£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4606)
EPA 816-R-00-001
April 2000
The Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund Program
Case Studies in Implementation
I. Public Participation
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
Public participation is that part of the decision-making process through
which responsible officials become aware of public attitudes by provid-
ing ample opportunity for interested and affected parties to communicate
their views. Public participation includes providing access to the deci-
sion-making process, seeking input from and conducting dialogue with
the public, assimilating public viewpoints and preferences, and demon-
strating that those viewpoints and preferences have been considered by
the decision-making official. (40 CFR 25.3)
"We believe putting information into the hands of the American people is
one of the best ways to protect public health and the environment. Give
people the facts and they can make intelligent, informed decisions about
how to protect themselves, their families, and their communities."
— EPA Administrator Carol Browner
-------
-------
Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. State Summaries 3
Michigan 3
Minnesota 5
North Dakota 6
Vermont 8
Virginia 9
Washington 11
III. Conclusion 15
Additional Sources of Information 16
III
Appendix A: State Solicitation Materials and Sample Documentation
-------
I. Introduction
One goal of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) Amendments is to provide
better information to the general public on
the quality of drinking water. The Amendments
emphasize public participation and consumer right-
to-know to ensure that states' choices concerning
drinking water program implementation are respon-
sive to public need. Several provisions of the SDWA
Amendments specify that the public is to be pro-
vided with data and analyses or given the opportu-
nity to review and comment on drinking water
program implementation, regulations, strategies, and
procedures.
One such requirement appears in SDWA §1452
concerning Revolving Loan Funds for drinking water
infrastructure projects. As part of the annual
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF1)
capitalization grant application, a state must prepare
an Intended Use Plan (IUP). The IUP provides
information on a state's DWSRF program and
describes how it intends to use DWSRF funds to
meet the objectives of the Act and further its public
health protection goals. SDWA §1452(b) requires a
state to provide for public review and comment on
its IUP. EPA's Final DWSRF Program Guidelines
[EPA 816-R-97-005] require a state to seek "mean-
ingful public review and comment on its funding
decisions in the IUP." A state must also describe the
public review and comment procedures and explain
how major comments and concerns were ad-
dressed. The IUP may be amended throughout the
year in accordance with provisions established in the
IUP, provided that any changes go through a public
review process. EPA hopes that this provision will
work in concert with the public involvement require-
ments for other provisions of the SDWA Amend-
ments to increase public awareness and enhance
public health.
There are no specific requirements in the Final
DWSRF Guidelines regarding what constitutes
"meaningful public review" of the IUP. As a guide,
states should consider the objectives set forth in 40
CFR 25.3(c), which address public participation for
programs under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, and the
SDWA. The seven objectives are:
1. To assure that the public has the opportunity to
understand official programs and proposed
actions, and that the government fully consid-
ers the public's concerns;
2. To assure that the government does not make
any significant decision on any activity covered
by this part without consulting interested and
affected segments of the public;
3. To assure that government action is as respon-
sive as possible to public concerns;
4. To encourage public involvement in implement-
ing environmental laws;
5. To keep the public informed about significant
issues and proposed project or program
changes as they arise;
6. To foster a spirit of openness and mutual trust
among EPA, states, substate agencies and the
public; and
7. To use all feasible means to create opportuni-
ties for public participation, and to stimulate
and support participation.
Due to the variation among states in resources and
in social and political climates, no single approach
will work under all conditions. Therefore, any state
process that solicits input from a variety of inter-
-------
ested parties, allows adequate time for the public to
comment, and allows time for the state to address
major comments meets SDWA's public participation
requirements for the IUP. Public meetings are
encouraged as one method for soliciting input, but
are not required. At a minimum, states should make
an effort to include interested parties, such as
environmental and public health groups, that extend
beyond those on existing mailing lists when seeking
meaningful public review.
This paper is intended to serve as a tool for states in
identifying new approaches to meet the public
involvement requirements for the DWSRF program.
It highlights the approaches that six states2 (Michi-
gan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,
and Washington) have used to obtain input from the
public in the development and review of their lUPs
and provides examples of additional roles for the
public, such as the development of and revisions to
state DWSRF programs, which includes decisions
regarding the use of set-asides. Each state summary
identifies some of the marketing tools and tech-
niques used to spread awareness of and solicit
participation in the state's program. Appendix A
presents examples of states' meeting notices,
documentation of comments, and responses to
comments prepared to satisfy EPA's Final DWSRF
Guidelines. The appendix also presents newsletters
and other solicitation materials which, while not
required by the final guidelines, were developed by
some states.3
Tor consistency, the acronym DWSRF is used
throughout the paper even though some states use
another acronym to refer to their program.
2The states reviewed in this report were selected
based on recommendations from EPA Regional
DWSRF Coordinators.
3Please note that these are selected examples only
and they do not represent all of the materials
developed by the states discussed in this report.
-------
II. State Summaries
Michigan's Drinking Water Revolving Fund is jointly
administered by the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Michigan
Municipal Bond Authority (MMBA). Two DEQ
divisions (the Environmental Assistance Division
[BAD] and the Drinking Water and Radiological
Protection Division [DWRPD]) are responsible for
program administration, including development of the
IUP. The DWRPD is responsible for performing the
technical review of project plans and specifications,
assessing the cost-effectiveness of the proposed
project, issuing permits, and managing set-aside
funds. In addition, the DWRPD computes project
priority points to enable the BAD (specifically, the
Municipal Facilities Section) to prepare the project
priority list (PPL) and IUP. The processing of loans
and distribution of funds from the DWSRF to
qualified water suppliers is directed by MMBA.
the
During the first year of its program, Michigan DEQ
established a stakeholders group to provide input on
its DWSRF program including the use of set-asides.
The group included representatives from the Michi-
gan Section of the American Water Works Associa-
tion (AWWA), the Consulting Engineers Council, the
Michigan Municipal League (which represents some
500 cities and villages accounting for more than 98
percent of Michigan's urban population), the Michi-
gan Rural Water Association, and state environmen-
tal groups. In addition to providing input to DEQ and
MMBA on the program, the stakeholders group
members contributed to the publicity of the DWSRF
program through their respective newsletters and
through the pooling of their mailing lists to create a
comprehensive master list for the program.
DWRPD is required by statute to "annually invite
stakeholders including, but not limited to, representa-
tives of water utilities, local units of government,
agricultural interests, industry, public health organiza-
tions, medical, environmental, and consumer organi-
zations, and drinking water consumers who are not
affiliated with any of the other represented interests,
to one or more public meetings to provide recom-
mendations for the development of the annual
intended use plan as it relates to the set-asides
allowed under the federal safe drinking water act."
[Part 54, 324.5417(1)]
To introduce the DWSRF program to the general
public, DEQ conducted a series of informational
workshops in Marquette, Gaylord, Grand Rapids,
and Detroit. The workshops, attended by approxi-
mately 400 people, were designed to solicit partici-
pation in the DWSRF program and to educate
people about its requirements. Notice for the
workshops appeared in the Loan Arranger, Michi-
gan Water Works News (a quarterly publication of
the Michigan Section of the AWWA), and major
newspapers around the state.
To ensure that each project applicant provides
proper notice of the proposed project to the affected
community, Michigan state law (part 54, 1994 PA
451) requires each utility to solicit and respond to
local public comment prior to applying for funding.
(Loan Arranger, Winter 1998)
Following development of the PPL and draft IUP, a
public hearing was convened. Announcements of
public hearings were sent to each utility and pub-
lished in newspapers throughout the state 30 days in
advance. Notice of the August 1998 public hearing
for the FY 1999 grant application appeared in three
newspapers, the Detroit Legal News, the Lansing
State Journal, and the Marquette Mining Journal.
Information about the DWSRF program, application
deadlines, and public hearing notification also
appeared in stakeholder publications such as
Michigan's AWWA section newsletter, Michigan
Water Works News.
-------
Program development is ongoing in Michigan. After
the program's first funding cycle, staff from MFS
and DWRPD met to examine the success of the
DWSRF and to discuss possible improvements to its
operation, inter-divisional communication, and
customer relations. The meeting provided an oppor-
tunity for participants to discuss program communi-
cation, scheduling, and reporting. A small group
format was used to brainstorm ideas on how to
improve communication on project plan reviews, the
process for reviewing plans and specifications, the
coordination of scheduled milestones, and how to
refine the PPL to make it more user-friendly. (Loan
Arranger, Fall 1998)
and
l==l= Identification of Target Audiences.
|l=f=f Through the establishment of a stakehold-
- -•— .--- ers group; DEQ ensured that potential loan
recipients and potential technical assis-
tance providers were well informed of the
DWSRF program and had an opportunity
to provide input during its development.
Representatives from the Michigan
Section of AWWA, the Consulting Engi-
neers Council, the Michigan Municipal
League, the Michigan Rural Water Asso-
ciation, and state environmental groups
participated in the group. All DEQ mail-
ings and newsletters, such as the Loan
Arranger, were sent to government
officials, applicants for DWSRF funding,
all public water systems on record that
could be eligible for funding, and other
interested parties.
In cooperation with its stakeholders, DEQ
and MMBA developed a variety of
promotional materials for the program.
Materials were sent to all recipients on the
combined mailing list.
f:;;.T \ Newsletters. Published three times per
v?5i !i?i year by DEQ, The Loan Arranger
communicates information about
Michigan's DWSRF program and the
federal DWSRF program (See Appendix
A). DEQ also has a quarterly newsletter,
called Water Works News, which occa-
sionally contains information on the
DWSRF program.
DWSRF Pamphlet. This document
includes the DWSRF program history and
purpose, as well as information regarding
qualifying water suppliers and types of
projects. Basic information regarding the
process of applying for and receiving a
loan is also provided.
Website. The IUP and most of the
informational documents listed above are
available online (www.deq.state.mi.us/ead/
mfsect). A Power Point presentation
created to assist staff in presenting
information about this new program is
available on the DEQ website.
Guidance Documents. To facilitate
participation in the program, DEQ devel-
oped three guidance documents (available
on the website) to help water suppliers
determine whether their project is eligible
and whether they qualify as disadvan-
taged, and to help them complete the
required project plan for loan consider-
ation.
Handouts. Three supplementary planning
handouts are available upon request:
Regional Planning Agency Addresses,
National Natural Landmarks in Michigan,
and Michigan's Natural and Wild & Scenic
Rivers. The Project Plan Preparation
Guidance directs applicants to request any
of these items, if needed, to complete the
project plan.
Three additional handouts pertaining to
federal project planning cross-cutters and
state requirements are also available upon
request: a list of cross-cutters and the
applicable statutes, the environmental
contacts list, and a document detailing
Additional information is available from
Thomas Kamppinen of the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality,
Municipal Facilities Section. He can be
reached at (517) 373-4718.
-------
federal requirements related to project
planning.
Focus on Set-Asides. DWRPD is
statutorily required to hold at least one
annual stakeholders meeting to obtain
recommendations for the IUP as it relates
to the set-asides. In addition, an article
titled DWRF Set-Asides - A New Way to
Do Business was published in the Loan
Arranger (Winter 1998). It provided
information on the additional responsibili-
ties of the state as a result of the 1996
SDWA Amendments (i.e., source water
protection, operator certification, and
capacity development), explained the
various set-asides, and offered a justifica-
tion for taking money away from the
already under-funded infrastructure fund.
Workshops and Information Sessions.
Michigan has conducted a series of
informational workshops on the program
and participated in various panel discus-
sions and meetings. For example, repre-
sentatives of DEQ and MMBA partici-
pated in an annual meeting of the Michi-
gan Townships Association in Detroit.
This provided more than 100 township
officials the opportunity to ask questions
about the DWSRF program.
Minnesota's DWSRF program is jointly administered
by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and
the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic
Development (DTED) Public Facilities Authority
(PFA). As set forth under "Roles and Responsibili-
ties" in Minnesota's March 1998 Operating Agree-
ment, MDH prepares and maintains a comprehen-
sive PPL and provides it and any other program
information to the PFA for development of the IUP.
The PFA also manages all DWSRF funds including
state match and loan repayments.
the
To assist in developing its program, Minnesota
formed an advisory committee consisting of repre-
sentatives from small, medium, and large water
systems, the Consulting Engineers Council, the
Minnesota Rural Water Association, the League of
Cities, the Manufactured Housing Association, and
the PFA. Upon completion of draft rules, a notice
announcing the availability of the proposed rules was
mailed to approximately 5,000 people. The mailing
list was composed of businesses, communities,
counties, individuals, churches, schools, libraries,
government agencies, elected officials, water
systems, and the news media. The notice solicited
review and comment on the rules.
MDH conducted a series of open information
sessions and delivered presentations in various
stakeholder forums (e.g., MN Rural Water Work-
shops and local AWWA conferences) to ensure an
understanding of the program.
To begin the annual process of developing the IUP,
MDH solicits proposals for the PPL. Solicitation
letters are sent to all eligible water systems and
engineering firms. All systems that have projects on
the priority list receive a second letter soliciting
comments on the IUP. In addition to written com-
ments, verbal input on the IUP may be provided at
the public meeting. Every individual who has ex-
pressed interest in the program or requested place-
ment of a project on the priority list is notified of the
public meeting via a letter or memorandum. Notice
of the public meeting also appears in MDH's
quarterly newsletter and in the newsletters of
cooperating stakeholder organizations such as MN
AWWA and MN Rural Water Association.
In the IUP, which is subject to public comment,
Minnesota lists the percentage the state will take for
each set-aside.
and
=====; Identification of Target Audiences. An
|l=ii=f advisory committee of representatives
'"•""' ''" from water systems, the Consulting
Engineers Council, the Minnesota Rural
Water Association, the League of Cities,
the Manufactured Housing Association,
and the PFA ensured awareness and
participation by targeted stakeholder
groups. The draft program rules were
mailed to businesses, communities, coun-
ties, individuals, churches, schools, librar-
ies, government agencies, elected officials,
water systems, and the news media.
-------
'l Mailings. To ensure public awareness of
--• the DWSRF program, MDH announced
:: the availability of the proposed rules for
the program in a notice distributed to
approximately 5,000 people. MDH also
solicits proposals for the PPL in letters
sent annually to all community water
systems, nontransient noncommunity
water systems, and engineering firms.
Following formal approval of the IUP,
PFA mails application materials to all cities
and other public water systems that have
projects in the fundable range of the IUP.
Newsletter. Articles discussing the
'•:- program were published in the quarterly
newsletter for community water systems.
MDH extended this outreach by including
similar articles in a separate newsletter
that was distributed to noncommunity
water systems. The newsletters and
publications of stakeholder groups such as
MN AWWA and MN Rural Water
Association also served to market the
program.
| DWSRF Pamphlet. MDH, in cooperation
} with the PFA, prepared a pamphlet titled
"Drinking Water Revolving Fund: What it
Means to Minnesota Public Water Suppli-
ers." The pamphlet clearly and concisely
lays out general information on the pro-
gram and provides contact information for
specific questions regarding eligibility,
application procedures, etc. (See Appen-
dix A).
;; Website. On its website, MDH provides a
2 glossary of DWSRF terms (www.health.
state.mn.us/divs/eh/dwp/pws/dwrf/
glossary, html) and instructions for placing
a project on the priority list
Additional information is available from
John Schnickel of the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Health, Environmental Health
Division, Section of Drinking Water Protec-
tion. He can be reached at (651) 215-0784.
(www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/dwp/
pws/dwrf/pplinstr.html).
Workshops and Information Sessions.
Five DWSRF information sessions were
held in 1997, four in 1998, and two in 1999
in various locations across the state.
Sessions were used to describe the
program, eligibility, applications, changes,
and other related matters. Due to increas-
ing public familiarity with the program,
MDH plans to hold approximately two
sessions per year in the future. In addition,
MDH has made presentations each year
at operator continuing education training
sessions, MN Rural Water workshops and
conferences, and at local AWWA confer-
ences.
Other Direct Contact. Meetings are
held with community representatives to
discuss potential DWSRF projects. MDH
engineers and Rural Water circuit riders
also provide information to water opera-
tors and promote the program on a sys-
tem-by-system basis. This might involve a
phone call or a visit to the system to
answer questions.
North Dakota's DWSRF program is administered by
the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH),
Environmental Health Section, Division of Municipal
Facilities.
the
To kick off North Dakota's DWSRF program, the
North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association
sponsored a workshop in Bismarck. A brochure
advertising the workshop (See Appendix A) was
distributed to a target audience of approximately 500
recipients, including potential DWSRF loan recipi-
ents, city and consulting engineers, technical assis-
tance providers, funding agencies, and other inter-
ested parties. The brochure highlighted ranking
criteria and set-asides as two of four topics for
discussion, and encouraged people to attend and
provide input on both. Representatives from the
NDDH were the primary speakers at the workshop.
They presented an overview of the program and
explained the process of developing an IUP. The
-------
workshop was attended by 42 people. Attendees
were asked to complete questionnaires expressing
preferences for priority ranking criteria, weighting of
the criteria, and set-asides (see Appendix A). At the
bottom of each questionnaire, or "ballot," respon-
dents were asked to indicate the type of entity they
represented. These ballots facilitated the comment
process by simplifying the work of the commentor in
submitting comments and the work of the state in
tallying responses and tracking commentors.
Based upon input received at the workshop, NDDH
developed a draft priority ranking system and mailed
it to the same target audience described above for
further input and comments. Written comments
were provided by 20 individuals: representatives of
15 public water systems, two government/funding
agencies, one technical assistance provider, and one
consulting engineer. The priority ranking system was
revised based on these comments.
The workshop attendees supported set-asides for
small system technical assistance and the delinea-
tion/assessment of source water protection areas.
Most of the attendees expressed a strong prefer-
ence for limiting set-asides to maximize the amount
of funds available for project construction. Based
upon this input, NDDH established proposed set-
aside percentages of 16 percent for FY 1997 and six
percent for FY 1998. These percentages reflect a
combination of four percent for administration, two
percent for small system technical assistance, and
ten percent for source water delineations/assess-
ments (FY 1997 only). In a subsequent mailing to
the target audience described above, NDDH
requested written comments on these proposed set-
aside percentages. No one objected to the proposed
set-aside percentages. Therefore, prior to drafting
the FY 1997-1998 IUP, NDDH did not take addi-
tional steps to market the set-asides or seek further
input from groups potentially interested in seeing
them used.
Additional information is available from
Wayne Kern of the North Dakota Depart-
ment of Health, Environmental Health
Section. He can be reached at (701) 328-
5225.
NDDH held public hearings in Bismarck and Fargo
to solicit comment on the draft FY 1997-1998 IUP.
Notice of the public hearings appeared in the
Bismarck Tribune, Grand Forks Herald, Forum
(Fargo), and Minot Daily News approximately 45
days prior to the meeting. A second notice was
published approximately one week later. A separate,
more detailed notice was sent to the target audience
identified earlier. The Bismarck public hearing was
attended by nine people: three representatives of
public water systems, three people representing
consulting firms, two from state agencies, and one
technical assistance provider. The Fargo public
hearing was attended by 40 people: 23 representa-
tives of public water systems, 11 people from
consulting firms, one representative from a federal
agency, two from state agencies, and three repre-
sentatives each from educational institutions, na-
tional citizens' organizations, and water industry
service organizations. NDDH prepared a detailed
summary of comments and responses and included
it as an attachment to the IUP.
and
Illlllil; Identification of Target Audiences. All
||||=|| mailings were distributed to a target
audience of approximately 500 recipients
consisting of potential DWSRF loan
recipients, city and consulting engineers,
technical assistance providers, funding
agencies, and other interested parties.
; ^=lC, \ Mailings. Prior to drafting the FY 1997-
l j& *• 1998 IUP, NDDH sent several mailings to
' - '; -i! the target audience. The mailings provided
background information on the DWSRF
program, solicited information concerning
potential projects, and requested input on
the proposed priority ranking system and
use of set-asides. In addition, a separate
and more detailed notice was sent to the
target audience to inform them of the
public hearings on the draft IUP.
Ipllljl Workshops and Information Sessions.
Irfflrl At the Rural Water workshop, NDDH
•======^ representatives provided an overview of
the program and explained how the
program could benefit eligible water
systems and the public. The workshop
was advertised in a brochure that was
distributed to the target audiences.
-------
8
Vermont's DWSRF program is administered by the
Water Supply Division (WSD) of the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) of the Agency
of Natural Resources,
the
As documented in its FY 1997IUP, Vermont
provided numerous opportunities for public participa-
tion in developing its DWSRF program and its first
IUP. WSD targeted water suppliers to participate in
the early planning stages of the program. Technical
and non-technical meetings were held in each of
four regions in Vermont to facilitate diversity (a total
of eight meetings were held). Two additional meet-
ings to discuss program development options were
held specifically for drinking water consultants.
Seventy-five hydrogeological and engineering
consulting firms were sent letters notifying them of
the two meetings and requesting their assistance in
the development of the program. To ensure the
awareness and participation of Vermont's neediest
public water systems, state hydrologists and engi-
neers contacted them directly by telephone.
Public meetings were held in Montpelier and
Rutland to discuss the IUP and obtain public com-
ments. More than 700 water suppliers and 200
stakeholders were sent notices of the meetings on
bright orange postcards. Recipients included the
Northeast Rural Water Association, the Vermont
Groundwater Association, individual groups repre-
senting vulnerable populations, engineering and
hydrology consultants, and regional planning com-
missions. Approximately one week later, a "follow-
up" newsletter containing directions to the meeting
locations and additional information on eligible
infrastructure projects was distributed to the same
group of suppliers and stakeholders. WSD also
placed advertisements in the Burlington Free
Press, the Rutland Herald, the Bennington Ban-
ner, the Newport Daily Express, and the
Caledonian Record 20 days prior to the scheduled
meeting dates. Ninety-one people attended the
Montpelier meeting, and 38 attended the Rutland
meeting. Attendees included consultants, town
managers, nonprofit groups, water system owners
and operators, and other governmental agencies.
Audio tapes and written records were made of the
discussions at both meetings.
WSD also provided detailed descriptions of the set-
asides and the state's intended uses of them in the
IUP. Notices of public meetings and requests for
comment on the IUP were sent to water systems
and organizations with potential interest in the set-
asides, such as technical assistance providers and
conservation organizations. However, no special
effort was made to attract people with a sole
interest in the set-asides. The set-asides were
discussed at all public meetings.
At the close of the public comment period, WSD
prepared a "Responsiveness Summary" of the 110
oral and written comments received on the draft
IUP through the public meetings, the Internet, fax,
and mail, and attempted to incorporate suggested
modifications into the IUP.
Based on the success of the approach for obtaining
public comment on the FY 1997 IUP, Vermont
followed a similar approach for its FY 1998 IUP.
Once again, WSD, with the help of the Northeast
Rural Water Association, solicited priority list
applications from water suppliers through mailings
and a series of phone calls to the neediest systems.
Twenty-six of 100 invited consultants met in Water-
bury to discuss the DWSRF Program Implementa-
tion and the draft IUP.
Upon completion of the PPL and development of
the draft FY 1998 IUP, WSD held public meetings in
Montpelier and Rutland to obtain input on the IUP
and respond to questions about the DWSRF pro-
gram. WSD announced the meetings in the same
five newspapers and sent postcards to water
suppliers and stakeholders 30 days prior to the
meetings. The draft IUP was also made available
for review via WSD's website. A total of 13 people
attended the meetings, and just over 30 comments
were reported in the Responsiveness Summary.
As a slight variation from the FY 1997 approach,
WSD also delivered a presentation on the DWSRF
program and the draft IUP to 58 water system
Additional information is available from
Thomas Bartholomew of the Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources, Department
of Environmental Conservation, Water
Supply Division. He can be reached at
(802)241-3425.
-------
owners, operators, and stakeholders at the Green
Mountain Water Environmental Association Annual
Meeting. The presentation was followed by an
opportunity for comments from the public on the
DWSRF program and the draft IUP. WSD believes
that this additional opportunity may partly explain the
low turnout at the Montpelier and Rutland meetings.
In addition, minimal changes were made to the
program after the first year.
Examples of Vermont's public meeting notices and
documentation of their public involvement process
are provided in Appendix A.
and
(=== Identification of Target Audiences. In
fillip: addition to water suppliers, WSD targeted
hydrogeological and engineering consulting
firms, the Northeast Rural Water Associa-
tion, the Vermont Groundwater Associa-
tion, individual groups representing vulner-
able populations, engineering and hydrol-
ogy consultants, and regional planning
commissions.
Targeted Outreach to High Priority
Systems. For FY 1997-1998, staff from
WSD and Northeast Rural Water Asso-
ciation telephoned water systems with the
highest priority and greatest need to
encourage them to apply for loans.
:?,-:==:.....":., Mailings. Rather than requiring eligible
» f=l:;:? £ entities to request an application, WSD
••••••• "'•• sends DWSRF applications with instruc-
tions to more than 600 water systems and
70 stakeholders. In addition, brightly
colored postcards announcing the public
hearing on the IUP are mailed to all
eligible water suppliers. The postcards
also contain information such as the
amount of money available and project
examples.
f'..'.'•' -> Newsletter. A special one-time newslet-
',f%t v:4. ter provided additional information on
eligible infrastructure projects and notifica-
tion of, and directions to, the public
hearing.
hiiili; Website. WSD's website
htm) provides access to the IUP and PPL
for the current fiscal year.
Focus on Set-Asides. To promote
involvement in the development of its first
IUP, Vermont developed a mailing list that
included conservation groups and other
organizations that might be particularly
concerned about the set-asides. WSD still
uses this mailing list. Also, in its regular
newsletter, Rural Water featured a special
article on set-aside funding changes. As of
the writing of this report, WSD is consid-
ering starting a newsletter that will include
more information on set-asides and solicit
more participation from groups with
particular interest in the set-asides.
Workshops and Information Sessions.
To introduce the program, WSD held eight
technical and non-technical meetings in
cities throughout the state.
Coordination with Stakeholder
Groups. WSD delivered a presentation on
the DWSRF program and the draft IUP to
water system owners, operators, and
stakeholders at the Green Mountain Water
Environmental Association Annual Meet-
ing. During the meeting, WSD staff
distributed informational materials to water
systems and stakeholders. Each public
meeting also provided a forum for ques-
tions about the program.
As the primacy agency, the Virginia Department of
Health (VDH) applies for and administers capitali-
zation grants for Virginia's DWSRF program.
the
Virginia developed its DWSRF program with the
support and feedback of several local organizations,
including the Water Works Advisory Committee
(WWAC), the VA Association of Planning District
Commissions (PDCs), VA Association of Counties
(VACO), the VA Rural Water Association (VRWA),
the VA Municipal League (VML), and the VA
section of the AW WA, the League of Women
Voters, and the VA Society of Professional Engi-
neers (VSPE). These groups have provided a
-------
network for communication between public and
private interest groups, and they have facilitated
VDH's efforts to solicit public opinion. For example,
VDH delivered a presentation on the DWSRF
program at the Southeast RCAP conference.
Examples of potential uses of the funds were
provided and set-asides were emphasized.
For its FY 1998 capitalization grant, VDH sought
public input throughout the development of the draft
IUP. To begin, VDH mailed a letter in September
1997 to all public and private, community and
nonprofit noncommunity water systems soliciting
input on the 1998 draft IUP, particularly the uses of
the set-aside funds. This mailing included a copy of
the DWSRF program; a summary of the capitaliza-
tion grant set-asides and special considerations
under SDWA; the date, time, and location of the
public meeting; and contact information to request a
specially prepared information package on the
program. Waterworks owners also received loan
applications for the DWSRF program. Later that
month, a similar request for feedback and a sum-
mary of information on the program was published
in the Virginia Register of Regulations. Loan appli-
cations and general comments on the program and
the proposed use of the set-asides were requested
by mid-November. Using the applications that were
submitted, VDH prepared the proposed PPL and
completed the draft IUP. VDH mailed a second
letter in early December, along with the draft IUP, to
all system owners and other interested parties
approximately one week before the public meeting
to request comments on the draft IUP and invite
them to the public meeting. VDH compiled and
considered all public comments to prepare the final
IUP for its FY 1998 capitalization grant application.
Virginia will follow a similar strategy to develop
future lUPs.
and
!==;; Identification of Target Audiences. To
:i||f=| develop and market its program, VDH
Additional information is available from
Tom Gray of the Virginia Department of
Health. He can be reached at (804) 786-
1768 or (804) 786-1087.
cultivated relationships with several local
organizations/technical assistance provid-
ers, including the Water Works Advisory
Committee (WWAC), the VA Association
of Planning District Commissions (PDCs),
VA Association of Counties (VAC), the
VA Rural Water Association (VRWA), the
VA Municipal League (VML), and the VA
section of the AWWA.
Mailings. Rather than wait for individual
systems to express interest, VDH mailed
loan applications and copies of the
DWSRF program to all eligible entities.
Included in the mailing was a summary of
the capitalization grant set-asides and
special considerations under SDWA;
contact information to request a specially
prepared information package on the
program; and logistical information for the
public meeting on the IUP. The state also
developed a fax-based information request
form so water facility owners and other
interested parties can request additional
information on loan and set-aside pro-
grams (See Appendix A).
Website. The VDH Office of Water
Programs' website provides descriptions
of specific DWSRF loan and grant pro-
grams (e.g., planning and design and
source water protection), applications for
each of these funding opportunities, and
the VDH's Program Design Manual,
which describes the features of the
program in more detail. The site
(www.vdh.state.va.us/owp/water_supply.
htm#SRF) also solicits input on the
program for the next fiscal year's IUP
and provides suggestion forms for future
set-aside items (See Appendix A).
Focus on Set-Asides. In its initial mailing
to system owners on the DWSRF pro-
gram, VDH provided a detailed description
of the set-asides and sought input on the
state's use of them. Upon completion of
the draft IUP, which included a detailed
description of the four set-asides, VDH
prepared a mailing for a broader audience
(including potential technical assistance
providers) to request comment on the
draft IUP. In a separate mailing for
-------
system owners and other interested
parties, VDH explained the various uses
of DWSRF funds. Enclosed was a one-
page, fax-back, information request form
listing specific examples of potential
activities under each of the four set-asides
and the different types of construction
assistance (See Appendix A). Further-
more, VDH's relationships with its stake-
holders provide a network to disseminate
information to a variety of groups and
individuals that may benefit directly from
the DWSRF through a funded project or
through assistance provided under a set-
aside.
Coordination with Stakeholder
Groups. VDH works closely with several
stakeholder groups listed previously (e.g.,
PDCs, VRWA, and AWWA). Through the
newsletters and publications of each
organization, Virginia's DWSRF program
is marketed to a diverse audience of
potential loan recipients. In addition, VDH
staffed a booth at the VA Rural Water
convention and provided information on
the DWSRF program. VDH also has
delivered presentations at annual meetings
of some of these organizations.
Washington's program is jointly administered by the
Department of Health (DOH) and the Public Works
Board in partnership with the Board's fiscal agent,
the Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development (CTED). As described in
Washington's Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund Program - Legislative Report, DOH is the
lead agency for administering the program and
determining capital project eligibility and priority for
funding. The Board is responsible for determining
loan eligibility and administering the loan contracts
(DOH Pub #331-116, December 1997).
the
During the first year of its program, Washington
took steps to ensure public awareness of the pro-
gram and to solicit the involvement of interested
parties. A Joint Advisory Committee comprised of
representatives of the Public Works Board and the
Department of Health, Division of Drinking Water's
Water Supply Advisory Committee (WSAC) was
established to discuss program development and
implementation. Members from the Board and
WSAC represented a broad spectrum of interest
groups, including publicly and privately owned water
systems of various sizes, the environmental commu-
nity, and the development community (e.g., con-
struction companies). EPA also was represented on
this advisory committee. Committee discussions
centered around organizational issues, establishment
of the loan program, and development of the work
plan.
Public workshops held in Spokane, Everett, and
Olympia provided information on the DWSRF
program. (The state continues to conduct three
workshops each year at various locations.) Two
special editions of Water Tap, DOH's quarterly
newsletter on drinking water topics, focused entirely
on the DWSRF program. The first edition provided
valuable background information on the new
DWSRF program and identified contacts for addi-
tional information. The second special edition,
February 1999, highlighted several success stories of
projects funded under the DWSRF. This edition was
particularly well-received because it showed poten-
tial clients that the program was helping a wide
variety of systems finance a broad array of capital
construction projects (See Appendix A). DOH
surveyed all applicants to obtain input on the parts of
the program that worked and areas for improve-
ment. Based on this information, and the information
obtained from staff in the field, DOH improved loan
rates and terms, increased technical assistance to
clients, and streamlined application processing.
DOH has now completed two rounds of project loan
application reviews, and the draft IUP for round
three was out for public review as this report was
being written. During each cycle, DOH headquar-
ters staff, with support from field engineers, plan-
ners, and compliance staff, review and rank the
applications and prepare a preliminary PPL.
DWSRF staff and regional engineers from the
Division of Drinking Water Assurance gather for a
one-day meeting to finalize the PPL. The field
staff's detailed knowledge of the operational history
and compliance status of individual systems helps to
assess the true public health significance of the
proposed projects and ensure consistent scoring.
The PPL is forwarded to the Public Works Board
for financial review and published in the draft IUP,
which is then released for a 30-day public comment
-------
12
period. The draft IUP is made available through the
Internet, the state library, public libraries, and DOH.
In partnership with CTED and the Board, DOH
convenes a public hearing, advertised in several
major newspapers across the state. In 1999, notice
of the public hearing appeared in six major newspa-
pers. Information about the DWSRF, application
deadlines, and public hearing notification also
appeared in issues of the DOH's newsletter, Water
Tap. All mailings were sent to government officials,
applicants for DWSRF funding, all potential loan
candidates and applicants, and other interested
parties. The state then considered, responded to, and
incorporated public comments before submitting the
final IUP to EPA.
Despite extensive outreach efforts, Washington has
found that response and comments during the IUP
development process have been negligible (perhaps
two or three comments per year). Because the state
has consistently received many more positive than
negative comments, DOH is not concerned that the
lack of comments on the draft lUPs indicates a lack
of support or interest in the program. Washington
expects to receive more public input as the program
evolves and projects begin to be turned down
because they do not score high enough to receive
funding. (As of the writing of this report, no eligible
application has been denied funding.)
Washington's public involvement strategy initially
focused on project loans. Therefore, outreach has
been geared toward development of the IUP with
no specific goal of obtaining input on the set-asides.
However, DOH has obtained some input on the set-
asides through the joint advisory committee, through
staff interactions with technical advisory groups, and
through comments on the IUP from groups, such as
technical assistance providers, that could benefit
from the set-asides. Occasionally, DOH hears from
outside interest groups such as Evergreen Rural
Water Association of Washington. Early on, Wash-
ington did not make a special effort to market the
set-aside funds. As of the writing of this report,
Additional information is available from
Richard Sarver of the Washington Depart-
ment of Health, Division of Drinking Water.
He can be reached at (360) 236-3093.
however, program leaders were working to identify
and solicit various third parties who could provide
technical assistance and other benefits to public
water systems using these funds. DOH and the
Board recently developed a formal description of the
set-asides that lays out the percentages that the
state will take under each set-aside and describes
how the money will be used. The state is trying to
expand the focus of its public involvement strategy
to incorporate the set-asides and target specific
groups that may be interested in each one.
and
Illlllll Identification of Target Audiences.
1||1=||: DOH identified public water systems of
various types and sizes (public, private,
investor-owned, small, large, etc.), repre-
sentatives of local governments, and other
affected parties (e.g., construction compa-
nies) to form an advisory committee. In
addition, notification of the availability of
the draft IUP is provided to all potentially
affected water systems. Although
Washington's municipal systems are
eligible for assistance from a Public Works
Fund and other sources of financing, the
small, privately owned systems that are
the majority of the state's water systems
have virtually no access to public funding
assistance. For this reason, and because
this group has a history of compliance
problems, DOH has targeted this group in
particular when developing the rates,
terms, and marketing strategies for the
DWSRF program.
e!^-
Targeted Outreach to High Priority
Systems. As a pilot project, DOH devel-
oped a list of systems that have compli-
ance problems and appear to be good
candidates for DWSRF assistance and
contacted them. Systems that have
expressed interest in the DWSRF are
receiving direct technical and financial
assistance from DOH and the Board.
f .., :; Newsletter. Water Tap, DOH's quarterly
7J;;S_;••
-------
contained detailed information on the
purpose of the program and eligibility
requirements. In February 1999, after the
first round of loans, DOH prepared
another special issue which highlighted
some of the program's "success stories"
(See Appendix A). Water Tap is also
available online at www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/
dw/watertap .htm.
Website. Extensive information on
Washington's program, including guidelines
and application forms, is made available on
the Public Works Board website
(www. crab. wa.gov/pwtf/programs.htm).
The DOH Division of Drinking Water site
(www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/) also provides
information such as fact sheets, announce-
ments, and a list of current events (i.e.,
meetings, workshops, etc.).
Coordination with Stakeholder
Groups. The Infrastructure Assistance
Coordinating Council (IACC) publishes an
annual guidebook that includes all available
state grant and loan programs for capital
construction projects. Every two years,
the IACC holds a multi-day workshop to
provide program information to interested
parties. DOH and the Public Works Board
provide information on the DWSRF for
inclusion in the guidebook, and participate
in the biennial workshop.
Workshops and Information Sessions.
Each year, DOH hosts three educational
workshops in separate locations in the
state to present Washington's program and
provide a forum for questions. DOH and
the Public Works Board also participate in
the biennial workshop held by IACC, as
noted above.
Other Direct Contact. DOH and Public
Works Board staff work with various
potential clients throughout the year.
These contacts provide direct marketing
opportunities on an regular basis.
-------
-------
III. Conclusion
In general, an effective public participation
strategy involves a series of several steps or
phases. States must consider the audience they
are trying to reach, the media that will be most
effective in reaching it, the amount of background
information necessary, and the proper times to solicit
input. Because budget and resources vary from
state to state, they must also be factored into a
state's strategy for involving the public (Strategies
for Effective Public Involvement, League of
Woman Voters Education Fund [1998]).
In most of the states discussed in this report, the
"public" that has been involved in providing input on
the DWSRF program thus far primarily consists of
stakeholders such as water system owners, associa-
tion representatives, consulting engineers, and
technical assistance providers (i.e., those with a
vested interest). The "general public" (i.e., the
consumer who is not engaged in managing or
regulating a water supply) has not exhibited much
interest in the process. However, states should
continue to reach out to members of the general
public and will be reviewed on their effort to include
them. States that conduct some research and target
their mailings and promotional materials to those
with a vested interest (i.e., water suppliers, consult-
ing engineers, etc.) in addition to broad-based
solicitation (i.e., newspaper notices, Internet
postings, collaboration with associations/organiza-
tions, etc.) will achieve the best results. A diverse
advisory board or committee, such as Washington's,
can also help to ensure the input of all critical
sectors including the "general public."
Working with partners is often effective in making
information available to a wide range of people and
groups. North Dakota worked with its stakeholders,
primarily the North Dakota Rural Water Systems
Association, to supplement its resources. North
Dakota Rural Water sponsored a DWSRF work-
shop to provide general information on the program.
In addition, the partnership with Rural Water gave
the state access to the association's mailing list. This
access facilitated the state's fulfillment of the public
review requirements by maximizing responses from
a knowledgeable public, and it served as a marketing
tool for North Dakota's DWSRF program without
extra effort and resources on the part of the state.
Other states (e.g., Michigan, Vermont, and Virginia)
have developed similar collaborative arrangements.
Multiple opportunities for public input and a variety
of publicity vehicles to maximize participation help
ensure a "meaningful" process. To avoid logistical
problems and encourage participation from all
sectors of the public, each of the six states reviewed
in this report held multiple hearings and workshops
in various locations and made their draft lUPs
available for review by anyone unable to attend the
hearings and workshops. For example, Vermont
used a combination of targeted stakeholder discus-
sions and public meetings to develop its annual IUP.
Through various efforts to educate the public about
the program and actively recruit applicants through
mailings, telephone calls, etc., Vermont has obtained
input from water system owners and operators,
vulnerable populations, engineering and hydrology
consultants, regional planning commissions, town
managers, nonprofit groups, and other governmental
agencies.
Virginia developed an information request form that
enabled the state to provide information on its
DWSRF program in an effective and efficient
manner. The form served as an educational tool by
providing examples of activities under each of the
set-asides. It enabled VDH to personalize the
information that it sent, thereby maximizing the
effectiveness of the information. Resources were
conserved because only requested materials were
sent. The form also acted as a survey of the public's
IS
-------
interests, providing valuable information on the areas
of greatest interest to particular groups. The infor-
mation obtained from the form could be used by the
state to help design general mailings for a broad-
based audience and more specific pieces geared
toward the group or groups of individuals that
expressed the greatest interest on the form.
For a successful marketing campaign, it is important
for states to research and identify their public and to
target special promotional materials to them. Com-
mon marketing tools used by states include newslet-
ters, information sessions/workshops, pamphlets and
brochures on the program, direct mail, and Internet
sites. North Dakota and Vermont also made tele-
phone calls to some of the neediest systems that
may be less likely to apply for a loan or attend a
workshop.
While all six states provide good examples of
meaningful public participation processes, Michigan
requires an additional level of public involvement.
State law (Part 54, 1994 PA 451) mandates detailed
documentation of public involvement from each
entity requesting loan assistance. This requirement
provides an additional opportunity for the public to
comment on the direct impact of the program at the
local level. Michigan DEQ then holds a state-wide
review of the entire draft IUP before submitting it to
EPA.
All of the states discussed in this report have
worked closely with potential technical assistance
providers through stakeholders groups, advisory
committees, etc., to develop their programs and
obtain input on the IUP, including the use of set-
asides. For example, Michigan established a stake-
holders group that included representatives of
AWWA, Rural Water, and consulting engineering
firms. North Dakota identified technical assistance
providers as a target audience for all mailings, and
Virginia worked closely with several potential
providers to establish a communication network
which includes the League of Women Voters and a
number of conservation groups. Although these
states are reaching some of the groups that could be
interested in set-asides (e.g., technical assistance
providers, conservation organizations, environmental
groups, and public interests groups), DWSRF
promotional materials have not focused on set-
asides in most states. Washington is trying to shift
the focus of its public participation strategy toward
the set-asides because the public has become more
familiar with the loan fund program. A contact in the
state explained that Washington's first priority was
to ensure public awareness and understanding of the
loan fund; now it can devote more resources to
promoting the set-asides.
While there is no model strategy for successful
public participation, there are a number of examples
from which states may glean ideas for their own
strategy. To effectively serve the public interest, all
institutions must consider the public's input at some
point. This paper provides a few case studies
specific to the DWSRF program, but there are
hundreds of other programs that states can learn
from as well. A couple of examples are provided in
the Additional Sources of Information section below.
Although the topics vary, many of the underlying
principles for successful public participation are
sociological—the entity that is soliciting external
input on a particular issue must first learn what
motivates people and how it can most effectively
reach those people. To supplement the information
that is provided in this report, EPA is developing a
brochure on public participation in the DWSRF
program.
of
The League of Women Voters (www.lwv.org)
"encourages the informed and active participation of
citizens in government, works to increase under-
standing of major public policy issues, and influences
public policy through education and advocacy." To
that end, the League has developed a series of
documents, videos, and other materials on topics
ranging from drinking water to the workings of
national, state, and local governments, including
Tools for Drinking Water Protection Community
Outreach Kit (1997) and Strategies for Effective
Public Involvement—Drinking Water Source
Assessment and Protection (1998).
The International Association for Public Participa-
tion (IAP2) seeks to promote public participation in
activities related to governments and other institu-
tions that serve the public interest. Additional
information regarding the Association and its
functions is available via the Internet at
www.pin.org/. IAP2 publications include a quarterly
newsletter titled The Participation Quarterly,
which features interviews and news on public
participation and short case studies. Improving the
Practice supplements the newsletter, offering tips
-------
and suggestions for improving public participation
programs. Interact is the Association's semi-annual
journal. It includes in-depth articles, case studies, and
discussions of national and international trends and
techniques for stimulating public involvement. The
Association's website also has links to many other
organizations seeking to improve public participation
in government activities.
For more information about the DWSRF program,
consult the EPA Office of Ground Water
Drinking for the program at
www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html.
17
-------
-------
-------
-------
The
Loan Arranger
Winter 1998
Municipal Facilities Section - Environmental Assistance Division
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Pardon Our Dust
From off on the horizon comes a cloud of dust and the
familiar expression, "Hi-ho, Silver!" We know The Loan
Arranger has arrived. Please pardon the throwback to
the days when baby boomers were truly babies, but we
thought it appropriate to invoke memories of good deeds
performed by the legendary masked man.
Our dust results from the changes made in the Municipal
Facilities Section (MFS) to accommodate a new envi-
ronmental financing program. The MFS has been
working for over a year to build a low-interest financing
program for drinking water projects, similar to the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) for wastewater. This newsletter is
a product of the changes that have been made. For the
past several years, it was known as The Digester. Since
this name is inherently linked to wastewater treatment,
staff felt it would not be appropriate to carry it on once we
began the Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWRF).
Since we deal with silver, or at least the currency of the
country, we started to laugh about the prospects of the
cry "Hi-ho, Silver!" to those to whom we could offer
financial assistance. From this, the evolution of the
name The Loan Arranger was quick. It invoked memo-
ries of the legendary cowboy riding to the rescue of
those who needed aid. That's what we do as well, both
in the DWRF and the SRF. Our goal is to provide
financial assistance to qualified applicants to help protect
the health, vitality and safety of the environment and the
citizens of Michigan.
The Loan Arranger will be expanded to encompass
articles about the new DWRF, as well as continue to
communicate issues relating to the SRF. Readership
lists are being expanded to include community and non-
community water suppliers, and consultants who may
not have been involved in the SRF. We will continue to
publish three times a year, but you will likely see a few
more pages because there is more to communicate.
We also would like to welcome into our partnership, the
staff of the DEQ, Drinking Water and Radiological
Protection Division (DWRPD), who are responsible for
administering the Drinking Water Program in Michigan.
The DWRPD staff come from the former Michigan
Department of Public Health. They will be our partner in
administering the DWRF and you will see articles specific
to their activities in this and future issues.
We welcome your feedback and comments on the
newsletter and hope that you find it informative. If you
have suggestions for future articles or features, please
address them to The Loan Arranger Editor, Municipal
Facilities Section, at the address shown on the back.
We look forward to a long and productive run, but for
now...we're back to the clouds of dust!
If you wish to make additions, deletions, or changes to
The Loan Arranger mailing list, please call the Editor,
Cindy Salmon, at 517-373-2161, or send your correct
name and address to The Loan Arrzngsr, Municipal
Facilities Section, Environmental Assistance Division,
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, PO
Box 30457, Lansing, MI 48909-7957.
Printed by authority of Parts 53 and 54 of the NREPA. 1994 PA 451
Total number of copies printed: 1000 Total Cost: $ 266.18
Cost per copy: $.266
DC&
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan -1
-------
Making Water Revolting Fund
Ths Mgktnkg Eouad
The "thud" heard at the offices of the Municipal Facilities
Section on January 2 was the sound of project plans
being dropped off in pursuit of Drinking Water Revolving
Fund (DWRF) assistance in Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98).
Project plans for 36 projects were submitted by public
water suppliers, each with the hope of grabbing some
portion of the $75 million currently available in the
DWRF. With only seven months remaining in FY98,
applicants, their engineers, and bond counsels, as well
as staff of the Department of Environmental Quality,
Michigan Municipal Bond Authority, and Attorney
General have their work cut out for them.
What happens now? The submitted plans have been
screened. Those 25 plans that propose a legitimate
DWRF project and whose contents are consistent with
the requirements of Section 5405 of Michigan's Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act, appear on
the draft FY98 Project Priority List. A public hearing on
this list and the state's FY98 Intended Use Plan will be
held at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 17, 1998, in the
G. Mennen Williams Building (formerly known as the Law
Building) Auditorium. Project managers from the
Municipal Facilities Section and staff of the Drinking
Water and Radiotogicat ProtecliorrDivisiorr have-already-
begun working with the applicants for these projects
toward planned DWRF loan closings in late June or late
September of 1998. Project plan review and approval,
development and approval of a revenue collection
system, completion of design, and the receipt of con-
struction bids are all tasks that must be completed prior
to loan closing. The remainder of FY98 will be very
busy!
For FY99, we hope to begin using a standard annual
cycle for managing the DWRF program. Suppliers
seeking loan assistance in FY99 must submit a final
project plan on or before May 1, 1998. Projects in the
fundable range of the FY99 Project Priority List will be
able to close on their loans in one of four quarters; the
end of December 1998, or the end of March, June, or
September of 1999.
Department staff are currently working with a number of
suppliers who intend to make May 1 submittals. Included
are some water suppliers who submitted inadequate
project plans on January 2. Suppliers and their engi-
neers should be reminded to closely follow the Project
Plan Preparation Guidance available from this office.
Special attention should be paid to ensuring that alterna-
tives are adequately evaluated and that public participa-
tion opportunities are sufficient. The final plan must
contain a description of these opportunities. Project
officials should maintain close contact with their project
manager from the Municipal Facilities Section throughout
the project planning process. This will help to ensure
that all necessary steps are taken in a timely manner.
Questions about the Project Plan Preparation Guidance
may be directed to the Municipal Facilities Section at
517-373-2161.
DWRF Set-Asides
A New Way to do Business
fey Jim Clekadv DWRFU
The term "set-asides" originated with passage of the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act in August 1996. Among
state drinking water regulators and state revolving fund
administrators across the nation, it has become an
integral part of the vocabulary.
There are two types of set-asides; national set-asides
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and state set-asides administered by each state
with a Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWRF). Set-
asides are used to meet the objectives of Congress and
the states in the administration of a comprehensive
drinking water program. By funding program needs
through set-asides, Congress meets the Unfunded
Mandates Act and allows states flexibility in funding
programs with the tiigrtest priority for their specific needs.
It should be obvious that setting aside any funds from the
appropriation for a DWRF will erode the assets of the
fund and provide less money for waterworks construction
projects. However, Congress has included several new
mandates in the reauthorized Safe Drinking Water Act,
and is relying on set-asides to fund them. If states fail to
meet the new mandates, they are penalized by either
suffering a 20-40 percent loss of DWRF grant funds, or
loss of federal grant funds dedicated to the state Public
Water Supply Supervision Program.
This creates competition (and conflict) in the use of the
same appropriated money, but it does allow states to
apply funds to areas of greatest need. For example, of
the eleven allowable state set-asides in the Safe Drinking
Water Act, Michigan is using only three in FY97 and six
in FY98.
State set-asides can be up to 31 percent of the total
federal grant awarded. Michigan is proposing to use
approximately 15 percent of the money for set-asides,
and much of the money will be returned to local govern-
ment and public water suppliers.
Each year that Michigan applies for federal grant funds,
an Intended Use Plan must be prepared and a public
hearing held on both the money intended for construction
Michigan -2
-------
projects, and the money proposed to be set aside. In
addition, the state holds stakeholder meetings in ad-
vance of the Intended Use Plan to receive public input on
the proposed set-asides, a process which was included
in 1997 PA 26, the statute which created the DWRF in
Michigan by adding Part 54, Safe Drinking Water
Assistance to 1994 PA 451.
Michigan is proposing some important new programs
using set-asides to improve public water supplies and
drinking water quality. Source water protection is a
primary theme and three separate set-asides will be
used in this area. The state, through contracts with local
health departments and Michigan State University, will
be assessing each public water supply source for
vulnerability to contamination. The information and maps
generated will be used by the state, local health depart-
ments, and the public for siting new public and private
wells and setting priorities for water resource protection
activities. The state will initiate efforts to address the
problems of abandoned wells. Improperly abandoned
wells provide a direct avenue for the migration of surface
contaminants into the aquifers used for drinking water.
The state is also proposing a matching grant program to
public water suppliers who are performing Wellhead
Protection Program activities under the voluntary state
program. These efforts will provide long term benefits by
focusing resources on source protection and pollution
prevention.
Other set-asides will be used for direct technical assis-
tance to public water suppliers for water system opera-
tion and management. A new program will focus on the
technical, financial, and managerial capacity of public
water supplies to assure long-term compliance with all
national drinking water standards. The state operator
certification and training program will be expanded and
improved, especially for small public water supplies.
The new provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
including the new money to construct water system
improvements, should have dramatic impacts upon the
quality of drinking water in Michigan and in the nation in
future years. More information will be published in future
issues of the Loan Arranger.
The Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division
will assume primary responsibility for administering the
set-asides, and welcomes your participation and input.
Please call 517-335-9218 if you have any questions.
DWRF Publications
Since Governor John Engler signed Acts 26 and 27 into
law establishing the new Drinking Water Revolving Fund
(DWRF) program, a number of documents have been
developed to assist applicants in meeting program
requirements. Please review the following list and
contact the Municipal Facilities Section if you wish to
receive any of these materials.
DWRF Brochure: This brochure provides an introduc-
tion to the DWRF program. It includes the program
history and purpose, as well as information regarding
qualifying water suppliers and types of projects. Basic
information regarding the process of applying for and
receiving a loan is also provided.
Project Plan Preparation Guidance: This guidance is
intended to assist water suppliers in fulfilling the project
planning requirements of the DWRF program. A final
project plan must include all applicable elements identi-
fied in Part 54 (Safe Drinking Water Assistance) of
Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act (1994 PA 451) MCL 324.5401-324.5418.
This document provides guidance regarding those
project planning requirements. It also stresses the
uniqueness of every project and the importance of
contacting this office early in the process for assistance
in identifying applicable planning requirements. It was
published in September 1997.
Three supplementary planning handouts are also
available upon request: Regional Planning Agency
Addresses, National Natural Landmarks in Michigan, and
Michigan's Natural and Wild & Scenic Rivers. The
Project Plan Preparation Guidance directs applicants
request any of these items if needed to complete the
project plan.
Finally, three additional handouts pertaining to federal
project planning crosscutters and state requirements are
available upon request: a list of crosscutters and the
applicable statutes, the environmental contacts list, and a
document detailing federal requirements related to
project planning.
Eligibility Guidance: This guidance provides informa-
tion on the eligibility of project costs for DWRF financing.
Both general and specific eligibility criteria are provided.
Such criteria are necessary to ensure consistency of
program decisions regarding eligible costs to include in
DWRF loans. This guidance was published in February
1998. The document will be modified in the future, as
new eligibility questions are addressed.
Disadvantaged Community Guidance: The intent of
this guidance is to provide water suppliers with informa-
tion regarding the "disadvantaged community" provisions
of the DWRF program. It expands upon the statutory
provisions contained in Part 54, 1994 PA 451. The
guidance may be used to assist applicants in assessing
whether they qualify as a disadvantaged community.
This document became available in February 1998.
Michigan -3
-------
Application: The first step in applying for DWRF
assistance is preparation and submittal of a project plan.
After the project is listed on the Project Priority List and
identified as fundable, an application must be completed.
The application includes financial information, project
costs, and bid data. This application is currently under
development and will be available in February 1998.
In addition to the above materials, project plan review
checklists have also been developed to assist both the
MFS and Drinking Water and Radiological Protection
Division (DWRPD) staff in the review of project plan
submittals. A Powerpoint presentation has also been
created to assist staff in presenting information about this
new program. Please contact the MFS to schedule an
informational meeting and viewing of the slide show.
Photocopies of the slides have also been printed and are
available upon request.
Plsadvaataged Community State
The new Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWRF) offers
additional benefits to disadvantaged municipalities. Such
determinations are made by the Technical Support Unit
of the Municipal Facilities Section, based on information
provided by water suppliers interested in obtaining a loan
from the DWRF.
To qualify as a disadvantaged community, a supplier
must meet several qualifications. First, only suppliers
meeting the definition of a "municipality" in Part 54, Safe
Drinking Water Assistance, 1994 PA 451, may qualify.
Next, the updated Median Annual Household Income
(MAHI) for the area to be served by a proposed project
must not exceed 120 percent of the updated statewide
MAHI for Michigan. This is calculated by taking the
published amounts from the U.S. Bureau of the Census
statistics and applying the Detroit Consumer Price Index
published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The proposed project costs must also be directly
assessed to users within the area served by the pro-
posed project. The intent of the disadvantaged status is
to provide relief primarily to residential customers who
may be economically distressed by high annual user
costs. This is determined by the comparison of MAHI
information to annual user costs. If the project costs are
borne over an area wider than the area to be served by
the project, then the updated MAHI for the entire as-
sessment area would be reviewed.
If these three criteria are met, a determination will then
be based on one of the following four applicable stan-
dards:
1. More than 50 percent of the area to be served by the
project is identified as a poverty area by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census.
2. The updated MAHI for the area to be served is less
than the most recently published Federal Poverty
Guidelines for a family of four in the contiguous
United States.
3. If the updated MAHI for the area to be served is less
than the updated statewide MAHI for Michigan, an-
nual user costs must exceed 1.5 percent of the
MAHI for the service area.
4. If the updated MAHI for the area to be served is
greater than the updated statewide MAHI, annual
user costs must exceed 3.0 percent of the updated
MAHI for the service area.
If a water supplier meets the criteria identified here, they
will receive 50 additional points in the priority system, be
offered repayment terms up to 30 years, and may obtain
help in defraying their costs of project planning. Two
reviews will be conducted. One will occur based on
project plan information to determine qualification for
priority points. The second will occur after bid costs are
known to determine whether or not the supplier will
receive planning assistance and the additional years to
repay the loan.
More details can be found in the DWRF Disadvantaged
Community Guidance. Copies may be requested by
calling the Municipal Facilities Section at 517-373-2161.
Fiscal Year 1997 Annual Report
for tk« State Revolving Fund
Staff of the Municipal Facilities Section recently com-
pleted the FY1997 Annual Report for Michigan's State
Revolving Fund (SRF). The SRF provides low-interest
loans to municipalities undertaking water pollution control
projects.
Completing its ninth year, the SRF has matured into an
attractive financing alternative for municipal financing of
wastewater treatment projects. During FY1997, the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the
Michigan Municipal Bond Authority (MMBA) closed on 16
loans which totaled $104.2 million. To date, the SRF has
financed $706.9 million for 130 projects.
The distribution of different types of projects among
municipalities of differing sizes is also encouraging.
Since its inception, 36.3 percent of all SRF loans made
have been committed to municipalities of less than
10,000 in size. While combined sewer overflow (CSO)
Michigan -4
-------
corrections account for 48 cents of every dollar spent,
the commitments for CSO correction in FY1997 were
only 8.4 percent. This reduction permits other wastewa-
ter treatment upgrade projects to qualify for available
loan funds.
The SRF has also pushed outlays once commitments
were made. We have disbursed 75 cents of every dollar
made in loan commitments to local municipalities. This
means the dollars materialize more quickly for munici-
palities and their contractors, and keeps the work
progress moving forward. This has also paid off in
quicker administrative completion of projects in the SRF
program. Dollars remaining are committed to projects
still under construction.
The SRF program was designed to operate as a revolv-
ing fund. As repayments have come into the SRF
accounts from earlier loans, the DEQ and the MMBA
have used them to augment the waning federal contribu-
tion. Federal funds accounted for less than one-third of
the available capital during FY1997.
For further information about the FY1997 SRF Annual
Report, please check out our MFS Homepage at
www.deq.state.mi.us/ead/mfsect/.
Many water suppliers submitted Drinking Water Revolv-
ing Fund (DWRF) project plans on January 2, 1998
hoping to be placed on the Project Priority List (PPL).
Unfortunately, inadequate submittals precluded some
projects from being placed on the FY98 PPL.
Part 54, 1994 PA 451 specifies what a complete project
plan must include. Municipal Facilities Section staff
made the Project Plan Preparation Guidance available in
September 1997, which explained the law.
One of the most common misunderstandings in this first
round of submittals involved public participation require-
ments. The language in Part 54 was intended to ensure
that each applicant had provided proper public notice of
the proposed project to the affected community. The
following steps must be taken to ensure adequate public
participation.
• The applicant must hold a public hearing on the
proposed project. The date, time, and place chosen
must be conducive to maximizing public input oppor-
tunities. An early morning or noontime hearing may
not afford the public an adequate opportunity to at-
tend. Similarly, scheduling a hearing on or near a
holiday may not maximize public participation in the
decision-making process.
• The public hearing needs to be advertised at least 30
days in advance. The advertisement should be
placed in one or more publications of local circulation
in order to reach the greatest number of affected
parties. Using the local newspaper, as well as post-
ing the notice at the water supplier's or munici-
pal/township offices, or direct mailing to system
customers is recommended.
• The draft project plan must be available to the public
for examination for at least 30 days prior to the
hearing, with the location of its availability mentioned
in the advertisement. Typically, the applicant dis-
plays the plan, and may be able to answer questions
prior to the hearing.
• A verbatim written transcript or an audio recording of
the entire public hearing must be provided with the
project plan submittal. Summaries or meeting min-
utes are not complete records of the hearing, and
are unacceptable.
• Changes to the draft project plan resulting from
public concerns should be described in detail in the
final submittal.
• An attendance list from the public hearing, including
names and complete addresses, is required in the
final project plan submittal.
• Copies of all written public comments on the project,
along with the applicant's responses, must be in-
cluded in the final project plan submittal.
After concluding the public participation process, the final
plan must contain a resolution of adoption from the
governing body of the participating municipality(ies), or a
statement of intent from a water supplier who is not a
municipality. This resolution must occur only after the
public hearing has been held.
Documentation of the public participation process is only
one critical component of an acceptable final project
plan. Water suppliers submitting plans for the May 1,
1998 deadline are advised to contact the Municipal
Facilities Section as soon as possible, so that a
project manager can assist them.
Michigan -5
-------
The Loan Arranger
FIRST CLASS
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
LANSING, Ml
PERMIT NO. 1200
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PO BOX 30457
LANSING Ml 48909-7957
Address Correction Requested
State of Michigan
John Engter, Governor
m ftepartitterttof Eriwofimeritat duality
Russell J. Harding, Director
Environmental Assistance Division
£>auT£ugger, Chief
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SECTION
Thomas Kamppinen, Chief
Dave KfUSfk, East Unit Chief
, tytest Unit Chief
Ed Meyer, Technical Support Unit Chief
JNTERNET; www»d6q.state.mi»us/ead/mfsect/
The iow Arranger is pubJisherf tn-annually by the Municipal facilities Section,
Correspondence may be addressed to The iom Arranger Editor;
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
£0 BOX 304i7
LANSING Ml 48909-7957
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) will not discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, religion,
age, national origin, color, marital status, disability, or political beliefs. Questions or concerns should be directed to the MDEQ Office of Personnel
Services, PO Box 30473, Lansing, Ml 48909.
Michigan -6
-------
To talk to your district engineer or
public health sanitarian, contact an
MDH District Office:
Bemidji
1819 Bemidji Avenue
Bemidji, Minnesota 56601-3866
218/755-3820 FAX: 218/755-3823
Duluth
320 West Second Street, Room 703
Duluth, Minnesota 55802-1402
218/723-4643 FAX: 218-723-4920
Fergus Falls
Building 4A, East Drive
Fergus Falls, Minnesota 56537-4103
218/739-7585 FAX: 218/739-7544
Mankato
410 Jackson Street, Suite 150
Mankato, Minnesota 56001-3752
507/389-2501 FAX: 507/389-5563
Marshall
109 South Fifth Street
Marshall, Minnesota 56258-1268
507/537-7151 FAX: 507/537-7194
Rochester
18 Woodlake Drive Southeast
Rochester, Minnesota 55904-5506
507/285-7289 FAX: 507/285-7445
St. Cloud
3400 North First Street, Suite 305
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56303-4000
320/255-4216 FAX: 320/255-4264
For general information about the
Drinking Water Revolving Fund
program, contact:
Minnesota Department of Health
Drinking Water Protection Section
121 East Seventh Place Suite 220
P. O. Box 64975
St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975
651/215-0770 FAX: 651/215-0775
For information regarding the Public
Facilities Authority's application procedures
and financial assistance available through
the Drinking Water Revolving Fund,
contact:
Minnesota Department of Trade and
Economic Development
Public Facilities Authority
500 Metro Square
121 East Seventh Place
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2146
1/800/657-3858 or 651/297-1530
FAX: 651/296-5287
Drinking
Watei
Revolving
Fund
What it Means to Minnesota
Public Water Quppliers
To request this document in another format, call
651/215-0700; TDD 651/215-0707
or toll-free through the Minnesota Relay Service,
1/800-627-3529 (ask for 651/215-0700).
February 1999
I H H E S 0 T Al
[PARTMEHTOF HEALTH
Minnesota Department of Health
Drinking water Protection Section
Minnesota -1
-------
Overview
of the
Drinking Water
Revolving Fund
The Drinking Water Revolving Fund
provides below-market-rate loans to
municipalities and other community drink-
ing water systems—as well as to nonprofit
noncommunity drinking water suppliers—
to improve or construct treatment, storage,
and distribution systems that are necessary
to maintain compliance with the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act and improve
drinking water infrastructure.
Water is our most important resource. We
are fortunate in Minnesota to have a safe
and adequate supply of water. However,
this will continue only if we remain vigilant
and address emerging issues, such as
deteriorating drinking-water infrastructures.
Some public drinking water systems in
Minnesota are 50 to 100 years old. Funds
are needed to upgrade or expand water
systems and to remedy water quality prob-
lems and threats. The Drinking Water
Revolving Fund could mean relief for these
aging water systems.
Enacted in the summer of 1996 as part of
the reauthorized Safe Drinking Water Act,
this program allows states to set up revolv-
ing-loan funds for drinking water projects
similar to those already in place for waste-
water treatment projects.
Drinking Water Revolving Fund
Program Purpose: To provide financial
assistance—primarily in the form of
below-market-rate loans—to municipali-
ties and other eligible public water
suppliers to improve or construct water
treatment, storage, and distribution
systems needed to comply with the Safe
Drinking Water Act and to improve
drinking water infrastructure.
Eligible Applicants: All community
water suppliers and nonprofit, noncom-
munity water suppliers, such as schools
and government office buildings, are
eligible for the loans. This program is
not available to private well owners.
How It Works: The federal government
awards funds to states to capitalize their indi-
vidual revolving funds. In Minnesota, these
federal funds can be leveraged through the sale
of tax-exempt bonds to generate additional
funds that can be loaned to municipalities for
eligible drinking water systems. Upon comple-
tion of its project, the loan recipient will repay
the loan. These repaid funds will then be lent
to other eligible drinking water suppliers. The
revolving loan fund will help water suppliers
meet projected needs many years into the fu-
ture.
Interest Rates: The loans will be made
at below-market rates with the specific
rate based on the size and financial
capability of each municipality. The
interest rate will be determined by finan-
cial need for municipal water systems and
by a reduction of up to two percent on
bank-loan rates for eligible nonmunicipal
and noncommunity water systems.
Priorities: The Safe Drinking Water Act
gives priority for the use of funds to
projects that address the most serious risk
to human health, are necessary to ensure
compliance with the requirements of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, and assist the
systems most in need on a per household
basis according to state affordability
criteria.
Money Available: Minnesota expects to
receive approximately $130 million in
federal funds through 2003, plus an
additional $26 million in required state
matching funds. If necessary, these funds
can be leveraged through the sale of
bonds to generate additional loan funds.
Administration: The Drinking Water
Revolving Fund is being administered by
the Minnesota Department of Health and
the Public Facilities Authority (Minnesota
Department of Trade and Economic
Development). The Health Department
will set priorities for the use of the re-
volving-fund money, review the proposed
projects for technical adequacy, and
provide training and technical assistance
for public drinking water suppliers. The
Public Facilities Authority will review the
borrower's financial
capability, sell bonds to fund projects, set
the interest rate, terms, and conditions of
the loans, and process and award the
loans.
Minnesota - 2
-------
WHO SHOULD
ATTEND?
"Z. "^
HOW So
G Si f*3 —
U. (- 5 D f*>
iliii
O rt v) < pj
Z 5 ^ 2 ft-
O cfl
5
0 City Engineers & Public Works Directors
0 Rural Water System Managers
0 Trailer Court & Subdivision Owners'
0 Noncommunity Drinking Water Suppliers2
0 Consulting Engineers
0 Technical Assistance Providers
0 Funding Agencies
0 Anyone involved in protecting public
drinking water supplies
'If the facility is regulated under the SDWA.
2Nonprofit only.
Workshop Presenters
Jack Long, Director
Division of Municipal Facilities
ND Department of Health
D. Wayne Kern, Program Administrator
Drinking Water Program
ND Department of Health
Dave Koland, Executive Director
ND Rural Water Systems Association
Drinking Water
SRF
Workshop
April 16,1997
c
o
u
o
« 5 *
>. u
If
Bismarck Radisson Inn
Minnesota - 3
-------
Drinking Water SRF Workshop
Drinking Water SRF Overview
Its New!!! When Does It start? How does it
work? How do I get on the priority list?
State Set-Asides Available
What are set-asides? Which ones do we
need in North Dakota? What types of pro-
jects can set-asides be used for?
Intended Use Plan (IUP)
What is an IUP? Will the public get a
chance to comment on the IUP? What
projects are eligible for inclusion in the
IUP? Can I combine money from MR&I,
RDA, the Bond Bank and the Drinking Wa-
ter SRF?
Ranking System Factors
What factors should be used to evaluate and
prioritize projects?
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVE
This workshop is designed to:
0 Provide background information on the
Drinking Water SRF and how it might
benefit your system.
0 Obtain public input on the use of Drink-
ing Water SRF set-asides.
0 Obtain public input on the factors to be
considered in developing a priority
ranking system for eligible Drinking
Water SRF projects.
Your INPUT is needed!
You can help set the direction of
the NEW Drinking Water SRF!
o
SRF=State Revolving Fund
Radisson Inn
Bismarck
April 16,1997
Registration
Registration begins at 9:45 a.m and will
include coffee and rolls in the foyer of the
Heart/Sheyenne Room
The workshop will begin promptly at
10:00 a.m. The workshop is scheduled to
end at 3:30 p.m.
Lunch is not included but a noon buffet
will be available in the Radisson Inn dining
room for $5.95. The Radisson Inn is lo-
cated at 800 South 3rd Street. There is no
charge for the workshop.
Please fill out the enclosed registration slip
or call 1-800-349-6951 to register today!
Sponsored by:
North Dakota
Rural Water Systems
Association
Minnesota - 4
-------
BALLOT
ON
NORTH DAKOTA DWSRF SET-ASIDES FOR FY97 (1)
DWSRF WORKSHOP
BISMARCK RADISSON INN
APRIL 16,1997
Small System (<10,000) Technical Assistance
Local Assistance & Other State Programs
• Loans To PWSs To Acquire Land Or
Conservation Easements
• Loans to CWSs To Implement Source
Water Protection Measures
• Assist PWSs In Capacity Development
• State Delineation And Assessment Of
Source Water Protection Areas
• State Development Or Implementation Of
Wellhead Protection Program
Loan Subsidies For Disadvantaged Communities
0%
1%
2%
Other % (<2%) No Opinion (NO)
NOTE: Specify other % if selected (i.e., 1.5%, 8%, ect.).
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
3%
3%
3%
5%
5%
5%
5%
10% Other %(< 10%
NO
10% Other % (< 10%) NO.
10% Other %(<10%).
NO
10% Other % (<10%) NO
0%
3%
5%
10%
Other % (<10%) NO
NOTE: The Sum Of The Five Activities Under Local Assistance &
Other State Programs May Not Exceed 15%. No individual
activity may exceed 10%.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Other % (<30%) NO
(1) Based on the FY97 Congressional appropriation, North Dakota's potential capitalization grant for FY97 is $12,558,800.
1%=$125588 3%=$376,764 10%=$ 1,255,880 20%=$2,511,760 30%=$3,767,640
2%=$25 U 76 5%=$627,940 15%-$ 1,883,820 25%=$3,139,700
Representing: City Engineer Public Works Director Rural Water System Manager Water Operator
Trailer Court/Subdivision Owner Consulting Engineer Technical Assistance Provider Funding Agency
Other (Specify) .
North Dakota -1
-------
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (DWSRF)
POTENTIAL FY97 SET-ASIDES BASED ON A FY97 CAPITALIZATION GRANT OF $12,558,800 (1)
SET-ASIDE CATEGORY
— ' ' ' '•''
PROGRAMMATIC
DWSRF ADMINISTRATION
STATE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE (3)
SMALL SYSTEM (<10,000) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
LOCAL ASSISTANCE & OTHER STATE PROGRAMS (5)
PROJECTS
LOANS TO SMALL SYSTEMS (<10,000)
LOANS TO DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
SET-ASIDE AMOUNT (2)
UP TO 4.0% OR $502,352
UP TO 10.0% OR $1,255,880 (4)
UP TO 2.0% OR $251,176
UP TO 10.0% OR $1,255,880 FOR ANY
ACTIVITY— UP TO 15.0% OR $1,883,820 FOR ALL
COMBINED ACTIVITIES
MANDATORY 15.0% OF DWSRF FUND (6)
OPTIONAL-UP TO 30% OR $3,767,640
(1) Based on the FY97 Congressional appropriation, North Dakota's potential capitalization grant for FY97, assuming no withholdings by^the U.S^EPA is
Any time one year after a state establishes a DWSRF, but prior to FY2002, the Governor of a state may transfer 33% of the funds in the DWSRF to the Clean Water Act
SRF. The same dollar amount may be transferred from the Clean Water Act SRF to the DWSRF. r, ™, ,„ , , ft, , 0^
(2) The maximum permissible set-asides are set forth under Section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-182).
(3) State program assistance includes the Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) program, source water protection program(s), capacity development program, and
for capitalization grant funds used for this set-aside. At least one-half of the match must be in addition to state funds
L pams includes: loans to acquire land or conservation easements for source water protection purposes; loans to implement^ source
water protection measures; state delineation and/or assessment of source water protection areas; state development and ,mplementat,on of an EPA-approved wellhead
protection program; and, state assistance to systems for capacity development. FY97 is the only year when funds w,ll be available for state del.neat.on and/or
assessment of source water protection areas. Funds set aside for this purpose must be obligated by the state within four fiscal years.
(6) The 15% set-aside for loans to small systems is based on the capitalization grant minus funds dedicated to the other set-as.des (exclud.ng the set-as.de for loans to
disadvantaged communities).
North Dakota - 2
-------
RANKING SYSTEM FACTORS
Issue: Percentage:
Affordability %
Conservation %
Operation & Maintenance %
Project Cost %
Water Quality %
Water Quantity %
Representing:
City Engineer Public Works Director Rural Water System Manager
Water Operator Trailer Court or Subdivision Owner
Consulting Engineer Technical Assistance Provider
Funding Agency Other (Specify)
North Dakota - 3
-------
RANKING SYSTEM CRITERIA
Water Quality:
1. Address present exceedance of enforceable standards
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
7.
2. Address future standard exceedances where no standards presently exist
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
3. Address future standard exceedance while the present standard is currently
being met
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
4. Address aesthetic problems (nonenforceable standards and other quality
problems)
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
5. Susceptibility to water contamination
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
6. Availability of alternative water source with acceptable quality
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
North Dakota - 4
-------
Water Quantity:
1. Address quantity problems
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
75 gpcd
100gpcd
150 gpcd
200 gpcd
Other
2. Inadequate pressure during peak flow
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
3. Is another source of water available
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
4.
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
Affordability:
1. Population served
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
2. Ability to pay based on Average Household Median Income (AHMI) or other
indicator —
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
3. Degree of local participation ($'s contributed)
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
North Dakota - 5
-------
4. Ability to receive funding elsewhere
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
5. Ability to finance internally
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
6. Present water bill as percent of AHMI
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
7. Future water bill (after construction) as percent of AHMI
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
8. System meets state/EPA definition of a disadvantaged system
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
9. Cost effectiveness
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
Cost/person served
Cost/tap served
Other (specify)
10. Readiness to proceed
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
Immediately
6 months
12 months
More than a year
11. Separate water department account (from general fund)
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
North Dakota - 6
-------
12. Willingness to pay
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
13.
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
14.
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
Project Cost:
1. Cost of project
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
$0-$10K
$10K-$50K
$50K-$1M
$1M-$5M
$5M-$10M
Greater than $10M
2. Prorate maximum project cost to annual fund
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
3. Ability for project to be funded in multiple places
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
4.
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
North Dakota - 7
-------
Operation and Maintenance:
1. Facility at or exceeds useful or design life
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
2. Facility at or exceeds design capacity
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
3. Facility recycles plant or process water
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
4. Facility sludge used as a beneficial product
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
5. Project includes consolidation or restructuring of water systems
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
6. Committed to source water protection
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
7. Has or will have certified operator(s)
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
8. Has or will develop a routine maintenance program
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
9. Applicant current on all SDWA monitoring and reporting requirements
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
North Dakota - 8
-------
10. Has or will develop an emergency response plan
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
11. Has or will develop a backflow protection program
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
12. Has or will establish a repair/scheduled replacement program
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
13.
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
14.
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
15.
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
Conservation:
1. Has or will establish nondeclining block water rates
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
2. System is 100% metered
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
North Dakota - 9
-------
3. Has a leak detection program
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
4.
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
5. ;
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
6.
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Not to be Considered
Representing:
City Engineer Public Works Director Rural Water System Manager.
Water Operator Trailer Court or Subdivision Owner
Consulting Engineer Technical Assistance Provider
Funding Agency Other (Specify)
North Dakota-10
-------
Vermont's Intended Use Plan for
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund
The Vermont Water Supply Division is inviting you to help us determine how to spend the Fiscal
Year 1998 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund of $8.5 million A draft Intended Use Plan has
been prepared which identifies how the Water Supply Division proposes to spend $8.5 million on
drinking water infrastructure improvements, source water protection, and water system
management enhancements. This plan includes a list of the projects proposed for funding with the
$8.5 million.
Please attend one of the information meetings to discuss the Plan, ask questions, and provide
comments and suggestions. Written comments are also requested. Please send written comments
to the DWSRF Program, Water Supply Division, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT
05671-0403.
Meeting Information
June 2, 1998, 7-9pm
Pavilion Building Auditorium
109 State St
Montpelier, VT.
June 3, 1997, 7-9pm
Rutland High School - Lecture Hall
Stratton Road (Route 4 East)
Rutland, VT
For a copy of the Intended Use Plan please call (800) 823-6500 or FAX (802) 241-3284 or view
it on the Internet at http://www.anr.state.vt.us
Vermont -1
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The following comments were made verbally during the two public meetings in Montpelier and
Rutland, the Consultant's workshop in Waterbury, the Green Mountain Water Environment
presentation in Rutland, or received in writing (i.e., letter, fax, or e-mail) during the public
comment period. The comments have been edited and consolidated for brevity and clarity. The
Water Supply Division has a file available to the public which contains the notes from the public
meetings and written comments received during the public comment period.
1. Will public comments result in changes to the priority list?
Priority scoring sheets are available for all projects on the priority list and water systems are
advised to review the scoring sheets for accuracy. Priority scores are adjusted as appropriate. The
scores for several projects on this year's list were changed based on public comments.
2. Will applications received after the draft list was published but before the list was finalized be
considered for the priority list?
Applications received after the draft list was published will not be included on the list unless the
project was an "Emergency Project".
3. Can loans be made from the Planning Loan Fund when an application is submitted if funds
are available?
Yes, if the application is complete and the project meets eligibility criteria.
4. Is there a schedule which shows realistic times for planning, loan approvals and construction
for a typical project?
We are working on development of such a schedule.
5. Can a Final Design application be submitted prior to a bond vote?
Yes.
Vermont - 2
-------
6. Are there plans to update the "cost curve" used for estimating allowable engineering costs for
small projects?
Yes, the cost curves were updated several years ago and need review and adjustment, as
appropriate.
7. Are water meter replacement projects eligible?
Water meters, as well as backflow preventers and remote meter readers, are eligible as part of a
total improvement project. A project to just replace water meters is questionable and would not
receive any priority points for funding.
8. What is meant by distribution system land is eligible?
Land purchases necessary for the construction of distribution facilities are an eligible project cost.
9. What population is used for determining the median household income?
The water system may use the census data for the town or village where the water system is
located or do a survey of the system users. If a water system has users in two different census
areas, the median household income is determined by prorating the census data or doing a survey.
10. Where are Bond Bank loan application forms obtained?
Bond Bank loan application forms must be obtained from the Bond Bank.
11. How long does it take to complete the administrative process of loan application review,
approval and loan execution?
We are currently estimating 2 months.
12. How long does it take to process payment requests?
Vermont - 3
-------
It takes 2 or 3 days plus the time for the Bond Bank to sign off and the Chittenden Bank to issue
the check to municipal systems.
Payments to private systems are made by the Vermont Economic Development Authority.
Short-term borrowing expenses to cover the processing time are eligible costs under the loan.
13. Will the state only fund the most cost effective alternative?
This is generally true, however, there may be other considerations such as capacity and
consolidation of systems. This will be a project specific determination.
14. How detailed or complete does Preliminary Engineering need to be?
Preliminary engineering should include adequate investigation to select the appropriate alternate,
prepare an estimate of project cost within 10% and complete the environmental review necessary
to issue a categorical exclusion for the project.
15. Does DBE on engineering contracts apply towardDBE goals?
Yes.
16. Are costs associated with the required environmental review and historic preservation
compliance eligible for funding?
Yes.
17. Are DBE requirements a goal or a requirement?
The DBE requirements are a goal.
18. Who determines the type of procurement requirements that must be used on the project?
Vermont - 4
-------
The Facilities Engineering Division makes these determinations.
19. Are Source Protection Plans an eligible cost?
Source Protection Plans are only eligible for funding when they are part of new source
development.
20. What is the state going to do for funding of set-aside programs when and if EPA no longer
provides funding?
The planning loan program and the Source Protection Loan Program are revolving loan programs
and funds will be available from loan repayments. Other states have established loan
administration fees to cover administrative costs. We have no plans for funding the technical
assistance and program management set-asides.
21. If a community funds their own planning and is ready to go, will that help them obtain funds
for construction?
Water systems not on the fundable list that have completed preliminary engineering, passed bond
votes and completed the required environmental reviews for their project may be able to take
advantage of available funds late in the fiscal year.
22. Is there a difference in the required legal opinion on sites and rights of way between the
clean water program and drinking water program?
There is no difference.
23. Does the proposed April 1 deadline for passage of required bonds by a municipality make
"readiness to proceed" a critical consideration for funding?
Points for readiness to proceed cannot be included in the priority system, however, a requirement
for a system to demonstrate "readiness to proceed" can be used to determine eligibility for
funding.
Vermont - 5
-------
24. How do the interest rate on the priority list compare to the interest rate and terms included
in the loan agreement?
The interest rates on the priority list are preliminary estimates based on information provided by
the water system on the priority list application. Loan interest rates and terms are determined at
time of loan approval based on detailed engineering reports and cost estimates. There may be
significant differences between the preliminary projection and the final determination.
25. After reviewing the plan in advance of the meeting on 06/03/98,1 found it easily
understandable and there was very good integration of potentially subjective standards. As an
operator of a small water system, 1 appreciate the clarity of the plan and its presentation.
26. The 1UP should include a policy statement recognizing the benefits of water conservation
and provide for consideration of water conservation in evaluation of requests for DWSRF funds.
At a minimum, the 1UP should reflect the recommendations in the EPA guidelines.
The EPA draft guidelines are dated April 20, 1998, and the state legislation was passed in April.
The use of the water conservation guidelines and the state legislation in the DWSRF program will
be evaluated during the next year and appropriate provisions included for consideration in next
year's Intended Use Plan. There was not adequate time to evaluate alternatives and develop a plan
this year. In addition, the state capacity development strategy will be developed during the next
18 months with the participation of water system owners, operators and other stakeholders.
Identification of specific water conservation programs, policies and procedures may be included in
the capacity strategy. Water use issues are always a consideration in evaluation of alternatives and
review of plans and specifications.
27. ANR should include priority points for those systems that have water conservation measures.
This was considered last year and we were advised by EPA that only minimal points could be
assigned (tie-breaker type points) for systems with water conservation programs. Points could not
be awarded for including water conservation measures in a project. It was determined that
assigning points for this factor would have minimal, if any, impact on the projects funded, and
increasing the complexity of the priority system was not justified.
28. Alternative mechanisms should be put in place to avoid bypassing high priority planning and
construction projects in favor of low priority projects that are simply ready to proceed.
Vermont - 6
-------
We believe the current program adequately addresses this issue. (1) Systems are only bypassed for
a few months. A high priority project bypassed in April will have funding available by September.
There is no project delay. (2) We have provided both adequate technical assistance and planning
funds in set-asides specifically for these systems.
29. A higher priority should be placed on design and planning.
Over $500,000 has been set aside specifically for feasibility studies, planning and preliminary
designs. We have effectively made this the highest priority.
30. Comments on priority scoring for specific projects are not included in the responsiveness
summary. These comments were reviewed by Regional Managers and appropriate adjustments
made.
31. There were a number of specific comments and suggestions on the policies, procedures and
forms being used to implement the program. These comments and suggestions will be evaluated
and we expect to make a number of modifications.
Vermont - 7
-------
DUE DATE: JUNE 15, 1999
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM
RETURN TO: Thomas B. Gray, P.E.
Virginia Department of Health
Office of Water Programs
1500 East Main Street, Room 109
Richmond, VA 23219
(voice 804-786-1087)
(Fax 804-786-5567)
SET-ASIDE SUGGESTIONS
SECTION A - ORGANIZATIONAL DATA
1. Organization Name
a. Name of Respondent
b. Respondent Address:
c. Contact Person:
d. Telephone Number: FAX Number:
1. Waterworks type (if applicable):
Publically-owned community PWS ID number: System Name
Investor-owned community PWS ID number: System Name
Nonprofit noncommunity PWS ID number: System Name
None of the above
Submittal of this suggestion(s) is for the purpose of assisting the state to determine the extent of interest in the various set-
asides.
Chief Administrative Officer of Organization:
NAME and TITLE:
SIGNATURE DATE:
SECTION B - SET-ASIDE SUGGESTIONS
Page 1 of 6
FY 2000 DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND SET ASIDE SUGGESTIONS
Virginia -1
-------
DUE DATE: JUNE 15, 1999
1. 4% Administration and Technical Assistance
Activity - The purpose of this set-aside is to finance the administration of the capitalization grant and to provide supplemental
funding to implement technical assistance activities to assist owners in complying with regulations or preparing planning and
design documents.
Activities may include outsourcing technical assistance related to specific PWS's project planning and plan development, and
preparation of loan application, and oversight of set-aside contacts.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($) .
General suggested activities or comments on this set-aside.
2. 2% Small System Technical Assistance (Systems serving 10,000 people or fewer)
Page 2 of 6
FY 2000 DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND SET ASIDE SUGGESTIONS
Virginia - 2
-------
DUE DATE: JUNE 15, 1999
Activity - A state may use these funds to support a technical assistance team or to contract with outside organizations to provide
technical assistance.
Activities may include providing assistance to significant non-compliers, operational hands-on assistance, record keeping
instruction or provide seminars on selected topics.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($) .
General suggested activities or comments on this set-aside.
Page 3 of 6
FY 2000 DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND SET ASIDE SUGGESTIONS
Virginia - 3
-------
DUE DATE: JUNE 15, 1999
3. 10% State Program Management
Activity
a. Funds for use by VDH to supplement the existing public water supply supervision program - suggestions appreciated.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($) .
b. Administer or provide technical assistance through source water protection programs.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($)
c. Capacity development strategy (state level) - This issue addresses a waterworks owners ability to provide a viable
waterworks over the long term. VDH has initiated this effort and will continue to refine its focus.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($) .
d. Supplement an operator licensure program.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($)
General suggested activities or comments on this set-aside.
Page 4 of 6
FY 2000 DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND SET ASIDE SUGGESTIONS
Virginia - 4
-------
DUE DATE: JUNE 15, 1999
4. 15% Local Assistance and Other Programs
Activity
a. Land acquisition and conservation easements - This will allow loan money to purchase land or easements to protect water
sources and such purchases do not have to be integral to a construction project.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($) .
b. Voluntary source water protection program - This will allow a loan to assist a community waterworks to implement
voluntary incentive-based source water protection measures in areas delineated under a source water assessment program.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($) .
c. Source water protection partnership per SDWA 1454.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($)
d. Capacity development (local level) - Provide technical assistance to waterworks in implementing the states capacity
development strategy. This includes providing necessary services to complete a Business Plan (BP) for every community
and nonprofit noncommunity waterworks serving less than 3300 people (contact with almost 1400 waterworks). The BP
refers to the managerial, financial, and technical capabilities needed by an owner to ensure long-term operation of a
waterworks.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($) .
Priority will be focused on SNCs, loan applicants, new waterworks applicants, and disadvantaged waterworks.
Construction loans may not be given to an owner who does not have capabilities identified in the BP.
Page 5 of 6
FY 2000 DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND SET ASIDE SUGGESTIONS
Virginia - 5
-------
DUE DATE: JUNE 15, 1999
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($)
e. Source water protection delineation and assessment program - This will allow the state to ensure that a program is
established and implemented to delineate and assess source water protection areas for every water source as mentioned in
91453 of the SDWA. The SDWA limits use of these funds to those under the FFY97 capitalization grant; however,
the funds may be used over a period of 4 years.
Suggested activity that could be accomplished/utilized by the respondent. Related fund ($) .
General suggested activities or comments on this set-aside.
Page 6 of 6
FY 2000 DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND SET ASIDE SUGGESTIONS
Virginia - 6
-------
Attachment
Virginia Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Programs and Activities
Please check (* ) the items for which you would like to receive more information and return this form to:
Thomas B Gray, P.E.
Virginia Department of Health
1500 East Main Street, Suite 109
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Fax: (804) 786-5567
Construction Assistance:
( ) Construction Loan - Interest rates range from 3% to ceiling rate which is 1% below prevailing municipal bond market
rates. Maximum term 20 years. Lower rates and longer terms are considered for waterworks meeting disadvantaged
criteria.
( ) Construction Grant-Will be considered for waterworks meeting disadvantaged criteria.
General Technical Assistance:
( ) Planning/Design Grant - Ten grants up to $25,000 per project to be awarded annually. Grants are especially for
small, rural, financially stressed, community waterworks.
Small System Technical Assistance-Applies to public water systems serving 10,000 people or less:
( ) Circuit Rider-An independent contractor will provide on-site operational assistance to 1,000 waterworks with less
than 500 population.
( ) Source Water Protection -An independent contractor will provide guidance to 100 waterworks in developing and
implementing a Source Water Protection Program.
( ) Compliance Guidance - An independent contractor will provide assistance to 26 waterworks that are in significant
non-compliance or nearly so.
( ) Small System Management Institute - An educational program to provide small system waterworks owners and
superintendents intensive training in current business management techniques.
( ) Professional Series of Specialty Seminars and Training Events - Training for waterworks owners to include such
topics as emerging technology, regulatory compliance, and business plan development.
( ) Training Scholarships - Awarded to waterworks operators to attend the Water Treatment Plant Operations Short
Course and the AWWA Water Utility Management Institute at Virginia Tech.
( ) Equipment - Particle Counters and Leak Detectors are available for loan to waterworks.
( ) Innovative Technology
State Programs Assistance:
( ) Operator Certification - A "Distance Education" program using video telecourses to be available to assist operators in
obtaining certification.
( ) Operator Scholarships for Distance Learning
( ) Courier
( ) Lab Equipment at Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services (DCLS)
( ) Research - capacity; telemetry; web site
( ) Research - Operator Availability and Certification Strategies
Local Assistance:
( ) Loans to Acquire Land/Conservation Easements to Protect Source Water - Interest rate is 4% and term is 20 years.
Disadvantaged waterworks may receive a 3% interest rate.
( ) Loans to Establish Local. Voluntary Incentive-Based Source Water Protection Measures - Interest rate is 4% and term
is 20 years. Disadvantaged waterworks may receive a 3% interest rate.
( ) Comprehensive Business Plan - An independent contractor will provide hands-on guidance and assistance to 25
waterworks in developing a Comprehensive Business Plan that follows Virginia Department of Health guidelines.
( ) Peer Review or Mentoring
Information Request From:
Name Title
Representing_
Address
City State Zip_
Phone ( ) FAX ( )
Revised June 23, 1999
Prepared 7/16/98
Virginia - 7
-------
WASHINGTON'S DRINKING WATER NEWSLETTER
Two ago, the Drinking Water Revolving Fund
was just a plan on and a lot of
that we it work. Today, of us at the De-
partment of who brought it are justifiably
proud of what we accomplished. I know I for
our partners at the Public Works Board and the board's
the of Community, Trade and Eco-
nomic Development, when I say they our
Soon we will take for a third. So far, we've roughly
$38 in to Washington's While we rec-
that this only a in Washington's we
know that the DWSRF program has a major difference to the
water systems that from it.
With the onset of a third round of funding, will be changes. The
DWSRF will be to use and more appealing, financially. Recent revi-
to DWSRF the already-low
rate on and requirements.
The DWSRF loan fee has also reduced. We've the appli-
it's and
These will help us the primary of the DWSRF in Wash-
ington: to put and within the of
small and medium-sized water systems in Washington We you
can
Sincerely,
/7 X A'
Grefc/Grunenfelder
Mtofwif fo» State Deptrlmmt of
JitHedth
Environmental Health Programs
February 1999
1999 DWSRF Loan
Quick Facts:
» $2?
be for
$8 of
cycles)
»
ire
»
A
» $2 per
system
» up to $6
for
» at
» for
in
communitiei"
» for
in
communities"
» No
» fee to 2%
»
March 30-April 1,1595
»
July 1,1999
»
by
Washington -1
-------
What You Can Do
To give you an idea of what can be
done through the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund, here are descriptions
of some projects funded in the first
round of applications.
In an effort to address the serious
drinking water issues it has experienced
over the last several years, Aberdeen is
constructing a new membrane filtration
plant. In addition to building the plant, Aberdeen will
implement residential metering, corrosion control, and
storage improvements. When this project is completed, the
city will be in full compliance with the Surface Water
Treatment Rule of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
County: Grays Harbor
Project Funding: DWSRF Loan $ 1,030,000
Other Sources* 12,399,193
Total Project Cost
$13,429,193
This project has two parts. The first part allows Bremerton
to comply with Washington State Department of Health lead
and copper rules. The city is constructing a facility to house
three storage tanks for drinking water treatment chemicals,
several metering pumps, an emergency generator, a control
room and a lavatory. Two vaults being built on a reservoir
inlet line adjacent to the facility will contain a flowmeter,
sampling pumps, and chemical sampling and injection
points. The second part of the project replaces an existing
floating hypalon cover.
County: Kitsap
Project Funding: DWSRF Loan 51,030,000
Other Sources* S 151,000
Total Project Cost $1,181,000
/
This project gives 155 Chelan County residences and
businesses a safe and potable source of drinking water.
Residents now drink unfiltered water from an irrigation
system that does not provide adequate safeguards against
cross-contamination from orchard and fruit processing
operations or waterborne diseases. The project will provide
an entirely new domestic water system. A new distribution
system is being constructed, and filtered domestic water will
be purchased from the City of Chelan. When the system is
up and running, these two water districts will be in com-
plete compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
County: Chelan
Project Funding: DWSRF Loan 61,411,100
Other Sources* $ 356,989
Total Project Cost $1,768,089
Colfax is constructing a new water booster pump station for
the southwest section of the city. The southwest section now
relies on a single well and reservoir. Line looping consisting
of new 12-inch piping connected to an existing 8-inch
asbestos cement pipe, and new 8-inch pipe connected to an
existing 6-inch asbestos cement pipe will be installed.
The benefits to the residents of Colfax through this project?
Adequate fire protection and a domestic water supply
system.
County: Whitman
Project Funding: DWSRF Loan $318,270
Other Sources* S 59,000
Total Project Cost
Of
The City of Cosmopolis' project assures that its water system
has sufficient pressure and flow to supply safe drinking
water to homes that are now served by a sub-standard,
private, community well. The city will install a domestic
water supply line, standby generator, transfer switch,
booster pump, and a new pump house, along with miscella-
neous construction items.
County: Grays Harbor
Project Funding: DWSRF Loan
Other Sources*
Total Project Cost
$166,878
S 74,503
5241,381
South Bend's project allows the city to protect against
contaminants entering its drinking water system. The project
funds construction of a new membrane treatment facility.
Interior process piping, site piping modifications, finished
water pumps, water treatment plant controls and telemetry,
a 3-Phase/480 Volt electrical service, standby generator,
safety equipment, and construction of a treatment plant
building will be included. The project also lets South Bend
meet existing disinfection requirements with no change to its
current distribution configuration.
County: Pacific
Project Funding: DWSRF Loan
Other Sources*
Total Project Cost
$1,030,000
$1,774,738
52,804,738
In this project, the DWSRF and the City of Stanwood join
forces to fund construction of a new wellhouse, install
pumping equipment that is capable of 500 GPM (plus all
electrical and telemetering equipment necessary for opera-
tions), and lay approximately 600 feet of ductile iron pipe.
The project will replace the well Stanwood now uses, which
is perforated, does not have a well seal, and is less than 25
Washington - 2
-------
feet from a creek in pastureland. Stanwood will gain a
potable drinking water source, eliminate existing construc-
tion and wellhead problems, and erase the risk of
contamination from outside sources.
County: Snohomish
Project Funding: DWSRF Loan
Other Sources*
Total Project Cost
5265,458
$ 29,594
$295,052
•&•
of
Camp Zanika Lache currently uses water that comes directly
from a small creek above lake Wenatchee. The creek water
is not filtered. The camp is subject to an "agreed" order
with the Department of Health to bring its water source into
compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule. It will
do this by bringing a new well, drilled in 1997 but not put
into service, on line. Improvements associated with the new
well - pumps, storage, distribution, and standby disinfection
- will complete the project.
County: Chelan
Project Funding: DWSRF Loan 884,873
Other Sources* $ 8,487
Total Project Cost
$93,360
The Town of Tieton will construct a new, 400,000-gallon,
drinking water reservoir. Tieton's existing 200,000-gallon
reservoir is 80,000 gallons short of providing enough storage
to meet the town's needs. The project addresses the town's
current and 20-year shortages and provides a modest buffer
for growth beyond the 20-year horizon.
County: Yakima
Project Funding: DWSRF Loan
Other Sources*
Total Project Cost
8358,749
$ 38,700
$397,449
* Other
» Works Trust
» U5DA
»
or other grant funds
» capital reserves
» or
Dear Dr. Drip
Dear Dr. Drip:
I thought the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund was intended to
finance treatment plants and put
pipes in the ground. Now I hear that
the state is using the money for other
stuff! What's up?
Signed, Pipeless in Seattle
;~-
11 comes as no surprise to Dr. Drip thai you thought the fund was
only for construction, 'That's what's been highlighted. In fact,
Drinking Water Slate Revolving Fund dollars also are available for
other things, like wellhead protection, that can improve a water
system's operation. We call these non-construction dollars set-asides.
The Department of Health and the Public Works Board use a small
percentage of set-asides to administer the fund. The Department of
Health uses set-aside funds to help maintain "primacy" and keep the
regulation of Washington's drinking water systems in Olympia,
Washington, rather than Washington, DC,
A large portion of set-asides is used to help water systems. For
instance, DOH contracts with the Evergreen Rural Water Association
to send a "circuit rider" around the state to develop wellhead protec-
tion plans. Set-asides let DOH provide source water assessment and
protection, and supports a technical assistance program for small
water systems. And set-asides are used to keep the cost to water
systems of system plans and project reviews at a minimum.
Why is DOH putting so much money into set-asides? Congress
authorizes the states to use up to 31 percent of their federal DWSRF
grants for set-asides. DOH is taking advantage of this by using a
large portion of allowable set-asides from its initial grants. This
temporary strategi/ is driven bi/ the fact that DOH received fewer
construction project requests than hoped for early on, but must still
use DWSRF funds according to a federal deadline. The stale is
authorized to use these set-asides over the next several years.
Washington's water si/sterns loill benefit several ways. Set-asides from
earlier grants will be available for future non-construction activities.
More funds from future DWSRF grants will be available for construc-
tion. And Washington can commit all of the federal funds to use prior
to the federal deadline,
Washington - 3
-------
Workshops will be held from 9:00 a.m. - Noon
« March 30 - Everett Holiday Inn, 101 - 128th Street SE, Everett, WA, 98208, (425) 337-2900,
Pacific Crest Theatre
« March 31 - Moses Lake Hallmark Inn, 3000 Marina Drive E, Moses Lake, WA, 98837, (509)
765-9211
* April 1 - Tumwater Labor & Industries Bldg., 7273 Linderson Way, Tu in water, WA, 98501,
(360) 902-5804, Training Room S-ll 7
Please fill out and mail or fax to:
Public Works Board, PO Box 48319,
Olympia, Washington, 98504-8319
Attention: Ann Barickman
Fax (360) 664-3029 « Phone (360) 586-2472
Name
O Workshop Sign-up
D for 1999
Loan Application &
Guidelines
Phone
Water System
Address
Workshop Location
# Guidelines/Applications Requested
# Persons Attending
Recognition
The
to the
of this of
Tap:
and
McCoIIough,
Water Tap is by the
of Health, Division
of Drinking Water, to provide
on
water owners,
water works
In
water.
Comments are
welcome. Past are
by writing to the
i¥ffer Tap, Division of
EO. Box
7822, Or e-mail your to:
Department of
Division of Drinking Water
PO Box
Olympia, WA
1-800-521-0323
BULK
US POSTAGE
Washington State
Department of Printing
(1^ /Q printed on recycled paper
Washington - 4
------- |