% )






0.93
( 0.8% )
111.78
( 100% )
1995-1999
123.45
( 98.8% )
0
( 0.0% )






1.55
( 1.2% )
125.00
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization  grant awards.

(c)    Loans made in 1990 include FY 1989 and FY 1990 SRF funds.

      Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                          E-7

-------
                                                  TABLE E-l, continued

                                            Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                         (S Millions)
Kansas
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)(a)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (d)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
No Program




0.16 (c)
( 100.0%)
0.16
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )




0.34
( 100.0%)
0.34
( 100% )
1990
19.50
( 98.3% )




0.34
( 1.7%)
19.84
( 100% )
1991-1994
63.00
( 96.6% )




2.18
( 3.3% )
65.20 (e)
( 100% )
1995-1999
10.00
( 100.0% )




0
( 0.0% )
10
( 100% )

Kentucky
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (d)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.69
( 100.0%)
0.69
( 100% )
1989
13.50
( 93.9%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.88
( 6.1%)
14.38
( 100% )
1990
7.60
( 91.4%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.71
( 8.6% )
8.31
( 100% )
1991-1994
103.50
( 92.2% )
5.70
( 5.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
3.00
( 2.7% )
1 12.20
( 100% )
1995-1999
123.00
( 95.3%)
6.00
( 4.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
129.00
( 100% )
(a)    Direct loans are the only type of financing practiced by the Kansas SRF.

(b)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(c)    From State Bond revenues.

(d)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

(e)    Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                           F-R

-------
                                                TABLE E-l, continued

                                          Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                       ($ Millions)
Louisiana
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
13.94
( 96.8% )




0.46
( 3.2% )
14.40
( 100% )
1989
12.14
( 96.7% )




0.42
( 3.3%)
12.56
( 100% )
1990
15.08
( 96.7% )




0.52
( 3.3% )
15.60
( 100% )
1991-1994
59.52
( 96.0% )




2.48
( 4.0% )
62.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
44.59
( 44.8% )
55.00
( 55.2% )




99.59
( 100% )

Maine
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988







1989
8.47
( 92.5% )
0.40
( 4.4% )



0.29
( 3.2% )
9.16
( 100% )
1990
9.03
( 96.8% )




0.30
( 3.2% )
9.33
( 100% )
1991-1994
43.20
( 96.0% )




1.80
( 4.0% )
45.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
15.00
( 100.0% )




0
( 0.0% )
15.00
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                          E-9

-------
                                                TABLE E-l, continued

                                           Types of SRF  Assistance by State
                                                       ($ Millions)
Maryland
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.91
( 100.0%)
0.91
( 100% )
1990
90.00
( 85.8% )
5.00
( 4.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
9.00
( 8.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.94
( 0.9% )
104.94
( 100% )
1991-1994
436.00
( 85.3%)
25.00
( 4.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
44.00
( 8.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
5.87
( 1.1%)
510.87
( 100% )
1995-1999
93.00
( 85.1%)
7.00
( 6.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
9.30
( 8.5% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
109.30
( 100% )

Massachusetts
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^Ml
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^P
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
• 0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( ' 100% )
1990
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1991-1994
306.40
( 76.8% )
76.60
( 19.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
16.00
( 4.0% )
399.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
36.00
( 80.0% )
9.00
( 20.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
45.00
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                          F-10

-------
                                                 TABLE E-l, continued
                                           Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        ($ Millions)
Michigan
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
1.80
( 81.8%)




0.40
( 18.2%)
2.20
( 100% )
1990
38.00
( 97.4% )




1.00
( 2.6% )
39.00
( 100% )
1991-1994
261.00
( 96.2% )




10.40
( 3.8%)
271.40
( 100% )
1995-1999 (a)








Minnesota
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt (d)
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
. 0
( 100% )
1989
47.00
( 70.9% )
1.80
( 2.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
16.80
( 25.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0.70
( 1-1%)
66.30
( 100% )
1990
73.90
( 80.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
17.30
( 18.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.70
( 0.8% )
91.90
( 100% )
1991-1994
200.00
( 64.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
105.80
( 34.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
3.50
( 1-1%)
309.30
( 100% )
1995-1999
250.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
250.00
( 100% )
(a)

(b)



(c)
Michigan did not provide projections for 1995-1999.

The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

In addition to the Debt Service Reserve Fund, loan repayments are also pledged to bond holders as a moral obligation of the State.
                                                            F.-11

-------
                                                  TABLE E-l, continued

                                            Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                         ($ Millions)
Mississippi
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed (a)
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0,0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
11.00
( 99.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.08
( 0.7% )
11.08
( 100% )
1990
25.00
( 97.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.58
( 2.3% )
25.58
( 100% )
1991-1994
58.60
( 95.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.61
( 4.3% )
61.21
( 100% )
1995-1999
30.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
30.00
( 100% )

Missouri
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
• o
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.07
( 100.0%)
0.07
( 100% )
1991-1994
340.00 (d)
( 65.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
173.00
( 33.5%)
0
( 0.0% )
3.10
( 0.6% )
516.10
( 100% )
i 1995-1999
660.50 (d)
( 70.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
264.10
( 28.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
7.30
( 0.8% )
931.90
( 100% )
(a)     Existing direct loan program. If leveraging is implemented, figures may be substantially higher.

(b)     The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
       recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
       minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(c)     Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

(d)     Includes loan funds from repayments of short-term loans.
                                                            F-12

-------
                                                TABLE E-l, continued

                                          Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                       ($ Millions)
Nebraska
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988








1989
5.54
( 96.7% )




0.19
( 3.3% )
5.73
( 100% )
1990
5.73
( 96.6% )




0.20
( 3.4% )
5.93
( 100% )
1991-1994
34.50
( 96.6% )




1.21
( 3.4% )
35.71
( 100% )
1995-1999
14.50
( 100.0% )






14.50
( 100% )

^^ Nevada
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988








1989








1990








1991-1994
32.00
( 89.4% )
2.70
( 7.5% )



1.10
( 3.1%)
35.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
12.50
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )



0
' ( 0.0% )
12.50
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                          E-13

-------
                                                 TABLE E-l, continued

                                           Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        ($ Millions)
New Hampshire
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA.
NA
NA
1989
11.20
( 96.6% )








0.39
( 3.4% )
11.59
( 100% )
1990
11.30
( 96.7% )








0.39
( 3.3% )
11.69
( 100% )
1991-1994
69.60
( 96.7% )








2.40
( 3.3% )
72.00
( 100% )
1995-1999 (a)








New Jersey
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed i
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
134.00
( 88.9% )


14.10
( 9.4% )

2.70
( 1.8%)
150.80
( 100% )
1989
128.50
( 98.0% )




2.60
( 2.0% )
131.10
( 100% )
1990
199.20
( 98.3%)




3.50
( 1-7%)
202.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
581.00
( 94.1%)


24.30
( 3.9% )

12.10
( 2.0% )
617.40
( 100% )
1995-1999
254.20
( 100.0% )





254.20
( 100% )
(a)    New Hampshire did not provide projections for 1995-1999.

(b)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(c)    Note that this number  is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                           E-14

-------
                                                   TABLE E-l, continued
                                             Types  of SRF Assistance by State
                                                          (S Millions)
New Mexico
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
2.80
( 100.0% )








0
( 0.0% )
2.80
( 100% )
1989
16.00
( 100.0% )








0
( 0.0% )
16.00
( 100% )
1990
9.30
( 95.9% )








0.40
( 4.1%)
9.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
33.80
( 97.1%)








1.00
( 2.9% )
34.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
27.40
( 95.8% )








1.20 (b)
( 4.2% )
28.60
( 100% )

New York
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt (d)
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
109.30
( 39.3% )
97.60
( 35.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
69.30
( 24.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.80
( 0.6% )
278.00
( 100% )
1991-1994
1299.90
( 39.5% )
1161.80
( 35.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
804.70
( 24.5% )
0
( 0.0% )
20.70
( 0.6% )
3287.10
( 100% )
1995-1999
816.90
( 48.6% )
544.10
( 32.4% )
0
( 0.0% )•
308.00
( 18.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
10.60
( 0.6% )
1679.60
( 100% )
  (a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
        recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
        minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

  (b)    New Mexico anticipates that it may bank a portion of its 4% of capitalization grant administrative allowance for use after 1995.

  (c)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
*
Funds committed are equal to three times the amount deposited for security. Aggressive leveraging and full appropriations are
assumed.
                                                             E-15

-------
                                                 TABLE E-l,  continued

                                            Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        ($ Millions)
North Carolina
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
21.80
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
21.80
( 100% )
1990
31.70
( 99.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 0.6% )
31.90
( 100% )
1991-1994
136.50
( 97.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
3.90
( 2.8% )
140.40
( 100% )
. 1995-1999
29.70
( 79.8% )
0
• ( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
7.50
( 20.2% )
37.20
( 100% )

Oklahoma
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988






'
1989







1990
11.10
( 96.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.37
( 3.2% )
11.47
( 100% )
1991-1994
202.05
( 88.0% )
11.10
( 4.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
14.13
( 6.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.22
( 1.096)
229.50
( 100% )
1995-1999
200.00
( 100.0% )
0
. ( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
200.00
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                         E-l 6

-------
                                                TABLE E-l, continued

                                          Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        ($ Millions)
Oregon
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988







1989
14.25
( 84.8% )
2.00
( 11.9%)



0.56
( 3.3% )
16.82 (c)
( 100% )
1990
10.79
( 81.5%)
2.00
( 15.1%)



0.44
( 3.3% )
13.23
( 100% )
1991-1994
52.80
( 83.9% )
8.00
( 12.7% )



2.10
( 3.3% )
62.90
( 100% )
1995-1999
27.60
( 87.3% )
4.00
( 12.7% )



0
( 0.0% )
31.60
( 100% )

Pennsylvania
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
• 0
( 100% )
1989
43.43
( 96.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.50
( 3.3% )
44.93
( 100% )
1990
45.39
( 96.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.55
( 3.3% )
46.94
( 100% )
1991-1994
247.48
( 96.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
8.25
( 3.2% )
255.73
( 100% )
1995-1999
140.00
( 99.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.20
( 0.8% )
141.20
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

(c)    Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                           E-17

-------
                                                 TABLE E-l, continued

                                           Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        ($ Millions)
Rhode Island
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988







1989
5.61
( 70.8% )
2.00
( 25.2% )



0.32
( 4.0% )
7.92 (d)
( 100% )
1990
7.80
( 96.0% )




0.33
( 4.0% )
8.13
( 100% )
1991-1994
51.02
( 100.0% )





51.02
( 100% )
1995-1999 (a)








South Carolina
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed J
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
20.70
( 97.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.49
( 2.3% )
21.19
( 100% )
1990
20.61
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.61
( 2.9% )
21.23 (f)
( 100% )
1991-1994
71.40
( 96.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.70
( 3.6% )
74.10
( 100% )
1995-1999
52.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
UNK (e)
52.00
( 100% )
(a)    Rhode Island did not provide projections for 1995-1999.

(b)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(c)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

(d)    Totals vary due to rounding.

(e)    Unknown.

(0    Totals vary due to rounding.
                                                           E-18

-------
                                                TABLE E-l, continued
                                          Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                       ($ Millions)
South Dakota
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
5.70
( 96.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 3.4% )
5.90
( 100% )
1990
7.10
( 97.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 2.7% )
7.30
( 100% )
[ 1991-1994
39.60
( 94.7% )
1.00
( 2.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.20
( 2.9% )
41.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
22.70
( 91.9%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.00
( 8.1%)'
24.70
( 100% )

Tennessee
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation (d)
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
19.15
( 96.7% )
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.66
( 3.3% )
19.81
( 100% )
1989
17.63
( 96.7% )








0.61
( 3.3%)
18.24
( 100% )
1990
27.50
( 96.7% )








0.95
( 3.3%)
28.45
( 100% )
1991-1994
93.63
( 96.7% )








3.23
( 3.3% )
96.86
( 100% )
[ 1995-1999
94.96 (c)
( 96.4% )








3.53
( 3.6% )
98.49
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.

(c)    Does not include loans from non-SRF State loan program.

      Refinancing may be done through loans under Tennessee's SRF law.
                                                          E-19

-------
                                                  TABLE E-l, continued

                                            Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                         ($ Millions)
Texas
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
100.50
( 79.6% )
25.70
( 20.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
126.20
( 100% )
1989
165.40
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
165.40
( 100% )
1990
145.60
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
145.60
( 100% )
1991-1994
308.10
( 96.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
12.70
( 4.0% )
320.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
175.00
( 95.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
8.70
( 4.7% )
183.70
( 100% )

Utah
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
10.40
( 96.7% )




0.36
( 3.3% )
10.76
( 100% )
1989
8.50
( 96.7% )




0.29
( 3.3%)
8.79
( 100% )
1990
8.00
( 96.9% )




0.26
( 3.1%)
8.26
( 100% )
1991-1994
43.60
( 97.3% )




1.21
( 2.7% )
44.81
( 100% )
1995-1999
23.30
( 100.0%)




0
( 0.0% )
23.30
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                         E-20

-------
                                                TABLE E-l, continued

                                          Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                       ($ Millions)
Vermont
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988













1989

5.7.0
( 98.4%)



0.10
( 1.6%)
5.80
( 100% )
1990

5.80
( 98.5%)



0.09
( 1-5% )
5.89
( 100% )
1991-1994
15.89
( 71.1%)
5.00



1.47
( 6.6% )
22.36
( 100% )
1995-1999
25.11
( 100.0% )





25.11
( 100% )

Virginia
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
34.90
( 73.4% )
12.20
( 25.6%)






0.48
( 1.0% )
47.58
( 100% )
1989
34.90
( 93.7% )
1.50
( 4.0% )






0.83
( 2.2% )
37.23
( 100% )
1990
60.00
( 98.7% )
0
( 0.0% )






0.80
( 1-3%)
60.80
( 100% )
1991-1994
136.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )






4.00
( 2.9%)
140.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
0
( 100% )
	








0
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                          E-21

-------
                                                 TABLE E-l,  continued

                                           Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                        ($ Millions)
Washington
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988










	

1989
18.80
( 91.1%)
1.15
( 5.6%)






0.69
( 3.3% )
20.64
( 100% )
1990
19.40
( 96.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )


0.68
( 3.4% )
20.08
( 100% )
1991-1994
120.50
( 97.2% )








3.50
( 2.8% )
124.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
52.00
( 91.2%)








5.00
( 8.8%)
57.00
( 100% )

West Virginia
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
• 0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
10.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.30
( 2.9% )
10.30
( 100% )
1991-1994
115.00
( 96.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
4.00
( 3.4% )
119.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
25.84
( 96.2% )




1.03
( 3.8% )
26.87
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                           E-22

-------
                                              TABLE E-l, continued

                                        Types of SRF Assistance by State
                                                     ($ Millions)
Wisconsin
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989 1990 1991-1994 1995-1999
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 100.0%)
1.00
( 100% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 100.0% )
1.00
( 100% )
995.00
( 68.5%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
452.00
( 31.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
6.00
( 0.4% )
1453.00
( 100% )
1058.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1058.00
( 100% )

Wyoming
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988 1989 1990 1991-1994 1995-1999
























41.30
( 96.0% )




1.70
( 4.0% )
43.00
( 100% )
50.00
( 100.0% )




0
( 0.0% )
50.00
( 100% )
(a)    The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
      recieved by the fund.  The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
      minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.

(b)    Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
                                                         E-23

-------
        APPENDIX F




USER FEE CALCULATION MODEL

-------
                                       APPENDIX F
                            USER FEE CALCULATION MODEL
Variable List and Description

Community size:  This is a basic input whose value for each model run is set at either 1,000,
2,500,  10,000 or 100,000 by the user.

SRF interest rate: Another critical input that the user adjusts for each model run.  The value
can vary between zero and the market rate.  The base value is four percent, a "typical" value
for existing SRF programs.

Market interest rate:  This variable changes with time and financial market conditions.  Also,
different States define market rate differently in their Capitalization Grant Applications.  The
base value used in the analysis, eight percent, is the value that best reflects recent costs of
borrowing  capital in the municipal bond market

Persons/Household: This  is an integral part of the analysis since we are attempting  to assess
impacts on households in  a community, not on  individuals.  The number included here, 2.64, is
the national average value released by the Bureau of the Census hi the Spring of 1989.  It is
the best information available.

Gallons/Person*Day:  Analyses of this type usually assume a value of about 100.  The value
varies somewhat depending on geographical location (rural versus urban), age and condition of
the system (which affects losses because of leaks), and, most importantly, community population.
This analysis assumes  a value 90 for communities sizes 0-1,000; 100 for 1,000-5,000;  and 110 for
5,001+.

Loan period: This is  the  maximum loan period allowed under SRF regulations.  Most States
have indicated they intend to make 20-year loans, so this analysis  assumes a base loan duration
of 20 years.

Cost eligible SRF(%'): This is the percentage of total capital costs eligible for loans under the
SRF program. Since  this  analysis ignores land costs, typically the  largest ineligible cost, and
since the flexibility of the  SRF program allows  expanded eligibility, the analysis  assumes  all costs
(100 percent) are SRF-eligible.

Cost eligible CG (%): This is the percentage of total capital costs eligible for grants under the
Construction Grant program.  EPA staff familiar with the Construction Grants program
recommended a base value of 90 percent.

State grant (%\.  The State grant is the percentage of total capital costs funded through a
State construction grant program.  It is independent of any Federal financial assistance.  The
base value is zero for the  SRF program and 15 percent for the Construction Grants program.

                                           F-l

-------
Flow rate (mgcP:  In millions of gallons per day, it equals the number of persons in the
community multiplied by the daily water usage per person.

Capital cost: Derived  according to updated EPA construction cost curves.  The original cost
curve comes from EPA's Construction Costs for Municipal Waste-water Treatment Plants:  1973-
78.  The curve in this  document was updated according to EPA's inflation index for
construction of wastewater treatment plants. The costs in EPA's report were January, 1979
dollars. These were assumed to be the same as March, 1979 dollars (the EPA inflation index is
keyed to March each year). A factor of 1.602 was used to bring March, 1979 dollars up to
March, 1989 dollars.

Eligible: The total capital cost multiplied by the percent eligible under SRF.

Ineligible:  The total capital cost less the eligible costs. This is the amount of funds the
community must raise from the State or from other sources outside the SRF.

O&M cost:   Derived from composite data provided by EPA Region HI staff who had done a
rate study of 161 wastewater treatment plants built under the Construction Grants program.
The curve was assumed to flatten out at either end, beyond the range of the composite data.
The cost curve derived from the data was inflated using the GNP deflator from the Economic
Report of the President.  The shape of the curve was compared with that of an O&M cost
curve developed by EPA in 1981  to confirm that the economies of scale implied by the model's
O&M cost curve are reasonable.  Also to ensure reasonableness, the values derived from the
model's cost curve were compared with unit, average values calculated in studies undertaken by
California and Pennsylvania. A comprehensive national study of user charges and O&M costs is
now underway at EPA; the results of this study will provide an updated source for O&M costs.

Number of hookups: The number of households served by the wastewater treatment plant. It
is equal to the community population divided by the number of persons per household.
                                           F-2

-------
               APPENDIX F

MODEL OUTPUT ILLUSTRATING THE EFFECTS OF
      CERTAIN VARIABLES ON USER FEES

-------
                      •USER CHARGE CALCULATION MODEL'
...... -INPUT SECTION* ••••••	

I. USER SUPPLIED INPUTS

Community Size:                1,000
SRF Interest Rate:                 4.0
Market Intrst Rate:                 8.0
Persons/Household:              2.64
Gallons/Person "Day:               90
                          Loan Period:
                          Cost Eligible SRF(%):
                          Cost Eligible CG(%):
                          State Grant/SRF (%):
                          State Grant/CG (%):
           20
          100
           90
            0
           15
II. MODEL CALCULATED INPUTS
Flow Rate (mgd):
Number of Hookups:
Capital Cost:
 Eligible:
 Ineligible:
Annual O & M Cost:
          0.090
           379
       $752,427
       $752,427
            $0
        $77.427
      •OUTPUT SECTION*
I. CAPITAL COST FINANCING
 No grant or loan:

 With SRF Loan:

 With 55% CG:

 With SRF Loan
 and State Grant:

 With 55% CG
 and State Grant:

II. O & M COST FINANCING
Cost of financing
capital portion
per household

          $202

          $146

          $102
          $146
           $75
                    Cost of financing
                    O & M portion
                    per household:
                                                Savings realized
                                                using program
                                                option
N/A

28%

50%


28%


63%
                    $204

                     F-3

-------
III. TOTAL ANNUAL COST FINANCING

                      Total annual cost                Savings realized
                      of financing                    using program
                      per household                  option

 No grant or loan:                $407                               N/A

 With SRF Loan:                  $351                               14%

 With 55% CG:                   S307                               25%

 With SRF Loan
 and State Grant:                 S351                               14%

 With 55% CG
 and State Grant:                 $279                               31 %

A Construction Grant that equaled              31 % of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does not include the effects of any state grant)

A Construction Grant that equaled              31 % of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does include the effects of any state grant)

A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
Grant State Grant, that equaled                16% of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does not include the effects of any SRF state grant)

A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
Grant State Grant, that equaled                16% of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does include the effects of any SRF state grant)
                                             F-4

-------
                APPENDIX F




CONTENTS OF USER CHARGE MODEL CELL BY CELL

-------
 'llic user charge model runs on Lotus 123 software

 A1:  W19]
 A2:  [U19]
 AS:  CW19]
 A7:  [W19]
.A9:  [U19]
                       ISER CHARGE CALCULATION MODEL*
*******INPUT SECTION***********
I. USER SUPPLIED INPUTS
Community Size:
     (,0)  [U15]  1000
  9:  [U21]  'Loan Period:
 E9:  20
 A10:  [U19]  'SRF Interest  Rate:
 810:  (F1)  [U15]  4
 D10:  W21]  'Cost Eligible SRF(S):
 E10:  (FO)  100
 A11:  [U19]  'Market  Intrst Rate:
 811:  (F1)  W15]  8
 011:  [U21]  'Cost Eligible CGCX):
 £11:  90
 A12:  [U19]  'Persons/Household:
 812:  [U15]  2.64
 D12:  [W21]  'State Grant/SRF  (X):
 £12:  0
 A13:  [W19]  'Gallons/Person*0ay:
 813:  [U15]  aiF/100
 A18:  W19]  'Flow Rate (mgd):
 818:  (F3)  [U15]  +813*89/10*6
 C18:  (H) t-818
 £18:  (PO)  '
 A19:  CW19]  'Number  of Hookups:
 819:  (FO)  CU15]  +89/812
 A20:  W193  'Capital Cost:
 820:  (CO)  W15]  (4.26*10*6)*C18*0.72
 A21:  [U191  '  Eligible:
 821:  (CO)  [U1S]  (E10/100)*B20
 621:  (H) CW21] aiF(E12-»(100-E10)5,0.68-(0.0018*C18),1.189*C18"-0.342))*365000*B18
 D23:  (H) W21J aiF(D22>0,D22,0)
 B2S:  (CO)  CW1S1  '
 A26:  CU19]  '••"***OUTPUT  SECTION**********
 A28:  [U191  'I. CAPITAL COST FINANCING
 830:  [U15]  'Cost of financing
 030:  CU21]  '     Savings  realized
 B31:  [U15]  'capital portion
 031:  [W21]  '     using progran
 832:  [U15]  'per household
 D32:  CU21J  '     option
 A34:  [W19]  '  No grant or  loan:
 834:  (CO)  [U15J  (aPMT(B20,811/100,E9)/B9)*B12
 034:  CU21]  "N/A
 A36:  CU191  '  With SRF Loan:
 836:  (CO)  tUIS]  ((aPHT(B22,811/100,E9)+3PMT(B21,810/100,E9»/B9)*B12
 D36:  (PO)  W21]  (B34-B36)/B34
A38:  CW19]  '  With S5X CC:
 B38:  (CO)  [U1S]  (aPHT(B20*E15,B11/100,E9)/B9)*B12
D38:  (PO)  [W213  (B34-B38)/B34
A40:  CU191  '  With SRF Loan
A41:  [U19J  '  and State Grant:
 841:  (CO)  CU15] «aPMT(D23,B11/100/E9)+aPMT(D21,810/100,E9))/B9)*B12
041:  (PO)  [U21]  (+B34-B4D/B34
A43:  W191   '  With S5X CG
A44:  [U191   '  and State Grant:
 844:  (CO)  [U15] (aPNT(B20*E16
-------
 856:  CU1S]  'of  financing
 056:  CW21]  '      using  prograa
 857:  [W15]  'per household
 057:  [W21]  '      option
 A59:  [U19]  '  No  grant  or loan:
 859: (CO)  [U15] +B34»C50
 059:  CW21]  "N/A
 A61:  CW19]  '  With SRF  Loan:
 861: (CO)  DV15] +C50+336
 D61: (PO)  CV21] (B59-361)/859
 A63: CW191  '  With 55X  CG:
 863: (CO)  CW15] +838+CSO
 063: (PO)  CW21] (B59-363)/B59
 A65: CW19]  '  With SRF  Loan
 A66: CW19]  '  and State  Grant:
 866: (CO)  CV151  +B61+C50
 066: (PO)  CU211  (B59-366)/S59
 A6S: [U19] '  With 55X CG
 A69: [U19] '  and State Grant:
 369: (CO)  CUTS]  +B^t-C50
 069: (PO)  [W21]  (B59-369)/359
 A71: [U19] 'A Construction Grant that equaled
 C71: (PO) +036/(E11/100)
 071: W21] ' of eligible costs would
 A72: CU193 'provide savings equivalent to those provided by the S3F  loan  (this
 A73: CW19] 'does not include the effects of any state grant)
 A75: [U19] 'A Construction Grant that equaled
 C75: (PO) +041/CE11/100)
 075:  W21J ' of eligible costs would
 A76:  [U19] 'provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF  loan  (this
 ATT:  [U19] 'does include the effects of any state grant)
 A79:  [U19] 'A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
 A80: [U191 'Grant  State Grant, that equaled
 C80: (PO) (D36-(E13*EU)/100)/(E11/100)
 080:  (W211 ' of  eligible costs would
 AB1: CU19] 'provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF  loan  (this
 A82:  CU191 'does not  include the effects of any SRF  state grant)
 A84:  QJ19] 'A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
 ASS:  CW191  'Grant  State Grant, that equaled
 CSS:  (PO)  (D41-CE13*EU)/TOO)/(E11/100)
 085:  CU21]  ' of  eligible casts would
A86:  5/19]  'provide saving* equivalent to those provided by the SRF  loan  (this
A87:  CU19J  'does include the effects of any SRF state grant)
                                                       F-6

-------