United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
EPA-832-N-99-002
FALL 1999
4>EPA
Si
A NEWSLETTER FOR THE CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER SRF PROGRAMS
ON THE NATIONAL SCENE
Nationally, significant progress has been made toward meeting the spirit and intent of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). However, much remains
to be done under these statutes. This issue's "On the National Scene" discusses water pro-
gram activities that are on the horizon. Because the DWSRF and CWSRF programs provide
funding for critical water/wastewater projects, describing these future activities provides
some context and sense of potential future demands on the DWSRF and CWSRF programs.
Meeting the Goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act
The objectives of the DWSRF program are threefold: to protect public health, to ensure
compliance with the SDWA, and to provide assistance to those public water systems with the
greatest economic need. The second of these, ensuring compliance with the SDWA, already
presents a challenge for states and public water systems throughout the country. The
scheduled release of new regulations, as required by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, will
force states and water systems to redouble their efforts in meeting this challenge. Many of
the new regulations will require water systems to upgrade or install new facilities. The
DWSRF program is an important tool in helping to finance these costs to water systems.
Set-aside funds will also be critical in helping many states address implementation and
oversight of new regulations.
Periodically, this newsletter will give an overview of new regulations for which the
DWSRF program can help to facilitate compliance. The first two new regulations mandated
by the Amendments to be covered in this newsletter are the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule and the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Both of
these new rules were released December 18, 1998 to address concerns related to the
microbial contaminant Cryptosporidium, which can cause illness and is resistant to tradi-
tional disinfection practices. States are currently developing strategies to help water sys-
tems comply with these new regulations.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 2
-------
SRF's I
The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule applies to systems using surface water or ground water
under the direct influence of surface water that serve 10,000
or more persons. The rule also includes provisions for states
to conduct sanitary surveys for surface water systems regard-
less of system size. The rule builds upon the treatment tech-
nique requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule with
the following key additions and modifications:
• Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for
Cryptosporidium and 2-log Cryptosporidium removal
requirements for systems that filter.
• Systems using ground water under the direct influence of
surface water now subject to the new rules dealing with
Cryptosporidium.
• Inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the watershed control
requirements for unfiltered public water systems.
• Requirements for covers on new finished water reservoirs.
• Sanitary surveys, conducted by states, for all surface water
systems regardless of size.
The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule,
with tightened turbidity performance criteria and required
individual filter monitoring, is designed to optimize treatment
reliability and to enhance physical removal efficiencies to
minimize the Cryptosporidium levels in finished water. In
addition, the rule includes disinfection benchmark provisions
to assure continued levels of microbial protection while facili-
ties take the necessary steps to comply with new disinfection
byproduct (DBF) standards.
While disinfectants are effective in controlling many
microorganisms, they react with natural organic and inorgan-
ic matter in source water and distribution systems to form
DBFs. The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule applies to community water systems and
non-transient non-community systems, including those serv-
ing fewer than 10,000 people, that add a disinfectant to the
drinking water during any part of the treatment process. The
rule updates and supersedes the 1979 regulations for total
trihalomethanes. In addition, it will reduce exposure to three
disinfectants and many disinfection byproducts. The rule
establishes maximum residual disinfectant level goals
(MRDLGs) and maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs)
for three chemical disinfectants - chlorine, chloramine, and
chlorine dioxide. It also establishes MCLGs and maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) for total trihalomethanes,
haloacetic acids, chlorite and bromate.
The rule also includes a treatment technique for removal
of DBF precursor material. Water systems that use surface
water or ground water under the direct influence of surface
water and use conventional filtration treatment are required to
remove specified percentages of organic materials, measured
as total organic carbon (TOC), that may react with disinfec-
tants to form DBFs. Removal will be achieved through a treat-
ment technique (enhanced coagulation or enhanced soften-
ing) unless a system meets alternative criteria.
Additional information on the rules, including links to
implementation guidances and information on future rules can
be found by going to the Drinking Water Standards Program
or Topic Index on the Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water website at www.epa.gov/safewater.
Proposed Revisions to CWA Total
Maximum Daily Load Regulations
Despite tremendous progress in the years since the CWA was
passed, 40 percent of America's surveyed waterways remain
impaired. Through the National water quality inventory
reporting process, states, territories and authorized tribes (the
"states") have identified over 20,000 individual river seg-
ments, lakes and estuaries that are too polluted for fishing and
swimming. These polluted waters include approximately
300,000 miles of river and shoreline and approximately 5 mil-
lion acres of lakes.
The last issue of this newsletter described the Clean Water
Action Plan and the national efforts to take key actions (e.g.,
unified watershed assessments) to address these significant
problems. The discussion below describes newly proposed
regulatory changes that strengthen the states' ability to address
-------
SRF'
impaired water bodies on a watershed basis. These changes
are important because they will accelerate the implementation
of priority projects, many of which will benefit from SRF funding.
In August 1999, the EPA issued proposed revisions to the
Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) regulations (40 CFR Part
130) to provide states with a clear, consistent and balanced
approach to addressing impaired water bodies. Under
Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to
develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that do not
meet water quality standards even after point sources of pol-
lution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution
control technology. States must establish a priority ranking
and develop TMDL levels for these water bodies. The
Agency's efforts to evaluate the TMDL process was initiated in
1996 when the Office of Water convened a committee under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act to review the 303 (d) list-
ing and TMDL programs and recommend changes. In July
1998, the committee submitted a report with more than 100
consensus recommendations that helped guide the develop-
ment of the proposed regulations.
Under the proposed rule, states would undertake a num-
ber of important activities including the following:
• Prepare comprehensive assessments of waterways, identifying
those exceeding clean water standards, and pinpointing those
facing the greatest pollution threats. The new format would
organize the 303 (d) lists into four priority level categories.
• Set a cap on the pollution entering a given water body, and
decide how much of that pollution can come from sources
like factories, sewage treatment plants, farms, and urban
runoff.
• Develop detailed implementation plans and set timetables
for implementing them. The plans could entail tighter pollu-
tion limits for individual factories, sewage treatment plants
or other point sources and limits on urban and agricultural
runoff or other non-point sources. For high priority waters,
including those where pollution threatens drinking water
sources or endangered species, states are encouraged to
adopt plans within five years.
In developing and implementing these new watershed-
based cleanup plans, all pollution sources would participate
in the restoration effort-from factories to farms, sewer sys-
tems to city streets. Pollution reductions would be shared
among point and non-point sources of pollution and would
be achieved using detailed implementation plans required
under the proposed regulations. In order to provide reason-
able assurance that water quality standards will be met, the
proposal clarifies the authority of the states and EPA to regu-
late certain sources of polluted runoff where necessary to
restore clean water. EPA is also proposing revisions to the
NPDES and water quality standards regulations to achieve rea-
sonable further progress toward attainment of water quality
standards in impaired waterbodies after listing and pending
TMDL establishment, and to provide reasonable assurance
that TMDLs, once completed, will be adequately implemented.
The comment period for the proposed rules will end January
20, 2000. Detailed information on this topic including the
draft rules can be found on the TMDL website:
http ://www. epa. gov/o wow/tmdl.
-------
SRF's Up
STATE
ACTI
V
Tl
ES
AN
D
TR
DS
DWSRF Implementation
As the DWSRF program enters its third year, states and EPA
continue to face challenges in implementation. While
many states have made tremendous progress in their pro-
grams, several others have experienced difficulties. The
1999 CIFA SRF Workshop included a session on marketing
the DWSRF program, and EPA is working on several case
studies describing elements of state programs. EPA hopes
that sharing examples will help states that are experienc-
ing difficulties. In this issue of the newsletter, we asked
the director of a successful program to give an overview of
his program and explain what steps the state took to get
out of the gate so quickly.
State Focus: Kansas' Efforts to
Implement the DWSRF Program
Dave Waldo, Kansas Department of
Health and Environment
When the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
(KDHE) began meeting with stakeholders in the fall of 1996
to prepare the Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund
(KPWSLF, Fund), it quickly became apparent there were
many questions to be answered. How much money could be
made available? At what interest rates? Is there a demand for
loans? Can the application process be simplified to make the
Fund accessible to small systems? How will the state match
be provided? Will rural water districts, with only water system
revenues to pledge for loan repayment, have the same access
to the Fund as cities, who have ad valorem taxing authority to
pledge as a backstop for loan repayment in addition to water
system revenues? A workgroup, consisting of the League of
Kansas Municipalities, the Kansas Rural Water Association
(KRWA), the Kansas Section of AWWA, contractors, consulting
engineers, and several state and federal agencies, met several
times during the next year. Its input was instrumental in
answering these and many other questions and in developing
a program that has been well received. Fortunately, the state's
statutory authority for a loan program was already in place,
with passage of the KPWSLF act by the 1994 Kansas legislature.
The question of potential demand for loan funding was
answered by a KDHE survey of 845 eligible public water sys-
tems in January of 1997. The questionnaires asked for a five-
year listing of planned capital expenditures, with no mention
made of potential low interest rate financing. Responses were
received from 464 water systems, indicating total planned cap-
ital improvements of $479 million through the year 2001,
which suggested a strong potential demand for loan funds.
Interestingly, 103 water systems indicated that no capital
expenditures were planned.
Ongoing discussions with stakeholders revealed strong
support for maximizing the amount of loan funds which could
be made available. While there was some indication of sup-
port for separate loan pools for rural water districts and
cities, with each pool having different application require-
ments and interest rates, it was thought a single pool with
equal access to all potential applicants would be more accept-
able politically. Privately owned water systems are not eligible
for funding under Kansas law, and are not a significant seg-
ment of the Kansas water supply infrastructure.
The workgroup voiced support for requiring those appli-
cants with taxing authority to pledge that taxing authority as a
condition of receiving a loan, or to buy bond insurance. It
was believed this would make the Fund's revenue bonds more
attractive to investors. There was precedence for this as the
state's water pollution control loan fund had a similar require-
-------
SRF'
ment. The Kansas Rural Water Finance Authority (KRWFA),
with experience in rural water district financing, suggested
applicants without taxing authority should be required to pur-
chase bond insurance, or to provide a debt service coverage
ratio of 125 percent along with a 10 percent reserve account,
or a debt service coverage ratio of 140 percent with no
reserve account.
In addition to the requirement of complying with one of
the two debt service coverage ratio options, all applicants
without taxing authority and some applicants with taxing
authority are required to enter into a financial integrity assur-
ance contract (FIAC) with the KRWFA to provide for ongoing
financial and management oversight. Under the FIAC, quarter-
ly financial and management reports, an annual audit and
proposed budgets are submitted to KRWFA for review and
approval. If the audit or quarterly reports suggest existing or
potential problems in meeting loan covenants, KRWFA will
make recommendations for correction of the deficiencies and
provide ongoing assistance to the loan recipient to assure the
deficiencies are corrected.
Input from the program's finance team, along with the
Kansas Development Finance Authority, was invaluable in
structuring the Fund. The state selected a reserve account
leveraging model to maximize the amount of available funding
by allowing for 4 to 1 leveraging, with interest rates equal to
80 percent of the Bond Buyer's 20 Bond Index. Lower inter-
est rates were examined, but none provided sufficient cash
flow to allow 4 tol leveraging.
The program has benefitted from strong partnerships with
several state agencies and associations. The state Division of
Accounts and Reports provides accounting services, including
provision of loan amortization schedules, tracking of financial
transactions, provision of status reports of cash and loan bal-
ances, and coordination of the annual audit. In addition to
providing the ongoing financial review of loan recipients, the
KRWFA is under contract to the program to evaluate the finan-
cial condition of all applicants and make a determination of
the ability to repay the loan. This financial screening and
strong financial oversight of loan recipients contributed to the
program's first revenue bond issue receiving underlying ratings
of A- from Moody's Investors Service and A+ from Fitch IBCA.
The second bond issue received an upgrade to AA- from Fitch,
while the Moody's rating remained at A-.
The KRWA, sister association to the KRWFA, and the
League of Kansas Municipalities co-hosted four training semi-
nars in July of 1997 which focused on the upcoming loan
program. The seminars were attended by representatives of
more than 300 water systems and were successful in generat-
ing significant interest in the program. KDHE received
requests from 145 water suppliers for a total of $190 million
in response to its initial request for projects to be considered
for funding. Both organizations hosted presentations on the
loan fund at their annual conferences. Interest in the pro-
gram continues to be strong.
Kansas received capitalization grants of $14,095,000 and
$10,008,100 in FY97 and FY98 respectively. After set-asides,
deposits to the reserve account totaled more than $20,304,000.
Revenue bond sales for the first two years totaled more than
$85 million, with a net of $82,660,000 available for loans.
The program also benefitted from contributions from Kansas
of state money made available by Senate Bill 487 to the
reserve account. A deposit of $1 million was made to the
reserve account in July 1998 and leveraged an additional $4
million in FY98 revenue bonds. An additional $4 million was
deposited in July 1999 and will be used to leverage $16 mil-
lion in revenue bonds this fall.
By the end of October 1999, the Fund had completed 31
loan agreements for a total of $68,001,344. Systems serving
-------
SRF's I
less than 10,000 received 24 of these loan agreements, for a
total of $35,197,868. Interest rates range from a low of 3.98
percent in January 1999 to a high of 4.35 percent in
September 1999. Work is underway on the FY99 IUP, which
will make an additional $53,500,000 available to Kansas cities
and rural water districts.
The smallest loan was to the city of Spivey (population
93) for $78,000, to construct a 6,000 foot pipeline connect-
ing with Harper RWD #5, allowing the city to abandon two
wells exceeding the nitrate MCL. The largest loan was to the
city of Parsons for $9,200,000 to construct a micro filtration
plant which will provide for compliance with the enhanced
surface water treatment and disinfection by-products rules.
Finney RWD #1 received a loan of $2,400,000, which allowed
for connection of 11 mobile home parks, several of which
had experienced ongoing compliance problems.
For more information about the Kansas DWSRF program,
contact Dave Waldo at KDHE or David Shupe at KRWFA.
State Focus: New York CWSRF Funds
Innovative Deicing Runoff Project for
the Albany Airport
Robert Davis, Ajit Pannu and Kumar Nepal,
New York State Environmental Facilities
Corporation
According to information provided by the Albany County
Airport Authority, there are 192 airports in the U.S., including
11 in New York State, that apply at least 1,000 gallons of pure
deicing product in a typical season. The operating results of
the anaerobic treatment system of this project are expected to
advance the knowledge of treatment of airport runoff that can
be applied to many of those airports.
The Albany County International Airport (ACIAP) is
owned by Albany County and is operated by the Albany County
Airport Authority (ACAA) under an Airport Lease Agreement
with the AC. The Airport is the sole provider of commercial
air transportation serving the Eastern upstate region of New
York State. Propylene Glycol (PG) is applied to aircraft for
deicing purposes during the winter months. In order to abate
the impact of the deicing runoff on Shaker Creek, the ACAA
completed construction of a collection, equalization and con-
veyance system for deicing runoff at ACIAP in early 1990.
Deicing runoff collected from a 37.1 acre collection area
was directed through trench drains to two equalization basins of
2.3 MG and 6.0 MG capacity during the deicing season. As the
basins filled, deicing runoff was discharged via a four inch force
main to a pump station in the Village of Colonie and then on to
Albany County Sewer District (ACSD) for treatment and disposal.
ACAA had reduced treatment costs payable to ACSD dur-
ing 1996 and 1997 by incorporating aerobic microbial treat-
ment during summer months on the runoff remaining in the
large basins at the end of the deicing seasons with ultimate
discharge to airfield irrigation areas. However, the bulk of the
deicing runoff had still to be pumped to the ACDS during the
winter for expensive treatment.
Stormwater runoff and uncaptured deicing runoff from
the airport discharge into Shaker Creek, which in turn empties
into the Mohawk River at a point not far above the water plant
intake for the Latham Water District (LWD) in the Town of
Colonie. In order to address the concerns of the LWD on the
impact of the deicing runoff, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) issued a SPDES Permit
which requires that the ACAA deicing runoff discharge to
Shaker Creek shall not result in a total glycol level in the creek
exceeding Img/L at any point and at any time. In order to
comply with the SPDES Permit, and to further reduce the ACSD
-------
SRF'
costs for treating the deicing runoff, the ACAA initiated a
Deicing Runoff Improvement Project in 1998. This paper
reviews the 1998 Deicing Runoff Improvement Project.
Project Description
The assessment process considered several alternatives for
long term management of the deicing runoff and selected two
alternatives for a detailed analysis: (1) containment and trans-
port to the ACSD in winter coupled with aerobic treatment/
airfield irrigation during warm weather months, and (2) con-
tainment and anaerobic treatment with discharge to the ACSD
throughout the deicing season coupled with airfield irrigation
during warm weather. The analysis indicated a present worth
cost of aerobic treatment as $11.7 million and $8.7 million
for anaerobic treatment. Therefore, the anaerobic treatment
technology was chosen to treat the deicing runoff.
The 1998 Deicing Runoff Collection, Storage, Treatment
and Disposal Facilities project involved planning, design and
construction of a pump station and a force main to transmit the
deicing runoff from the new air cargo facility to a new 2.3MG
tank and existing equalization basins, I/I Correction, improve-
ments to the existing deicing runoff collection system and pur-
chase of a vacuum truck to remove traces of deicing fluid.
Additionally, it included the installation of a high concentration
anaerobic waste treatment system for treating the deicing runoff
prior to discharge to the ACSD or to airfield irrigation.
The treatment system commenced operation for the
1998-99 deicing season. As part of the acceptance protocol,
the glycol-contaminated stormwater treatment system was
operated for 30 consecutive days. During that period the sys-
tem was able to achieve over 99.99 percent propylene glycol
(PG) removal. This resulted in effluent glycol concentrations
averaging less than 0.3 mg/L, well below the discharge criteri-
on of 1 mg/L. COD removal averaged over 98 percent; the
effluent BOD5 averaged 57 mg/L, significantly lower than the
BOD5 associated with domestic sewage. The system is a net
energy producer, with biogas production equivalent to 46 mil-
lion BTU/day. Over 13 million BTU/day of this biogas was in
excess of the heating requirements of the treatment process.
The glycol recovery and treatment project at the Albany
County Airport was the first such project to be financed by the
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC).
Finance Division staff at EFC, which is responsible for review-
ing a borrower's ability to repay a loan, focused its review on
the Authority's financial condition and legal structure/con-
straints relating to Airport finances. General economic data
was reviewed to establish the condition of the local economy,
which drives demand for Airport services. Staff gathered mar-
ket information relating to enplanements, origination and des-
tination traffic, carriers and alternative airports. Staff ana-
lyzed several years of financial audits and operational infor-
mation to evaluate the Airport's financial management prac-
tices. Finally, official statements, the trust indenture, lease
agreements and other contract information were reviewed to
gain an understanding of the legal factors influencing the
facility's creditworthiness. The Authority issued revenue
bonds to EFC, secured in part by a debt service reserve fund.
Based on the results of a pilot study funded by the New
York State Energy Research and Development Authority and
conducted by the ACAA, the aerobic treatment component of
the project was selected as an Innovative Technology
Demonstration Project by the EFC under the New York CWSRF
Program and as a result, it received a 20 year interest free
direct loan of $3,000,000. The other components of the proj-
ect, which were also financed under the New York CWSRF,
received a 20 year low interest loan in the amount of
$5,423,609. For further information on this project contact
Robert Davis of the EFC.
-------
SRF's I
State Activities and Trend Briefs
EPA, States and Cosponsors Hold
NPS/Estuary Workshop
In June, over 100 representatives from government and non-
profit organizations attended a Region 9 SRF workshop:
"Protecting Our Waters: Funding Nonpoint Source and
Estuary Projects with the CWSRF." In contrast to previous
similar EPA-sponsored events held last year, the Region 9
workshop focused on end users of the program including
cities, counties, regional planning and conservation districts
and non-profit organizations. Twenty-two organizations
cosponsored the two-day event that included sessions cover-
ing a range of topics including: SRF funding opportunities for
agriculture, habitat protection, urban/suburban issues and
estuary protection.
Wisconsin Kicks-Off Land Recycling Loan Program
(Brownfield) SRF Loan Program
This summer, Wisconsin finalized rules to implement a
brownfields loan program through their CWSRF program.
The program earmarks $20 million for brownfield projects
that show an immediate or imminent threat to water quality.
To attract borrowers and provide a subsidy for these projects,
the state has settled on interest rates below the going rate for
loans (now 55 percent of market rates.) Loans will be pro-
vided at 0 percent and repaid over twenty years (may be
shorter). Projects that have shown interest in the program to
date will address contamination in auto service stations, rail-
road yards, food processing plants, and other industrial/com-
mercial sites.
Oregon Implements a Cash Flow Based
Approach to Loan Origination
Oregon's Clean Water SRF is a direct loan program that is tak-
ing an innovative approach to making loan commitments.
Initially, like all CWSRFs, Oregon only made loan commit-
ments for funds that were actually on hand. However, with
delays in project start-up and long disbursement schedules,
Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) experi-
enced long lag times from the point at which funds were ini-
tially available to actual project disbursements. As a result,
the program was amassing relatively large cash balances and
undrawn grant amounts. By examining the inflows and out-
flows of SRF funds, DEQ discovered that the program could
begin to commit funds in anticipation of future cash inflows as
long as they closely monitored the fund's projected cash bal-
ance. The state now uses a model to track what funds will be
available and determine what new loans the program can initi-
ate. The use of this approach allowed the state to commit
$37.7 million more to projects through FY 1999. EPA is
preparing a State Activity Update on this topic that will provide
a detailed discussion on the state's approach. The Update will
be available from EPA Regional offices and on CWSRF and
DWSRF websites.
Virginia Adopts Leveraging in CWSRF Program
Virginia is in the final stages of issuing debt to leverage the
state's CWSRF program. The state plans to use a reserve fund
approach to leveraging. The first bond issue will raise
approximately $110 million. The debt service reserve fund
will be approximately $66 million funded with federal grant
funds($27.7 M), state match($5.5 M), repayments ($27.6 M),
and earnings($5.3 M). The approach will allow the state to
provide over 66 percent more funding for the first year of
operation. Due to the strong financial structure of the pro-
gram, the interest rates on loans provided under the leveraged
approach will be even lower than those provided to date
through the direct loan program. The support for leveraging
the program stemmed from the Governor's desire to make
water quality improvements a priority for the state. Adding
Virginia to the list, there are now 23 states that have leveraged
for at least one year of the program.
Michigan Uses Annuity Insurance Contracts
to Provide Subsidies for Privately-Owned
Public Water Systems
The Michigan DWSRF program recently received approval for
an innovative approach to providing subsidies to privately-owned
-------
public water systems. The state has made arrangements to
purchase annuity insurance contracts that provide semiannual
payments and insure loan repayment for loans made by finan-
cial institutions to private water companies undertaking
DWSRF eligible projects. The semi-annual payments are made
directly from the insurance company to lending financial insti-
tutions and are roughly equivalent to the subsidy provided
through DWSRF loans to publicly-owned systems. The lender,
in turn, reduces the loan interest rate to the private system by
the same amount. This approach is attractive to the state
because it provides a subsidy to DWSRF borrowers while the
lender is responsible for loan servicing and any credit risks.
EPA is developing a State Activity Update on this topic that fur-
ther describes the program. The Update will be available from
EPA Regional offices and on CWSRF and DWSRF websites.
Arizona Modifies Leverage Structure
The Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona,
responsible for the management of the state's Clean Water and
Drinking Water SRF Programs, is making significant changes
to its program structure in 1999. One of its most unique
changes is the refunding of four bond series and the transfer
of two additional series into a new cash flow secured common
open pool leverage structure. By refunding its earlier bond
issues, Arizona will release over $60 million from reserve
funds that will then be available for new direct loans. In addi-
tion, by refunding or transferring into the common open pool,
Arizona will significantly reduce its administrative burden.
Report on Ongoing SRF Activities
DWSRF Information Management System
In the past few years, EPA and state agencies have seen a
greater emphasis on linking infrastructure investment with
performance. Building on an information survey of state pro-
grams conducted by the State of Ohio several years ago, the
CWSRF developed a national information management system
(CWNIMS) to maintain information on financial and program-
matic data related to the CWSRF program. Although the
DWSRF program is still in its infancy, EPA has received repeat-
ed requests for program information. Last spring, the DWSRF
program initiated development of the DWNIMS with the assis-
tance of the state/EPA SRF work group and other state and
EPA regional staff. The system is similar to that for the CWSRF,
with additions to address set-aside funds and modifications to
reflect the differing eligibilities between the programs. This
fall six states (ME, MD, OR, VA, OH and KS) participated in a
pilot data collection. The data elements and interface will be
modified to address issues identified during the pilot collec-
tion. It is anticipated that the system will be distributed to all
states for collection of fiscal year 1997-1999 data (based on a
July-June fiscal year) in February 2000.
DWSRF Implementation Support
The EPA DWSRF program recently posted new documents on
its website to assist states in implementation of programs.
Documents, which include examples of an Intended Use Plan,
Operating Agreement, Biennial Report, and audited financial
statements for a direct loan program, are meant to serve as a
resource for state and EPA regional staff. The program is also
working on a series of case studies which profile how state
programs have addressed specific DWSRF implementation
issues. Suggestions for additional papers are welcome and
can be submitted using the fax-back form at the end of this
newsletter. Papers in development include:
• Assessing the technical, financial, and managerial capacity
of applicants
-------
SRF's I
• Encouraging public involvement in the DWSRF program
• Evaluating creditworthiness of private applicants
• Disadvantaged assistance programs and evaluating
affordability
• Coordinating DWSRF funding with other sources of assistance
Guide to Integrated Planning and Priority
Setting in the CWSRF Program
National water quality data indicates that nonpoint sources
are the leading cause of pollution in many of our nation's
waters. To date, twenty-six states have used CWSRF funds for
projects that address nonpoint source pollution. However,
many states have found that their planning and priority setting
procedures were designed to evaluate wastewater treatment
projects, and these procedures are not well equipped to eval-
uate nonpoint source and estuary projects. An EPA work-
group is engaged in a dialogue to consider how states could
address this problem. Nine states used 104(b) (3) grants to
develop integrated planning and priority setting systems that
equally consider point source, nonpoint source, and estuary
projects. A forthcoming EPA document will discuss the inte-
grated planning and priority setting process and provide
examples of integrated systems used around the nation.
SRF Planning Model
A new tool will soon be available for states to use to plan and
project the financial capacity and performance of their
DWSRF and CWSRF programs. The model, under testing at
the time of this writing, will give users the option to import
historical state data supplied from the CWSRF National
Information Management Systems (NIMS) and DWSRF NIMS
(once data is available). Developed in Excel 97 as a menu
driven program, the model allows users to choose and vary
all key assumptions (e.g., loan terms, leveraging frequency,
discount rate, interest earning rates, etc.) used in assessing
the impacts of a program's financial structure. Users will be
able to quickly develop, graph, print, save, and compare dif-
fering financial projection scenarios for individual state pro-
grams. The model will be distributed through the Regional
Offices when completed.
FAXBACK FORM
Please fax to EPA Headquarters:
CWSRF PROGRAM (Attn: S. Hoover) • 202-260-0116
or
DWSRF PROGRAM (Attn: V. Blette) • 202-401-2345
Comments on Current Newsletter:
Suggestions for Articles or Event Announcements
in Future Newsletters:
If you wish to receive future newsletters, please com-
plete the following to be added to the mailing list:
Address:
email:
-------
SRF'
EVENTS
1. Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies Winter Conference
Date: February 1-4, 2000
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Information: See AMSA website
2. Advancing Water Conservation Issues
Through Effective Partnerships
Date: February 06 - 07, 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Information: See AWWA website
3. Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators Mid-winter Conference
Date: March 15-17, 2000
Location: Crystal City, VA
Information: See ASDWA website
4. Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Agencies Mid-winter Conference
Date: March 12-15, 2000
Location: Crystal City, VA
Information: See ASIWPCA website
5. American Water Works Association
Infrastructure Conference
Date: March 12-15, 2000
Location: Baltimore, MD
Information: See AWWA website
6. National Utility Contractors Association
Convention & Heavy Equipment Show
Date: March 22-26, 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Information: www.nuca.com
SRF LINKS
1.CWSRF/DWSRF@EPA
Both SRFs maintain pages on the EPA website with informa-
tion on the programs. Both sites contain guidance, policy
documents and contact lists for state and regional staff.
The URLs are as follows:
• CWSRF: www.epa.gov/owm/finan.htm
• DWSRF: www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html
The DWSRF site includes a link to a Local Drinking Water
Information page, which has state by state information on
drinking water systems and programs. Where available,
this page includes a link to state DWSRF Intended Use
Plans.
2. National Associations
• Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Agencies: www.asiwpca.org
• Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators: www.asdwa.org
• American Water Works Association:www.awwa.org
• Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies:
www.amwa-water.org
• Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies:
www.amsa-cleanwater.org
• National Association of Water Companies:
www.nawc.org
3. State Programs
This newsletter spotlights the Florida SRF program websites.
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Water Facilities Funding
• CWSRF Link:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wn7cwsrf/default.htm
• DWSRF Link:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wn7dwsrf/default.htm
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
IN THIS ISSUE.
On the National Scene
• Meeting the Goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act
• Proposed Revisions to CWA Total Maximum
Daily Load Regulations
State Activities and Trends
DWSRF Implementation
• State Focus: Kansas' Efforts to Implement
the DWSRF Program
• State Focus: New York CWSRF Funds Innovative Deicing
Runoff Project for the Albany Airport
• State Activities and Trend Briefs
In the Works - Report on Ongoing SRF Activities
• DWSRF Information Management System
• DWSRF Implementation Support
• Guide to Integrated Planning and Priority Setting
in the CWSRF Program
• SRF Planning Model
Events* SRF Fax Back • SRF Links
Clean Wat or
stall- Revolving fund
------- |