&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4606)
EPA816-R-99-001
January 1999
Prioritizing Drinking Water Needs:
A compilation of State priority systems
for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
January 1999
-------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Acronym List
III. State List (alphabetical)
IV. State Summaries and Priority Systems
(by region)
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program was authorized by the 1996 Amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which were signed into law on August 6, 1996. The program
provides each State with a source of funding to continue to ensure that the public is provided with safe
drinking water. A State uses capitalization grants awarded by EPA to establish a Fund from which loans
and other types of financial assistance are provided to eligible publicly- or privately-owned community
water systems and nonprofit non-community water systems to finance the cost of infrastructure
improvements.
To determine which projects receive priority for funding, each State must develop a priority system for
ranking individual projects based on three objectives mandated in the SDWA. A State must, to the
maximum extent practicable, give priority to projects that:
• address the most serious risk to human health;
• are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the SDWA (including requirements for
filtration); and
• assist systems most in need, on a per household basis, according to affordability criteria developed by
the State.
The SDWA envisions that a State will fund DWSRF projects in priority order, unless the project is not
ready to proceed1. Since public involvement is an important element of the DWSRF program, a State's
priority system must be sufficiently detailed to permit the public and potential applicants to readily
understand the criteria used to rank projects.
This document is a comprehensive compilation of the priority systems developed by the States for their
DWSRF program capitalization grants. While each State is required to include the three statutory
objectives as primary factors, there is considerable variation in the structure of priority systems.
For easy reference, this document groups the States by EPA Region. An index, in alphabetical order by
State, can also be found following this introduction. Throughout the document, links appear in pink to
facilitate navigation. A brief 1-2 page summary has been developed for each State, followed by the
complete priority system.
The first section of each State summary, entitled "Priority Ranking Criteria," documents the ranking
method employed by the State. Although each State must address the three objectives mandated by the
SDWA, many States have chosen to develop additional categories, which reflect each of the required
objectives. For example, North Carolina gives bonus points to systems that have source water protection
and management programs in place. States that include numerous categories may grant fewer points for
categories considered less relevant to them. It is important to note that although States may award points
for criteria other than the three SDWA-mandated objectives, these points should not be sufficient to elevate
a low priority compliance, public health, or affordability project over a high priority one. Some States
It should be noted that EPA allowed States to include readiness to proceed as a factor in their priority
systems for the first two years of the program in recognition of the fact that highly ranked projects may not have been ready to
apply for assistance. This factor, where included, will be removed from future priority systems. A State will, however, be
able to assess readiness to proceed when developing a fundable list of projects from its comprehensive list of projects eligible
to receive assistance.
-------
have developed categories which address more than one of the required objectives. For example, Maine
grants points for the compliance objective and the public health objective together under one category,
"Compliance and Public Health."
Nearly all States grant more points for compliance and public health criteria categories than for
affordability criteria categories. The affordability criteria must be explicitly defined by each State.
Most States base their affordability criteria on median household income (MHI), often comparing the
MHI of the system's service population to the State MHI. However, some States take into account
system user rates, or use more complex equations, such as Tennessee's "ability to pay index" developed by
the University of Tennessee Center for Economic and Business Research.
Although most States prioritize by using point categories, several States determine ranking by placing
projects in different priority classes and then granting points to rank projects within these classes. For
example, Nevada's priority system assigns projects to one of four classes: projects addressing acute
health problems, projects addressing chronic health problems, projects addressing inadequate public
water system (PWS) conditions, and projects involving refinancing of existing debts. Projects in the first
class are always given higher priority than those in any of the following classes. Within each class,
projects are ranked by different point categories (e.g., the type of water system, affordability,
population).
In addition to the Priority Ranking Criteria section, we have included a "Notes" section in many State
summaries to explain other ranking determinants or constraints. Any bonus points, incentive points, or
State-specific ranking guidelines fall under the Notes section. Many States stipulate that only a certain
percentage of the capitalization grant may be loaned to a single project or specify a ceiling on loans. The
Notes section also discusses tiebreakers for States that have specified one in the event that two or more
projects receive the same number of points. Tie-breaking procedures are often based on the service
population of the system represented. Tie-breaking procedures may also be based on type of water system,
points received in one of the categories in the Priority Ranking Criteria section, affordability, postmark date
of the application, or other criteria.
We hope that this compilation will be of interest to staff implementing DWSRF programs in all States
and to the general public. If you would like more information about the DWSRF program, including
State contact names, consult EPA's DWSRF web page at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html.
Notice to States
This compendium generally includes those priority systems that were submitted by States for their Fiscal
Year 1997 capitalization grant applications. The compendium will be periodically updated to reflect
revised priority systems. States are encouraged to contact their Regional DWSRF coordinator if they have
questions about the material presented within this document.
-------
ACRONYMS
AWWA - American Water Works Association
CMHI - Community Median Household Income
CWS - Community Water System
DEP - Department of Environmental Protection
DOH- Department of Health
DNR - Department of Natural Resources
DWSRF - Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
ERU - Equivalent Residential Unit
GWUDI - Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
IOC - Inorganic Compound
IUP - Intended Use Plan
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
MHI - Median Household Income
NOV - Notice of Violation
NPDWR - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NTNCWS - Nontransient Noncommunity Water System
O&M - Operations and Management
PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit
PWS - Public Water System
SMHI - State Median Household Income
SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act
SNC - Significant Non-Complier
SWTR - Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCR - Total Coliform Rule
TDS - Total Dissolved Solids
THM - Trihalomethanes
TNCWS - Transient Noncommunity Water System
URTH - Unreasonable Risk to Health
VOC - Volatile Organic Compounds
-------
STATE REGION
Alabama IV
Alaska X
Arizona IX
Arkansas VI
California IX
Colorado VIII
Connecticut I
Delaware III
Florida IV
Georgia IV
Hawaii IX
Idaho X
Illinois V
Indiana V
Iowa VII
Kansas VII
Kentucky IV
Louisiana VI
Maine I
Maryland III
Massachusetts I
Michigan V
Minnesota V
Mississippi IV
Missouri VII
Montana VIII
Nebraska VII
Nevada IX
New Hampshire I
New Jersey II
New Mexico VI
New York II
North Carolina IV
North Dakota VIII
Ohio V
Oklahoma VI
Oregon X
Pennsylvania III
Puerto Rico II
Rhode Island I
South Carolina IV
South Dakota VIII
Tennessee IV
Texas VI
Utah VIII
Vermont I
Virginia III
Washington X
West Virginia III
Wisconsin V
Wyoming VIII
-------
CONNECTICUT
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following six categories:
• Quality - Points will be given to projects that seek to eliminate water quality problems. Points may be
given from 4 subcategories and points per criterion range from 10 to 50 points. For example, projects
addressing immediate risks (turbidity, microbiological, etc.) will receive 50 points, while projects
addressing physical problems such as pH or odor will receive 10 points.
• Quantity Violations with Health Implications - Points will be given to projects that seek to eliminate
water quantity problems. Up to 40 points will be given for each supply or pressure issue (e.g., 40 points for
insufficient supply, 20 points for pressure violations). A project that implements water conservation
measures will receive 15 points.
• Acquisition/Transfer - Points will be given for consolidation by acquisition or interconnection that enables
a system to operate in compliance with State and federal law. Twenty-five points will be given for projects
in which an existing PWS is acquired for consolidation and 15 points per each interconnection with other
PWSs.
• Proactive Infrastructure Upgrades - Projects may receive a maximum of 15 points in this category. Five
points will be given to projects for each example of a proactive infrastructure upgrade (e.g., main
replacement/improvement, system automation, or leak detection).
• Source/Distribution System Protection - Points will be given for protective measures involved in a
construction project funded by the DWSRF such as correcting well construction violations (20 points),
purchase of land (5 points) or implementation of best management practices on watersheds (10 points).
• Affordability - Ten points will be given to projects in towns where the MHI is equal to or less than 80
percent of the State's average MHI.
Notes
Tie-Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie between two projects, the applicant with the larger
population will be given priority.
Population - To ensure that a minimum of 15 percent of funding is dedicated to small water systems,
projects will also be ranked according to system size, with 15 percent of funding directed towards the
smallest systems (serving up to 1,000 people) and 35 percent directed to systems serving between 1,000 and
10,000 people.
-------
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
PRIORITY RANKING SYSTEM FOR PROJECTS
ELIGIBILITY FOR DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (DWSRF) LOANS
INTRODUCTION:
The Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) will establish and maintain a priority list of eligible
drinking water projects and will establish a system setting the priority for making project loans to eligible
public water systems (PWS). This ranking system is delineated in this document. The statutory authority
for establishing the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) is embodied in Public Act 96-181
which states the following:
"The DPH shall establish and maintain a priority list of eligible drinking water projects and shall establish
a system setting the priority for making project loans to eligible PWS. In establishing such priority list and
ranking system, the Commissioner of Public Health shall consider all factors which he deems relevant,
including but not limited to the following: (1) the public health and safety; (2) protection of the
environmental resources; (3) population affected; (4) risk to human health; (5) PWS most in need on a per
household basis according to applicable State affordability criteria; (6) compliance with the applicable
requirements of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and other related Federal Acts; (7) applicable State
and Federal Regulations. The priority list of eligible drinking water projects shall include a description of
each project and its purpose, impact, cost and construction schedule, and an explanation of the manner in
which priorities were established. The Commissioner of Public Health shall adopt an interim priority list of
eligible drinking water projects for the purpose of making project loans prior to adoption of final
regulations, and in so doing may utilize existing rules and regulations of the department relating to the
program. To the extent required by applicable Federal Law, the DPH and the Commissioner of
Environmental Protection shall prepare any required Intended Use Plan with respect to eligible drinking
water projects; (8) consistency with the Plan of Conservation and Development; (9) consistency with the
policies delineated in Section 22a-380; and (10) consistency with the coordinated Water System Plan in
accordance with subsection (f) of Section 25- 33d, as amended."
INTENDED USE PLAN (IUP)
Annually the DPH will also prepare an IUP that identifies how the State intends to use available DWSRF
funds. The IUP will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the
DPH's annual capitalization grant application for DWSRF funds. The IUP will identify the ranked eligible
projects in a priority list and will include specific detail on how the State intends to use set-aside funds
designated under the DWSRF program.
PRIORITY RANKING SYSTEM
Each year the DPH will solicit planning, design and construction projects from community and non-profit,
non-transient, non-community, PWSs to determine the ranking of projects eligible for loans under the
DWSRF program. Ranking will be assigned utilizing DPH's priority ranking system described further in
this text.
-------
DPH will fund planning and design projects which may lead to construction projects. Planning and design
projects will be included in the ranked priority list and will be given ranking points in accordance with the
appropriate activity that the project intends to address (e.g., treatment would get points for addressing
various water quality problems).
In developing the ranking system, the DPH has made quality and adequate quantity of drinking water the
highest priority in an effort to provide maximum public health benefits. Public Health Code (PHC)
compliance with water quality standards and adequate quantity of drinking water are given the highest
points within the ranking system.
This is consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 which indicate that the
Intended Use Plan (IUP) shall provide to the maximum extent practicable, that priority for the use of funds
be given to projects that:
i. addresses the most serious risk to human health;
ii. are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title including
requirements for filtration; and
iii. assist systems most in need on a per household basis according to state affordability
criteria.
Connecticut's ranking process capitalizes on the SDWA by ensuring that all projects are reviewed from the
perspective of risk to health and compliance with regulations as noted. Category I deals with various water
quality risks while Category II deals with the need to maintain adequate supply so that lack of pressure
does not create health risks by introducing contamination from the distribution system. Category III allows
water systems to be restructured financially, managerially or technically so that they operate in compliance
with State and Federal law. Categories IV and V allow for improvements in source, treatment and
distribution to allow for the continuation and satisfactory operation so that health risks from infrastructure
failure is averted.
Projects will be ranked in three population categories:
1. Small systems serving less than or equal to 1,000 population.
2. 1001 to 10,000 population.
3. 10,001 and greater population.
1. The purpose of this process is to ensure that a minimum of 15% funding is dedicated to small
water systems as required by the SDWA Amendments of 1996.
2. Each fiscal year DPH will compile only one comprehensive priority list of ranked projects for the
IUP. This priority list will be compiled from the rankings in the three population categories.
3. The final priority list will rank all projects based on the ranking criteria and will identify which
systems are anticipated to be funded for a particular fiscal year.
-------
Every project submitted to DPH will be identified by the PWS identification number utilized by the State
and Federal Government for the inventory of PWSs. Unless otherwise justified to DPH, the population
number the DPH currently has on inventory for that water system will determine which population category
the project falls under.
Connecticut's DWSRF priority ranking system assigns criteria points for each project deemed eligible for
funding. The six major categories are as follows:
I. Quality
II. Quantity
III. Acquisition/Transfer
IV. Proactive Infrastructure Upgrades
V. Source/Distribution System Protection
VI. Affordability
The total numerical score for a project is arrived at by tallying points from each of the 6 categories:
(I+II+III+IV+V+VI = Total Score).
Projects which address several quality and/or quantity issues can be added together to increase the total
score.
The projects are ranked by total score and those in the upper quartile are identified. The DPH may make a
final determination of award among projects which fall in the upper quartile of all ranked projects.
ELEMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING THE PRIORITY RANKING OF PROJECTS FOR THE DWSRF:
The following outline represents the elements involved in the ranking of projects eligible for funding in the
DWSRF.
1. Priority Ranking System:
I. Quality (Violations)
A. Immediate
B. Long Term
C. Water Quality Goals
D. Physical
II. Quantity (Violations)
III. Acquisition / Transfer
IV. Proactive Infrastructure Upgrades
V. Source / Distribution System Protection
VI. Affordability
2. By-Pass Procedure / Emergency By-Pass Procedure
-------
3. Project Ranking Category by Population is as follows:
A. Small systems less than or equal to 1000 population - * 15% of funds
B. Systems 1001 to 10,000 population - *35% of funds
C. Systems 10,001 and greater - * 5 0% of funds
Target goals subject to revision on demand for DWSRF loans.
4. General Provisions:
Tie Breaking Process:
In circumstances where more than one system has an equivalent ranking score, the size of the
population served by the system will be used in breaking the tie. The larger population will be
given preference.
5. Criteria
Description of Ranking Elements
The following describes in detail the elements involved in the ranking of projects eligible for
funding in the DWSRF.
1.) Priority Ranking System
I. Quality: Violations of Water Quality are divided into four
subcategories: immediate, long-term, water quality goals, and physical.
A. Water quality violations requiring immediate action include turbidity, microbiological,
nitrate and/or nitrite and lead exceedances. These violations pose health risks which must
be brought into compliance expeditiously.
B. Violations of water quality which have health risk ramifications over extended periods of
time include the following subcategories: inorganic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides,
PCB's, organic chemicals, radioactivity and treatment technique's (e.g., groundwater under
the direct influence of surface water and concentration/time of disinfectants). Violations
sufficiently severe as to present acute health risks may be elevated to Category I A.
C. Water quality goals include parameters for which DPH has determined a health risk exists
even though the parameter is not yet regulated. For these parameters DPH has set formal
action levels prior to development of a federal regulation. This category also includes a
preventative measure by allowing ranking points for systems which have not exceeded
MCLs but nonetheless have determined that steps are necessary to reduce human exposure
and risk associated with a water quality concentration that is elevated and approaching an
MCL.
D. The physical element of the water quality category allows points for parameters that are
primarily deemed aesthetic/physical rather than having significant health ramifications.
-------
II. Quantity: The quantity category includes violations for quantity of supply deficiencies and
problems where the water system is unable to sustain the adequacy of water as prescribed
by the PHC including: source deficit, system capacity deficits, lack of source (production)
meters, pressure violations, and supply deficiencies including insufficient margin of safety.
Implementation of conservation measures is also given ranking credits. This recognizes
conservation as an effective means for efficient utilization of drinking water sources for
both supply and demand.
Connecticut has always considered quantity a very important issue which has health
implications. Inadequate supply translates to poor or inadequate pressure which can lead
to backsiphonage and potential contamination of the water distribution. Even with active
cross connection programs to correct the possibility of contamination, lack of pressure
may result in accidental contamination events.
III. Acquisition/Transfer: Acquisition/transfer ranking points gives acquiring systems
additional points for projects which include acquisition of other system. Acquisitions can
be by direct interconnections or satellite ownership (own and operate smaller public water
systems).
IV. Proactive Infrastructure Upgrades: Proactive or elective infrastructure upgrades include
upgrades to physical facilities that have or shortly will have served their useful life span,
or the construction of new and more efficient facilities. In many cases, these facilities
need replacement and/or major reconstruction even though their condition has not resulted
in a violation. These types of facilities include but are not limited to: treatment facilities,
pumping facilities, main replacement /improvement treatment residuals management,
storage tanks repair / replacement, source development, and inter- connection through
main extensions (not intended for system growth), system automation,
posting/fencing/security measures and main extensions to existing private wells with public
health concerns.
V. Source/Distribution System Protection: Source/distribution ion system protection projects
reinforce protective measures necessary to ensure the safe delivery of potable water.
These measures must be directly related to a construction project being funded by the
DWSRF. The protection measures include: purchase of land, implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) on watersheds, and source distribution violations of the
PHC, and other source protection improvements. (See attached Source System Protection
Detail)
VI. Affordability: Affordability in addressed in Category VI of the Priority Ranking System
Criteria. The maximum obtainable points in this category is 10. Water systems proposing
projects in the following towns: Bridgeport, Griswold, Hartford, Killingly, New Britain,
New Haven, New London, Norwich, Putnam, Sterling, Waterbury and Windham will be
given 10 Points since the Median Household Income (MHI) of these towns is less than
80% of the State's average MHI ($33,376) as determined by the 1990 census.
-------
2.) By-Pass Procedure:
Actual loan awards are contingent on the water system's readiness to proceed. If for some reason a water
system is not ready to proceed in a timely fashion, the DPH may select another eligible project for funding
based on that system's ability to initiate the project as well as on its completion period. A project may also
be by-passed if the applicant has withdrawn its application.
This By-Pass process is necessary to ensure that available DWSRF funds will be disbursed in a timely
fashion.
Emergency By-Pass Procedure:
In cases of unexpected circumstances which develop into severe public health risk, there may be a need to
By-Pass projects ranked on the project priority list. When such a situation arises, the Commissioner of
Public Health in consultation with the Commissioner of Environmental Protection or their respective
designees, may make a project loan with respect to an eligible drinking water project without regard to the
priority list of eligible drinking water projects. The Commissioner may similarly make a project loan
without regard to the priority list of eligible drinking water projects if a public drinking water supply
emergency exists, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Sec 25-32(b).
3.) Project Ranking Categories by Population:
A. Small systems serving equal to or less than 1.000 population
In order to ensure that small PWSs receive the required share of available loan money,
DPH proposes to rank small systems separately from larger ones so that the minimum 15%
funding level as required by SDWA is made available to those systems. If, however, loan
fund demands for eligible projects are less than 15%, DPH may reassign extra funds to the
priority lists for larger PWS (systems serving 1,000 or more people.)
B. Systems serving greater than 1.000 population but less than or equal to 10.000
Water systems in this population category are being allocated approximately 35% of the
total available loan funds in order to ensure that these systems will have an opportunity for
funding. Unallocated funds could be distributed to either of the two other population
categories.
C. Systems serving greater than 10.000 people
Water systems in this population category are being allocated approximately 50% of the
total available loan funds in order to ensure that these systems have an opportunity for
funding.
-------
4.) General Provisions
Eligible projects must be submitted in a timely fashion to DPH with sufficient technical documentation,
data, reports, certifications, etc. Incomplete or inadequate information may invalidate eligible project for
making the current project priority list.
Projects identified by the DWSRF Program Guidelines as not being eligible for funding include the
following:
1. Dam Projects
2. Developing Water Systems for Growth
3. Fire Protection (only)
Tie Breaking Procedure
(See narrative on page 4)
Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) Review of Projects
Connecticut DPH will utilize the PHC, Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Sec. 16-260m-l through
16-260m-9, Recommended Standards for Water Works (latest edition) as well as other relevant regulations
or statutes to evaluate projects for eligible funding.
5.) Criteria
Please see the attached criteria for DWSRF (Priority Criteria for Individual Eligible Projects under
DWSRF).
SOURCE SYSTEM PROTECTION DETAIL
Source/Distribution Violation 20 points
• Correcting well construction violations.
(casing extensions, eliminate pounding around well head, pitless adapter,
repair/replacement, well seal replacement, etc.)
• Generally any source or distribution protection violations not
addressed under any other category.
• Storage tanks properly vented/protected.
Purchase of Land 5 points
• Purchase of land to develop new sources or construct treatment facilities, pumping stations
storage tanks, etc.
-------
Implementation of Best Management Practices 10 points
Activities associated with construction projects that involve constructing drainage basins, detention basin,
relocation of culvents, installation of drainpipes, erosion control measures construction of berms or rip rap,
etc.
Source Protection Improvements 5 points
Activities, associated with construction projects, that in order to improve source protection; removal of
septic systems; prevention of spillage (deletion basing roadway reconstruction to improve runoff
quality, etc.)
CRITERIA
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (DWSRF)
(Priority Criteria for Individual Eligible Projects under DWSRF)
CT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH (DPH)
WATER SUPPLIES SECTION (WSS)
CATEGORY
I. Quality:
A. Immediate Turbidity (Surface Water) Violation 50
Microbiological Violation 50
Nitrate/Nitrite Violations 50
Lead Exceedance 40
B. Long-Term Inorganic Chemical violations 30
Pesticides, Herbicides & PCBs Violation 30
Organic Chemical Violations 30
Radioactivity Violations 30
Treatment Technique Violations
- Groundwater Under Direct Influence 30
- Concentration/Time 30
C. Goals Exceeding DPH Action Levels 15
Approaching MCL 15
D. Physical Color Violation 10
pH Violation 10
Odor Violation 10
Turbidity (Ground Water) Violation 10
II. Quantity:
Source Deficit or Insufficient margin of Safety 40
System Capacity Deficit 40
Lack of Source (production) Meters 20
Pressure Violation 20
Implementation of Conservation Measures 15
-------
III. Acquisition/Transfer:
Acquiring Existing PWS Systems 25
Replacement of PWS System through interconnection (15
points per each PWS) 15
IV. Proactive Infrastructure Upgrades (Max. of 15 points from this category):
Treatment Facilities
Pumping Facilities
Main Replacement/Improvement
Treatment Residuals Management
Storage Tanks
Source Development
Main Extension for Interconnection
System Automation
Main Extension To Existing Private
Wells With Public Health Significance
Leak Detection
Distribution Meters
Posting/Fencing/Security Measures
V.
Source System Protection*:
Source/Distribution Violations
Purchase of Land
Implementation Best Management Practices
(BMP) on Watersheds
Source Protection improvements
*As it relates only to construction projects.
Affordability
Systems having projects in towns where the
Mean Household Income is 80% of the
State's Average
20
5
10
5
10
-------
MAINE
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in categories A and B below. Under category A, points will
be given for only one item in only one sub-category. In category B, points will be given for one criterion in
each of the sub-categories. Total Project Priority Point Score = A + Bl + B2 + B3 + B4. Also note that points
may be added for funding incentives (see Notes).
(A) Type of Project - Points will be given for only one of the sub-categories 1-7
• Compliance and Public Health - Points may be given to projects depending on the severity of the threat
posed to public health and the method used to address the problem. For example, more points will be given
for the installation of treatment (70-99 points) or the replacement of a contaminated source (69-95 points)
than for the rehabilitation of instrumentation/controls, transmission/distribution mains, and storage (20-40
points).
• Low Pressure Problems - Points may be given to projects that address low pressure problems. Points
range from 43 for backflow prevention to 22 for larger main installations.
• Future SDWA Regulations - Points may be given to projects that address compliance with future SDWA
regulations. Projects associated with Enhanced Surface Water Treatment will be given 15 points, while a
minimum of 9 points will be given to projects that address sulfate problems.
• Aesthetics - Eight points may be given to projects that address problems with taste, color, odor, etc of
water.
• Construction for Source Protection - Points may be given to projects involving the construction of
facilities intended to protect a water systems source supply. For example, 72 points for systems using
unfiltered surface water under a filtration waiver, 62 points for systems using filtered surface water, and 52
points for systems using ground water.
• Redundant Facilities - Points may be given to projects to install redundant facilities. Installation of a
facility to address supply problems will receive 68 points, while projects that address transmission main
problems will receive 18 points.
• Other Eligible Projects - Points may be given for three other project types: facility consolidation (65),
resolution of dead-end water quality problems (34), or installation of meters (16).
(B) Add-Ons - Points will be given in all sub-categories (B1)-(B4) based on only one criterion
• System Compliance/Enforcement Status - Points may be given to projects that address specific
compliance and enforcement issues. Points (between 8 and 30) may be given for only one item. For
example, 30 points will be given to a system faced with a court action or civil penalty assessment, while 8
points will be given to systems with Active Bi-Lateral Compliance Agreements with the State. Priority
points will be given only to proposed projects that address the compliance/enforcement issue in question.
-------
Affordability - Up to 24 points will be given to systems based on the ratio of the average
residential water bill to MHI. For example, systems will receive 24 points if the residential
water bill is greater than 2.25 percent of MHI. Fewer points will be given as the percentage
of the MHI that is paid for water decreases.
Population Served - Points will be awarded based on the population that is served by the
system with an emphasis on systems serving less than 10,000 people. The maximum number
of points (10) will be given to systems serving between 3,300 and 9,999 people, while fewer
points will be given to systems serving either smaller or larger populations.
Public Water System Type - Six points will be given to CWSs, 3 points to NTNCWSs, and 1
point to TNCWSs.
Notes
Funding Incentives - If DWSRF funds are needed to complete the financing of a project and
will also offer the best financial package, 15 bonus points will be given.
Maine has created a priority system for set-aside activities, ranking projects that apply to land
acquisition, source-water protection (available only to CWSs), and assistance for Capacity
Development and Wellhead Protection.
-------
State of Maine Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund
1998 Intended Use Plan
The scoring system that will be used for ranking requests for DWSRF financial assistance is as follows:
I. Standard Projects (only one priority point score to apply to each project)
a. Type of project Priority points
1) Projects to address compliance and public health issues:
Installation of treatment for:
acute contaminants 99
non-acute 80
chronic 70
Replacement of contaminated source with uncontaminated
from existing source of: river/stream 95
lake/pond/impoundment 90
GWUDI 85
dug well 77
spring 75
filtered surface water 69
Replacement of aging infrastructure at risk of causing contamination-type of facility:
uncovered f w. storage 60
treatment facility 55
source-intake structure 45
pump station 42
storage 40
transmission mains 35
distribution mains 33
instrumentation/controls 30
Rehabilitation of aging infrastructure or upgrade of existing facilities at risk of contamination-
type of facility: treatment facility 44
source-intake structure 25
pump station 23
storage (inside painting) 20
transmission mains 18
distribution mains 17
instrumentation/controls 15
2) Installation of facilities to address low system pressure problems:
backflow prevention devices 43
storage 32
booster pump station 24
larger mains 22
-------
3) Projects for compliance with future SDWA regulations:
Proposed rule: Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 15
Groundwater Disinfection 14
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts 13
Radon 12
Radionuclide 11
Arsenic 10
Sulfate 9
4) Projects to address aesthetics: taste, color, odor, etc. 8
5) Construction of facilities around a water system's source to address a health threat:*
source type:
unfiltered surface water w/ filtration waiver 72
filtered surface water 62
groundwater 52
6) Installation of facilities to provide redundant facilities:
supply (present peak day supply problems) 68
disinfection equipment 56
treatment train 50
supply source 47
source-intake structure 32
river crossing 29
pump station 21
storage 19
transmission main 18
* Source water protection activities are not eligible for funding with Project Funds but may be eligible for
Other Non-Project Activity set-aside funds.
7) Other Eligible Projects:
System viability: Facility consolidation 65
Resolution of dead end water quality problems 34
Installation of meters 16
b. Priority Point System Add-ons (only one priority point score for each category applies and is to
be added with each category's score including project points to produce the final project
priority rank)
Priority points
1) System compliance/enforcement status*
Court action or Civil Penalty assessment 30
Assessed Administrative Penalty 25
Active Administrative Compliance/Consent Order 20
Loss of Filtration Avoidance/Exemption 18
On long-term Boil Water Order (>1 year) 16
In Significant Non-Compliance 14
Outstanding Notice of Non-Compliance 12
-------
Outstanding Treatment Technique Violation 10
Active Bi-lateral Compliance Agreement 8
* These priority points are only added if proposed project addresses the
compliance/enforcement issue in question.
2) Percentage of annual residential water bill of median household income
Greater than 2.25% 24
between 2.01% and 2.25% 18
between 1.76% and 2.00% 12
between 1.51% and 1.75% 9
between 1.26% and 1.50% 6
between 1% and 1.25% 3
less than 1% 1
3) Population served
100,000 people or more 1
between 10,000 and 99,999 3
between 3,300 and 9,999 10
between 500 and 3,299 8
less than 500 people 6
4) Public Water System Type
Community 6
Non-Transient 3
Transient 1
Water systems should inform the DWSRF Program of financing they are attempting to secure or have secured
from other agencies (Rural Utility Services (RUS), Department of Economic and Community Development
(DECD), etc.) for projects they are also attempting to finance with DWSRF funds. The Program will work to
inform systems of their eligibility for funds from other agencies and will promote the application for these
funds when the other agency presents a better financing package for the system or has available funds for
which their project is eligible. The Program will the combined use of DWSRF funds and funds from other
agencies if the DWSRF funds are necessary to complete the financing of the project. These projects will
receive an additional 15 priority points. The Program will not authorize funds which will replace loan
commitments already secured from another lending agency unless approval to do so has been obtained from
that agency. RUS and DECD, the primary two agencies with funds available to finance drinking water
facilities in Maine, have goals similar to those of the DWSRF Program. They both consider a projects ability
to address a public health issue when prioritizing the projects eligible for their funds.
5) Projects with funds available from another agency
Funding from RUS/DECD 15
(Total Project Priority Point Score = a + bl + b2 + b3 + b4 + b5)
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following four categories. Projects may receive
points for all items that apply in each category. Up to 200 points can be given to any project.
• Public Health - A maximum of 80 points may be given to projects to eliminate a serious public health risk.
Up to 40 points may be assigned based on the severity of the problem, up to 20 points depending on the size
of the population affected, and up to 20 points based on the extent to which the project will eliminate or
mitigate the risk.
• Compliance Criteria - A maximum of 60 points may be given to projects to achieve or maintain
compliance with federal or State rules and regulations. Projects may receive up to 24 points based on the
extent to which they are needed to ensure compliance with an existing federal or State court or
administrative order, up to 20 points depending on the extent to which they are needed for compliance with
federal or State permit or approval, and up to 16 points based on the extent to which it addresses reasonably
anticipated, additional federal or State requirements and has demonstrable benefits to or protection of
drinking water quality or public health).
• Affordability - Projects may receive up to 20 points based on the extent to which they will assist systems
whose service area MHI is less than or equal to 80 percent of the State MHI for non-metropolitan areas.
Program and Implementation - A maximum of 40 points may be given to projects to address program and
implementation issues (e.g., up to 16 points for projects to consolidate or restructure a PWS to address
contamination, compliance, or capacity problems; up to 8 points for projects to implement, or be consistent
with, one or more current watershed management plans, etc.).
-------
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (DWSRF)
1998 /1999 PROJECT RATING SCORE SHEET
PWS Name:
PWS City or Town:
Watershed:
Region:
PWS ID #:
Project No.:
Reviewer:
Total Project Score (from page 2):
A. Public Health Criteria [See 310 CMR 45.06(a).] 40% of the weight (80 points) will be on public
health criteria.
Criterion/Factor
1. The extent to which the project will eliminate or mitigate a serious risk to public health:
a. The severity of the public health problem(s) the project is intended to address.
b. The size of the population affected by the identified risk(s) to public health.
c. The extent to which the project demonstrably eliminates or mitigates the identified serious
risk(s) to public health.
TOTAL
Points
Avail.
40
20
20
80
Score
B. Compliance Criteria [See 310 CMR 45.06(b).] 30% of the weight (60 points) will be on compliance
criteria.
Criterion/Factor
1. The extent to which the project is needed to achieve or maintain compliance with 310 CMR
22.00, the SDWA or other required or related federal and/or state permit(s), approvals,
regulations and requirements, and the effect of compliance on public health and drinking water
quality.
a. The extent to which the project is needed to ensure compliance with an existing federal or state court
or administrative order.
b. The extent to which the project is needed to come into or maintain compliance with 3 10 CMR 22.00,
the SWDA, or other required or related federal or state permit or approval, including the Department's
approval of a new drinking water source.
c. The extent to which the project is to address reasonably anticipated, additional federal or state
requirements and has demonstrable benefits to or protection of drinking water quality and/or public
health.
TOTAL
Points
Avail.
24
20
16
60
Score
-------
C. Affordability Criteria [See 310 CMR 45.06(c).] 10% of the weight (20 points) will be on
affordability criteria.
Criterion
1. The extent to which the
median household income
metropolitan areas.
project will assist
("MHI") of 80%
systems whose service area consists of users with
or less of the state median household income for non-
TOTAL
Points
Avail.
20
20
Score
D. Program and Implementation Criteria [See 310 CMR 45.06(d).] 20% of the weight (40 points) will
be on program and implementation criteria.
Criterion
1. Whether the project is to consolidate and/or restructure a public water system (e.g., to address
a system with a contaminated water supply or when a system is in noncompliance or lacks
adequate technical, managerial and financial capability to maintain compliance).
2. The extent to which the project implements or is consistent with one or more current
watershed management plans (e.g., DEP basin plans) and/or watershed protection plans (e.g.,
local Zone II land use controls, comprehensive conservation management plans), or otherwise
effectively addresses a watershed priority, as determined by the Department.
3. The extent to which the project is consistent with local and regional growth and/or
infrastructure plans, and promotes the rehabilitation and revitalization of infrastructure,
structures, sites, and areas previously developed and still suitable for economic (re)use, as
provided in Executive Order 385 (Growth Planning).
4. Whether the project constitutes or is a component of a multi-community or regional approach
to addressing the identified public health or drinking water quality problem.
TOTAL
Points
Avail.
16
8
8
8
40
Score
TOTAL PROJECT SCORE:
There are a total of 200 available project score points.
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following five categories:
• Violations of National Drinking Water Standards - Projects for systems with water quality issues may
receive points for all criteria that apply in this category. Points may be given to a project for each of the
following: total and fecal coliform; nitrate; turbidity; THMs; lead and copper; primary organic, inorganic,
and radionuclide standards; secondary standards; and boil status. For example, 62 points will be given to
projects addressing boil status classification, and 18 points to projects addressing copper level between 1.3
and 3.0 mg/1.
• Quantity Deficiencies or Insufficient Storage - Points will be given based on water quantity deficiencies
(shortages due to limited water supply sources or insufficient storage to meet public need). For example, the
maximum, 22 points will be given to systems for continual daily shortages while 14 points will be given to
systems for shortages during seasonal high use in a system without an implemented conservation plan.
• Treatment/Design Deficiencies - Points will be given based on design deficiencies (conditions that could
be corrected by enlarging, repairing, installing, or replacing all or a portion of the system). For example, 22
points will be given to systems that have no surface water filtration or that have GWUDI, while as few as 16
points will be given for other significant deficiencies.
• Affordability - Points will be given to each project if the proposed user rate is greater than 1 percent of the
system's or town's MHI. The least affordable projects (Affordability index greater than 2.5) will receive the
maximum of 15 points.
• Bonus Points - Projects may receive bonus points for all items that apply (a total of up to 28 points). Bonus
points may be given for consolidation (10 points) and to systems that have implemented source water
protection (5 to 10 points), water conservation (1 to 4 points), backflow prevention (2 points), and
emergency plans (2 points).
Notes
• Tie-Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, the project that serves the greater existing population will
receive the higher ranking.
• Consolidation - For consolidation projects, points may be awarded for the relief of problems in the satellite
system(s).
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
6A(1) Priority Ranking-Formula
In order to direct the resources of New Hampshire's DWSRF toward the state's most pressing public health
and compliance needs, and address affordability, projects win be rated using a point system and placed on a
priority list. Project priority points (P) will be derived using the following formula:
P= [(A+B +C+D) + bonus points]
Where:
A Violations of National Drinking Water Standards
B Quantity Deficiencies
C Treatment/Design Deficiencies
D Affordability of project
Bonus points may be given for specific actions taken by systems to maximize
public health protection. (Discussion at end of 6A(2).)
6A(2) Description of Factors
Factors used in the formula are described and weighted below. Factors and points apply to the system
applying for assistance. For consolidation projects, points can be awarded for the relief of problems in the
satellite system(s). For planning projects, points can be awarded based upon the project likely to result
from the planning activities.
A = Violations of National Drinking Water Standards
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are established by the SDWA for those contaminants which may
be detrimental to public health. Exceedences of these levels in the 12 months preceding the development of
a priority list (3 years for secondary contaminants) carry the following weightings. Points are given for all
of the following that apply to a system.
Priority points
a. Total and fecal -coliforms
1. No MCL violations 0
2. 1-2 MCL violations 30
3. Greater than 2 violations 40
b. Nitrate
1. No level above 1.0 mg/L 0
2. Levels >1.0<10mg/L 24
3. MCL violations 36
c. Turbidity
1. No MCL violations 0
2. 1-2 MCL violations 26
3. Greater than 2 violations 36
-------
d. THMs
1. No MCL violations 0
2. 1-2 MCL violations 26
3. Greater than 2 violations 36
e. Lead and Copper (At the 90th percentile)
1. Lead levels above .030 mg/L 28
2. Lead levels between .015 and .030 mg/L 22
3. Copper levels above 3.0 mg/L 24
4. Copper levels between 1.3 and 3.0 mg/L 18
f. Primary Organic, Inorganic, and Radionuclide Standards
1. No MCL violations 0
2. 1-2 MCL violations 18 per
contaminate group
3. Greater than 2 violations 20 per
contaminate group
** Multiply number of MCL violations by the number of contaminant groups present.
g. Secondary Standards
Any exceedence of SMCL 14
h. Boil Status (non-catastrophic i.e. fecal coliform positive) 62
B = Quantity Deficiencies or Insufficient Storage. Quantity deficiencies are shortages due to limited
water supply sources or insufficient storage within the distribution to meet public need. The associated
public health and compliance risks associated with quantity deficiencies include domestic need of adequate
potable water for drinking and hygiene, and maintaining adequate pressure in lines to prevent back
siphonage and cross-connections. Projects related to anticipation of future growth are not eligible for
funding under the DWSRF, therefore, projected shortages due to anticipated expansion are not eligible and
should not be ranked under this category.
Condition Priority points
Adequate quantity for the present (meets all current demand) 0
Continual shortage (daily) 22
Shortage during peak demands 20
Shortage during seasonal high use in a system with an
implemented conservation plan. 18
Shortage during seasonal high use in a system without
an implemented conservation plan 14
-------
C = Treatment/Design Deficiencies: Design deficiencies are those which could be corrected by
enlargement, repair, installation or replacement of all or a portion of the system. Any combination of the
following deficiencies have the potential to adversely affect a system's ability to continually provide
drinking water that meets all standards.
Condition Priority points
No surface water filtration or presence of groundwater under
the influence of surface water 22
Non-optimized surface water filtration when compared
with AWWA composite correction criteria 18
Mandated chlorination of groundwater system 14
Distribution/ plant capacity deficiencies
(includes situations where current demand exceeds treatment
capacity; pipe tuberculation; pressure issues; asbestos cement removal) 18
Need to upgrade existing corrosion control
treatment in order to meet action levels 17
Improper well construction 18
Inadequate water treatment wastewater disposal
(backwash or sludge) 16
Other significant deficiencies (e.g. treatment of arsenic, iron, manganese,
radon, radionuclides; other deficiencies observed during a sanitary survey). 16
D Affordability: In order to address affordability on a per household basis, ranking points will be awarded
to any system whose proposed project user rate exceeds the state's definition of affordability found in
Section 9. An affordable project is one that results in user rates that do not exceed 1 percent of the
system's or town's median household income. Points will be awarded using the following system:
Affordability Index* (resulting project Priority Points Awarded
user rate / 1% of system or community MHI)
1.0-1.5 12
1.5-2.0 13
2.0-2.5 14
>2.5 15
Bonus points: In order to reward systems that operate in a manner that maximizes their efforts to protect
public health and maintain compliance, bonus points may be awarded for a project in addition to the points
that reflect public health and compliance need. The following points may be added to an applicant's score
when they apply:
Consolidation: Projects which result in the consolidation, interconnection, and regulatory compliance for 2
or more drinking water systems may receive an additional 10 points applied to their total score.
Source Water Protection:
Drinking water systems which have implemented a comprehensive source water protection plan including
permanent protection of existing lands may receive 10 points applied to their total score. Systems in the
process or committed to implementing a source water protection program (via contract) may receive 5
points applied to their total score.
-------
Conservation:
Drinking water systems that have taken measures to implement water conservation measures may add the
following bonus points where they apply:
Master and customer meters with a meter reading, replacement and maintenance program 1
Rate structure that promotes conservation Implemented water conservation strategy 1
Unaccounted for water loss of 15% or less 1
Backflow Prevention:
Systems that have a residential, commercial and industrial backflow prevention program may receive 2
bonus points added to their score.
Emergency Plans:
Systems having an updated emergency plan may receive 2 bonus points added to their score. An
acceptable emergency plan must meet the criteria in NH rules (Part Env-WS 365 - Emergency Plans)
which require a phone list of contacts and a strategy for contingency supplies in the event of an
unanticipated interruption/ disruption of service.
6A(3). Tie-breaking procedure:
When two or more projects score equally under the Project Priority System a tie breaking procedure will be
utilized. In order to direct financial resources where they will benefit the greatest number of people, and
because the vast majority of New Hampshire's systems are either small or very small, (statewide, only 5
systems serve greater than 10,000 people) the project with the greatest existing population served will
receive the higher ranking).
-------
RHODE ISLAND
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the five categories below and the incentive point under
Notes. Points will only be given for one item in each category (i.e., scores are not cumulative within each
category).
• Health Risk and Compliance - Points will be given to projects that address water quality and
contamination issues. Projects addressing treatment technique violations or exceedances of MCLs, State
MCLs, or health advisories may receive up to 50 points. Projects needed for compliance with future SDWA
regulations may receive up to 8 points. Thirty-five points may be given to projects extending service to
people with contaminated private wells, and up to 21 points may be received by projects to upgrade or
replace infrastructure.
• Affordability - Points will be given to projects based on the percentage of the MHI that goes to the average
annual residential water bill. The maximum number of points will be given to systems where greater than
1.5 percent of the MHI goes to residential water bills.
• Capacity Development - Five points will be given to projects that involve the consolidation of two public
water systems if one system lacks the proper technical, managerial, or financial capacity to maintain
compliance with the SDWA. The result of the consolidation must ensure compliance with the SDWA.
• System Type - Points will be assigned based on the type of system for which the project is designed. CWSs
will receive 5 points, NTNCWSs will receive 3 points, and TNCWSs will receive 1 point.
Notes
• Incentives - One point will be given for systems that have no monitoring violations over the last 24 months.
-------
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Project Priority Ranking
Total Project Priority Ranking Score A + B + C + D + E
A. Health Risk and Compliance (select no more than one from Section A)
Points
1) Project is to address a Treatment Technique Violation or the exceedence of an
MCL, SMCL or a Health Advisory during the 18 months preceeding the
development of the Project Priority List.
a) Microbiological
i. Surface Water Treatment Rule
(a) Filter Performance Criteria (NTU Compliance) 50
(b) CT Disinfection 40
ii. Total Coliform Rule
(a) Acute MCL Violation (Fecal/E-coli violation) 60
(b) Non-Acute MCL Violation (Total Monthly Coliform Violation) 45
b) Inorganic Chemicals
i. Nitrates 53
ii. Lead and Copper 37
iii. Other Primary Standards 35
c) Organic Chemicals 35
d) Radiologicals 33
e) Secondary Standards (Aesthetics) 4
2) Projects for compliance with future SDWA regulations:
a) Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 8
b) Ground Water Disinfection 7
c) Disinfection By-Products 6
d) Arsenic 5
e) Radon 5
3) Project is to extend the water lines of an existing system to an area where there 35
is a public health threat due to contaminated private drinking water wells.
4) Projects to upgrade, replace or repair infrastructure which is at risk of causing
contamination due to age or design deficiencies.
a) Source (excluding reservoirs, dams, dam rehabilitation and water rights) 21
b) Treatment 19
c) Source-intake structure 16
d) Pump Station 14
e) Storage 12
f) Transmission/Distribution mains 10
g) Instrumentation/Controls 8
-------
B. Economic Factors
1) *Percentage of average annual residential water bill to median household income.
a) Greater than 1.5 % 3
b) 1.25% to 1.49% 10
c) 1.00% to 1.24% 7
d) 0.75% to 0.99% 4
e) 0.50% to 0.74% 2
f) 0.25 % to 0.49 % 1
C. Capacity Development
1) Project involves the consolidation of two public water system, one of which 5
lacks either the proper technical, managerial, or financial capacity to maintain
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The result of the consolidation
must ensure compliance with the SDWA.
D. Special Incentives
1) No monitoring violations over the last 24 months 1
E. System Type
1) Community 5
2) Non-transient non-community 3
3) Transient non-community 1
*The average annual residential water bill is to be based on 70,000 gallons of water per year. The MHI of
the community in which the water service area is located will be determined from income data in the most
recent United States census. If there is reason to believe that the census data is not an accurate
representation of the MHI within the area to be served, the reasons will be documented and the applicant
will furnish additional information regarding the MHI. Information will consist of reliable data from-local,
regional, state or from an income survey conducted by a reliable impartial source.
MHIs for service areas which cross municipal boundaries is the weighted average based on the number of
services in each community.
-------
VERMONT
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following five categories:
• Water Quality Deficiencies - Projects that seek to addresses violations of national drinking water standards
will receive points for all items that apply in this category. They will receive one point value for each of the
following contaminants: bacteriological (5-25 points); nitrate (5-25 points); turbidity (5-10 points); primary
inorganic, organic, and radiological standards (15-25 points); secondary inorganic/physical/chemical
standards (3 points); do not drink orders (25-50 points); and compliance/enforcement orders (10 points).
Projects will receive points only for concerns that will be addressed by the proposed improvements.
• System Facility Improvements - Projects may receive points for all deficiencies that will be corrected by
the proposed project, such as new supply source/replacement of source to address a public health hazard (50
points), treatment for surface water filtration or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (45
points), etc.
• System Reliability Criteria - Projects designed to improve the reliability and efficiency of a system may
receive points for all criteria that apply in this category. For example, systems with redundancy of critical
components and consolidation or interconnection projects that will eliminate significant capacity problems
will receive 15 points. (With the exception of consolidation projects, projects that received points for an
improvement under the previous category are not eligible to receive points for the same reason in this
category.)
• Population - Points will be given to projects based on population criteria. The smallest systems (serving 25
to 500 people) will receive the maximum score in this category, 10 points. Point values decrease as system
size increases.
• Affordability - Points will be given to systems based on the ratio of system MHI to State MHI, with the
maximum number of points given to projects in communities determined to be most in need i.e. (system
MHI) State MHI) x 100 is < 120. Systems may receive up to 35 points.
-------
VERMONT
V. Priority Ranking System
The State of Vermont will use a point system to prioritize the order in which eligible water supply
projects will be financed. To be eligible, projects must maintain or facilitate compliance with the drinking
water regulations or further the protection of public health. The projects must also be needed and the
proposed type, size and estimated cost of the project must be suitable for its intended purpose.
Additionally, the water system must have or will have the technical, financial and managerial ability to
operate the system in compliance with federal and state law, and the system must not or will not be in
significant noncompliance with the regulations.
Priority in funding will be given 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 (SDWA) and the
Vermont Water Supply Rule (WSR), and assist systems most in need according to State affordability
criteria. Examples of projects that might meet these goals include repairing or replacing aged
infrastructure (e.g., install or replace/upgrade treatment, storage, or transmission facilities), water system
restructuring such as consolidation of systems, or management changes to ensure technical, managerial,
and financial capabilities of the water utility. Projects not eligible include operation and maintenance
costs, future growth, fire protection, and laboratory fees for monitoring. Separate priority lists will be
maintained for each of the loan types.
Municipal projects to purchase land or conservation easements for the purpose of protecting public
drinking water supplies and planning projects are also prioritized using this system.
A. Priority Ranking System Scoring Criteria
The priority ranking system scores projects based on information submitted by
water systems and from information in the WSD files. The numerical scores in the
DWSRF priority ranking system are based on technical and non-technical criteria.
The technical criteria are:
1. Water Quality Deficiencies (MCL/treatment technique violations);
2. System Facility Improvements to Correct Deficiencies (violation of WSR
system design, construction and protection standards);
3. System Reliability Criteria; and
4. Source Protection (Land Purchase or Conservation Easement Projects only).
The non- technical criteria are:
5. Population; and
6. Financial Need/Affordability.
-------
Priority points assigned to projects are computed in the manner described below. Projects determined by
the Secretary to require multi-year funding and planning projects are awarded points for the entire project.
1. Water Quality Deficiencies: Violations of Federal drinking water standards.
Points below shall be based upon water system performance for the 24-month period
preceding development of the priority list. Points for items a. through f will only be
awarded if the proposed water system improvements or land purchase or easements
address the water quality concerns. For example, a water system with a nitrate problem
will not be given the nitrate points for a water storage project.
a. Bacteriological
i. 1 - 2 MCL Violations 5 pts
ii. Greater than 2 MCL Violations 15 pts
iii. Permanent Boil Status 25 pts
Points will only be awarded for one (1) of the three (3) categories; for
example, a water system on permanent boil due to repeated MCL violations would
only receive points for being on permanent boil.
b. Nitrate
i. Levels above 1.0 mg/L but below MCL - 5 pts
ii. MCL Violations - 25 pts
c. Turbidity
i. 1-2 MCL Violations - 5 pts
ii. Greater than 2 MCL Violations - 10 pts
d. Primary Inorganic, Organic, and Radiological Standards
i. 1-2 MCL Violation(s) - 15 pts
ii. Greater than 2 MCL Violations - 25 pts
e. Secondary Inorganic, Physical, Chemical Standards
1 or more MCL Violation(s) - 3 pts
f. Do Not Drink Order
i. Non-MCL - 25 pts
ii. MCL - 50 pts
g. System is Under a Compliance/Enforcement Order: e.g., Compliance
Schedule, Assurance of Discontinuance, Special Sampling Requirement, etc. -
10 pts
-------
2. System Facility Deficiencies: Improvement projects (i.e., rehabilitation or replacement
of facilities) to correct system integrity and capacity deficiencies.
The points assigned to each required improvement reflect the relative public health risk
and compliance concern of the deficiency being corrected. In order to receive points, the
proposed project must correct the deficiency.
a. Contaminated source - Develop a new supply source; water quality indicates a
public health hazard or significant public health risk requiring replacement of
source - 50 pts
b. Lack of approved source capacity
i. Water shortage requiring new source - 35 pts
ii. Documentation of capacity of permanent source or major equipment
improvements to meet demand - 15 pts
c. Inadequate source construction - 5 pts
d. Vulnerable to potential sources of contamination (improvements could
include abandonment or source replacement) - 20 pts
e. No treatment for surface water filtration or groundwater under the direct
influence of surface water - 45 pts
f Inadequate filtration performance - 10 pts
g. Inadequate water treatment backwash disposal - 5 pts
h. Inadequate disinfection - 20 pts
i. Other inadequate treatment techniques or processes
i. Fe/Mn and other secondary non-acute contaminants - 5 pts
ii. Corrosion control for lead or other acute contaminants - 35 pts
iii. Chronic contaminants such as certain metals (cadmium) or organic
constituents - 30 pts
j. Inadequate finished storage capacity - 10 pts
k. Inadequate finished storage construction - 5 pts
1. Low system pressure (improvements could include storage, pump station,
larger mains) - 25 pts
m. Inadequate pumping station (hydro-pneumatic system including old or
undersized tanks or pumps) - 10 pts
-------
n. Inadequate transmission main system - 10 pts
o. Inadequate distribution system - 5 pts
p. Inadequate cross-connection control - 10 pts
q. Other- 10 pts
3. System Reliability Criteria: Improvement Projects To Improve the Reliability
and Efficiency of the Water System. Projects awarded points for deficiencies
under Section 2 above are not eligible for points under this section for the
same improvement except for Items c. and d. below.
a. Redundancy of critical components (pumps, valves, sources, disinfection
equipment, etc.) - 15 pts
b. Control/automation for operational efficiency (computerization; install
testing equipment, control valves, monitoring or metering equipment;
laboratory upgrading) - 5 pts
c. Consolidation or interconnection of two or more drinking water systems -
15 pts
d. System consolidation or interconnection will eliminate significant
capacity problem - 15 pts
4. Source Protection - Land Purchase or Conservation Easement Projects (only):
Sources must have an approved hydrologically delineated Source Protection Area
and an approved Source Protection Plan prior to loan approval.
a. Land Location points are not additive. Points for highest applicable
improvement are counted.)
i. Project achieves Isolation Zone Control - 40 pts
ii. Project achieves Primary Recharge Zone Control - 10 pts
b. Potential Sources of Contamination (PSOCs) addressed. Points are not
additive; Points for highest applicable improvement are counted.
i. Project addresses Microbiological PSOCs - 20 pts
ii. Project addresses Nitrate PSOCs - 15 pts
iii. Project addresses Primary Inorganic or Organic PSOCs - 10 pts
-------
5. Population Criteria:
Priority points will be assigned to the system based on
population. Small systems are generally at a disadvantage because of economies
of scale (affects ability to do physical improvements, improve system capacity,
etc.); the points assigned for this factor will give minimal priority to these
systems.
Population Priority Points
25-500 10
501-3,500 5
3500 - 10,000 2
> 10,000 1
6. Affordability
Affordability only considers income because it is the most fundamental predictor
of a household's ability to pay and which is represented by the median community
household income statistic. Affordability is based on a comparison of state
community median household income (SCMI) to the median household income (MHI) of
the water system or of the town(s) in which the system exists. The SCMI figure
is $27,690 based on the 1990 census. For water systems which encompass more than
one town, the MHI will be based on the weighted number of household connections
in each town(s) if the MHI is to be based on town figures. The formula for
affordability involves first dividing the community or water system MHI by the
SCMI ($27,690), and then multiplying this figure by one hundred (100) to yield a
percentage. Different percentage brackets are then assigned points.
Formula: (Community MHI - SCMI) x 100 = X
X < 6035 Points
60 X < 70 25 Points
70X<80 15 Points
80X<90 10 Points
90X<100 5 Points
100X<120 2 Points
X 120 0 Points
-------
B. Refinancing of Existing Facilities
The DWSRF construction loan program may be used to buy or refinance municipal
debt including all obligations for DWSRF eligible projects. Under federal law,
privately owned systems (both profit and nonprofit) are not eligible for
refinancing. The long-term debt must have been incurred and construction must
have started after July 1, 1993 to be eligible for refinancing. The use of DWSRF
funds are intended to be first directed at proposed projects that address
ongoing compliance problems or public health risks.
State legislation allows for loans to systems that incurred debt and initiated
construction after April 5, 1997 at interest rates and terms comparable to those
for new projects. Projects that meet this criterion will receive priority
ranking using the procedure described for new projects for the next two annual
priority lists compiled following the initiation of construction. All other
applications to refinance existing debt will be considered only after all new
construction projects have been funded and if there are still funds available.
C. Construction Loan Fund Priority List
The fund provides construction loans to municipalities and certain
privately-owned water systems for planning, design, construction, repairing or
improving public water systems to comply with State and Federal standards and
protect public health. The projects that are ready to proceed in the Federal
fiscal year October 1 - September 30 are assigned points in accordance with the
Priority Ranking system scoring criteria. Project funding is based on priority
score and the following considerations:
1. Tie Breaking Procedure
When two or more projects score equally under the project priority system, the
higher total score under technical criteria will be used as a tie breaker.
2. Amendments
The state revolving fund priority list may be amended twice a year to consider
updated or new information from water systems that have already been identified
and ranked through the priority system public participation process and are
listed on the Comprehensive Project Priority List. Amendments to the priority
list will only affect the ranking of eligible projects; projects will not be
removed from the Anticipated Loan Recipient category.
-------
NEW JERSEY
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the four categories. To be eligible for funding, projects
must receive points from the Compliance and Public Health Criteria category.
• Compliance and Public Health Criteria - Projects to address contamination problems and ensure
compliance with SDWA requirements will receive up to 500 points for 1 of the 16 criteria in this category
(e.g., systems using surface water that are not in compliance or have had acute violations and have been
issued an administrative order will receive 500 points; projects to redevelop or construct wells to meet New
Jersey requirements will receive 15 points). If the project addresses more than 1 item, it will be divided into
various projects. Points will be assigned in this category only if the project actually repairs, rehabilitates, or
corrects a problem.
• Approved Drinking Water Infrastructure Plan - Projects that use comprehensive planning and regional
solutions to address compliance problems will receive points as an incentive for cost-effective
improvements. Projects for systems that connect to a regional system within a comprehensive water supply
plan that is acceptable to NJ DEP will receive 50 points. Projects for systems that have local 5-year master
plans or capital improvement plans will receive 25 points.
• State Development and Redevelopment Plan - Projects in municipalities that have been approved by the
State Planning Commission under the Center Designation Process and projects in distressed communities
will receive up to 20 points. For example, projects for distressed areas that have an endorsed Strategic
Revitalization Plan will receive 20 points, while urban centers will receive 10 points.
• Affordability - Projects for systems that serve municipalities with an MHI lower than the State MHI will
receive between 10 and 70 points. The maximum will be given to projects for systems where the municipal
MHI is less than or equal to 40 percent of the State MHI.
Notes
Tie-Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, projects will receive points based on the population of the
water system service area. The system that serves the larger permanent population will prevail. If systems
are still tied, the system that serves the greater proportionate (taking into account transient populations)
population in its service area will be given higher priority.
-------
NEW JERSEY
PRIORITY SYSTEM
II. Ranking Methodology
NJDEP will rank all eligible projects according to the total number of points each project receives and will
subsequently place the projects on the Project Priority List according to their ranking. The projects with the
higher number of points rank above those with lesser points. Due to annual addition of new projects to the
Project Priority List, or to periodic revisions to the Priority System, individual project rankings may change
annually. For projects which include multiple elements as listed in priority Category A below, projects will be
separately listed by the elements involved, and priority points will be assigned for each element.
Priority points will be assigned only if the project scope includes actual repair, rehabilitation, correction of a
problem or improvement clearly related to priority Category A. A project must be assigned points from Category
A to be eligible for ranking, points assigned from the remaining categories are in addition to the points received
in Category A.
The prospective applicant must notify NJDEP of any changes to project scope or any other circumstance which
may affect the calculation of priority points. NJDEP shall then recalculate, if appropriate, the prospective
applicant's ranking utilizing the new information submitted and revise the priority ranking accordingly.
The principal elements of the Priority System are: A) Compliance and Public Health Criteria, B) Approved
Drinking Water Infrastructure Plan, C) Conformance with the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment
Plan, D) Affordability and E) Population. Points are assigned for each of the five priority categories discussed
below, as applicable:
A. Compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) and Protection of Public Health
DWSRF funds are to be utilized to address contamination problems and to ensure compliance with the
SDWA requirements. Priority is given to water systems in non-compliance with the surface water
treatment requirements and those incurring acute, primary or action level violations as defined in the
SDWA, and the NJSDWA rules (N.J.A.C. 7:10). Table 1 describes the sixteen project elements that are
eligible for DWSRF funds:
Table 1
1. Systems which utilize surface water, that are not in compliance
with the surface water treatment requirements or have had any
acute violations (either fecal coliform or nitrates) and have been
issued an administrative order, directive or recommendation
by NJDEP requiring the correction of any noncompliance of its
treatment facilities to address an immediate public health threat 500 pts
-------
2. Systems which utilize groundwater under the direct influence
of surface water, that are not in compliance with the surface water
treatment requirements or have had any acute violations (either fecal
coliform or nitrates) and have been issued an administrative order,
directive or recommendation by NJDEP requiring the correction of
any noncompliance of its treatment facilities to address an immediate
public health threat 350 pts
3. Systems which utilize groundwater that have had any acute
violation (either fecal coliform or nitrates) 300 pts
4. Systems which have had any maximum contaminant level
violations (except acute violations) or exceedance of action levels
(lead and copper rule) 200 pts
5. Systems that have lost well capacity due to cutbacks in Critical Area #1
or 2 or due to saltwater intrusion and a solution is needed to preserve
the aquifer as a viable aquifer 175 pts
6. Purchase of a water system to comply with the SDWA for
capacity development 150 pts
7. Extension of water mains to private wells that have had any maximum
contaminant level violations or exceeded lead and copper action levels 125 pts
8. Existing treatment facilities that need to be rehabilitated, replaced
or repaired to ensure compliance with the SDWA 100 pts
9. Existing transmission or distribution mains with appurtenances
that need to be rehabilitated, replaced, repaired or looped to pre-
vent contamination caused by leaks or breaks in the pipe or improve
water pressures to maintain safe levels or to ensure compliance
with the SDWA 75 pts
10. Existing pump stations or finished water storage facilities that
need to be rehabilitated or replaced to maintain compliance
with the SDWA 60 pts
11. New finished water storage facilities or pump stations that are
needed to maintain pressure in the system and/or prevent
contamination 50 pts
12. Systems which have had any exceedance of any secondary drinking
water regulations that have received notification issued by NJDEP
that exceedance of a secondary drinking water regulation causes
adverse effects on the public welfare, and for which the system has
received a directive issued by the NJDEP requiring correction of the
exceedance
45 pts
-------
13. Construction of new or rehabilitation of existing interconnections
between water systems to improve water pressures to maintain
safe levels or to ensure compliance with the SDWA 30 pts
14. Replacement or installation of new water meters 25 pts
15. Redevelop wells or construct new wells to meet the New Jersey
SDWA rules for required pumping capacity 15 pts
16. Other project elements, not including items 1 through 15 above, that
ensure compliance with the SDWA and protect public health, as
approved by NJDEP 1 pt
B. Approved Drinking Water Infrastructure Plan
Planning water system improvements that advance comprehensive water supply concepts can facilitate
cost effective drinking water system improvements. To provide an incentive to plan in this way, priority
points will be given to each project that implements the actual repair, rehabilitation, correction of a
problem, or improvement clearly identified in a five year master plan or five year capital improvement
plan acceptable to NJDEP, or that is linked to a comprehensive water supply plan for a particular region
or watershed acceptable to NJDEP. Points are assigned as follows:
1. 50 priority points will be assigned to a water system that connects to a regional solution that
is contained in a comprehensive water supply plan for a particular region or watershed
acceptable to NJDEP.
2. 25 priority points will be assigned to a water system that has a local five year master plan
or five year capital improvement plan, or that is linked to a comprehensive water supply plan
for a particular region or watershed acceptable to NJDEP. The plan should contain a description
of the components of the system, population growth estimates, testing done, current deficiencies,
immediate recommendations, recommendations for the next five years and a map of the
distribution system.
C. State Development and Redevelopment Plan
NJDEP seeks to coordinate and enhance the State Planning Commission's (SPC) efforts to implement
the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. NJDEP assigns points to projects in municipalities the
SPC has approved under the Center Designation Process. Points are also given to distressed areas.
Points are assigned as shown in Table 2.
-------
Table 2
1. Distressed areas that have an endorsed Strategic
Revitalization Plan 20 pts
2. Urban Centers 10 pts
3. Regional Centers 5 pts
4. Towns 3 pts
5. Villages 2 pts
6. Hamlets 1 pt
Contact the N.J. Office of State Planning, Department of Community Affairs, 33 West State Street, 4th
floor, P.O. Box 204, Trenton, N.J. 08625-0204 or call (609) 292-7156 for further information on the
State Development and Redevelopment Plan.
Please note for water systems that service more than one municipality, the municipality that has the
highest population will be counted for this category.
D. Affordability
The purpose of the affordability criteria is to determine which project sponsors' water systems are
eligible for additional points under the Affordability Category.
Affordability is the degree of need for financial assistance based upon the New Jersey median household
income compared to the municipal median household income (MHI). Affordability is determined by the
following formula:
Municipal MHI x 100 = Affordability Factor
Statewide MHI
Points are assigned as follows:
1. Affordability factor of 100 or greater 0 pts
2. Affordability factor from 85 through 99 15 pts
3. Affordability factor from 66 through 84 30 pts
4. Affordability factor less than or equal to 65 80 pts
-------
The median household income of the municipality which the water system serves and the Statewide
median household income will be determined from income data in the most recent United States census.
The NJDEP has determined that for the purposes of the DWSRF Program, a municipality whose median
household income is 35% or more below the State's MHI, shall be considered a Disadvantaged
Community, and will receive 80 priority points, which are proportionately greater than the other
affordability factor points. (New Jersey's MHI is $40,927 from the 1990 Census.)
A weighted MHI will be calculated for a project sponsor whose water system serves more than one
municipality, as shown in the example below.
Example
Municipalities
served
Lancaster
Mayberry
Holmeville
MHI
30,000
20,000
25,000
Population
served
5,000
10,000
15,000
Fraction of total
population served
.167
.333
.500
Weighted
municipal MHI
5,000
6,660
12,500
Total 30,000 1.00 24,160
Population served for resort communities will be calculated by the following equation:
(2x Winter Population) + Summer Population = Avg. Population
3
Please note for water systems that service more than ten municipalities, the ten municipalities that have
the highest populations served will be considered in the above table for the affordability factor.
The revisions to Categories C and D in this IUP will cause a recalculation of priority points assigned
to the projects included on the comprehensive Project Priority List.
E. Population
As a tie breaker, projects will be assigned points based on the permanent population of the water system
service area. In the instance of a resort community where the summer and winter populations vary
greatly, the permanent population will be calculated by taking the sum of twice the winter population and
once the summer population and dividing by three. For water systems that service more than one
municipality, total all the permanent population served in the multiple service areas. Priority points will
be calculated as the permanent population served by the water system divided by 100,000, expressed as
a decimal. In the event that projects remain tied, the project which serves a greater proportionate
population in the water system's area will be given higher priority.
-------
NEW YORK
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following five categories (three technical and two
non-technical):
Technical Categories:
• MCL/Treatment Technique Violations - Projects may receive points for all violations that they seek to
address. Points will be given based on the treatment of MCL exceedances or replacement with an alternate
source of supply, and for interconnection with, or purchase from an adjacent water system(s) in lieu of
treatment. Scores range from 100 points (filtration problems leading to violations of the SWTR for
microbiological contaminants) to 10 points (aesthetic problems).
• Non-Treatment Sanitary Code Violations - Projects for systems with non-treatment Sanitary Code
violations may receive points for all items that apply in this category. Projects will receive points for
addressing public health hazards associated with inadequate source capacity (50 points), inadequate
distribution pressure (25 points), and uncovered finished water storage (25 points).
• System Reliability/Dependability Issues - Projects for infrastructure improvements that address system
reliability and dependability issues will receive points for all items that apply in this category. Twenty
points will be given to projects that involve the complete replacement or major rehabilitation of an existing
treatment facility which has exceeded its design life, 10 points will be given to upgrade, replace, or install
major vulnerable system components, and 5 points will be given for each additional issue addressed by the
project (e.g., aged mains and appurtenances, asbestos main replacement, etc.).
Non-Technical Categories:
• Government Needs - Projects that seek to address State or local government needs, policies, or
requirements will receive points for all items that apply in this category. For example, 40 points will be
given for the development of a water system or extension of an existing system to service contaminated or
inadequate private wells at existing residences, 25 points for consolidation of systems, etc.
• Affordability - Points will be assigned to projects based on the community MHI as a percentage of the State
MHI. The lower the community MHI, the greater the number of points received (between 0 to 25 points).
Notes
• Funding Ceiling - A maximum of 50 percent of DWSRF resources can be received by a single applicant.
• Tie-Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, the system with the higher total score for technical factors
will receive priority. If the projects remain tied, the system serving the larger population will be given
preference.
• Prior Year Funding - Projects with prior funding from long- and short-term DWSRF loans will be given
bonus points to help ensure funding of on-going projects.
-------
NEW YORK
I. Priority Ranking System and Intended Use Plan
A. Priority Ranking System
The purpose of the priority ranking system is to establish a list of eligible projects to be
funded in a manner that the most serious risks to public health are given the highest priority.
The New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) proposes that the highest priority
be given to acute public health risks, particularly those related to microbiological organisms.
The next priority has been given to situations that pose chronic and longer term risks to
consumers, such as organic chemical contamination. The scoring criteria also considers
issues that are related to infrastructure upgrading or replacement. Consistent with these
priorities, the numerical scores in the DWSRF priority ranking system are based on the
following criteria:
Technical Factors
MCL/Treatment Technique Violations
Other Sanitary Code Violations
System Reliability/Dependability Issues
Non-Technical Factors
Governmental Needs
Financial Needs
The total numerical score for a project or a project segment will be the sum of the scores for
criteria A, B, C, D and E.
B. Intended Use Plan
The State will prepare a document called the Intended Use Plan (IUP) that describes how the
State intends to use available DWSRF resources for the year to meet the objectives of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) and to further the goal of protecting public health. The
IUP will include specific detail on how the State will use all funds available. The IUP will
also include a list of projects expected to qualify for financing within the fiscal period
addressed by the IUP. A project must be listed in an IUP to be eligible for financing.
II. Project Ranking
A. Special Allocations and Restrictions
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of (SDWA) require that, on an annual
basis, water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons must receive a minimum of 15% of
the DWSRF. This minimum allocation for systems serving less than 10,000 persons will
occur to the extent that there are a sufficient number of eligible projects to fund.
-------
The SDWA also states that up to 30% of the annual DWSRF federal capitalization grant can
be used to give loan subsidies to disadvantaged communities.
The State of New York will impose an annual cap or ceiling of 50% of DWSRF resources
that can be received by any single applicant. In addition, the State may limit DWSRF
financing to the demonstrated annual cash flow needs of any single applicant.
The New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996 requires the development of
a Memorandum of Understanding among the Governor and Legislative Leaders regarding
selection of projects to be funded from the Drinking Water provisions of the Bond Act.
Projects identified in the Memorandum of Understanding will be incorporated into an annual
funding list for Bond Act financing in conjunction with projects selected according to the
Priority Ranking System.
B. Project Ranking Categories
Projects will be placed in categories to allow priority ranking within a specific grouping of
projects. Federal legislation requires that, on an annual basis, a minimum of 15% of the
DWSRF be received by water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. Also, water
systems that qualify for financial hardship have special conditions that require a separate
category for these projects. Therefore, three priority ranking categories will be created:
1. Category A. Water systems serving < 10,000 people.
2. Category B. Water systems serving = 10,000 people.
3. Category C. Water systems that have received written confirmation of qualification
for financial hardship assistance.
C. Description and Use of the Project Lists
Several lists of projects will be created to organize and manage projects with different levels
of priority and readiness. These listings will display the status of all projects in the system
and indicate the final list of projects that qualify for funding in the current IUP.
1. Multi-Year List:
This list will contain all eligible projects for which pre-application forms have been
submitted and reviewed. This list will contain projects from Categories A and B.
New projects can be added to this list on a continuous basis. Projects must be on
the Multi-Year List to be eligible for short-term loans when short-term loans are
made available.
-------
Short-term loans for projects listed on the Multi-Year List will be limited to projects
that have a total numerical score greater than (or equal to) the project with the
lowest score (excluding bonus points awarded under Section II.E.2.) eligible to be
funded from the current Project Readiness List. Applications for short-term loans,
when available, will be approved on a first come/first served basis, up to the total
amount reserved in the IUP for that purpose.
NOTE: Short-term loans may not be offered in the initial years of the DWSRF
program.
2. Hardship List:
This list will contain all projects with written confirmation that they qualify for
financial hardship assistance (Category C). This written confirmation will be
limited to projects that have a total numerical score greater than (or equal to) the
project with the lowest score (excluding bonus points awarded under Section II.E.2.)
eligible to be funded from the current Project Readiness List. These projects will be
selected from the Multi-Year List. Written qualification for financial hardship
assistance will remain valid for two consecutive annual federal funding cycles. If a
project has not been selected for funding during this period, it will be removed from
the Hardship List (and re-listed on the Multi-Year List) unless requalified for the
Hardship List.
3. Project Readiness List:
This list will contain Category C projects and the projects from the Multi-Year List
which are anticipated to be ready for long-term financing during the effective period
of the IUP. Applicants for these projects are expected to apply for the funds
projected to be available during the fiscal period addressed by the IUP. Projects
from Categories A and B will be listed in descending order of total numerical score
(resulting from the Priority Ranking System Scoring Criteria).
4. Funding List:
This list will include all projects from the Project Readiness List expected to qualify
for long-term loans within a particular IUP. Projects will be listed according to the
three project categories. All Category C that are on the Project Readiness List will
qualify for funding. Projects in Category A will then be selected from the Project
Readiness List in priority order to meet the 15% minimum requirement for water
systems serving less than 10,000 people. All remaining projects on the Project
Readiness List will be selected in priority order until the remaining annual DWSRF
funding amount is encumbered. The project selection is subject to Restrictions and
Project By-pass Criteria in Sections II. A and D of this document.
-------
D. Project By-pass
Projects on the Project Readiness List can be by-passed, upon written notice, if any of the
following occurs:
1. Project is withdrawn by the applicant.
2. Project does not meet the dates and/or conditions in the project schedule or the
Project Financing and Loan Agreement.
3. The applicant has reached the 50% annual DWSRF resources cap for fundable
projects on the Project Readiness List.
4. All other projects for the applicant that would exceed the 50% cap will be
by-passed.
E. Special Priorities
1. Emergencies:
An emergency is a catastrophic situation that results in an imminent threat to public
health. The determination of when an emergency exists will be made by the
NYSDOH. Imminent threats to public health include situations that result in the
unavailability of a source of potable drinking water for an extended period of time.
Projects designed to address emergencies will receive the highest priority ranking.
2. Projects with Prior Funding Agreements:
Projects with executed Project Financing and Loan Agreements for long-term and
short-term DWSRF loans will be given significant additional bonus points when
they are placed on the Project Readiness List. This will help to ensure the
availability of DWSRF financing needed for completion of on-going projects.
Phased or segmented projects for which additional funds have been conditionally
committed in an executed Project Financing and Loan Agreement (PFLA) for
long-term DWSRF financing will be listed, in descending priority score order.
These projects will be assigned 2000 points in addition to their total project ranking
system score. Projects for which funds have been committed in an executed PFLA
for short-term DWSRF financing will be listed, in descending priority score order.
These projects will be assigned 1000 points in addition to their total project ranking
system score. Other projects will then be listed in descending priority score order.
F. Tie Breaking
In the event of a tie score for projects, the higher total score under Technical Factors
(Criteria A, B and C) will be used as a tie breaker. If this still results in a tie score, the size
of the population served by the system will be used as a tie breaker. The larger population
will be given preference.
G. Eligible Project Limitation
Eligible projects are activities that address critical water system problems. NYS DOH may
-------
require separation of unrelated project components into separate projects if it is necessary to
focus on critical water system problems. These separate projects will be scored
independently. Projects must adequately be supported by technical documentation, data,
reports, etc.
III. Priority Ranking System Scoring Criteria
The numerical scores in the DWSRF priority ranking system are based on technical and
non-technical criteria. The technical criteria are A.) MCL/treatment technique violations; B.) Other
sanitary code violations; and C.) system reliability and dependability issues. The non-technical
criteria are D.) governmental needs and E). financial needs. The total numerical score for the project
or project segment being scored shall be the sum of the scores for criteria A, B, C, D and E. Projects
must be adequately supported by technical documentation, data, reports, etc.
Technical Factors Score
A. MCL/Treatment Technique Violations
Points awarded are based on treatment of MCL exceedances and/or
replacement with an alternate source of supply, and for interconnection
with, or purchase from adjacent water system(s) in lieu of treatment
(more than one item may apply):
1. Microbiological
a) Surface Water Treatment Rule
i. Filtration 100
ii. Filtration Performance Criteria
(NTU compliance) 50
iii. CT Disinfection 30
b) E. coli 80
c) Total Coliform 40
2. Organics
Organic chemicals (POC/UOC) and
disinfection by-products 40
3. Lead and Copper/Corrosion (mandated) 30
4. Radiological 25
5. Inorganic/Physical
a) Nitrates 50
-------
b) Other health-related 25
c) Aesthetic 10
B. Non-treatment Sanitary Code Violations (more than one item may apply)
The project need must be adequately supported by technical documentation,
data, reports, etc.
1. Inadequate Source Capacity (public health hazard) 50
2. Inadequate Distribution Pressure (public health hazard) 25
3. Uncovered Finished Water Storage (public health hazard) 25
C. System Reliability/Dependability Issues (more than one item may apply)
The project need must be adequately supported by technical
documentation, data, reports, etc.
1. Complete replacement or maj or rehabilitation of existing
treatment facility for primary contaminants that has
exceeded design life and/or does not meet the design
standards in the current edition of Recommended
Standards For Water Works. In lieu of treatment,
replacement with an alternate source of supply, and/or
interconnection with, or purchase from, adjacent water
system. 20
1. Upgrade, replace and/or install major vulnerable system
components to meet the design standards in the current edition
Recommended Standards For Water Works. Any of the
following apply. 10
a) A principal component integral to an existing filtration
process such as sedimentation, flocculation, filtration,
chemical feed, or backwashing (can only receive points
for Criteria C.2a. or C.I.)
b) Pump stations
c) Existing wells
d) Existing disinfection system for a groundwater/surface
water supply
e) Transmission main
f) Finished water or distribution storage
g) Other water treatment systems for secondary contaminants
-------
only (or replacement of source instead of treatment)
3. Aged mains and appurtenances 5
4. Redundancy of critical components (pumps, valves, chemical
feed-systems, etc.) 5
5. Asbestos main replacement 5
6. Control/automation for operational efficiency (computerization,
control valves, metering, laboratory upgrading) 5
7. Inadequate source capacity which is not a public health hazard
(can only receive points for Criteria B1 or C7) 5
Non-Technical Factors:
D. Governmental Needs (more than one may apply)
Additional points will be assigned to a project on the basis of
state or local government needs, policies, and/or requirements.
1. Development of a water system or extending existing
system to service contaminated or insufficient yielding
private wells at existing residential housing (new
systems are not eligible for points under Criteria A, B
or C) 40
2. Consolidation of water systems (can include improving
technical, managerial and financial capacity development) 25
3. System dependent on a Sole Source Aquifer for its
source. (These points can only be obtained if system
cores points from Criterion A, B, C. 1 .or C.2.g.) 25
-------
4. A project that has received written commitment of funding from
another governmental source (e.g., co-funded with Clean Water
SRF, Rural Development, HUD, etc.) These points do not apply
to refinancing of projects. 10
5. Consistent with Water Resources Management Strategy 5
6. Proposes operational changes that improve and insure adequate
technical, managerial and financial capacity of the system in
order to insure compliance (guidelines to be developed) 5
E. Financial Need
The Median Household Income (MHI) of the community in which the
water service area is located is used as a numerator and the
Statewide MHI is used as the denominator in the following equation
to determine the financial need factor.
(Community MHI x 100) / (Statewide MHI*) = Factor
Factor
<=70
70 - <=77.5
77.5 - <=85
85 - <=92.5
92.5-<=100
1000
Points
25
20
15
10
5
*1990 Statewide MHI is $32,965.
The MHI of the community in which the water service area is
located and the Statewide MHI will be determined from income
data in the most recent United States census. If there is reason
to believe that the census data are not an accurate
representation of the MHI within the area to be served, the
reasons will be documented and the applicant will furnish, or
the Department may obtain, additional information regarding the
MHI. Information will consist of reliable data from local,
regional, state or federal sources or from an income survey
conducted by a reliable impartial source.
-------
PUERTO RICO
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following six categories:
• Compliance with SDWA - Projects to correct SDWA noncompliance may receive points for all items that
apply in this category. Twenty to 100 points will be given for each microbiological, organic, MCL,
radiological, and inorganic or physical violation (e.g., 100 points for filtration and/or groundwater well,
interconnection and/or consolidation, 20 points for radiological violations).
• Public Health Risk - Projects to eliminate or combat critical, chronic, or potential health hazards may
receive 25 to 50 points for all items that apply in this category (e.g., 50 points for inadequate source
capacity, 25 points for new finished water storage facilities needed to maintain pressure and/or prevent
contamination).
• Systems in Need - Projects to address a system's infrastructure needs will receive points for only one item
in this category. For example, the maximum of 25 points will be given for complete replacement or major
rehabilitation of the surface water filtration facility. Five points will be given for projects such as replacing
or rehabilitating aged mains and appurtenances or asbestos mains.
• Governmental Needs - Points are given for all items that apply in this category for projects that address the
priorities of local government (e.g., consolidation, 25 points; co-funding from another source, 10 points;
capacity development, 5 points).
• Special Priorities - Thirty-five points will be awarded to projects identified through State strategies.
Twenty points will be assigned to projects identified through Comprehensive Performance Evaluations.
• Affordability - Points will be awarded to disadvantaged systems, as determined by MHI. Projects serving
communities with lower MHIs will receive more points (e.g., 30 points will be given if the MHI is less than
$8,895; no points will be given if the MHI is greater than $17,790).
Notes
Tie-Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, projects will receive points based on the population of the
water system service area. The system serving the larger population will be ranked higher.
-------
PUERTO RICO
Category A, below, projects will be separately listed by the elements involved, and priority points will be
assigned for each element.
Points are assigned for each of the seven priority categories discussed below, as applicable:
A. Compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA):
DWSRF funds are to be utilized to address contamination problems through compliance
requirements. Projects related to systems and or systems, which utilize surface water or ground
water under the direct influence of surface water, that are not in compliance with the surface water
treatment requirements, or have had any acute violations (e.g., fecal coliform or nitrates) and have
been issued an administrative order, directive or recommendation by DOH requiring the correction
of any noncompliance of its treatment facilities to address an immediate public health threat will be
scored according the following:
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)/Treatment Technique Violations (more than one item may
apply:
1. Microbiological
a) Surface Water Treatment Rule
i. Filtration and/or groundwater wells, lOOpts
interconnection and or consolidation
of water systems to comply with the SDWA
ii Filtration Performance (NTU compliance) 50 pts
iii CT Disinfection 30 pts
b) E. Coli 80 pts
c) Total Coliform 40 pts
2. Organics
Organics chemical (SOC/VOC) and disinfection 40 pts
by-products
3. Maximum Contamination Level (MCL) violations 30 pts
(except acute violations) or exceedance of
action levels Lead and Copper/Corrosion
(mandated)
4. Radiological 20 pts
-------
5. Inorganic/Physical
a) Nitrates 50 pts
b) Other health-related inorganic 25 pts
B. Public Health Risk:
For projects which eliminate critical or chronic health hazard or
potential health hazard or provide protection against significant health hazard,
documentation must he provided by the applicant to determine if the public health
problem exist. More than one of the following may apply for rehabilitation, replaced or
repaired appurtenances such as:
1. Inadequate Source Capacity 50 pts
2. Existing transmission or distribution mains 25 pts
to prevent contamination caused by leaks or
breaks 'in the pipe or improve water measures
to maintain safe levels
3. Existing pump stations or finished water storage 25 pts
(uncovered if applicable).
4. New finished water storage facilities
that are 25 pts needed to maintain pressure in the system and/or
prevent contamination
C. Systems in need (Reliability Dependability):
Projects related to replacement or-major rehabilitation of the existing treatment facilities or systems
components to meet the design standards sanitary code. One of the following will apply:
1. Complete replacement or major rehabilitation 25 pts
of the existing surface water filtration facility that has exceeded design
life and/or does not meet the design standards in the current
edition of PRASA's Design Standards, in lieu of filtration, installation of
groundwater wells, and/or interconnection with, or purchase from adjacent water system.
2. Upgrade, replace and/or install
major vulnerable system components to meet the design standards in
the current edition PRASA's Design Standards. Any of the following apply:
a) A principal component integral to an existing filtration 10 pts
process such a sedimentation, flocculation, filtration,
chemical feed, of backwashing (can only receive points for
Criteria C.2a or C. 1.)
b) Pump stations 10 pts
-------
c) Existing wells 10 pts
d) Existing disinfection system for a groundwater/ 25 pts
surface water supply
e) Transmission main 10 pts
f) finished water or distribution storage 10 pts
g) Other water treatment systems (or replacement 10 pts
Of source Instead of treatment)
3. Aged mains and appurtenances 5 pts
4. Redundancy of critical components 5 pts
(pumps, valves, chemical feed-system, etc.)
5. Asbestos main replacement 5 pts
6. Control/automation for operational efficiency 5 pts
(computerization, control valves, metering,
laboratory upgrading)
7. Inadequate source capacity 5 pts
which is not a public health hazard can only receive points for Criteria
BlorC7.
D. Governmental Needs (more than one may apply)
Additional points will be assigned to a project on the basis of state or local
governmental needs, policies, and/or requirements.
1. Development of a water system or extending existing system 25 pts
to service contaminated or insufficient yielding private
wells at existing residential housing (new systems are
not eligible for points under Criteria A, B or C2).
2. Consolidation of water systems 25 pts
(can include improving technical, managerial and financial capacity development)
3. System depend on a Sole Source Aquifer for its source. 10 pts
(These points can only be obtained if system scores
points from Criterion A, B or C.)
4. A project that has received written commitment of funding from another source 10 pts
(e.g. co-funded with Clean Water SRF, Rural Development, HUD, etc.)
-------
5. Proposes operational changes that improve and insure 5 pts
adequate technical, managerial and financial capacity
of the system in order to insure compliance (guidelines
to be developed)
E. Other Factors
As a tie breaker, projects will be assigned points based in the population of the water system
service area. Priority points will be calculated as the population served by the water system divided
by 100,000, expressed as a decimal and added to the total accumulated.
F. Special Priorities
1. Strategy:
Any project identified as a result of the Strategy identified above and or CPE will receive
additional priority points that will be added to the total accumulated by the Project according to the
following.
Strategy 35 pts
CPE 20 pts
2. Emergencies:
An emergency is a catastrophic situation that results in an
imminent threat to public health. The determination of when an emergency exists will be
made by the DOH. Projects designed to address emergencies will receive the highest priority
ranking, Imminent threats to public health include:
a) situations that result in the unavailability of potable drinking water for an extended
period of time or evidence of a high incidence of water transmissible diseases
b)evidence of presence of Regulated Contaminants in Drinking Water
G. Affordabilitv:
This Criterion is to assist systems most in need on a household basis. The points
awarded for this Category are documented by the latest census information. (See
Attachments B). For those systems described or identified as disadvantaged systems
the following priority points will be awarded:
Median Household Income Levels (MHIL) will be used to assign points for affordability.
Median Household Income (MHI) Points
less than $8,895.00 30
between $8,895.00 and $13,777.00 15
between $13,778.00 and $17,790 5
above $17,790 0
-------
DELAWARE
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following seven categories:
• Quality Deficiencies - Projects for systems with NPDWR violations will receive 70 points for acute threats
to public health (e.g., E. coli, nitrite, and nitrate), 50 points for non-acute threats, (e.g., total coliform
bacteria, VOCs, SOCs, etc.), and 20 points for secondary standard violations, (e.g., iron, manganese, taste,
odors, etc.).
• Quantity Deficiencies - Projects for systems with quantity deficiencies will be given points for water
pressure and supply problems. Forty-five points will be given for each acute quantity problem such as lack
of adequate supply (90 points maximum), while 25 points will be awarded for each chronic problem such as
lack of adequate storage (50 points maximum).
• Treatment/Design Deficiencies - Fifteen points may be given for each infrastructure problem resulting in,
or at risk of causing, SDWA noncompliance that the project seeks to eliminate (e.g., degraded treatment
facility, transmission mains, uncovered finished water storage).
• Affordability - Points will be assigned to each project based on a comparison of county MFfl to the system
MHI. Awards will range up to a maximum of 320 points (systems with an MHI < 50 percent of county
MHI) to a minimum of 10 points (systems with MHIs between 91 percent and 100 percent of county MHI).
• Compliance with SDWA Regulations - Projects will be given points to the extent that they address
violations of SDWA Regulations. Projects will receive 40 points each for eliminating lead/copper rule and
SWTR violations; 15 points each for elimination of Compliance/Enforcement Status; 5 points each for
ensuring compliance with future SDWA Regulations, and up to 25 points for leading to system
consolidation/acquisition.
• System Description - Projects will be given 5 to 15 points based on the population served by the system.
Maximum points will be given to systems serving between 1,001 and 10,000 people. Projects will be given
up to 5 points for system type. The maximum will be given to CWSs.
• Bonus Points - Two bonus points will be given to projects (10 points maximum) for each of the following:
rate structures promoting conservation, metered service connections, unaccounted for water loss of 15
percent or less, certified operators, and documented maintenance schedule reviews.
Notes
Funding Ceiling - No single project may receive more than 50 percent of the total DWSRF capitalization
grant in a single year.
Tie-Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, the project with the highest number of points under the
Quality Deficiencies category will receive the highest priority. If the score remains tied, the system serving
the largest population will receive the higher ranking.
Consolidation - For consolidation projects, points may be awarded for the relief of problems in the satellite
system(s).
-------
DELAWARE
VI. Criteria and Method for Distribution of Funds
A. Process Description for Solicitation and Selection of Projects
The State of Delaware will utilize a ranking system to prioritize the order in which eligible projects
will be financed. Projects will be ranked based upon the relative impact of the project in achieving
the objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Projects for the creation of new public water
supply systems are not eligible to receive DWSRF funds.
Delaware Health and Social Services (DHSS) will conduct annual public workshops to inform
public water supply systems of the availability of DWSRF assistance. Notices of solicitation for
projects to be funded will be sent to all DWSRF eligible public drinking water systems (and
unserved/underserved communities near existing systems). The solicitation letter will request
systems to submit information on projects for which they are seeking DWSRF moneys for that
designated year. This project information will be reviewed for accuracy and eligibility, and then
given a priority ranking score based on the Project Priority Criteria system designated below. The
availability of funds for projects from other agencies and/or sources will also be investigated and
discussed with the system.
The DWSRF eligible projects and their respective information will then be listed in order of
priority, highest to lowest, in a master list of all projects. This master list of projects will be the
Comprehensive Priority List. Utilizing the provisions in this document and the amount of available
funds, a list of projects in order of priority ranking (Project Priority List) which are expected to
receive DWSRF financial assistance for the designated year will be placed in the IUP. The
following information will be included for each project: Name of system, project description,
population served, priority point score, and amount to be funded. All systems with projects listed
in the IUP will be contacted by the Administrator of the DWSRF before the intended time of
installation of the project to enter into a binding commitment for receipt of funds, to inform them of
the project review and bid contract requirements, and the loan application process.
An Operating Agreement between EPA and Delaware Health and Social Services (DHSS), which
will contain the standard operating elements of the DWSRF not expected to change from year to
year, will be attached to the Capitalization Grant Application. The Operating Agreement (OA) will
be supplemented with an Intended Use Plan (IUP). This section, the Project Priority Ranking
Criteria, will be a part of the Operating Agreement.
-------
1. Priority Ranking System
The purpose of the priority ranking system is to prioritize eligible projects to be funded by
the Delaware DWSRF each year. Delaware Health and Social Services (DHSS) proposes
that maximum priority be given to projects that provide the greatest protection to public
health, projects needed for SDWA compliance and projects which assist systems most in
need on a per household basis. The criteria for scoring will also consider issues that are
related to infrastructure upgrading or replacement. Projects for disadvantaged
communities/systems will be ranked at the same time using the following priority ranking
system and may receive subsidies when available to bring the project into the affordable
range using state affordability criteria (Section XIII.C.).
a. Project By-Pass Provisions
A project on the fundable portion of the list may be bypassed if it is determined
that the project will not be ready to proceed during the funding year, the Project
Priority List fails to meet the 15% assistance to small systems, a system is
unwilling to address any Significant Non-Compliance Issues (SNC) issues, or a
system is lacking technical, managerial or financial capability. The applicant
whose project is to be bypassed will be given written notice by DHSS. Projects
that have been bypassed may be reinstated on the fundable portion of the list if
sufficient funds are available and the project completes the necessary tasks to
proceed. Funds which become available due to the utilization of the bypass
procedure will be allotted to the next project on the list that is ready to proceed.
Delaware will proactively work with bypassed projects to ensure that the project
will be eligible for funding in the following fiscal year, to the maximum extent
practicable.
i. Readiness to Proceed
A project will be determined "ready to proceed" if the system will begin
construction within nine months after the approval of the State's
capitalization grant application by the EPA Administrator. All required
engineering, plan and environmental reviews for projects must be
completed within 45 days prior to the start of construction.
ii. 15% Assistance to Small Systems
Annually, a minimum of 15% of the DWSRF capitalization fund must be
allocated to provide loan assistance to systems serving fewer than 10,000
people (Section III.F.) to the extent that there are a sufficient number of
eligible projects to fund. A fundable project, for a system larger than
10,000 people, may be by-passed if the Project Priority List fails to meet
the required 15% assistance to small systems.
-------
iii. Systems in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with the SDWA
Projects for public drinking water systems that are in significant non-
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act will NOT be eligible for
DWSRF moneys unless:
a.) the system resolves all SNCs to the satisfaction of the Office
of Drinking Water, or
b.) the project(s) for which they are applying for DWSRF
moneys will resolve all SNCs.
iv. Systems Lacking Capacity Development
Projects for public drinking water systems that lack the technical
managerial or financial capability to maintain SDWA compliance will
NOT be eligible for DWSRF moneys unless:
a.) the owner operator or the system agrees to undertake
feasible and appropriate changes in operation, or
b.) the use of the financial assistance from the DWSRF
ensure compliance over the long-term.
b. Emergencies
Projects necessary to alleviate emergency or catastrophic situations that
result in an imminent threat to public health can be immediately elevated to
the top of the priority list upon recommendation by DHSS and the
concurrence of the Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues. Imminent
threats to public health include events such as: total loss of water supply or
loss of a major component due to a natural or unforeseen disaster which
could not have been prevented by applicant (e.g. tornado, flood, severe
weather, fire, collapse, etc.), or other water emergencies which could not
have been prevented by exercise of reasonable care by the applicant.
Projects displaced due to an emergency project will be placed on the top of the
Project Priority List and will be funded as soon as funds become available.
c. Single Project Limit
No single project may receive more than 50% of the total DWSRF capitalization
fund in a single year.
d. Tie Breaking Procedures
When two or more projects score equally under the Project Priority System a tie
breaking procedure will be utilized. The project with the greatest number of
points under the Quality Deficiencies, Section VI.A.2.a., will receive the higher
ranking. If this still results in a tie score, the size of the population will be used as
a tie breaker with the highest priority going to the system with the largest
population.
-------
e. Projects Not Eligible for Funding
The following projects and activities will not be eligible for funding through the
DWSRF:
• Dams, or rehabilitation of dams;
• Water rights, except if the water rights are owned by a system that is being
purchased through consolidation as part of a capacity development strategy;
• Reservoirs, except for finished water reservoirs and those reservoirs that are
part of the treatment process and are located on the property where the
treatment facility is located;
• Laboratory fees for monitoring;
• Operation and maintenance expenses, Projects needed mainly for fire
protection;
• Projects primarily intended to serve future growth;
• Projects for systems that lack adequate technical, managerial and financial
capability, unless assistance will ensure compliance;
• Projects for systems in significant non-compliance (SNC), unless funding will
ensure compliance.
f . Refinancing of Existing Loans
The DWSRF may be used to buy or refinance debt obligations for DWSRF
eligible projects (private systems are excluded). The long term debt must have
been incurred after July 1, 1993 to be eligible for refinancing. Consideration for
these applications will be entertained only after projects addressing public health
protection and compliance have been funded.
2. Criteria Description
The criteria used to prioritize the eligible projects are described and weighted below.
Points apply to the system applying for assistance. For consolidation projects, points can
be awarded for the relief of problems in the satellite system(s). Scoring is based on the
sum of all possible points awarded within each category. Systems which score the highest
point total will be given the highest priority on the project list. Consistent with the
priorities stated above, the numerical scores in the DWSRF priority ranking system are
based on the following criteria:
-------
a. Quality Deficiencies - Violations of National Drinking Water Standards
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are established by the SDWA for those contaminants
which may be detrimental to public health. Exceedances of these levels in the 5 years preceding the
development of a priority list carry the following weightings:
Priority
Points
Acute (Public Health: 0-210 points)
E. coli 70
Nitrate (N03 - N) 70
Nitrite (NO-N) 70
Non-Acute (Public Health: 0 - 450 points)
Total Coliform Bacteria 50
Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) 50
Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) 50
Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) 50
Trace Metals 50
Unregulated VOCs 50
Unregulated SOCs 50
Turbidity 50
Radiologicals 50
Secondary Standards (Other: 0-100 points, 100 points maximum)
Iron 20
Manganese 20
pH 20
Chloride 20
Total Dissolved Solids 20
Sulfate 20
Taste 20
Odor 20
Color 20
b. Quantity Deficiencies
Acute (Public Health: 0 - 90 points)
System Water Pressure less than 25 psi 45
Water shortages - lack of adequate supply 45
Chronic (Public Health: 0 - 50 points)
Water shortages - lack of adequate storage 25
System Water Pressure greater than 100 psi 25
-------
c. Treatment /Design Deficiencies
Infrastructure problems resulting in or at risk of causing non-compliance with SDWA.
(Compliance: 0 - 240 points)
Degraded Treatment Facility 15
Inadequate Source-Intake Structure 15
Faulty Pumping Station 15
Inaccurate Controls / Instrumentation 15
Unsatisfactory Storage 15
Aging or Corroded Transmission Mains 15
Aging or Corroded Distribution Mains 15
Broken Meters 15
Replacement of Contaminated Source with Uncontaminated Source 15
Lack of Disinfection Treatment 15
Lack of Corrosion Control Treatment 15
Lack of Nitrate Removal Treatment 15
Inadequate Filtration 15
Non-Functioning Backflow Prevention Devices 15
Lack of Critical Component Redundancy (pumps, valves, chemical feed, etc) 15
Unreliable Emergency Power Source 15
d. Affordability (Affordability: 0 - 320 points)
Degree of need based upon County median household income (CMHI)
compared to the System median household income (SMHI).
SMHI is up to 50% of CMHI 320
SMHI is 5 1 % to 60% of CMHI 160
SMHI is 61 % to 70% of CMHI 80
SMHI is 11 % to 80% of CMHI 40
SMHI is 8 1 % to 90% of CMHI 20
SMHI is 91 % to 100% of CMHI 10
SMHI is greater than 100% of CMHI 0
The MHI of the water system's service area and the County-wide MHI will be determined from
income data in the most recent Delaware Health Statistics Center Census Tract Geography for
Delaware. If there is reason to believe that the census data are not an accurate representation of
the MHI within the area served, the reasons will be documented and the applicant will furnish
additional information regarding the MHI. Information will consist of reliable data from local,
regional, state or federal sources or from an income survey conducted by a reliable impartial party.
-------
e. SDWA Regulations
Project for compliance with SDWA Regulations (Compliance: 0-80 points)
Lead / Copper Rule 40
Surface Water Treatment Rule 40
Project will result in the elimination of Compliance / Enforcement Status
(Compliance: 0-30 points, 30 points maximum)
In Significant Non-Compliance 15
Active Bi-Lateral Compliance Agreement 15
Alternate Contaminant Level 15
Active Administrative Compliance Order 15
Project for compliance with future SDWA Regulations
(Compliance: 0-35 points)
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 5
Groundwater Disinfection 5
Disinfection By-Products 5
Radon 5
Radionuclide 5
Arsenic 5
Sulfate 5
Project to result in (Other: 0-25 points)
Service to unserved/underserved areas with water quality deficiencies 10
Consolidation of two or more systems 15
f. System Description
Population Served (Other: 5-15 points)
25-1,000 10
1,001 - 101000 15
> 10,001 5
Public Water System Type (Other: 1-5 points)
Community 5
Non-Transient Non-Community (non-profit) 3
Transient Non-Community (non-profit) 1
g. Bonus Points (Other: 0-10 points)
System utilizes rate structure based on water usage promoting
conservation 2
System is metered at service connections 2
System has unaccounted for water loss of 15% or less 2
System has certified operator 2
System has documented maintenance schedule review 2
(Exercise valves, flush system, test backflow prevention devices, etc.)
-------
VII. Comprehensive Project Priority List
A comprehensive list of all projects that are eligible for funding in the designated fiscal
year will be included within the IUP. A project must be listed in the IUP to be eligible for
financing. The comprehensive list of projects, in order of priority, will be made available
for public review and comment each year. The following information will be included for
each project: Name of system; project description; population served; priority point score;
and amount to be funded.
A. As the State of Delaware is submitting the non-project activities portion
(set asides) of the grant award, this document does not include the comprehensive
priority list. This list will be included with the submission of the subsequent
application for the project funds at a later date.
B. Delaware places priority on categories of projects that meet departmental
and State goals as stated in the long and short term goals of the IUP (Section 11).
The top three priorities are: the resolution of imminent threat to public health by
addressing acute contaminants, followed by the resolution of compliance issues,
and the availability of affordable drinking water. Other priorities include long
term health protection through pollution prevention, meeting long term
infrastructure needs, and consolidation of systems to promote viability, where
appropriate.
-------
MARYLAND
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following four categories:
• Public Health - Points will be given to projects based on the severity of the threat posed to public health.
An acute public health problem (e.g., fecal coliform, non-compliance with the SWTR) will receive 40
points, a chronic contamination problem (e.g., persistent MCL violations) will receive 30 points, and a
potential problem (e.g., periodic water outages, periodic MCL violations) will receive 20 points. Projects
will receive points for only one type of health problem: acute, chronic, or potential.
• Compliance - Thirty points will be assigned to a project if the system is under either a State or local order to
correct a violation of the State or federal drinking water standards.
• Environmental and System Reliability - Projects that seek to correct environmental and system reliability
problems may receive points for all items that apply in this category. Up to 6 points will be given to
projects that address environmental or public safety problems (e.g., insufficient sludge handling facilities,
inadequate water pressure, etc.). Four points will be given for projects needed to improve reliability (e.g.,
consolidation, increased capacity for finished water storage, etc.).
• Affordability - Points will be given to systems based on affordability. Projects will earn the most points if
the calculated Target User Rate (TUR)1 is more than 1.5 percent of the community MHI.
Notes
Land Acquisition/Conservation Easement - Separate priority ranking criteria have been developed for the
State's proposed Land Acquisition/Conservation Easement Loan Program. These projects will be evaluated
based on source type, watershed relationships, and their ability to address violations of the drinking water
standards.
Incentive-Based Protection Measures - Separate eligibility and ranking criteria are used for projects such
as creation of a local outreach program, creation of a local tree planting program, or funding the
development of a local wellhead protection ordinance. Criteria on which these projects will be evaluated are
existence of local support, recognition by local government, and whether primary drinking water
contaminants are addressed.
J(TUR = Debt + O&M per year per equivalent dwelling unit)
-------
MARYLAND
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM
PROJECT PRIORITY RANKING/SCORING SHEET
Project Name:
PROJECT SCOPE CATEGORY (check where applicable)
[ ] Drinking Water Source Development
[ ] Drinking Water Treatment Plant
[ ] New [ ] Upgrade [ ] Expansion
[ ] Surface Water [ ] Groundwater
[ ] Drinking Water Storage
[ ] New [ ] Rehabilitation
[ ] Drinking Water Distribution System
[ ] New [ ] Upgrade
I. PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS (Maximum 40 Pts)
A. Project will eliminate an acute public health problem (40 pts) or
B. Project will eliminate a chronic public health problem (30 pts) or
C. Project will eliminate a potential public health problem (20 pts) or
II. COMPLIANCE BENEFITS (Maximum 30 Pts)
Project will provide compliance with a Notice of Violation or
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (30 pts)
III. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SYSTEM RELIABILITY BENEFITS (Maximum 10 Pts)
A. Project will eliminate an environmental problem (5 pts) or
B. Project will eliminate a public safety problem (5 pts) and/or
C. Project will improve the water system reliability (5 pts)
-------
IV. AFFORDABILITY SCORING CRITERIA (Maximum 20 Pts)
1. Project Target User Rate (TUR) is more than 1.50% of the
Community Median Household Income (MHIc) (20 pts) or
2. Project TUR is between 1.25% and 1.50% of MHIc (10 pts) or
3. Proj ect TUR is between 1.00% and 1.25 % of MHIc (5 pts) or
4. Proj ect TUR is less than 1.00% of MHIc (0 pts)
TOTAL SCORE/POINTS
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM
PUBLIC HEALTH/WATER SUPPLY PRIORITY RANKING/SCORING CRITERIA
I. PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS
A. Project will eliminate an acute public health problem (40 pts)
Problems which pose immediate and ongoing health hazards to water consumers include:
1. Non-compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
2. Fecal coliform bacteria contamination.
3. Nitrate contamination.
4. High levels of any contaminant which presents an immediate risk to health.
5. Insufficient water quantity or pressure to meet basic sanitary needs.
OR
B. Project will eliminate a chronic public health problem (30 pts)
Problems which pose chronic or long-term health hazards to water consumers include:
1. Persistent violation of a maximum contaminant level at a concentration which does not
present an immediate risk to health (e.g. total coliform bacteria, volatile organic chemicals,
synthetic organic chemicals).
OR
C. Project will eliminate a potential public health problem (20 pts)
Problems which are likely to result in public health hazards include:
1. Extremely deteriorated or inadequate treatment and delivery systems which are likely to
degrade water quality.
2. Periodic water outages.
3. Periodic maximum contaminant level violation.
-------
II. COMPLIANCE BENEFITS
Project is under a MDE Notice of Violation or a Local Health Department Order to correct violation
of State and/or federal drinking water standards. (30 pts)
III. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SYSTEM RELIABILITY BENEFITS
A. Project will eliminate an environmental problem (5 pts)
Problems which are likely to degrade the environment include:
1. Insufficient sludge handling facilities at an existing water treatment plant
2. Lack of system water conservation program
OR
B. Project will eliminate a public safety problem (5 pts)
Problems that present on-going public safety hazards include:
1. Inadequate water pressure
2. Unsafe finished water storage
3. Lack of significant safety measures (e.g. chemical containment)
AND/OR
C. Project will improve the water system reliability (5 pts)
1. Interconnection of existing water systems or purchase of systems in whole or in part or of
capacity in other systems where cost effective, or extension of water service for an existing
community without a safe adequate water supply to meet system reliability
OR
2. Remedies to improve system reliability include: (5 pts)
a. Provide redundancy to critical treatment or delivery functions
b. Eliminate dead ends and provide adequate looping in a distribution
system
c. Increase water storage capacity
d. Provide emergency backup electrical power source
IV. AFFORDABILITY SCORING CRITERIA
Project Target User Rate (TUR) is more than 1.50% of the Community Median
1. Household Income (MHIc) (20 pts)
2. Project TUR is between 1.25% and 1.50% of MHIc (10 pts)
3. Project TUR is between 1.00% and 1.25% of MHIc (5 pts)
4. Project TUR is less than 1.00% of MHIc (0 pts)
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following six categories:
• Public Health - A maximum of 40 points may be given to projects that eliminate public health hazards. For
example, for an acute hazard, a project will receive 40 points, for a chronic health hazard 30 points and
fewer points for periodic or potential health hazards.
• Compliance - A maximum of 20 points may be given to projects that improve a water system's ability to
comply. For example, a system will receive 20 points for a project which achieves compliance with an
order, decree, agreement, or regulatory deadline and 10 points for a project which improves compliance
where no order, decree or agreement has been issued.
• Affordability - A maximum of 20 points may be given to projects based on affordability. Projects for
systems where the municipal MHI is less than or equal to State MHI will receive 20 points. Projects for
systems where the municipal MHI is higher will receive fewer points.
• Environmental and Social Impacts - Projects may receive points (maximum of 5) for all criteria that apply
in this category: 3 points for projects that will have a beneficial environmental impact and 2 points for
projects that will have a beneficial social impact.
• Improvements in Adequacy and Efficiency - A maximum of 5 points may be given to projects that
increase the amount of water available (source, storage, pressure, etc.), provide water conservation, improve
aesthetic water quality, improve the applicant's ability to operate and maintain the facility, or increase the
reliability of service. The greatest number of points, 5, will be given to projects that include consolidation.
• Public Safety - A maximum of 5 points may be given to projects that correct a public safety hazard to
workers or others in the event of system failure (e.g., storage tanks, major pump stations, treatment
buildings, etc.), but only if the facility or equipment is essential for continued operation of the water system.
Projects with critical or chronic hazards will receive 5 points, with periodic or potential hazards will receive
3 points and protection against hazard will receive 1 point.
Notes
High Risk Levels - Pennsylvania has developed a list of high-risk levels for common contaminants found in
drinking water and uses it to assist in prioritizing public health projects.
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
Project Prioritization Criteria
A. BENEFITS TO PUBLIC HEALTH - For projects which propose to remedy a contamination
problem, the level of contamination must be determined in the same manner as compliance with an
MCL (e.g. average of the original and a check sample when monitoring annually or less frequently, or
annual average of quarterly samples).
1. Eliminates critical or chronic health hazard
a. Forty (40) points will be awarded to projects that propose to eliminate a problem that poses
an acute, ongoing health hazard to the consumer. The applicant must provide written
documentation to confirm these problems. The project engineer will be responsible for
evaluating the documentation provided by the applicant to determine if the reported problems
exist STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM BY THE APPLICANT IN THE PLANNING
AND FEASIBILITY REPORT (PART II OF THE APPLICATION) IS NOT, BY
ITSELF, VERIFICATION. THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY
ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND/OR ENGINEERING REPORTS.
Examples:
i. A violation of a primary MCL or maximum unregulated contaminant concentration and its
associated high risk to health level (see attached list).
ii. In order for coliform violations to qualify for forty points, the presence of fecal coliform
must be verified. Projects qualifying for 30 or 40 priority points due to coliform
contamination will normally be waterline extension projects which propose to eliminate the
use of individual wells or unpermitted community systems operating without disinfection.
iii. No water is available at the tap from the system's permitted sources or for unpermitted
systems from sources normally used. The length of the outage to some or all of the
customers is, or is expected to be (e.g., verification that failure of a critical part of the
system is probable), a week or more.
iv. Giardia cysts in the filtered water. Giardia cysts in the raw water of systems without
filtration or systems which currently have an unacceptable filter plant performance
evaluation due to facility deficiencies.
NOTE: Since only the presence of Giardia cysts trigger the requirement for establishing
concentrations and contract times (CTs), a system which is already triggered for filtration
and disinfection due to source water coliform or turbidity is not given a higher ranking
because of these source contamination problems. The regulatory requirement to provide
2.5 mg/1 of disinfectant adequately addresses all water quality problems associated with
the filter rule other than Giardia.
b. Thirty (30) points will be awarded to projects that propose to eliminate a problem which
poses a chronic health hazard to the consumer. The same verification and documentation as
in "A.I.a." above will be required.
-------
Examples:
i. A violation of a primary MCL or maximum unregulated contaminant concentration but less
than the associated High Risk level. For example, the annual average concentration of
quarterly trichloroethylene samples is between 0.005 mg/L (MCL) and 0.3 mg/L (High
Risk level).
ii. Total coliform contamination.
iii. Unfiltered surface water source AND a disinfection process which is not capable of 99.9%
inactivation of Giardia cysts.
NOTE: For a disinfection process to considered capable of 99.9% inactivation of Giardia
cysts, a minimum of 60 minutes of contact time is required at peak hourly flow.
2. Eliminates periodic or potential health hazard
a. Twenty (20) points will be awarded if the project proposed is to eliminate a documented
health hazard which has occurred periodically or if there is documented (written
correspondence, order, etc.) potential for the problem to occur.
Examples:
i. A periodic exceedence of a primary MCL or maximum unregulated contaminant
concentration due to an intermittent malfunction of treatment equipment.
ii. A periodic water outage. A water outage occurs when a water system is unable to provide
water to all of its customers for a period of time at least a day in length, from its permitted
sources (other than emergency permits). For unpermitted systems, these sources would be
the ones normally used.
iii. Unacceptable filter plant performance evaluation due to a structural need AND a
disinfection process which is not capable of 99.9% inactivation of Giardia cysts.
b. Fifteen (15) points will be awarded to projects which propose to cover a finished water
reservoir, add filtration for a surface water source where the disinfection process is currently
capable of 99.9% inactivation of Giardia cysts, address structural needs identified in an
unacceptable filter plant performance evaluation rating of a plant where the disinfection process
is currently capable of 99.9% inactivation of Giardia cysts or add disinfection where none
currently exists. Projects which propose to provide public water supply for anticipated future
development will NOT receive 15 points for adding disinfection, since these homeowners
would have the option of providing their own disinfection had they developed an individual
water system.
3. Provides protection against significant potential health hazard
a. Ten (10) points will be awarded to projects which propose preventative maintenance
improvements.
Example: Although no MCL violation or health hazard has been observed, replacing an old,
undersized or malfunctioning chlorinator or replacing leaking waterlines would fall into this
category.
-------
B. IMPROVEMENT IN ABILITY TO COMPLY
1. Improves water system's ability to comply (PENNVEST should not be used to reward or
penalize systems for compliance. Evaluation needs to be based strictly on benefits provided).
a. Twenty (20) points will be awarded to projects which propose to comply with or to improve
compliance with existing laws, rules or regulations; or a violation which poses an acute health
or safety hazard (i.e., primary violation).
Example: Any project which will ensure compliance with the Filtration Rule interim and
final deadlines.
b. Ten (10) points will be awarded to projects which propose to improve compliance with
existing laws, rules or regulations, when no compliance order, decree or agreement has been
issued and there is no deadline date specified in regulation; or a violation which does not pose
an acute health or safety hazard, but does pose a significant compliance problem (i.e.,
secondary violation).
Example: A significant compliance problem is one such as an MCL violation (not posing an
acute health risk) or normal operating pressure of less than 20 pounds per square inch (PSI).
c. Five (5) points will be awarded to projects which propose to provide protection against a
significant problem by compliance with Section 109.4 of the Safe Drinking Water Regulations
as follows:
Protect the water sources under the supplier's control
Provide treatment adequate to assure that the public health is protected
Provide and effectively operate and maintain public water system facilities
Take whatever investigative or corrective action is necessary to assure that safe and
potable water is continuously supplied to the user.
NOTE: SINCE NON-PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
DEFINITION OF WATER SYSTEM IN THE PENNVEST REGULATION, NO
COMPLIANCE POINTS WILL BE AWARDED FOR CORRECTION OF A
PROBLEM AFFECTING THESE TYPES OF SYSTEMS.
-------
C. AFFORDABILITY is the degree of need based upon the Pennsylvania median household income1
(PAMHI) compared to the municipal median household income. It is calculated by dividing the PA
median household income by the median household income specific to the municipality from which the
funding application is being submitted.
MunicipalMedianHouseholdlncome -r^ /">/">Q/
pAMedianHouseholdlncome= Ji 1 UU /O
a. Twenty (20) points will be assigned where the municipal median household income (MMHI)
is 0% to 25% of the PA median household income (PAMHI).
b. Sixteen (16) points are assigned where the MMHI is greater than 25% and up to 50% of the
PAMHI.
c. Twelve (12) points are assigned where the MMHI is greater than 50% and up to 75% the
PAMHI.
d. Eight (8) points are assigned where the MMHI is greater than 75% and less than 100%.
e. Four (4) points are assigned where the MMHI is 100% or greater than the PAMHI.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL2 AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
1. Beneficial environmental and social impact
a. Five (5) points will be awarded to proposed projects which will improve some existing
environmental condition.
Example: Installation of sludge handling facilities at an existing filtration plant.
b. Two (2) points will be awarded to proposed projects which will improve the quality of life for
consumers.
Example: Any project which provides benefits to public health or public safety.
c. One (1) point will be awarded for any project in which there is no demonstrable negative
environmental or social impact.
E. IMPROVEMENT IN ADEQUACY AND EFFICIENCY
1. Increases available water (source, storage, pressure, etc.), provides water conservation, improves
aesthetic water quality, improves applicant's ability to operate and maintain the facility and/or
increases the reliability of service. Improvements to the aesthetic water quality will generally
apply to lowering the levels of the secondary contaminants. Improvements designed to lower or
prevent increases in turbidity levels will only be given points under Section A - Benefits to Public
Health, since turbidity is a primary contaminant.
1 U.S. Census reports a PA median household income of 29,069.
2 For the purposes of this guidance, "environmental" means all conditions, circumstances, and influences
surrounding and affecting animal or plant organisms.
-------
a. Five (5) points will be awarded to projects which propose through water system consolidation
to improve facility operation or maintenance, and/or improve the reliability/viability of the
system. This only applies to existing public water systems, not to new systems or waterline
extensions. Consolidation involves one water system assuming ownership of another; physical
interconnection may or may not be involved. Consolidation occurs through acquisitions,
mergers, satellite ownership, takeovers, buyouts or regionalization.
b. Three (3) points will be awarded to projects which propose to increase available water,
provide water conservation, improve aesthetic water quality, improve applicant's ability to
operate and maintain the facility and/or increase the reliability of service by means other than
water system consolidation.
c. One (1) point will be awarded to proposed projects in which a regional water system is
considered but is not available as a reasonable alternative.
F. BENEFITS TO PUBLIC SAFETY
Water system facilities (e.g., storage tanks, major pump stations, treatment building, etc.) which pose
a safety hazard to workers and/or others in the event of system failure will receive ranking points for
correction only if the facility/equipment is essential for continued operation of the water system.
Public safety may depend also upon the assured availability of adequate quantity and pressure of
water for fighting fires. Projects that are mainly for fire protection are not eligible for DWSRF
assistance. However, projects that include improvements to fire protection as an ancillary project
benefit or as a secondary project purpose, may be considered for DWSRF assistance.
1. Eliminates critical or chronic safety hazard
a. Five (5) points will be awarded to projects that propose to eliminate a problem that poses an
ongoing safety hazard. Written documentation of the problem is required.
Examples:
i. Proposed project is for replacement or major rehabilitation of an unsafe water supply
storage tank that may collapse or a major pump that may fail.
ii. Project will meet fire code where system currently provides less than the minimum
amount/pressure of water recognized as necessary for fire protection. (Improvement to
fire protection is a secondary project purpose.)
2. Eliminates periodic or potential safety hazard
a. Three (3) points will be awarded if the project proposed is to eliminate a documented (in
writing) safety hazard which has occurred periodically or if there is potential for the problem
to occur.
-------
Examples:
i. Project will correct existing problems at a water storage tank that does not comply with
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards (e.g., no fencing
is provided around the perimeter of the tank).
Project will replace or provide major rehabilitation of pumps that periodically fail (e.g., due
to an inadequate backup electrical supply).
ii. Project will install fire hydrants where, because of a current lack of or an insufficient
number of hydrants, the system currently fails to meet fire protection codes. (Improvement
to fire protection is a secondary project purpose.)
3. Provides protection against significant potential safety hazard
a. One (1) point will be awarded to projects which propose preventative maintenance
improvements.
Examples:
i. Project will provide recoating of a water storage tank.
ii. Project will correct problems in the sufficiency of water pressure at some locations in the
system which cause the system to fail to meet fire protection codes. (Improvement to fire
protection is a secondary project purpose.)
G. READINESS TO PROCEED is described in terms of the readiness by which the project will be
initiated. "Readiness" is described specifically by the applicant-proposed project start dates.
a. A "High" value is assigned for those applicants that propose project start dates within six
months of the actual or anticipated funding approval date.
b. A "Medium" value is assigned where the project will be initiated greater than six months but
less than or equal to one (1) year from the date of funding approval.
c. A "Low" is assigned where the project will be initiated greater than one (1) year from the date
of funding approval.
-------
VIRGINIA
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be divided into two tiers. Tier H projects, addressing acute or chronic health or SDWA
compliance problems, are given first priority. Tier O projects, addressing all other problems, are then
prioritized. Within the two tiers, projects are prioritized based on eight criteria that fall under three category
groups. Tier H projects are prioritized based on all eight criteria, while Tier O projects are prioritized based
only on criterion 3 to criterion 8.
Group I - Health and Compliance
• 1. Acute Health Priority, SDWA Compliance - Projects for systems with acute health issues that may
affect individuals in the short term will be given 50 points (e.g., Commissioner's letter declaring health
hazard, SWTR violations, TCR violations).
• 2. Chronic Health Priority, SDWA Compliance - Projects for systems with chronic health issues that may
affect individuals over a lifetime will be given 30 points (e.g., SNC, lead and copper violations).
• 3. Public Health Priority, Waterworks Regulations Compliance - Projects to improve infrastructure
necessary for compliance with Waterworks Regulations will be given a maximum of 15 points (e.g., resolve
quality or quantity inadequacies of groundwater supply, ensure water receives proper treatment).
Group II - Affordability
• 4. Affordability - Projects will be given up to 20 points based on resources available to the population
served by the system. For example, if the county/city MHI is less than $22,000, the project will receive 20
points, but if it is greater than $33,000, the project will receive no points.
Group III - State Discretion
• 5. Regionalization - Regionalization projects will receive 8 points.
• 6. Readiness to Proceed - Not applicable after 10/1/98.
• 7. Other Funds - Points will be given to projects based on the amount of funds, as a percentage of the
construction loan, that the system will contribute. For example, systems that contribute more than 20
percent toward a project will receive 4 points, and systems that contribute less than 5 percent toward a
project will receive no points.
8. Projected Cost per Connection - Points will be given to projects based on the construction loan's cost
per household. For example, projects that would cost each household more than $5,000 will receive no
points and projects that would cost each household less than $500 will receive 3 points.
-------
VIRGINIA
IX. CRITERIA UTILIZED IN PRIORITIZING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
This priority system ensures that all eligible acute or chronic health/ SDWA compliance projects are
funded before any other eligible project. The priority of project funding is based upon a two-tiered
system after considering eligibility.
Each application for project funding is reviewed and is identified as being based on either (1) an eligible
acute or chronic health/ SDWA compliance problem or (2) other problem. All eligible acute or chronic
health/ SDWA compliance projects are designated as Health (Tier Designation H). The remaining
eligible projects are designated as Other (Tier Designation O). Tier H projects are funded first. After
all Tier H projects are funded, Tier O projects would be funded.
Acute or Chronic
Health/ SDWA
TierH
Use criteria 1 to 8
Project #1
Proiect #2
TierO
Use criteria 3 to :
criteria
After VDH designates a project to a particular tier, it is necessary to sort priority within that tier. Eight
criteria within three general groups are used to accomplish the sorting within tiers. VDH will assign
points to all eligible projects (including potential refinancing efforts) in accordance with the following
criteria.
GROUP I ~ Health and Compliance criteria (direct health violations or infrastructure needs that affect
health issues.
(1) Acute Health Priority, SDWA Compliance 50 points
(2) Chronic Health Priority, SDWA Compliance 30 points
(3) Public Health Priority, Waterworks Regulations Compliance 15 points
POINTS SUBTOTAL = 95 points or 70.37%
GROUP II - Affordability Criteria
(4) County/ City Median Household Income (MHI)
POINTS SUBTOTAL = 20 points or 14.815%
20 points
-------
GROUP III - State Discretion criteria
(5) Regionalization 8 points
(6) Readiness to proceed (disallowed for projects funded beginning 5 points
with grant from Federal FY 99 funds)
(7) Other funds 4 points
(8) Projected cost per connection 3 points
POINTS SUBTOTAL = 20 points or 14.815 %
TOTAL 135 points
Acute Health Priority, SDWA Compliance (50 points). These are health concerns that affect an
individual in the immediate short-term and are given the highest weight of any criteria.
• Commissioner's letter declaring a health hazard
• Surface Water Treatment Rule violation, i.e., inadequately treated surface water or groundwater under the
influence of surface water (GUDI)
• Persistent Total coliform rule (TCR) or Nitrate violations
• Continuing Boil Water Notice
• Inadequate individual water supplies documented by District Health Director, Planning District
Commission, etc. to show health problems.
Chronic Health Priority, SDWA Compliance (30 points). Chronic health problems that affect an
individual over a lifetime.
• Persistent PMCL Violations for contaminants such as VOC, SOC, IOC, RAD, etc.
• Lead and Copper Action Levels
• Significant noncompliance (SNC)
Public Health Priority, Waterworks Regulations Compliance (15 points maximum)
Improvements to infrastructure necessary to bring the waterworks into compliance with the Waterworks
Regulations and to ensure the provision of safe drinking water such as:
• Resolving conditions of inadequate quality and quantity of a groundwater source of water supply. (5
points)
• Ensuring that drinking water receives appropriate treatment to protect the public health. (5 points)
• Preventing conditions favoring the entrance of contaminants into the distribution system or to provide
adequate storage capacity and pressure, and to reduce leakage. (5 points)
Affordabilitv—County/City Medium Household Income (20 points maximum). The census median
household income (MHI) is used in order to weigh assistance to those with fewer resources available per
household.
Less than $22,000 MHI 20 points
$22,000 =< MHI =<$28,000 10 points
$28,000 < MHI =<$33,000 5 points
Greater than $33,000 MHI 0 point
Regionalization (8 pts). State law encourages regionalization; therefore, such efforts receive additional
consideration.
-------
Readiness To Proceed (5 points maximum, non-cumulative). The closer a project is to construction the
more points are awarded to the project. No points allowed for projects funded beginning with grants from
the Federal FY 99 funds. Readiness to proceed will continue to be considered as a decision factor for
selecting projects to receive funding.
Applicant has hired an Engineer 1 point
A Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) has been approved by VDH 2 points
Plans @ VDH 3 points
Plans approved by VDH 5 points
Other Funds Available (4 points maximum). Incentive points are assigned to encourage an applicant to
have or seek other funds in addition to the construction loan from the DWSRF program. The percentage is
calculated by dividing the other funds by the total project cost.
Less than 5% 0 point
5%to=<10% 1 point
10%to=<15% 2 points
15%to=<20% 3 points
Greater than 20% 4 points
Projected Cost per Connections Served (3 points maximum). The cost per household is calculated by
dividing the amount of the construction loan from the DWSRF program by the actual number of households
receiving the benefit.
Less than $500/household 3 points
$5 00 to =<$25 00/household 2 points
$2500 to =<$5000/household 1 point
Greater than $5 000/household 0 point
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following three categories:
• Public Health - Up to 50 points will be given to projects that address public health issues. Points will be
awarded based on the seriousness of the health risk, ranging from 50 points for projects to eliminate acute
health hazards to 10 points for general system improvements. Projects that address multiple health hazards
may receive points for only the highest classification.
• Regulatory Compliance - Up to 20 points will be given to projects to address regulatory compliance. For
example, systems to correct chronic noncompliance will receive 20 points, while projects designed to
prevent future noncompliance will receive 5 points.
• Affordability - Up to 30 points may be given to projects based on a comparison of drinking water system
rates to magisterial district MHI. Systems with rates greater than 2.0 percent of MHI will receive the
maximum of 30 points, decreasing incrementally to 5 points for systems with rates between 51 percent and
1.0 percent.
Notes
Tie-Breaking Procedure - The system with the highest public health rating will receive priority. If two
systems remain tied, the system with the smaller population served will be ranked higher.
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
Project Priority Ranking System
(1) PUBLIC HEALTH (0 to 50 points - 50 points maximum)
Up to fifty points may be given to a project for public health. The public health categories are listed below.
A particular project may apply to several categories. In such cases, the project will be given the highest
rating.
(A) Projects to correct acute health hazards - (50 points)
Fifty points will be given to projects that propose to eliminate a problem that poses an
acute, ongoing health hazard to the consumer. Examples are listed below.
• Projects that address documented nitrate or nitrite violations.
• Projects that address documented exceedance of primary inorganic MCLs.
• Projects that address a problem where a system has been put on the EPA SNC list for
turbidity violations. The project must ensure compliance in order to receive DWTRF
assistance.
• Projects that address a problem where a system has been put on the EPA SNC list for
microbiological violations. The project must ensure compliance in order to receive
DWTRF assistance.
• Projects that propose filtration for surface water source that currently does not have
filtration.
• Projects that propose disinfection for a system that currently does not have
disinfection.
• Projects that address documented water outages for extended periods (1 week) due to
system or design deficiencies.
(B) Correct chronic health hazards - (40 points)
Forty points will be given to projects that propose to eliminate a chronic health hazard to
the consumer. Examples are listed below.
• Projects that address a turbidity violation for a system that has not yet been put on the
EPA SNC list.
• Projects that address a microbiological violation for a system that has not yet been put
on the EPA SNC list.
• Projects that address exceedances of the Lead and Copper Rule.
-------
• Projects that address documented exceedances of primary organic MCLs.
• Projects that address documented exceedances of radiological MCLs.
• Projects that address treatment technologies for the SWTR.
• Projects that address documented water outages due to system or design deficiencies.
(C) Correct periodic health hazards - (30 points)
Thirty points will be awarded to projects that propose to eliminate a documented health
hazard which has occurred periodically. Examples are listed below.
• Projects that address low chlorine residuals.
• Projects that address periodic exceedances of a primary MCL.
• Projects that address periodic water outages to some customers for at least a day due
to design or system deficiency.
• Projects to bring existing facilities to current design standards which affect water
quality: treatment, chemical application, pumping facilities, finished storage and
distribution systems.
(D) Correct potential health hazards - (20 points)
Twenty points will be given to projects that propose to eliminate potential health hazards.
Examples are listed below.
• Projects for line extensions to areas with poor water quality or limited quantity.
•
Projects to develop new source to augment existing sources where there is no other
health hazard associated with the project. Dams and reservoirs are not eligible.
• Projects for installation / upgrade of waste disposal facilities.
(E) System Improvements - (10 points)
Ten points will be given to projects that propose general system improvements. Examples
are listed below.
• Projects to replace / repair old, undersized, or malfunctioning equipment.
•
Projects to replace leaking water line.
• Projects to improve aesthetic quality of the water such as iron, manganese, taste and
odor.
-------
(2) REGULATORY COMPLIANCE (0 to 20 points - 20 points maximum)
(A) Correction of chronic non-compliance - 20 points
• Compliance with administrative orders, agreements, statutes, or regulatory deadlines
(B) Compliance with periodic and potential non-compliance - 10 points
• Compliance with sanitary survey recommendations, NPDES permits, new regulations,
or design standards.
(C) Protection against non-compliance - 5 points
• Compliance with proposed regulations.
(D) Line extensions with documented cases of fecal coliform - 3 points
(3) AFFORD ABILITY (0 to 30 points)
Rates = 0% to 0.5 % MHI ( 0 points)
Rates = 0. 5 1 % to 1. 0% MHI ( 5 points)
Rates = 1. 0 1 % to 1. 5% MHI (20 points)
Rates = 1. 5 1 % to 2. 0% MHI (25 points)
Rates > 2.0% MHI (30 points)
Note: MHI = median household income by magisterial district as published by the
West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council.
Rates based on 4500 gallons.
Public Health
Compliance
Affordability
Total Points
-------
Tie Breaker:
In the event that two systems have the same score the following will be used as the tie breaker:
1. Whichever system has the highest public health rating will be ranked higher.
2. In the event there is still a tie, then the system with the lower population served will be ranked
higher.
The list of eligible projects that are expected to receive assistance from the DWTRF for the 1997
fiscal year is enclosed as Attachment 3. This list includes the name of the public water system,
description of the project, priority assigned, the expected financial terms, and size of community
served. These projects are considered the 1997 Project Priority List to receive financial assistance
from the DWTRF. A project must first be determined to be technically and financially feasible by
the Water Technical Review Committee and the Funding Committee of the West Virginia
Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council. Approval from the West Virginia Infrastructure and
Jobs Development Council is required for any project to receive DWTRF funding assistance.
Bypass Procedure
After all projects are ranked in order of priority the following procedure will be used to determine
those that will receive financial assistance from the DWTRF.
1. There is a federal requirement that at least 15 % of the construction funds be used for small
systems which serve less than 10,000 persons. Annually, an amount up to 15 % of the funds will be
assigned to small systems starting at the top of the priority list.
2. The remainder of the funds will be assigned in order of priority on the priority list.
3. The following provisions will be used to bypass a project on the priority list or amend the
priority list and fund another project on the comprehensive list.
(1) The project is for a system that is defined as a Significant Non-Complier (SNC) per
the Safe Drinking Water Act and the project will not ensure compliance.
(2) The project is for a system that does not have properly certified operators to operate
and maintain the system.
(3) The project has been funded by another entity,
(4) The project has had a change in scope,
(5) The project is unable to proceed in a timely manner,
(6) All other funding is not committed,
(7) The project costs exceed the anticipated loan amounts,
(8) The system declines the assistance,
(9) The project is not certified as technically and financially feasible by the West Virginia
Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council (WVIJDC) Water Technical Review and
Funding Committees.
(10) The project is unable to meet the schedule developed and agreed upon by the project
sponsor and the Bureau for Public Health.
(11) Other situations that cannot be foreseen that the Bureau for Public Health determines will
delay the loan assistance.
(12) A project previously ranked below attains a higher rating due to revised information.
-------
When a project has been bypassed, the water system will be given written notice that it has been
bypassed and will not be funded with DWTRF funding for that year. The project may be applied to the
next years' priority lists. The Bureau for Public Health will work with those projects that have been
bypassed to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that the project will be eligible in the following year.
In such cases where a project is bypassed, the next project on the list will be funded within the
funds available and the criteria outlined in this section. If a funded project comes in under cost, the
remaining funds may be used to fund the next project on the priority list provided that the cost does not
exceed the available funds.
Rational for different assistance
Loans will be offered at 2% for up to 20 years plus a 1% administrative fee. To qualify for loans
at an interest rate less than 2% or extended loan terms up to 30 years, the proposed user rates for 4,500
gallons must be equal to or greater than 11/2% of the median household income (MHI). In
such cases the interest rate will be reduced to keep user rates as close to 1.5% of the MHI as possible. The
MHI is defined by magisterial district and is enclosed as Attachment 1.
Funds from the 1% administrative fee must be kept in a separate, non project account. The monies
can only be used for purposes directly related to the DWTRF program and must be properly accounted for
in the annual audit.
The long term impact of these funding decisions will be that after initial capitalization years (2004)
the fund will be receiving approximately $3 million in repayments that year (2004) for funding additional
projects.
-------
ALABAMA
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following seven categories:
• Violations of National Drinking Water Standards - Projects for systems with MCL exceedances during the
30-month period prior to pre-application submittal (3 years for secondary contaminants) may receive up to 40
points for each item that applies in this category (e.g., 40 points for more than 2 bacteriological violations, 20
points for MCL exceedances of secondary standards, 5 points for 1.0 - 5.0 mg/L of nitrate).
• Quantity Deficiencies - Projects for systems with quantity deficiencies or shortages due to water source or
storage may receive between 5 and 30 points for each item that applies in this category (e.g., 30 points for
continual shortages, 5 points for inadequate storage without implemented conservation program).
• Treatment/Design Deficiencies - Projects for systems with design deficiencies that could be corrected by
enlargement, repair, installation, or replacement of the system or a portion of the system may receive between
10 and 30 points for each item that applies in this category (e.g., 30 points for no filtration for surface water or
groundwater under the influence of surface water, 12 points for inadequate treatment or process facilities). In
addition, projects may receive 10 or 15 bonus points if they have committed to or implemented a source water
protection plan or delineated source water areas and assessed contaminants.
• Affordability Factor - Projects will receive points based on the relative needs of applicants on a per household
basis. The number of points is determined by the ratio of the average annual household water bill to the 1997
MHI for the project area multiplied by 100 (e.g., 24 points if the number is greater than 2.0, 3 points if the
number is less than or equal to 0.5).
• New Customer Connections Served - Projects will receive between 10 and 26 points based on the number of
new customer connections that they will serve (e.g., 26 points for more than 600 new connections, 10 points for
fewer than 20 new connections).
• Consolidation - Projects which result in the consolidation, interconnection, or improvement of services for two
or more drinking water systems may receive between 10 and 50 points depending on the action being taken
(e.g., 50 points for total system consolidation, 10 points for improvement of services).
• Benefit/Cost Factor - Projects will receive between 2 and 22 points depending on the factor resulting in
dividing the number of benefiting connections by the amount of the DWSRF loan in millions of dollars (e.g., 22
points if the factor is greater than 10,000; 2 points if the factor is between 0 and 25).
Notes
Tie Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, priority will go to the project with the smallest number of
existing customers served.
-------
ALABAMA
335-7-13-.10 Criteria for Project Loan Priority.
(1) Each year, the Department shall develop a project priority list in accordance with the SDWA for the
forthcoming fiscal year. The criteria for ranking projects gives priority to projects that: 1) protect
public health, and return systems to compliance; 2) benefit the most people per dollar expended; 3)
assist systems most in need on a per household affordability basis; and 4) use consolidation with
other systems to correct existing deficiencies and improve management. Each year, the project
priority list shall be the subject of a public notice, including a public comment period. Water systems
desiring to place a project on the list shall make their request for placement by May 1 of each year, or
as otherwise established by the Department. Those projects will be ranked in accordance with the
priority system and placed on the list. The pre-application, in the form of an Engineering Report,
shall be submitted by the authorized representative of the water system with a request for placement
on the list:
(a) Brief description of the project;
(b) Brief description of existing deficiencies (for example, low pressure, inadequate treatment,
bacteriological contamination, etc.);
(c) Number of customers for entire water system;
(d) Number of customers for project area;
(e) Estimated costs associated with the project including planning and design expenses;
(f) Financial information summary including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Annual operations and maintenance cost estimates;
2. Total existing water system debt obligations;
3. Total annual revenues;
4. Most recent financial statement;
5. Existing water service rates and proposed increases;
6. Average annual customer water bill based on historical usage; and
7. Median household income for project area;
8. Where one or more project option exists, projected costs for each option.
(g) Engineering Report as described in Rule 335-7-4-.04, unless otherwise directed by the
Department; and
-------
(h) Benefits of pollution prevention or water shed enhancement project.
Each project considered eligible for assistance shall be assigned a point rating (P) computed
according to the following formula:
P = A+B+C+D+E+F+G
Where:
A= Violations of National Drinking Water Standards
B= Quantity Deficiencies
C= Treatment Deficiencies
D= Affordability
E= New Customers Served
F= Consolidation
G= Benefit/Cost
A = Violations of National Drinking Water Standards
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are established by the EPA for those contaminants
that may be detrimental to public health. Exceedances of these levels during the 30-month
period prior to pre-application submittal (3 years for secondary contaminants) carry the
following weightings:
Condition Priority Points
a. Bacteriological
1. No MCL violations 0
2. 1-2 MCL violations 30
3. Greater than 2 violations 40
b. Nitrate
1. <1.0mg/L 0
2. 1.0B5.0mg/L 5
3. 5.0B10.0mg/L 20
4. MCL violations 40
c. Turbidity in the last 30 months
1. No MCL violations 0
2. 1-2 MCL violations 30
3. Greater than 2 violations 40
d. Primary Organic, Inorganic, and Radionuclide Standards
1. No MCL violations during last 2 monitoring 0
periods
2. 1-2 violations 30
3. Greater than 2 violations 40
-------
e. Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM)
1. No MCL violations during last 2 monitoring 0
periods
2. 1-2 violations 30
3. Greater than 2 violations 40
f. Secondary Standards B MCL exceedances 20
g. Boil Water Status in the last 3 years 30
h. Lead or Copper Exceedance 30
B = Quantity Deficiencies. Quantity deficiencies or shortages due to water source/storage.
Condition Priority Points
Adequate quantity for the present 0
Source
Continual Shortage 30
Shortage during peak demands (daily) 20
Shortage during seasonal high use with an implemented 15
conservation program.
Shortage during seasonal high use without an 5
implemented conservation program
Storage (less than 24 hrs available based on average demand)
Inadequate storage with implemented conservation 20
program
Inadequate storage without implemented conservation 5
program
Pressure
Consistently < 20 psi 30
Occasionally < 20 psi 15
-------
C = Treatment/Design Deficiencies. Design deficiencies are those which could be corrected by
enlargement, repair, installation or replacement of all or a portion of the system.
Condition Priority Points
No filtration of surface water or groundwater under the 30
influence of surface water
No filtration of groundwater with the following raw water
quality referenced in 335-7-5-.20 Administrative Code
1. Turbidity > 5.0 NTU 25
2. Total Coliform > 100 per 100 ml of sample 20
3. Fecal Coliform > 20 per 100 ml of sample 25
4. Iron>0.6mg/L 15
5. Iron>0.3<0.6mg/L 10
6. Manganese > 0.1 mg/L 15
7. Manganese >0.05 <0. Img/L 10
Inadequate treatment or process facilities 12
Distribution or plant capacity deficiencies 12
Improper well construction 12
Other contaminants of concern such as cryptosporidium or 25
Giardia with monitoring or studies to demonstrate existence or
high potential for occurrence
Bonus Points:
System has implemented or committed (by letter) to 15
implementing a source water protection program
System has completed or in process (by letter) of delineating 10
source water areas and assessing contaminants.
D = Affordability Factor. An affordability factor will be assigned to each project to reflect the
relative needs of applicants on a per household basis. The affordability factor is defined as
the ratio of the Average Annual Household water bill to the 1997 median household income
for the project area.
Condition Priority Points
Average annual household water bill X 100
Median household income of project area
a. >2.00% 24
b. 1.76 B 2.00 21
c. 1.51- 1.75 18
d. 1.26 B 1.50 15
e. 1.01- 1.25 11
f 0.51- 1.00 7
h. < or = 0.5 3
-------
E = New Customer Connections Served.
Condition Priority Points
New customer connections the project will serve:
a. < 20 connections 10
b. 21-50 12
c. 51-100 14
d. 101-150 16
e. 151-200 18
f. 201-300 20
g. 301-400 22
h. 401-600 24
i. >600 26
F = Consolidation. Projects which result in the consolidation, interconnection, or improvement
of services for two or more drinking water systems, will have the following weighted factor.
Condition Priority Points
No consolidation 0
Total system consolidation 50
Physical interconnection 30
Management consolidation 20
Improvement of Services (managerial, operational, and 10
financial)
G = Benefit/Cost Factor. Benefit/Cost points assigned to each project will be determined
using the following formula:
Benefit/Cost Factor = Number of benefiting connections
Amount of DWSRF Loan (in $1.0 millions)
-------
Applicants must furnish information (including hydraulic analyses, if necessary) to support their
estimate of the number of benefiting connections. The amount of DWSRF loan is in millions of
dollars.
Condition Priority Points
a. factor > 10,000 22
b. factor 3,001 to 10,000 20
c. factor 1501 to 3,000 18
d. factor 801 to 1,500 16
e. factor 501 to 800 14
f. factor 301 to 500 12
g. factor 201 to 3 00 10
h. factor 121 to 200 8
i. factor 61 to 120 6
j. factor 26 to 60 4
k. factor 0 to 25 2
(2) The priority list shall be divided into a fundable and extended portion. The fundable portion
shall include those projects anticipated to be funded from the projected available loan funds for
the applicable period. The extended portion shall include those projects anticipated for funding
from future projected loan funds.
(3) Following completion of the ranking process, the priority list will be reviewed to determine if at
least 15% of amount projected to be funded is for public water systems which regularly serve
fewer than 10,000 people, as required by the SDWA. If this is not the case, the priority list will
be adjusted by exchanging the lowest ranking projects above the funding line that serve 10,000
or more with the highest ranking projects below the funding line that serve fewer than 10,000,
until the 15% requirement is satisfied.
(4) When two or more projects score equally under the project priority system, a tie breaking
procedure will be utilized. The project with the smallest number of existing customers served
will receive the higher ranking.
(5) A project on the fundable portion of the list may be bypassed and the next eligible project funded
if it is determined that the project will not be ready to proceed during the funding year. The
applicant whose project is to be bypassed will be given written notice by the Department.
Projects that have been bypassed may be funded at a later date when the project is ready to
proceed.
-------
FLORIDA
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the baseline and affordability categories below. Each
project will be assigned points from one of the baseline point categories. Then, points from all three
affordability categories will be added to the base score.
Baseline Point Categories - If a project comprises components qualifying for different baseline point scores, the
project will receive the highest number of points for which at least 50 percent of the estimated project costs qualify.
If no single component generates 50 percent of the cost, the cost of the highest priority component will be combined
with the cost of a lower priority component to make 50 percent and the project will receive the points attributed to
the lower priority component. Noncompliance and public health risks documented in the 48-month time period prior
to applying for a loan are used to rank projects.
• Acute Public Health Risk - Projects that address documented acute public health risks such as fecal coliform
and E. Coli MCL exceedances or failure to meet SWTR requirements will receive 800 points.
• Potential Acute Public Health Risk - Projects that address documented potential acute public health risks such
as total coliform MCL exceedances or violations of disinfection requirements will receive 700 points.
• Chronic Public Health Risk - Projects that address documented chronic public health risks such as primary
chemical contaminant MCL exceedances (except nitrate, nitrite, and total nitrogen) or trihalomethane MCL
exceedances will receive 600 points.
• Potential Chronic Public Health Risk - Projects that address documented potential chronic public health risks,
such as exceedances of 50 percent of an MCL value for primary chemical contaminants (except nitrate, nitrite,
and total nitrogen) or exceedances of 80 percent of an MCL value for trihalomethanes, will receive 500 points.
• Compliance - Projects that address SDWA compliance and other enforceable requirements such as secondary
contaminant violations or lack of required facilities to enable compliance will receive 100 points.
• Other - Projects that are not addressed in the above categories, such as water softening treatment or computer
facilities, will receive 100 points.
Affordability Point Categories
• MHI - Projects will be given affordability points based on the extent to which a community's MHI falls below
the statewide average using the formula: MHI score = 200 x (1.00 - MHI fraction) where the MHI fraction is the
MHI estimate for the project service area divided by the statewide average MHI. The maximum points that a
project may receive is 100 points, and the number will be rounded to the nearest tenth of a point.
• Population - Projects will receive affordability points based on the formula: 50 - (P/1,000), where P is the
population of the project's service area. Points will be rounded to the nearest tenth of a point.
• Consolidation - Projects will receive 15 points for each public water system serving 500 or fewer persons that
is consolidated or regionalized. The maximum score that a project may receive is 45 points.
-------
Notes:
Tie-Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, priority will go to projects whose application has the earliest
postmark or date of receipt.
Funding Ceilings - No single project listed on the fundable portion of the priority list may receive more than 25
percent of the DWSRF capitalization grant per year for construction loans or more than $1,000,000 for pre-
construction loans unless the project is based, in part, on consolidation or regionalization, in which case the
maximum will be $1,500,000.
-------
DEP 1998 STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM FOR DRINKING 62-552
WATER FACILITIES
62-552.650 Priority Determination.
(1) The priority system for financial assistance is based on public health
considerations, compliance with the Act or other enforceable requirements relating to
drinking water systems, and affordability. Affordability includes the evaluation of
median household income, population affected, and consolidation of very small public
water systems which serve a population of 500 people or fewer. The baseline priority
score shall be determined as set forth in subsections (2), (3), and (4) below. The
affordability score shall be determined as set forth in subsection (5) below and shall be
added to the baseline score. Special consideration shall be given, in the form of the
cost-effectiveness preference under rule 62-552.700(2), F.A.C., to projects in areas
where salt water intrusion jeopardizes adequate supplies of safe drinking water.
(2) Each project, or component of a project when a project has components
qualifying for different baseline priority scores, shall be assigned a baseline priority
score to indicate protection of public health, compliance with the Act or other
enforceable requirements, or another lower priority need. When a project has
components qualifying for different baseline priority scores, the score for the entire
Effective 8-10-98
-------
DEP 1998 STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM FOR DRINKING 62-552
WATER FACILITIES
project shall be the highest number of points for which at least 50% of the estimated
project costs qualify. When no single project component generates at least 50% of the
estimated project costs, the cost of the highest priority component shall be combined
with one or more lower priority component costs, at the lowest number of points
associated with any of the combined components, to achieve the 50% threshold and
thereby establish the overall project baseline priority score.
(3) Compliance monitoring results for public water systems or County Health
Department sampling results for other supply, treatment, or distribution systems during
the 48-month period immediately preceding the date upon which a request for inclusion
is submitted under rule 62-552.600(1) or rule 62-552.680(1 )(a)2., F.A.C., shall be used
to justify public health and compliance baseline priority scores involving a comparison
to a maximum contaminant level (MCL) or other numerical standard relating to drinking
water quality. A certification by the State Health Officer of the existence of a public
health risk during the referenced 48-month period also shall justify a public health
baseline priority score.
(4) Baseline priority scores shall be assigned to projects that will eliminate
any of the following conditions or satisfy the Florida Administrative Code requirements
cited below:
(a) Acute public health risk sub-category projects shall be assigned a
baseline priority score of 800 points when the following is documented.
1. Exceedance of the fecal coliform or E. Coli MCL value as set forth in rule
62-550.310(3)(b), F.A.C.;
2. Failure to meet the surface water treatment or disinfection requirements of
rules 62-550.560 and 62-555.600 through 62-555.630, F.A.C., commonly known as the
Surface Water Treatment Rule;
3. Exceedance of a lead or copper action level as set forth in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, part 141, sections 80 through 91 (1995) for two (2)
successive monitoring periods; or
4. Exceedance of a nitrate, nitrite or total nitrogen MCL value as set forth in
rule 62-550.310(1), F.A.C. For public water systems, an exceedance shall be
established according to the monitoring requirements of rule 62-550.512, F.A.C.
(b) Potential acute public health risk sub-category projects shall be assigned
a baseline priority score of 700 points when the following is documented.
1. Exceedance of the total coliform MCL value as set forth in rule 62-
550.310(3)(a), F.A.C.;
2. Violation of the disinfection requirements under rule 62-555.320(4),
F.A.C.;
3. Exceedance of 50% of a nitrate, nitrite or total nitrogen MCL value as set
forth in rule 62-550.310(1), F.A.C;
4. Treatment or disinfection facilities are needed to enhance compliance
with the Surface Water Treatment Rule; or
Effective 8-10-98
-------
DEP 1998 STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM FOR DRINKING 62-552
WATER FACILITIES
5. A certification is made by the State Health Officer that an acute public
health risk exists as a result of contaminants for which the Department has no
established standards for water supplies and the proposed project will eliminate the
risk.
(c) Chronic public health risk sub-category projects shall be assigned a
baseline priority score of 600 points when an exceedance of an MCL value for the
following is documented.
1. Primary chemical contaminants (except nitrate, nitrite, and total nitrogen)
identified in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of chapter 62-550, F.A.C.;
2. Trihalomethanes identified in rule 62-550.310(2)(a), F.A.C.; or
3. Radionuclides identified in rule 62-550.310(4), F.A.C.
(d) The potential chronic public health risk sub-category projects shall be
assigned a baseline priority score of 500 points when the following is documented.
1. Exceedance of 50% of an MCL value for primary chemical contaminants
(except nitrate, nitrite, and total nitrogen) identified in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of chapter 62-
550, F.A.C.; or
2. Exceedance of 80% of an MCL value for trihalomethanes identified in rule
62-550.310(2)(a), F.A.C.; or
3. A certification is made by the State Health Officer that a chronic public
health risk exists as a result of contaminants for which the Department has no
established standards for water supplies and the proposed project will eliminate the
risk.
(e) The compliance with the Act and other enforceable requirements category
projects shall be assigned a baseline priority score of 300 points when any of the
following is documented.
1. Violation of any secondary contaminant standard found in Table 4 of
chapter 62-550, F.A.C.
2. Required facilities do not currently exist or must be provided to enable
compliance with rules of the Department. The situations requiring compliance are listed
below:
a. Requirements for the minimum number of wells in rule 62-555.315(1),
F.A.C.;
b. Well set-back and construction requirements of rules 62-555.312 and 62-
555.315, F.A.C., respectively;
c. Treatment, storage, power, and distribution requirements of rule 62-
555.320, F.A.C.; and
d. Cross connections and backflow control requirements of rule 62-555.360,
F.A.C.
(f) A separate category having a baseline priority score of 100 points shall
be assigned to all other projects that cannot be categorized under paragraphs (a)
through (e) above. Examples of such projects are water softening treatment and
computer or laboratory facilities.
Effective 8-10-98
-------
DEP 1998 STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM FOR DRINKING 62-552
WATER FACILITIES
(5) In addition to the assignment of a baseline score, each project shall be
awarded points based upon the three affordability criteria outlined below. These points
shall be added to the baseline category score to determine the total priority score for
the project.
(a) A median household income (MHI) score shall be derived based on the
extent to which a community's MHI falls below the statewide average. Data used to
determine the score shall be from the most recent decennial census or from verifiable
estimates provided by the project sponsor. Household income data shall be
representative of all areas to be served by the proposed project. The score is based on
the following formula:
MHI score = 200 x (1.00 - MHI fraction)
Where the MHI fraction is the MHI estimate for the project service area divided by the
statewide average MHI. This score shall not exceed a maximum of 100.0 points and
shall be rounded to the nearest tenth of a point.
(b) Projects for small systems are generally less affordable than those for
larger systems because of the limited rate base from which to recover costs. These
systems also often have difficulty complying with the Act. Thus, special consideration
will be given to such projects based on population. The population score is based on
the following formula:
Population score = 50.0 - (P/1,000)
Where P is the population of the project's service area. The minimum score shall be 0.0
points and shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 point.
(c) Because very small public water systems often experience difficulty
complying with the regulatory requirements, a consolidation score will be used to reflect
a project's consolidation or regionalization of such systems. For each project which
consolidates or regionalizes public water systems serving 500 or fewer persons, an
additional 15 points for each such system will be awarded. However, the consolidation
score shall not exceed 45 points regardless of the number or consolidated or
regionalized systems.
Specific Authority 403,8532, FS.
Law Implemented 403.8532, FS.
History- New - 4-7-98.
Effective 8-10-98
-------
GEORGIA
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following three categories:
• Protection of Public Health through compliance assurance - A maximum of 350 points will be given for
projects that seek to protect public health. Projects that supply safe drinking water to an existing privately-
owned PWS that demonstrates or may demonstrate non-compliance with current or future regulations will
receive 350 points. Projects that supply safe drinking water to a new or proposed development project that
will serve people year round will receive 250 points. Projects may receive points for only one item.
• Environmental Criteria - A maximum of 300 points may be given to projects that seek to correct
environmental problems. Projects needed to bring a PWS into compliance with the SDWA, correct acute
contaminant violations, or correct deficiencies causing a chronic health threat would receive 300 points.
Similarly, 200 points would be given for projects designed to address primary or secondary drinking water
quality standards. Projects may receive points for only one item.
• Financial Management and Need - A maximum of 150 points may be given for projects that assist fiscally
responsible and financially strapped systems. Projects may receive points for all items that apply in this
category. Assessment of financial management is based on reporting procedures and ratios (coverage and
operating).
Notes
Funding Ceiling - A maximum of $2.0 million may be received by a single community per calendar year, per
federal appropriation unless other suitable projects are not available.
-------
GEORGIA
PROJECT RATING AND SELECTION CRITERIA
(Maximum Point Total - 1,000 Points)
The projects will be rated in five (5) categories to determine their eligibility and selection for funding
under the DWSRF
1) Protection of Public Health through Compliance Assurance (maximum 350 points)
2) Environmental Criteria (maximum 300 points)
3) Project Readiness (maximum 200 points)
4) Financial Management and Need (maximum 150 points)
5) Community and Regional Enhancement (maximum zero points)
1. Protection of Public Health Through Compliance Assurance
(Only one applicable ~ maximum 350 points)
Protect public health by supplying safe drinking water from a Qualified Local Government or a Water
Authority within a certified government to an existing privately-owned public water system that
demonstrates or may demonstrate non-compliance with the current or future state and federal drinking
water regulations. 350
2. Environmental Criteria
(Only One Applicable - Maximum 300 Points)
Protect public health by supplying safe drinking water to any new or proposed development
project that will serve people living year-round. 250
Project needed to bring public water system into immediate compliance with the SDWA
regulations. 300
Project needed to correct "acute" Microbial, D/DBPs, and Corrosion By-Products Violations. 300
Project needed to correct deficiencies that are posing "chronic" health concerns. 300
-------
Infrastructure improvements and/or modifications to provide safe drinking water. These include
installation, -replacement or rehabilitation of new or aging water sources, treatment facilities and processes,
pumps, storage, transmission and distribution, and other pertinent infrastructure
needs. 275
Development of alternate and/or additional water sources. 250
Water plant Improvements/upgrade to improve water quality in conformance
with the primary or secondary drinking water quality standards. 200
Land acquisition needed for a planned infrastructure improvement. 175
3) Project Readiness (Only One Applicable ~ Maximum 200 Points)
Plans and specifications and all necessary construction permits approved by EPD
(including all bid items, land disturbing activity, DOT & railroad permits, etc.) 200
Final plans and specifications conditionally approved by EPD. Applicable permit
applications for the construction are issued. 175
Complete plans and specifications submitted to EPD for review. 150
Project design -development report (DDR) or equivalent (i.e. Engineering Report)
approved by EPD; schedule for completion of final plans and specifications. 100
Project design development report (DDR) submitted to EPD. 75
Project design under contract. Planning completed and approved by EPD. 50
Engineering Report (ER) submitted to EPD. 25
4) Financial Management/ Need (Maximum 150 Points)
A. Financial Reporting (maximum 55 points)
GFOA Certificate of Achievement 55
GAAP Audit 20
GAAS Audit 20
B. Financial Operation (maximum 95 points)
Coverage Ratio (> 150%) 70
Operating Ratio (> 120%) 25
-------
5) Community and Regional Enhancement (0 Points)
Project associated solely with future growth 0
Project associated solely with fire protection 0
Project associated solely with operation and maintenance expenses 0
Project associated solely with laboratory fees for routine monitoring 0
Project associated solely with water rights 0
Projects associated with purchase or construction of dams or reservoirs 0
(Excluding finished water reservoirs)
Projects or parts of projects that may not qualify for loans under DWSRF may be eligible for loans
under existing State-backed loan programs currently administered by GEFA.
-------
KENTUCKY
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following five categories.
• Resource Development - Projects to obtain and maintain financial, managerial, and technical capabilities to
comply with the SDWA may receive points for each criterion that applies in this category. Between 10 and 25
points will be given (based on the population served by the systems) for consolidation, between 5 and 25 points
for interconnections, and 15 points for source water quantity and quality correction.
• Water Treatment - Projects to implement treatment techniques to obtain compliance with the SWTR and the
NPDWR may receive points for each contaminant technique criterion that applies in this category. Between 20
and 25 points will be given to address microbiological and turbidity problems (e.g., 20 points for finished water
turbidity, 25 points for CT removal requirements). Between 10 and 20 points will be given to implement best
available technologies (e.g., 10 points for secondary contaminants, 20 points for VOCS, lOCs, SOCs, and
radionuclides).
• Water Distribution - Projects to improve infrastructure to obtain compliance with the SWTR, TCR, LCR, or
the Asbestos Standard may receive points for each criterion that applies in this category. Ten points will be
given to address each pressure and quality problem.
• Public Health Protection - Projects to extend water lines to serve an area where households have insufficient
financial and technical capabilities to maintain water supply systems that comply with the SDWA will receive
10 points.
• Financial Health Need - Projects that serve communities with an MHI less than 80 percent of the State median
will receive 4 points, while those that serve communities with an MHI of 80 percent or more of the State median
will receive 2 points (if the MHI is less than the State median MHI).
Notes
Tie Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, projects for systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people are
given higher priority than those that serve more than 10,000 people. If there is still a tie, the higher priority
goes to the system with the lowest DWSRF project cost per household (that benefits from the project).
Restrictions - Certain point categories have restrictions depending on the type of contaminant (e.g., new water
treatment plants are limited to finished water turbidity concerns), the percentage of infrastructure included (e.g.,
points for inadequately sized water lines are only allowed when the need applies to at least 20 percent of all
waterlines), the time needed (e.g., for inadequate distribution storage), etc.
-------
KENTUCKY - DIVISION OF WATER
DRINKING WATER SUPPLY REVOLVING FUND
PRIORITY SYSTEM (1997 CAPITALIZATION GRANT)
PURPOSE
The Drinking Water Supply Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Priority System was developed to prioritize eligible
projects for funding from the DWSRF to facilitate a Public Water System's (PWS) ability to obtain and
maintain financial, managerial, and technical capabilities for compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOWA) which includes compliance with existing and future national drinking water standards or otherwise
significantly further the health protection objectives of the SDWA.
METHODOLOGY
The structure of the priority system incorporates existing initiatives of the SDWA (Financial, Managerial,
and Technical Capacity - Surface Water Treatment Rule - Total Coliform Rule -Lead and Copper Rule -
Asbestos Standard - Best Available Technology) and also allows for incorporation of future initiatives
(Capacity Development - Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule - Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule Groundwater Disinfection Rule - and Best Available and Affordable Technology) with
minor modifications. Projects are prioritized based on a Priority Formula and a Tie Breaker.
Priority Formula The priority formula focuses on a Public Water Supply's financial, managerial, and technical
capabilities to comply with national drinking water standards or to otherwise promote the public health
objectives of the SDWA. Violations of drinking water standards occur primarily as a result of inadequate
infrastructure (which is fundable from the DWSRF) or as a result of poor operation (which is not fundable
from the DWSRF). Therefore, a proactive approach was developed to set priorities based on infrastructure
needs to achieve and maintain compliance with national drinking water standards or otherwise promote the
public health objectives of the SDWA. A priority system based on violations of drinking water standards
would have been reactive and possibly allowed priorities to be set based on operation deficiencies.
Tie Breaker The tie breaker was developed to consider three factors:
1. Maintaining priorities to be funded in the order as set forth by the priority formula;
2. Expending DWSRF dollars to maximize the benefit toward compliance with the SDWA.
3. Provide funding of projects that are affordable to the households that benefit from the project.
Although there is an element to the DWSRF program that focuses on smaller systems, that focus was to
assist those systems to comply with the SDWA. A tie breaker that only focuses on the population of smaller
systems could prioritize a project that would not maintain the intent of the priority formula, not maximize the
use of funds, and be less affordable to individual households.
-------
APPLYING THE PRIORITY SYSTEM TO PROJECTS
The Division of Water, Drinking Water Branch will assign priority formula points to each of the five
categories (Resource Development - Water Treatment - Water Distribution Extension of Service for Public
Health Protection - Public Water System Financial Need) as described below and listed in the 1997 Project
Priority Formula Table based on information supplied by PWSs and their consultants. The project priority
points will be the sum of all points assigned to each of the five categories.
Resource Development
This category allows affordable alternatives for a PWS to obtain and maintain financial, managerial, and
technical capabilities to comply with the SDWA. Projects may include, but not be limited to: intakes, wells,
raw and finished water lines, and pump stations.
Elimination of Public Water Systems Through Mergers - For example, a PWS (trailer park) with
their own water supply may not be financially capable of complying with the SDWA. A possible
solution includes merger with another willing PWS that has the capabilities to maintain compliance.
Interconnections - For example, a PWS that has a water treatment plant that needs to be
rehabilitated, modified, or expanded to comply with the SDWA and meet existing demands may
determine that a more affordable alternative would be to interconnect with another PWS to replace or
supplement their water treatment facilities.
Source Water Quantity and Quality - For example, a PWS is responsible to ensure that sufficient
quantity (for drought vulnerable PWSs) and quality (based on existing water treatment capabilities)
of raw water is available to meet existing demands. An affordable solution may be to secure a new
source to replace or supplement the existing source rather than to provide additional treatment or
interconnection or merger with another PWS (reservoirs, dams, dam rehabilitation, and water rights
are prohibited from funding by the DWSRF).
Water Treatment
This category allows a PWS to comply with the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) and the national
drinking water standards of the SDWA.
Microbiological and Turbidity - The sub-categories listed allow a PWS to comply with-the bacterial
and viral contamination standards of the SWTR.
"CT Removal Requirements" refers to treatment processes to comply with CT removal
requirements of the SWTR. Treatment processes include, but are not limited to: pre-settling
basins, rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation, baffling of flocculation and sedimentation
basins, and chemical feeders for proper coagulation.
"CT Inactivation Requirements" refers to disinfection techniques to comply with CT
inactivation requirements of the SWTR. Disinfection techniques include, but are not limited
to: pre-chlorination, post chlorination, and baffling of clearwells.
-------
"Finished Water Turbidity" refers to filtration processes to comply with turbidity
requirements of the SWTR. Filtration processes include, but are not limited to: filter media,
filter surface wash, backwash pumps, filter underdrains, and continuous turbidity monitors.
Best Available Technologies - The sub-categories listed allow a PWS to comply with chemical
contamination standards of the SDWA. Treatment processes include, but are not limited to: aeration
towers, ion-exchange, and iron and manganese removal.
Water Distribution
This category allows a PWS to comply with the Surface Water Treatment Rule (as it relates to disinfection
residual), Total Coliform Rule, Lead and Copper Rule, and the Asbestos Standard. Projects may include, but
not be limited to; installation, refurbishment, or replacement of raw and finished water lines; installation,
refurbishment, replacement, or baffling of potable water storage facilities; pump stations in relation to
storage facilities; elimination of constantly running or hydro-pneumatic pump stations; looping of water lines;
flushing devices; and disinfection booster stations.
Extension of Service for Public Health Protection
This category allows water line extensions to serve an area where households have insufficient financial and
technical capabilities to maintain water supply systems that comply with the SDWA.
Public Water System Financial Need
This category provides additional points based on the median household income of the PWS service area.
Restrictions
Priority formula points are credited absolutely or not at all with the following restrictions:
1. New water treatment plants are limited to Finished Water Turbidity - 2(a)(iii) - unless a need for
best available technology based on raw water quality is demonstrated. Construction of new water
treatment plants is only allowed to replace existing facilities when the cost of upgrading for
compliance with the SDWA is not determined to be the best affordable alternative over the
lifetime of the project or when a public water system demonstrates, for public health protection,
that existing household water system contamination exists and no other PWS is capable of
serving the area.
2. Expansion of existing water treatment plants is limited to Finished Water Turbidity - 2(a)(iii) -
unless a need for best available technology based on raw water quality is demonstrated.
Expansion of existing water treatment plants is only allowed when the flow rates of existing
plants are reduced to comply with the SDWA resulting in insufficient capacity to meet existing
demands or when the State institutes a water line extension or water tap-on ban due to
insufficient capacity to meet peak periods of existing demand.
-------
3. Points for Inadequately Sized Water Lines - 3(a)(i) - are only allowed when the need applies to at
least twenty (20) percent of all waterlines included in the project and documentation supports
reduced pressures and flows that have or may result in noncompliance with the Total Coliform.
Rule or the Surface Water Treatment Rule (as it relates to disinfection residual).
4. Points for Leaks, Breaks, or Restrictive Flows Due to Age - 3(a)(iii) - are only allowed when the
need applies to at least twenty (20) percent of all water lines included in the project and
documentation supports reduced pressures and flows that have or may result in noncompliance
with the Total Coliform Rule or the Surface Water Treatment Rule (as it relates to disinfection
residual).
5. Points for Replace Lead, Copper, or Asbestos Cement Lines - 3(b)(iii) - are only allowed when
the need applies to at least twenty (20) percent of all water lines included in the project and
documentation supports existing or potential noncompliance with the Lead and Copper Rule or
the Asbestos Standard.
6. Points for Inadequate Distribution Storage - 3(a)(ii) - will not be allowed for additional storage
in excess of the one day storage need for existing customers.
7. Points for Source Water Quality and Availability - 4(a) - are only allowed when the need applies
to at least fifty (50) percent of the customers connecting to the proposed waterlines. Note:
Bacteriological samples submitted ill support of the project need must comply with the sample
collection requirement as outlined in the state Regulation - 401 KAR 8:200 Section 1(7).
PROJECT PRIORITY LIST DEVELOPMENT
A project priority list is generated for all eligible projects. The list identifies projects to receive funding from
the 1997 capitalization grant and projects to receive funding from future capitalization grants.
Project Priority
Projects are prioritized based on project priority points. The higher the points, the higher the priority for
funding. Projects with equal project priority points are differentiated by the tie breaker. The tie breaker first
considers the size of PWSs. PWSs with a population fewer than 10,000 are prioritized higher than PWSs
with a population of 10,000 or more. The tie breaker then calculates the DWSRF project cost per household
that benefits from the project and assigns the highest priority to the project with the lowest cost per
household.
-------
PWS Population Fewer Than 10.000 Bypass
Projects from PWSs that have populations fewer than 10,000 will receive priority, to the
extent possible, for funding for at least fifteen (15) percent of the funds available for eligible infrastructure
projects. These projects will be identified in the priority list. Projects in this category not ready to proceed, as
defined below, will be replaced with the next highest priority project from a PWS that has a population fewer
than 10,000. If no such projects exist, or they are not ready to proceed, then priority will be given to the next
highest priority project identified in the priority list..
Not Ready to Proceed Bypass
Any project that cannot demonstrate readiness to proceed six months after approval of the Commonwealth's
capitalization grant application by the EPA Administrator may be bypassed. The next highest prioritized
project identified in the priority list then becomes eligible for funding. Readiness to proceed is demonstrated
through the successful completion or progress toward satisfying the DWSRF program requirements
including, but not limited to: County Water Supply Planning requirements, Environmental Assessment and
State Clearinghouse review, Project Design, and Plans and Specifications approval.
DOW:DWB:DWSRF Priority System:08/20/97
KENTUCKY
DIVISION OF WATER
DRINKING WATER SUPPLY REVOLVING FUND
PROJECT PRIORITY FORMULA TABLE (1997)
The Drinking Water Supply Revolving Fund provides assistance for eligible project expenditures to facilitate
a Public Water System's ability to obtain and maintain financial, managerial, and technical capabilities for
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) which includes compliance with national drinking water
standards or otherwise significantly further the health protection objectives of the SD WA.
1. Resource Development
(a) Elimination of Public Water Systems Through Mergers
(i) Systems Serving 500 or Fewer Population 25
(ii) Systems Serving 501 - 3,300 Population 20
(hi) Systems Serving 3,301 - 10,000 Population 15
(iv) System is Serving 10,00 1 or Greater Population 10
(b) Interconnections
(i) Elimination of Water Treatment Plants 25
(ii) Supplement Potable Water Supply 15
(iii) Emergency Backup Potable Water Supply 5
(c) Source Water Quantity and Quality
(i) Replace Existing Raw Water Source 15
(ii) Supplement Existing Raw Water Source 15
-------
2. Water Treatment
(a) Microbiological and Turbidity
(i) CT Removal Requirements 25
(ii) CT Inactivation Requirements 20
(iii) Finished Water Turbidity 20
(b) Best Available Technologies
(i) VOCs, lOCs, SOCs, and Radionuclides 20
(ii) Disinfection By-Products 15
(iii) Secondary Contaminants 10
3. Water Distribution
(a) Pressure
(i) Inadequately Sized Water Lines 10
(ii) Inadequate Distribution Storage 10
(iii) Leaks, Breaks, or Restrictive Flows Due to Age 10
(b) Quality
(i) Inadequate Turnover of Water 10
(ii) Inability to Maintain Disinfection Residual 10
(iii) Replace Lead, Copper, or Asbestos Cement Lines 10
4. Extension of Service for Public Health Protection
(a) Source Water Quality and Availability 10
5. Public Water System Financial Need
(a) Median Household Income less than 80% of the State Median 4
(b) Median Household Income less than the State Median
and 80% or more of the State Median 2
-------
MISSISSIPPI
Priority Ranking Criteria
First, projects will be assigned to a priority class (I-VII). Projects in Class 1 are funded to the extent of
available funds; projects in Classes II through VII are ranked in order (i.e., all Class II projects are ranked
higher than Class III projects, etc.). The system is intended to give highest priority to projects needed to protect
public health.
• Previous Year Certified Projects: have met all the Priority System requirements but were not funded due
to lack of funds.
• Minimum Pressure/Primary Drinking Water Standards Projects: correct deficiencies causing pressure
failure and MCL violations, which in Mississippi are often related to pressure problems.
• System Capacity Expansion to Serve Existing Unserved Residences/Businesses: to expand existing
system capacity or construct new systems to serve existing residences or businesses in currently unserved
areas.
• Back-Up Water Supply: for systems with insufficient or non-existent back-up supply sources.
• Existing Facilities Upgrades: rehabilitation, replacement, or upgrade of equipment to ensure continued
dependable operation.
• Secondary Drinking Water Standards: to provide treatment to bring systems into compliance.
• Consolidation.
Projects are then prioritized within each classification based on the total priority points accrued in the
following three categories:
• Benefit/Cost - The number of points given in this category is equal to the number of benefiting connections
divided by the total eligible cost of improvements.
• Need Per Household - Using the figure derived for benefit/cost, multiplied by the affordability factor (ratio
of the State MHI to the State MCL) assigned to the project, an adjusted point total will be calculated.
• Consolidation - Additional points will be given to projects to consolidate two existing systems. The points
given will be the product of the benefit/cost points multiplied by 0.5.
Notes
Small Systems - Mississippi will amend the priority list if at least 15 percent of funding does not go to
systems that regularly serve fewer than 5,000 people.
Tie-Breaking Procedure - Projects for systems in communities with the lowest MHI will be given
preference.
-------
MISSISSIPI
Drinking Water Systems. Improvements
Revolving Loan Fund
Priority System
A. Program Funding and Ranking Rationale
Projects will be scheduled on the fundable portion of the Priority List according to both
priority ranking and readiness to proceed. The term "readiness to proceed" means that all
deadlines established in Section C. can be met. If a project cannot reasonably be
expected to meet these deadlines, then the project will not be placed on the fundable
portion of the Priority List, but rather will be shown on the planning portion of the list. It
is the Board's judgement as to whether the project can be ready to proceed. Projects on
the fundable portion of the Priority List will be funded as soon as they meet all the
deadlines in Section C. and are ready for loan award
Project By-pass Procedure: Should any project on the fundable portion of the Priority List
fail to comply with the deadlines in Section C., the funds reserved for said project will be
released and made available to any project(s) on the planning list that are ready for loan
award on a first come, first served basis.
Should less than the assumed funds become available, the funding line will be moved to
reflect the actual available funds, and projects above this line will be funded as described
above, without further public review or comment. Also, should more than the assumed
funds become available or if the assumed funds exceed the project amounts on the
fundable portion of the list, projects on the planning portion of the Priority List that are
ready to proceed will be funded on a first come, first served basis within the available
funds, without further public review or comment.
Project categories are defined below. Projects in Category I will be funded each year to
the extent the Board makes funds available. Projects in Categories II through VII are
ranked in categorical order. That is, all Category II projects are ranked higher than
Category III projects, etc. Ranking is established in like manner through all remaining
categories. Adjustments will be made as necessary to comply with small community set
aside provisions of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and as established by the Board
[Section 1542(a)(2) of SDWA]. The order of Categories II - VII is intended to give
highest priority to those projects that address the most serious risks to human health.
Projects within each category will be funded as described in Section B. if they meet
established Priority System deadlines.
-------
2. Category I. Previous Year Certified Projects
Previous Year Certified Projects. This category includes projects (both above and
below the funding line) that are determined by the Department to have met all the
Priority System requirements, secured approval of all required documents, and
were substantially ready to receive loans during the previous fiscal year, but were
not funded because of a lack of improvement loan funds or failure to receive an
assurance of CDBG, ARC or other matching funds in the previous fiscal year.
Each year, the Board will normally designate such projects in an amount of up
to approximately 25 % of the current year's available funds as Category I
Projects. Providing this special category in FY-98 to fund projects that have been
certified complete from FY-97 will encourage applicants whose projects initially
fall below the funding line to continue meeting all Priority System deadlines.
Those applicants who continue to meet deadlines in attempting to qualify for
Category I in FY-98 also provide a pool of projects, ready for loan award in FY
97, to replace any projects (initially above the funding line) that have their funds
released for failure to meet deadlines during FY-97. Within this category,
projects will be ranked according to the current Priority Ranking Criteria. (There
will be no Category I this first year of the Improvements Fund's operation.
Applicants should, however, be aware of its existence so that they maintain
milestone dates to possibly qualify for next year's Category I.).
3. Category II - Minimum Pressure/Prima Drinking- Water Standards Projects
Projects to correct deficiencies that result in existing systems routinely failing to maintain
minimum acceptable dynamic pressure (20psi) and/or projects to otherwise facilitate
compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Experience has shown that failure
of water systems to maintain minimum acceptable dynamic pressure is symptomatic of
major deficiencies that can and have resulted in system contamination. Violations of
Primary National Drinking Water Regulations' maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are
rarely experienced in the State. One exception is violation of bacteriological contaminant
levels. Most such violations are related to failure of systems to maintain adequate
pressure. The State Department of Health considers pressure related problems to be
serious and indicative of problems that are potentially major threats to public health.
Deficiencies causing pressure failures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Insufficient supply source (wells, etc.);
b. Insufficient treatment capacity;
c. Insufficient storage (elevated or ground);
d. Distribution system leakage;
e. Distribution system inadequacies; and
f. Worn-out, malfunctioning or inadequate equipment, facilities, etc.
Projects to correct deficiencies, other than those related to pressure, that result in existing
water systems failing Primary Drinking Water Regulations (MCLs) will also be
considered Category II projects.
4. Category III - System Capacity Expansion To Serve Existing Unserved
Residences/Businesses.
-------
Projects to expand existing system capacity (source, treatment and/or distribution), or
construct new systems to serve existing residences/businesses in currently unserved areas.
5. Category IV - Back-up Water Supply Sources Projects
Projects to provide additional supply to systems with insufficient or non-existent back-up
water supply sources. As a minimum, a system using ground water should be able to lose
any one of the wells supplying the system and still maintain minimum acceptable dynamic
pressure (20 psi) throughout the entire system.
6. Category V - Existing Facilities Upgrades (Meeting Primary Standards)
Projects to rehabilitate, replace, protect or upgrade deteriorated, worn, aged or obsolete
equipment, facilities, etc., to assure continued, dependable operation of water systems.
7. Category VI - Secondary Drinking Water Standards Projects
Projects to provide treatment that brings systems into compliance with Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations.
8. Category VII - Consolidation Projects
Projects to consolidate separate systems into a single system for purposes other than
included in Categories II through VI. Consolidation will also be considered in establishing
priority ranking within all categories.
B. Priority Ranking Criteria
The criteria for ranking projects within each category is intended to give priority to projects that: 1)
benefit the most people per dollar expended; 2) assist systems most in need on a per household
affordability basis as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act; and 3) use consolidation with other
systems to correct existing deficiencies and improve management. These considerations are
addressed by the Priority Ranking Criteria in the following manner:
1. Benefit/Cost
Benefit/Cost points assigned to each project will be determined using the following
formula:
Benefit/Cost Points = Number of benefiting
connections
Total eligible cost of improvements (in $1.0 millions)
-------
The number of benefiting connections must be included in the facilities plan submitted by
the applicant and is defined as the sum of individual connections experiencing deficiencies
that will be corrected by the improvement and includes residences, businesses, and public
buildings. Applicants must furnish information (including hydraulic analyses, if necessary)
to support their estimate of the number of benefiting connections. The total eligible cost is
in millions of dollars (i.e., $800,000 = $0.8 M).
2. Affordability Factor
An affordability factor will be assigned to each project to reflect the relative needs of
applicants on a per household basis. The Benefit/Cost points calculated in Section B.I.
will be adjusted using the affordability factor in the following formula:
Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points = (Affordability Factor) x (Benefit/Cost Points)
The affordability factor used in the calculation is defined as the ratio of the 1995 median
household income for the State of Mississippi ($28,077) to the 1995 median household
income for the affected community and will be no less than 1.0 and no greater than 1.5.
Median household incomes to be used in the calculations will be those displayed in the
publication "The Sourcebook of Zip Code Demographics" Tenth Edition. Where the
affected community is included in more than one zip code area, an average will be used for
the community's median household income.
3. Consolidation
Any project that includes consolidation (ownership and management) of separate existing
systems into a single system will receive consolidation points equal to 0.5 times the
Benefit/Cost points assigned to the project. The purpose of assigning consolidation points
is to promote reliability, efficiency and economy of scale that can be achieved with larger
water systems while discouraging the proliferation of numerous separate small systems
with their inherent inefficiencies and limitations. Projects that do not include consolidation
will receive zero consolidation points.
Consolidation Points = 0.5 x (Benefit/Cost Points)
4. Ranking Within Each Category
Within each category, projects will be ranked in order based on the total points assigned
the project using the following formula:
Total Priority Points = (Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points) + (Consolidation Points)
Projects receiving the most priority points will be given the highest ranking on the Priority
List. In cases of ties in the number of priority points, projects with the lowest median
household income will receive the highest ranking.
-------
5. Small Community Set-Aside
Following completion of the ranking process, the Priority List will be reviewed to
determine if at least 15 % of funding for projects above the funding line is for public water
systems which regularly serve fewer than 5,000 people, as required by the Safe Drinking
Water Act. If this is not the case, the Priority List will be adjusted by exchanging the
lowest ranking projects above the funding line that serve 5,000 or more with the highest
ranking projects below the funding line that serve fewer than 5,000, until the 15 %
requirement is satisfied.
C. Priority System Deadlines
Should any project fail to comply with any of the following deadlines in this Priority System,
the funds reserved for said project will be released and made available to any projects that
are ready for loan award on a first-come, first-served basis.
1. By October 1. 1996. submit two (2) copies of the DWSIRLF facilities plan prepared in
accordance with the DWSIRLF loan program regulations, to the Department of
Environmental Quality and one (1) copy to all intergovernmental review agencies (see
Appendix K of DWSIRLF Loan Program Regulations): The Department of Environmental
Quality must be copied on the transmittal letters to all intergovernmental review agencies.
Intergovernmental review comments and public hearing comments may be excluded in this
submittal.
Prior to beginning the facilities plan, the potential applicant and/or its registered engineer
must request and receive facilities planning guidance from the Department of
Environmental Quality, and should attend a preplanning conference with the Department
staff as early in the planning process as practical.
2. By October 1, 1996, the loan recipient must advertise for the DWSIRLF facilities
plan a public hearing, and submit proof of such advertisement to the Department
of Environmental Quality.
3. By December 1, 1996, the following documents must be submitted to the Department.
• all intergovernmental review comments;
• a transcript of the public hearing comments;
• plan revisions pursuant to public hearing/IGR comments; and
• a summary of how each public hearing/IGR comment was addressed.
It is not necessary to receive comments on the facilities plan from the Department of
Environmental Quality prior to:
• advertising the public hearing;
• holding the public hearing; or
• submitting this information to the Department.
-------
Any significant changes made to the facilities plan (i.e., changes in the chosen alternative,
location of the facilities, etc.) after this deadline will be considered as a first submittal of
the facilities plan. The loan recipient will then be considered to be in violation of this
Priority System deadline.
4. By January 1, 1997, the following documents, if required by the project, must be
submitted to the appropriate Intergovernmental Review agency:
• completed archaeological /cultural surveys must be submitted to the Department of
Archives and History for approval.
• completed vegetative/wildlife surveys must be submitted to the Natural Heritage
Program for approval: and
• Section 404/Section 10 Permit applications must be submitted to the Army Corps of
Engineers (and the Bureau of Marine Resources for Jackson, Harrison, and Hancock
County projects).
These submittals must be made in accordance with the Intergovernmental Review Process, if
required for the project. The Department of Environmental Quality must be copied on the
transmittal letter to these agencies.
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following five categories:
• Public Health - Projects necessary for compliance with federal or State regulations may receive points from
the item with the highest point value in this category. Projects to correct acute or imminent health hazards
(e.g., nitrate, nitrite, or fecal coliform MCL violations) may receive a maximum of 150 points. A maximum
of 100 points will be given to projects that correct immediate health hazards, a maximum of 60 points will
be given to those correcting chronic health hazards, projects correcting potential health hazards may receive
a maximum of 40 points, and system improvement projects may receive a maximum of 20 points.
• Consolidation - A maximum of 10 points may be given to projects to improve water system reliability
through interconnection with an existing system, purchasing part or all of a system, or purchasing water
capacity from another system. Projects to provide water service to an existing community whose water
supply does not meet standards for PWSs may receive 10 points. Consolidation projects and projects where
consolidation is not physically feasible may receive 5 points.
• Reliability - A maximum of 5 points may be given to projects to increase system reliability. Projects to
provide redundancy to critical treatment or delivery functions may be awarded 3 points and projects to
provide emergency backup electrical power sources may receive 3 points (up to the maximum).
• Affordability - Projects may receive up to 50 points based on a comparison of the projected monthly
residential user cost at the completion of the project with the service area's MHI. Projects with rates greater
than or equal to 1.01 percent will receive 50 points while projects with rates between 0.26 percent and 0.5
percent will receive the minimum, 5 points.
• Source Protection and Management - Projects for systems with existing activities or programs that
efficiently protect the public health may receive up to 10 points. Systems employing voluntary watershed or
wellhead protection programs may receive 5 points each. For water loss reduction, cross-connection and
demand management programs systems may receive 3 points each (up to the 10 point maximum).
Notes
Funding Ceiling - The maximum amount of funding to a single applicant in any one fiscal year is $3
million. Loans solely for project planning purposes are capped at $25,000 per fiscal year.
Project Planning - In any fiscal year, a maximum of five percent of the annual allocation may be used for
loans for project planning purposes.
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
SECTION .0600 - PRIORITY CRITERIA
.0601 GENERAL CRITERIA
(a) In determining the priority to be assigned each eligible application the Division will consider
whether the project will:
(1) Address the most serious risk to human health,
(2) Facilitate compliance with the N.C. Drinking Water Act or the federal Safe Drinking Water
Act, and
(3) Assist systems most in need on a per household basis.
(b) The total priority points received will be the sum of all points awarded for each categorical
element.
History Note: Authority G.S. 159G-5; G.S. 159G-15;
Eff January 31, 1998.
.0602 PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMPLIANCE
Public health and compliance points may be awarded to a project based on the following criteria. A
proposed project shall be necessary to facilitate compliance with the N.C. Drinking Water Act or
the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and to alleviate the type of public health concern for which
points are awarded. A project will receive only points in the highest sub-category for which it may
qualify:
(1) Acute/Imminent Health Hazards. A maximum of 150 points will be awarded to projects that
propose to eliminate any one or more of the following acute, ongoing health hazards to the consumer:
(a) Projects that address documented nitrate, nitrite or fecal coliform MCL violations, or
contaminant levels in drinking water which constitute acute health risks as defined in 40 C.F.R
141.32(a)(l)(iii) which is incorporated by reference at 15A NCAC 18C .1523; or
(b) Projects that eliminate any contaminant in the public water system that poses an acute risk or
imminent hazard to public health as determined by the State Health Director or a health risk
assessment from the Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health and Human Services in
accordance with G.S. 130A-2(3).
-------
(2) Immediate Health Hazards. A maximum of 100 points will be awarded to projects that propose
to eliminate any one or more of the following immediate health hazards to the consumer:
(a) Projects that address surface water treatment technique violations occurring for two or more
consecutive months;
(b) Projects that resolve any microbiological MCL problems for a water system with three or
more microbiological MCL violations during the previous 12 months;
(c) Projects that propose filtration for a surface water source or for a well that is determined to be
under the direct influence of surface water by the Department that does not currently have
filtration;
(d) Projects that address the inability of a public water system to inactivate giardia and viruses in
accordance with 15ANCAC 18C .2001; or
(e) Projects that address documented recurrent water outages or low pressure below the
requirements of 15A NCAC 18C .0901. Only problems that affect human consumption of
drinking water will be considered for award of points under this criteria.
(3) Chronic Health Hazards. A maximum of 60 points will be awarded to projects that propose to
eliminate any one or more of the following chronic health hazards to the consumer:
(a) Projects that address exceedances of the lead and copper action levels under 15A NCAC 18C
.1507;
(b) Projects that address violations of inorganic or organic chemical or contaminant MCLs under
15ANCAC 18C.1510, .1517, and.1518;
(c) Projects that address violations of radiological contamination MCLs under 15A NCAC 18C
.1520 and.1521; or
(d) Projects that address a chronic health hazard as determined by the State Health Director or a
health risk assessment from the Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health and Human
Services.
(4) Potential Health Hazards. A maximum of 40 points will be awarded to projects that propose to
eliminate any one or more of following potential health hazards to the consumer:
(a) Projects that address low chlorine residuals in the distribution system;
(b) Projects that address periodic violations of an MCL;
(c) Projects for line installation or extensions to areas with poor water quality or limited quantity;
-------
(d) Projects to develop new sources of water, to augment existing sources, or to expand treatment
capacity to meet current demand when the average daily demand for the previous 12 months
equals or exceeds the available water supply as calculated in local water supply plans prepared in
accordance with G.S. 143-355(1) or the maximum day demand for the previous 12 months equals
or exceeds the approved water treatment plant design capacity; or
(e) Projects to provide disinfection for a system that currently does not have disinfection.
(5) System Improvements. A maximum of 20 points will be awarded for projects that will provide
any one or more of the following general system improvements when needed for public health
purposes:
(a) Projects that replace water supply production or treatment equipment that is undersized,
malfunctioning or has exceeded its useful life;
(b) Projects that replace undersized or leaking water lines;
(c) Projects that address other water quality concerns such as iron, manganese, taste, and odor;
(d) Projects to bring existing facilities to current design standards which affect water quality such
as treatment, chemical storage and application, pumping facilities, finished storage, distribution
systems;
(e) Projects that eliminate dead ends and provide looping in a distribution system.
(f) Projects that increase water storage capacity;
(g) Projects to develop new sources of water, to augment existing sources, or to expand treatment
capacity to meet current demand when the average daily demand for the previous 12 months
exceeds 80 percent of the available water supply as calculated in local water supply plans
prepared in accordance with G.S. 143-355(1) or the maximum day demand for the previous 12
months exceeds 80 percent of the approved water treatment plant design capacity; or
(h) Projects for installation or upgrade of water treatment plant waste disposal facilities.
History Note: Authority G.S. 159G-5; G.S. 159G-15;
Eff January 31, 1998.
.0603 CONSOLIDATION
A maximum of 10 points will be awarded in this categorical element for projects that propose to
improve water system reliability by interconnecting with an existing water system, by purchasing
systems in whole or in part, or by purchasing water capacity from other systems, as follows:
(1) Projects that propose consolidation to provide water service to an existing community whose
water supply cannot meet the rules governing public water systems at 15A NCAC 18C, 10 points;
(2) Projects that propose consolidation of existing water systems will be awarded 5 points;
(3) Projects where consolidation is not physically feasible, 5 points.
-------
History Note: Authority G.S. 159G-5; G.S. 159G-15;
Eff. January 31, 1998.
.0604 RELIABILITY
A maximum of 5 points will be awarded in this categorical element to projects that propose to
increase the reliability of the water system; points may be awarded for both Items (1) and (2) of this
Rule up to the maximum, as follows:
(1) Projects that provide redundancy to critical treatment or delivery functions, such as
interconnection, 3 points;
(2) Projects that provide emergency backup electrical power source, 3 points if not awarded points
in Item (1) of this Rule.
History Note: Authority G.S. 159G-5; G.S. 159G-15;
Eff. January 31, 1998.
.0605 AFFORDABILITY
Points for affordability will be determined by comparing the projected monthly residential user cost
at the completion of the project with the median household income (MHI). User cost shall be
calculated from water rates based on a maximum of 4,500 gallons. The median household income
shall be determined in the service area of the water system. If median household income data is not
available for the service area, data from the nearest comparable community area shall be used. The
Division may use county-wide median household income data if data for the service area or nearest
comparable community area are not available. Points will be awarded on the following scale:
Rates = 0% to .25% MHI 0 points
Rates = 0.26% to .50% MHI 5 points
Rates = .51% to .75% MHI 20 points
Rates = .76% to 1.0% MHI 40 points
Rates = 1.01% or greater MHI 50 points
History Note: Authority G.S. 159G-5; G.S. 159G-15;
Eff. January 31, 1998.
-------
.0606 SOURCE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT
The maximum value to be given for source protection and management categorical elements is 10
points. Points shall only be awarded for existing activities or programs that efficiently protect the
public health, as follows:
(1) Participation in source water protection activities; points may be awarded in Sub-Items (a) and
(b) of this Item up to the maximum, as follows:
(a) Voluntary water supply watershed protection activities, 5 points, or
(b) Voluntary wellhead protection program, 5 points.
(2) Efficient water use, as shown by the applicant's establishment and administration of the described
programs; points may be awarded in Sub-Items (a), (b), and (c) of this Item up to the maximum, as
follows:
(a) Water loss reduction program which includes water audits, comprehensive metering, and
hidden leak detection, 3 points;
(b) Cross-connection control program, 3 points;
(c) Demand management strategies, such as a water conservation incentive rate structure,
incentives for new or replacement installation of low flow faucets, showerheads and toilets, or a
water reclamation or reuse system, 3 points.
History Note: Authority G.S. 159G-5; G.S. 159G-15;
Eff January 31, 1998.
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
Priority Ranking Criteria
First, projects will be assigned to one of the eight priority classes (I-VIII).
• Significant Non-Compliance (Acute) - Projects designed to address significant non-compliance problems
with primary MCLs or treatment techniques that pose an acute risk to public health (e.g., microbial, nitrate,
nitrite, SWTR) will receive the highest priority.
• Non-Compliance (Acute) - Projects intended to correct non-compliance problems that are not determined
to be significant, yet pose an acute risk to public health, including GWUDI, low pressure, and leaky lines.
• Significant Non-Compliance (Chronic) - Projects designed to address significant non-compliance
problems with primary MCLs or treatment techniques that pose a chronic risk to public health (e.g.,
synthetic organic contaminants).
• Non-Compliance (Chronic) - Projects intended to correct non-compliance problems that are not
significant, but that pose a chronic risk to public health (e.g., lead & copper action levels).
• Projects Supplying Safe Drinking Water to an Area Not Presently Served by a Public Water System
Where a Hazard to Public Health has been Identified.
• Projects to Correct Non-Compliance With Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels.
• Projects to Ensure Compliance With the State SDWA and the State Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
• Projects to Extend or Provide Service to Existing Residences in an Area Experiencing Problems With
Secondary Water Quality Contaminants or Quantity Issues That Could Result in Public Health
Problems.
Once projects have been grouped into the eight classes listed above, they are prioritized within each class based
on the following three categories:
• Regionalization/Consolidation - Preference is first given to projects that incorporate regionalization or
consolidation.
• Affordability - Preference is then given to systems with current annual user rate charges greater than 1.25
percent of MHI.
• Number of Taps Affected By the Project - Last, preference is given to projects that serve the most taps.
-------
Notes
• Funding Ceiling - No more than 25 percent of the project loan fund may be lent to any one project.
• Disadvantaged Communities - Projects for disadvantaged communities may be given loans with more
favorable conditions than the 20-year maximum, standard interest rate loans. Projects may qualify for Level
1 or Level 2 disadvantaged community status based on the MHI of the service population, the local county's
unemployment rate, and the level of the current or proposed user charge. Level 1 communities are funded at
the standard rate, but are given a 30-year maximum. Level 2 communities are also given a 30-year
maximum. If the user charge rates still exceed the target level with the standard interest rate, then the
interest rate will be reduced incrementally, to a minimum of 0 percent as needed, to reach the target level, if
possible. If a project is still considered unaffordable, assistance will be provided in locating other potential
funding sources that may be packaged with a loan.
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
III. Project Selection
The state must develop a comprehensive priority fist of projects and identify those projects expected to
receive funding in the first year after the grant is awarded (priority projects). Only those projects on the
comprehensive list of projects may be considered for a loan under the DWRSF program.
A. Priority Ranking System
Section 1452(b)(3) of the SDWA requires that the IUP, to the maximum extent practicable, give priority
for use of the DWSRF 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 systems most in need on a per household basis, according to state affordability criteria.
The State of South Carolina will use the following ranking system in developing a comprehensive priority
list of projects eligible for assistance from the DWSRF. This ranking system is based on the above criteria
as well as a State initiative to encourage and facilitate the consolidation or regionalization of public water
systems. This state initiative, in concert with state regulatory programs, promotes compliance with the
SDWA.
Projects eligible for assistance will be divided into eight categories with projects in Category #1 receiving
the highest priority for funding and projects listed in Category #8 receiving the lowest priority for funding.
Category # 1
Projects which will correct significant non-compliance problems, as defined by the EPA, with
primary maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques which pose an acute risk to public
health (i.e., microbial, nitrate, nitrite and surface water treatment rule). For the purpose of this
ranking system, a public water system which was determined to be in significant non-compliance
as of April 1, 1997, will be considered for ranking within this category.
Category # 2
Projects which will correct non-compliance problems which are not considered to be "significant"
as defined by the EPA and any identified problems such as groundwater under the direct influence,
leaking water lines and low pressure, which pose an acute risk to public health.
Category # 3
Projects which will correct significant non-compliance problems, as defined by the EPA, with
primary maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques which pose a chronic risk to public
health (i.e., synthetic organic contaminants, inorganic contaminants other than nitrate and nitrite,
radionuclides and the lead and copper rule). For the purpose of this ranking system, a public water
system which was determined to be in significant non-compliance as of April 1, 1997, will be
considered for ranking within this category.
-------
Category # 4
Projects which will correct non-compliance problems which are not considered to be "significant"
as defined by the EPA and any identified problems such as systems exceeding the lead and/or
copper action levels, which pose a chronic risk to public health.
Category # 5
Projects which will protect public health by supplying safe drinking water to an area not presently
served by a public water system where a hazard to public health has been certified by the
Department. For example, the groundwater in an area which is utilized by a number of existing
residences on private wells is contaminated with a synthetic organic contaminant.
Category # 6
Projects to correct a public water system's noncompliance with a secondary maximum contaminant
level(s).
Category # 7
Projects necessary to ensure continued compliance with the State Safe Drinking Water Act and
State Primary Drinking Water Regulations (i.e., replacing or rehabilitating infrastructure before it
becomes a non-compliance problem).
Category # 8
Projects to extend or provide service into an area to serve existing residences which are
experiencing problems with secondary water quality contaminants or quantity issues that could
result in public health problems.
Projects within each category are prioritized based on the following criteria:
> Regionalization/Consolidation
> Affordability; and,
> Number of taps affected by the project
Projects within each category are first grouped based on whether or not the project will result in the
consolidation or regionalization of water systems. Consolidation of water systems is when two or more
separately managed water systems combine to form one system under one management structure.
Regionalization is when two or more separately managed water systems interconnect for the purpose of
utilizing a water source(s) in lieu of each system developing its own or additional water source(s); however,
each system retains its own identity under separate management. The group of projects resulting in the
consolidation or regionalization of water systems will be ranked higher than those that do not.
-------
The projects within each of these two groups are further subdivided based on the greatest need on a per
household basis. Those systems which have rates where the current annual user charge, based on 6,000
gallons per month, exceeds 1.25 percent of the median household income (MHI) will receive the highest
ranking within the group. For purposes of this ranking system, this percentage will be referred to as the
level of effort (LOE). Municipal projects have been ranked using the City's 1990 MHI and projects for
other entities have been ranked using the applicable county 1990 MU An eligible sponsor may obtain the
NEW for its actual service area from the Office of Research and Statistics, State Budget and Control
Board. If the sole beneficiary of a project is a municipality, but the project sponsor is another entity, the
MHI of the municipality to be served may be used in lieu of the sponsor's MHI. The final criteria for
ranking projects will be based on the number of current taps affected by the project with the highest
number of taps receiving the highest ranking.
The figure below illustrates conceptually how projects in each category will be ranked:
-VM-
Proiect 1(1.200 taps)
Project 2 (950 taps)
Project 3 (922 taps)
Project 4 (340 taps)
Project 5 (1,710 taps)
Project 6 (850 taps)
Project 7 (222 taps)
Project 8 (140 taps)
Project 9 (710 taps)
Project tO (650 taps)
Project 11 (455 taps)
Project 12 (2,500 tap*
Project 13 (550 taps)
Project 14 (540 taps)
Project 15 (105 taps)
Project 18 (100 taps)
-------
Disadvantaged Community Systems
Projects will normally be funded at the standard interest rate for a maximum term of 20 years; however,
loan applicants which are considered disadvantaged community systems will be offered loans at even more
favorable terms. Loan terms and conditions will be determined after DHEC has approved construction
plans and specifications and the BCB has completed review of the financial loan application.
Disadvantaged community systems, subdivided into two levels, are public water systems which meet
affordability criteria that are based on the median household income (NW of the water system's entire
service area, the local county's unemployment rate and the level of the current or proposed user charge.
A. Level 1 Disadvantaged Community System
To qualify as a Level 1 Disadvantaged Community System one of the following criteria must be met:
> The applicant's service area is less than eighty (80%) percent of the State MHI; or,
> The applicant's service area is more than eighty (80%) percent of the State MHI but less than 100% of
the State MHI and:
• The applicant is located in a county with an unemployment rate at least one percentage point higher
than the latest annual State average; or,
• The current or proposed annual user charge, based on 6,000 gallons per month, exceeds 1.25% of
the applicant's MHI.
If the applicant meets one of the above criteria, the term of the loan may be extended up to thirty (30) years
(not to exceed the project's useful life), and the project would be funded at the standard interest rate.
B. Level 2 Disadvantaged Community System
To qualify as a Level 2 Disadvantaged Community System both of the following two criteria must be met:
> The applicant's MM is less than $26,256 (the State MHI); and,
> A rate increase is required for the project which would result in a user charge higher than the target
user charge. Target user charge is defined as the annual average residential user charge for water,
based on 6,000 gallons per month, equal to at least 1.25% of the applicant's MHI.
If an applicant qualifies as a Level 2 Disadvantaged Community System the loan term must first be
extended to the project's maximum useful life, up to 30 years. If, after such term extension, user charge
rates still exceed the target level with the standard interest rate, then the interest rate will be reduced
incrementally, to a minimum of 0% as needed, to reach the target level, if possible. If a project is still
considered unaffordable after the maximum available interest rate subsidy, assistance will be provided in
locating other potential funding sources that may be packaged with a loan.
-------
Maximum Loan to an Individual Project
In order to assist as many projects as possible the maximum amount to be tent for any one project will be
25 % of the project loan fund (maximum loan = $3,853,616.00). In order to meet the allocation
commitment under the SDWA, DHEC may waive the maximum loan amount for any one project if there
are not enough projects ready to proceed.
-------
TENNESSEE
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in one of the following seven categories. Priority points
will be assigned on a 100-point scale based on the severity of the problem. Projects addressing acute risks will
receive the greatest number of points.
• Water Quality Problems - One hundred points will be assigned for disease outbreaks or acute health risks,
80 points for chronic water quality problems, 60 points for potential water quality problems, 40 points for
operational problems, and 20 points for any other problems.
• Source or Plant Capacity - Eighty points will be assigned for water shortage or rationing, 60 points for 80
percent capacity rule, 40 points for exceeding capacity on peak days, and 20 points for projected need within
10 years.
• Storage - Eighty points will be assigned for less than 50 percent daily demand, 60 points for 50 to 75
percent daily demand, 40 points for 75 to 100 percent daily demand, and 20 points for 100 to 125 percent
daily demand.
• Leakage - Eighty points will be assigned for 50 percent or greater water loss, 60 points for 40 to 49 percent
water loss, 40 points for 30 to 39 percent water loss, and 20 points for 20 to 29 percent water loss.
• Pressure - Eighty points will be assigned for pressure consistently less than 20 psi, 60 points for pressure
periodically less than 20 psi, 40 points for pressure occasionally less than 20 psi, and 20 points for marginal
pressure (20 to 30 psi).
Replacement or Rehabilitation Projects - Eighty points for essential equipment failure, 60 points for
essential equipment deteriorated and near failure, 40 points for non-essential equipment failure, and 20
nnintQ fnr nnn-RQQfntinl fniiinmfnt Hftfrinratfrl
l^OOl^llllCll l^l^ULlJ-/llll^lll. lll^ll^lltJlClll^ll ClllU lll^Cll -LC111UL1
points for non-essential equipment deteriorated
Water Line Extensions - One hundred points for special acute health problems, 80 points for exceeding
drinking water limits or without water, 60 points for nuisance or quantity problems, 40 points for all water
line extensions, 40 points for water line relocations.
Notes
Tie-Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, communities with greater economic need are given a higher
priority ranking. Economic need is determined by an Ability to Pay Index developed by the University of
Tennessee Center for Economic and Business Research.
-------
STATE OF TENNESSEE
In accordance with Section 1452(b), states must develop a list of projects that will receive funding in the first
year after the grant award and a comprehensive priority list of eligible projects for funding in future years.
Priority for the use of funds must be to projects that:
• Address the most serious risk to human health
• Are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of SDWA
• Assist systems most in need, on a per household basis, according to state affordability criteria
Water systems requesting loans for water projects through the drinking water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
will be assigned priority points based on instructions given in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The
SDWA instructs states to utilize SRF funds to address risks to human health, compliance with the Act, and to
assist systems most in need on a per household basis. Tennessee has established a priority ranking system,
which will comply with the instructions in the SDWA. Priority points will be assigned on a 100 point scale
based on the severity of the problem. The only projects eligible for the maximum of 100 points will be those
that address serious, acute risks to human health. Other projects will be assigned 20, 40, 60, or 80 points
depending on the severity of the problem and whether a compliance problem exists. Projects requesting
funds for ineligible activities such as fire protection, dam construction or future growth will not be assigned
priority points. Projects that receive the same priority points will be ranked according to the ability to pay
index for each community. This will satisfy SDWA requirements to assist systems most in need on a per
household basis. Seven categories of projects have been established which encompass all types of water
system projects. A project can receive points from only one category.
PRIORITY POINTS FOR DRINKING WATER SRF PROJECTS
1. Water Quality Problems
100 Points - disease outbreak or acute health risk
80 Points - chronic water quality problems
60 Points - potential water quality problems
40 Points - operational problems
20 Points - other
2. Source or Plant Capacity
80 Points - water shortage or rationing
60 Points - 80% capacity rule
40 Points - exceeding capacity on peak days
20 Points - projected need within 10 years
3. Water Storage
80 Points - less than 50% daily demand
60 Points - 50 to 75% daily demand
40 Points - 70 to 100% daily demand
20 Points - 100 to 125% daily demand
-------
4. Leakage Problems
80 Points - 50% or greater water loss
60 Points - 40 to 49% water loss
40 Points - 30 to 39% water loss
20 Points - 20 to 29% water loss
5. Pressure Problems
80 Points - pressure consistently less than 20 psi
60 Points - pressure periodically less than 20 psi
40 Points - pressure occasionally less than 20 psi
20 Points - pressure marginal (20 to 30 psi)
6. Replacement or Rehabilitation projects
80 Points - essential equipment failure
60 Points - essential equipment deteriorated & near failure
40 Points - non-essential equipment failure
20 Points - non-essential equipment deteriorated
7. Water Line Extension
100 Points - special acute health problems
80 Points - exceeding drinking water limits or without water
60 Points - nuisance or quantity problems
40 Points - all water line extensions
40 Points - water line relocations
The affordability criteria is used to prioritize projects that have the same number of points based on project
need. Affordability criteria is based on the Ability to Pay Index (ATPI) established by the University of
Tennessee Center for Business and Economic Research. Communities with greater economic need are given
lower points and a higher ranking. The allocation formula uses a broad definition of fiscal capacity that
includes per capita income, per capita property tax base, and per capita sales. The intent is to measure fiscal
capacity in terms of the available resources for paying for services.
-------
ILLINOIS
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized using the State Loan Priority Index, based on the following four factors:
• Population - Projects will receive up to 5.3 points based on the service population of the system. The
number of points is derived using the log base 10 of the number of people served by the system.
• Project Need - Points will be assigned based on the evaluated need for the project. For example, projects
that address an immediate threat to public health will receive 100 points, projects to address acute violations
of the SDWA will receive 75 points, projects to address chronic violations of the SDWA will receive 50
points, etc. Projects may only receive points for one item.
• Financial Hardship - Projects will receive points based on the financial hardship facing the system.
Projects will receive up to 5 points depending on the percentage of people in the community who are living
at or below the poverty level. In addition, the project will receive up to 5 points based on percentage of
people living above the State average unemployment rate, (maximum points go to higher percentages)
• Small Public Water Systems - Five points will be assigned to projects for public water systems serving
fewer than 10,000 people.
Notes
Affordability - Unlike most States, which use MHI to assess affordability, Illinois uses the unemployment
rate.
-------
ILLINOIS
SUBPART B: PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING THE LOAN PRIORITY INDEX
Section
663.210 Formula for Computing the Loan Priority Index
EMERGENCY
663.220 Al Factor ~ Population
EMERGENCY
663.230 A2 Factor - Project Need
EMERGENCY
663.240 A3 Factor ~ Financial Hardship
EMERGENCY
663.250 A4 Factor - Small Public Water Systems
EMERGENCY
663.260 A5 Factor ~ Readiness to Proceed
EMERGENCY
663.270 Scoring Conventions
EMERGENCY
SUBPART B: PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING THE LOAN PRIORITY INDEX
Section 663.210 Formula for Computing the Loan Priority Index
EMERGENCY
The Loan Priority Index (LPI) is a number that is the product of five factors. The LPI is calculated as
follows: (Al + A2 + A3 + A4) x A5 = LPI.
Section 663.220 Al Factor (Population)
EMERGENCY
Al is a factor, which evaluates the existing population that is served by the proposed project. Al is
calculated as log base 10 of the number of persons served by the project, with a maximum value of 5.30
points. The applicant shall provide the population served figure, which the Agency will verify from its
records.
-------
Section 663.230 A2 Factor (Project Need)
EMERGENCY
A2 is a factor that evaluates and quantifies eligible drinking water needs associated with a proposed
project. The need for the proposed projects will be quantified by using the single most appropriate of the
following methodologies:
a) For projects that meet the Health Hazard Determination criteria set out in Section
663.120, the A2 score will be 100 points.
b) For projects that will correct violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act determined
through compliance monitoring, points will be awarded based on the seriousness of
the violations that make the project necessary. The violations will be quantified from
the applicant's Monthly Operating Reports. The values for the violations are as
follows:
1) Acute Violation 75 points;
2) Chronic Violation 50 points
c) For projects that will prevent future acute or chronic violations and address a need
that has been demonstrated by compliance monitoring, Section 663.260 allows for
assigning a portion of the acute and chronic violation points for priority scoring
purposes.
d) For projects that will correct violations of the State's protection of public health rules
regarding adequate pressure, transmission, and storage of drinking water, as
contained in 35 111. Adm. Code Part: 653, and evidenced by an Agency issued notice
of violation, Agency field inspection report or Agency approved project planning, the
A2 factor value will be 25 points.
e) For projects that will extend or provide community drinking water to an area
currently served by private wells will receive a score of 15 points, plus a need factor
which will be quantified from the percentage of private wells found to be out of
compliance with regulations or advisories administered by the Illinois Department
of Public Health and which pose a potential threat to public health based on sampling
or inspection as determined by the health authority responsible for the area to be
served. The percentage of wells, expressed as a decimal, that are unsatisfactory will
be multiplied by 10 and the result added to the 15 points to complete the A2 score.
f) Renovation, repair, reconstruction or replacement of facilities to maintain the safe
and adequate water supply capabilities for which they were designed and to enable
their continued service will be assigned an A2 value of 10 points.
-------
Section 663.240 A3 Factor (Financial Hardship)
EMERGENCY
A3 is a factor, which adds points for applicants that have a higher rate of unemployment than the State
average, and includes points for the percentage of persons in poverty. The A3 factor is calculated by
adding the unemployment percentage points to the persons in poverty points from the following tables:
Percentage Above State Average Unemployment Rate
Percentage Points
0.1 to 2.0 1.25
2.1-4.0 2.50
4.1-6.0 3.75
6. land above 5.00
Percentage of Persons in Poverty
Percentage Points
5.0-10.0 1.00
10.1-15.0 2.00
15.1-20.0 3.00
20.1-25.0 4.00
25.1 -and above 5.00
Section 663.250 A4 Factor (Small Public Water Systems)
EMERGENCY
A4 is a factor that provides a five point bonus to public water systems serving populations of less than
10,000.
Section 663.260 AS Factor (Readiness to Proceed)
EMERGENCY
A5 is a factor that measures the progress that an applicant has made on completing an application for loan
assistance. A5 will be calculated by adding the points awarded for completion of significant milestones to
the one point that will be awarded to all projects as follows: (A5a + A5b + A5c + A5d + A5e) +1 = A5.
The points awarded for each of the significant application items as follows:
a) Submission of project planning 0.20 points;
b) Agency approved project planning 0.20 points;
c) Submission of plans and specifications 0.10 points;
d) Agency approved plans and specifications 0.30 points;
e) Agency approved dedicated source of revenue 0.20 points.
-------
663.270 Scoring Conventions
EMERGENCY
a) For purposes of assigning the A2 factor, projects that are being proposed to meet regulations that have
been published in the Federal Register but have a future effective date will be considered the same as
projects to correct violations of regulations that are already in effect.
b) Projects that are being proposed to prevent future acute or chronic violations predicted by compliance
monitoring are eligible for A2 factor points as follows:
1) The applicant's compliance monitoring records must show concentrations of the contaminant to
be controlled of at least 75% of the acute or chronic violation limit (existing contaminant
concentration + acute/chronic limit x 100 = % violation limit);
2) The A2 points for the project will be calculated by multiplying the percentage violation limit by
the appropriate acute or chronic A2 points in Section 663.230(b).
For integrally related projects which require construction by more than one local government unit, each
project will proceed at the Loan Priority Index of the component project with the most favorable priority
ranking.
-------
INDIANA
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following four categories:
• Public Health - Projects for systems with MCL violations from the 3 preceding years may receive points
for all standards violated in this category (up to 230 points). For example, 30 points for acute violations
(e.g., microbiological), 20 points for chronic violations (e.g., VOCs, radionuclides, etc.).
• Assure SDWA Compliance - Projects to ensure SDWA compliance may receive points for all items that
apply in this category (up to 50 points). For example, 5 points for significant noncompliance, 25 points for
an agreed order.
• Affordability - Projects may receive up to 60 points on the basis of MHI (5 to 30 points) and water rate
charges (5 to 30 points). Projects will receive more points for lower MHIs and higher water rate charges.
• Additional Considerations - Projects to address infrastructure replacement and improvement, to fund small
systems, to consolidate and regionalize, and to address inadequate water supply, may receive from 5 to 15
points for all items that apply (up to 90 total points).
Notes
Tie-Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, the project with more points in the Public Health Protection
category will prevail. If the tie persists, the system serving the smaller population will prevail.
-------
State of Indiana
DWSRF Priority Scoring and Ranking System
VI. Tie Breaking
If two or more projects score equally under the Project Scoring and Ranking System, the project with the
highest points in the Public Health Section will prevail. If a tie persists, then the project that serves the
smallest population will prevail.
VII. Scoring and Ranking System Criteria
The purpose of the scoring and ranking system is the prioritization of all eligible DWSRF projects that are
seeking funding for that year. Projects that seek to further the health protection objectives of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (section 1452 (a)(2)) and projects that rectify chronic and long term health risks will also
be given high priority consideration under this scoring and ranking system. Finally, projects that have
documented a financial need based on a per-capita household basis will be given enhanced point
consideration under this proposed scoring and ranking system. Scoring is based on the sum of all possible
points awarded within each category. Systems which score the highest point total will be given the highest
priority on the project list.
VIII. Scoring and Ranking System
The criteria used to prioritize the eligible projects are described and weighted below. Points apply to the
system applying for assistance. Scoring is based on the sum of all possible points awarded within each
category. Systems which score the highest point total will be given the highest priority on the project priority
list (PPL).
In determining the scoring and ranking system for eligible DWSRF projects the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) proposes that the highest priority be given to projects which seek to do
the following: alleviate public health risks, help assure compliance with the SDWA, and assist systems most
in need according to state affordability criteria.
Systems which score the highest point total will be given the highest priority on the project list. Consistent
with these aforementioned priorities, the numerical scores in the DWSRF priority ranking and scoring system
will be based on the following criteria:
I Public Health Protection: The project addresses the most serious risk to human health.
(Total Maximum Points / 230)
II Assure SDWA Compliance: The project will ensure compliance with the requirements of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA. (Total Maximum Points/50)
III Affordability: This criterion is based on the State's Affordability Criteria, service area
population, and the service areas median home income. It is designed to assist systems most
in need, on a per household basis.
(Total Maximum Points / 60)
-------
IV Additional Considerations: This criterion offers additional points to projects for their
efforts to improve drinking water quality.
(Total Maximum Points / 90)
The total numerical score for a project or a project segment will be the sum of the scores for criteria I,
II, III, and IV.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Scoring and Ranking Point System
I. PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION:
The project addresses the most serious risk to human health.
Public Health / SDWA MCL violation:
Public and Environmental Health - Violations of National Drinking Water Standards
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are established by the SDWA for those contaminants which
may be detrimental to public health. Violations of these levels in the 3 years preceding the
development of a priority list carry the following weightings:
Points
Microbiological, acute 30
Nitrate / Nitrite, acute 30
Treatment Techniques / SWTR / Turbidity, acute 30
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) / TTHMs 20
Synthetic Organic Compounds (SOCs) 20
Inorganic Chemicals (lOCs) 20
Radionuclides 20
Lead/Copper 20
Consolidated Private Wells: 25% exceeds Maximum Contaminant Levels 20
Other Treatment Techniques 20
230 Maximum
II. ASSURE SDWA COMPLIANCE: The project will ensure compliance with the requirements
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA.
SDWA Compliance:
Significant Non-Compliance 5
Warning of Non-Compliance (WONC) 5
Notice of Violation (NO V) 15
Agreed Order (AO) 25
50 Maximum
III. AFFORDABILITY:
A. Median Household Income (MHI)
MHI at or above $31,242 5
MHI $24,994-$31,242 15
MHI below $24,994 30
-------
B. Water Rate Charge Per 4,000 gallons
Over $30.00 per 4,000 gallons 30
Rate between $25.00-$30.00 per 4,000 gallons 15
Rate Below $25.00 per 4,000 gallons 5
** State agency approval of user charges or rate structure 60 Maximum
IV ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This criterion allows for additional points in the scoring and ranking of projects.
A. Infrastructure Replacement / Improvement
Water system infrastructure replacement projects will correct deficiencies or ensure
compliance with the SDWA are based on at least a 20 year useful life. Loan assistance to
upgrade, replace, or install the following:
Source-Intake Structure 5
Controls / Instrumentation 5
Disinfection and Filtration System 5
Emergency Power Source 5
Pumping Station 5
Back Flow Prevention 5
Transmission and Distribution System 5
Storage Facility 5
B. Small System Funding
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that a State must, to the extent practicable,
use a minimum of 15 percent of all dollars credited to the Fund to provide loan assistance to
small systems that serve fewer than 10,000 persons.
Systems with 10,000 persons or < 10
C. Consolidation / Regionalization
This criterion is included to support the concept that larger systems are more apt to
have managerial, financial and technical capabilities to ensure continued compliance with
current and future requirements of both federal and state Safe Drinking Water laws and
regulations.
Physical Consolidation 5
including the consolidation of private wells into an existing system, where at a
minimum 25% of the wells exceed Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels.
*Dependent upon the requisite EPA authorization.
-------
D. Inadequate Water Supply
Water supply operation projects which remedy the following conditions will be awarded
points as follows as defined by the 10 State Recommended Standards for Water Works:
a) Water Pressure 10
The normal working pressure should be approximately SOpsi and not less than 35psi.
The system shall be designed to maintain a minimum operating pressure of 20psi throughout
the distribution system under all conditions of flow including peak periods.
b) Water Supply 10
The system is incapable of meeting the recommended daily peak water use demands.
c) Water Storage 15
The structure shall provide stability and durability as well as protect the quality of
stored water. The minimum storage capacity (or equivalent capacity) for systems not
providing fire protection shall be equal to the average daily consumption.
90 Maximum
Total
Maximum
Points = 430
-------
MICHIGAN
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following six categories. Projects may receive up to
1000 total points.
• Drinking Water Quality - Up to 450 points will be awarded to projects that will eliminate acute violations
of drinking water standards (250 points for each violation), projects that will eliminate non-acute drinking
water violations (200 points for each violation), projects that will upgrade a facility to maintain compliance
with drinking water standards or capacity requirements (150 points), and projects that will eliminate
exceedances of secondary MCLs (25 points).
• Infrastructure Improvement - Up to 350 points will be awarded to projects that will upgrade source or
treatment equipment (125 points), projects that will upgrade transmission or distribution equipment (125
points), and projects that will upgrade water storage facilities or pumping stations (125 points).
• Population - Up to 50 points will be awarded to projects based on the system's service population. Large
systems will receive more points than small systems; transient noncommunity systems are eligible for only
half of the total points available in this category.
• Disadvantaged Communities - Up to 50 points will be awarded to community water supplies that serve
disadvantaged communities.
• Consolidation - Up to 100 points will be awarded to consolidation projects. Projects that will bring 1 or
more PWSs into compliance as a result of consolidation will receive 100 points. Projects that will correct
deficiencies for 1 or more PWSs as a result of consolidation will receive 60 points and other consolidation
projects will receive 40 points.
• Wellhead Protection - Projects that serve communities with completed wellhead or source water protection
plans will receive 100 points.
Notes
Tie Breaking Procedure - In the event of a tie, systems with fewer than 2 violations of monitoring, record-
keeping, and reporting requirements in the previous 2-year period will rank above systems with more
violations. If systems are still tied, the cost per population served for each project will be calculated; the
system with the lowest ratio of cost to population will rank higher.
Segmentation - Projects may be segmented if the cost of the proposed project exceeds 30 percent of the
total amount available during the fiscal year or if the department has approved the system's application for
segmentation. Segmented projects will be assigned points as outlined above; after funding for the first
segment of a project is accepted, subsequent segments will retain first priority during the following 3 fiscal
years.
Prior Year Eligibility - Projects on the priority list that are not funded during the year that the priority list
is in effect will be automatically prioritized on the next annual list using the same criteria.
-------
MICHIGAN
Sec. 5406.
(1) The department shall annually develop a priority list of project eligible for assistance under this part.
Projects that are not funded during the year that a priority list developed under this section is in effect shall
be automatically prioritized on the next annual list using the same criteria, unless the water supplier
submits and amendment to its project plans submitted by water suppliers under section 5405 and the
criteria listed in subdivisions(a) through (f). Each project shall be assigned points up to a maximum of
1,000. The point values are maximum values available for each category or subcategory listed in this
section and shall only be awarded if the project, substantially addresses the problem for which the point
award was given. If a project is primarily designed to replace individual wells at private homes, 50% or
more of the homes in the affected area shall meet equivalent water quality or infrastructure deficiency
criteria listed in subdivisions (a) through (f) in order to receive the maximum available points. If less than
50% of the homes in the affected area can demonstrate deficiencies, 1/2 of the total points shall be
awarded. Points shall be awarded as follows:
(a) A maximum of 450 points may be awarded to a project that addresses drinking water quality as
outlined in Act 399, if the project:
(i) Is designed to eliminate an acute violation of a drinking water standard as defined in
part 4 of the administrative rules for Act 399. A violation of a surface water treatment
technique, or of a waterborne disease outbreak has been documented, 250 points shall be
awarded for each violation.
(ii) Is designed to eliminate a violation of a drinking water standard other than those
outlined in subparagraph (i), 200 points shall be awarded for each violation.
(iii) Is designed to upgrade a facility to maintain compliance with drinking water standards
or system capacity requirements, 150 points shall be awarded.
(iv) Is designed to eliminate an exceedance of a secondary maximum containment level for
aesthetic water quality, 25 points shall be awarded.
(b) A maximum of 350 points shall be awarded to a project that addresses infrastructure
improvements, as follows:
(i) If source of treatment facilities are upgraded, including the water mains to connect to
the distribution system, a maximum of 125 points shall be awarded, if the improvement is:
(A) To meet minimum capacity requirements, 100 points shall be awarded.
(B) For reliability, 75 points shall be awarded.
(C) For other source or treatment facility upgrades not included in subparagraph
(i)(A) or (B), 25 points shall be awarded.
(D) To satisfy the conditions of a formal enforcement action, 25 points shall be
awarded.
(E) For source water protection, 50 points will be awarded.
-------
(ii) If transmission or distribution water mains are upgraded, a maximum of 125 points
shall be awarded, if the improvement is:
(A) To meet minimum capacity where flow or residual pressure is less than
acceptable, 100 points shall be awarded.
(B) For reliability, including looping or redundant feeds, 75 points shall be
awarded.
(C) Other transmission or distribution system upgrades not included in
subparagraph (ii)(A) or (B),25 points shall be awarded.
(D) To satisfy the conditions of a formal enforcement action, 25 points shall be
awarded.
(iii) If water storage facilities or pumping stations are upgraded, a maximum of 125 points
shall be awarded, if the improvement is:
(A) To meet minimum capacity where storage or pumping capacity is less than
requirements, 100 points shall be awarded.
(B) For reliability, 75 points shall be awarded.
(C) Other storage facility or pumping station upgrades not included in
subparagraph (iii)(A) or (B), 25 points shall be awarded.
(D) To satisfy the conditions of a formal enforcement action, 25 points will be
awarded.
(c) A maximum of 50 points shall be awarded based on the population served by the water system
according to the following table. However, a transient noncommunity water supply as defined in
section 2 of Act 399 is eligible for 1/2 the point value listed in the following table.
Population Points
>50,000 50
10,001-50,000 40
3,301 - 10,000 30
501-3,300 20
0-500 10
(d) A maximum of 50 points shall be awarded to a community water supply that is a disadvantaged
community.
(e) A maximum of 100 points shall be awarded for projects that include consolidation as follows:
(i) If one or more public water supplies are brought into compliance with state drinking
water standards as a result of consolidation, 100 points shall be awarded.
(ii) If deficiencies, which are documented in writing by department, at 1 or more public
water supplies are corrected as a result of consolidation, 60 points shall be awarded.
-------
(iii) Other consolidations, not included under subparagraph (i) or (ii), shall be awarded 40
points.
(f) For communities that have completed a wellhead protection plan or a source water protection
plan, 100 points shall be awarded.
(g) After scoring, using the criteria in subdivisions (a) through (f), if 2 or more projects have the
same score, the following tie-breaker shall be applied:
(i) If the system has fewer than 2 violations of the monitoring, record-keeping, and
reporting requirements of Act 399 in the previous 2-year reporting period, or no violations
if ownership of the system has changed in the previous 2 years, it will rank above systems
having more violations.
(ii) After applying the tie-breaker in subparagraph (i), if 2 or more projects score exactly
the same, a calculation of the cost per population served by the water system shall be
made. The affected projects shall be ranked with the lowest ratio of cost to population
ranked higher.
(2) The priority list shall be submitted annually to the chairpersons of the senate and house of
representatives standing committees that primarily consider legislation pertaining to the protection of public
health and the environment.
(3) In preparing the priority list, to ensure that a disproportionate share of available funds for a given fiscal
year is not committed to a single water supply project, the department may segment a project if either of the
following criteria is present:
(a) The cost of the proposed project is more that 30% of the total amount available in the fund
during the fiscal year.
(b) The department has approved a water supplier's application for segmenting a project.
(4) Segments of a project that have been segmented under subsection (3) shall be assigned priority points
based on the project as identified in the project plan. After funding assistance for the first segment is
accepted, the remaining segments will retain first priority for funding assistance on the next 3 fiscal year
priority lists. All projects with previously funded segments will be designated with first priority. Ranking
order of these projects to receive funding assistance will be subject to the relative ranking of all first
segment projects.
(5) In preparing the intended use plan, the department shall make every effort to assure that funding
assistance is equitably distributed among public water supplies of varying sizes.
(6) For purposes of providing assistance, the priority list shall take effect on the first day of each fiscal
year.
-------
MINNESOTA
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following five categories:
• Public Health Priority Points - Under the public health category, only existing eligible public drinking
water supply projects may receive priority points for acute violations, noncompliance with treatment
technique requirements, and violations of nonacute MCLs. All projects must address the public health
issues described. Up to 100 points will be assigned to systems with acute violations. Projects may receive
points for all items that apply (e.g., 25 points for 1 or more acute violations in the past 36 months, 25 points
for 1 or more violations of the MCL for total coliform in the past 36 months, etc.). Up to 15 points will be
awarded to systems that fail to comply with treatment technique requirements. Fifteen points will be
awarded to systems that violate non-acute primary MCLs. Up to 25 points will be assigned to projects for
contaminated private wells that will result in the creation of an eligible PWS or connection to a PWS.
• Inadequate Water Supply Priority Points - Up to 15 points will be assigned to systems that cannot
consistently provide adequate water. Systems that serve more than 1,000 people must have evidence of an
emergency and water conservation plan to receive points in this category.
• Public Drinking Water Infrastructure Improvement Priority Points - Systems that have received points
under either category above cannot receive points in this category. Systems can only receive points for one
of the following improvements: system reliability (7 points), looping of water mains (7 points), chlorine
feed equipment (7 points), 1-day storage (6 points), or other infrastructure upgrades (5 points).
• Additional Priority Point Categories - Ten points will be assigned to systems that have suffered as a result
of a natural disaster and have no other source of State or federal disaster relief. Ten points will be assigned
to projects that result in compliance with an enforceable document of the Minnesota Department of Health.
Ten points will be assigned to projects that result in the consolidation of existing drinking water systems.
Three points will be assigned to projects that protect drinking water sources.
• Financial Need - Only community systems are eligible for points based on financial need. A system with
an MHI less than either the MHI for a metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area, as applicable, will be assigned
5 points.
Notes
Tie-Breaking Procedure - If two or more projects have the same priority points total, the project for the
system whose service population has the lowest MHI will receive the highest priority.
-------
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DRINKING WATER REVOLVING FUND
4720.9015 PROJECT PRIORITY LIST.
Subp, 1. General. The commissioner must develop and maintain a project priority list for entities that have
a need for a new or upgraded water supply system.
Subp. 2. Notice. At least once a year, the commissioner must provide notification to all eligible public
drinking water suppliers that requests for placement on the project priority list are being accepted. The notice
must include the schedule for submittal of the requirements listed in subparts 4 and 5, or subpart 6, in order
to be placed on the project priority list.
Subp. 3. Project priority list amendments. As needed, but at least once per year, the commissioner must
amend the project priority list to add or delete projects.
Subp. 4. General requirements. To be eligible for placement on the project priority list, a written request
for placement on the project priority list must be submitted to the commissioner. The request must include:
A. the type of project (planning, design, or construction) for which financial assistance is being requested;
B. a current cost estimate and, if different, the amount of financial assistance being requested; and
C. a proposed project schedule in a form acceptable to the commissioner.
Subp. 5. Additional requirements for applicants seeking financial assistance for planning activities
and design. The request for inclusion of a project under the planning or design section of the project priority
list must include:
A. a description of the need for the project;
B. an estimate of the population and number of households to be served; and
C. a map showing the geographical area the project is expected to serve.
Subp. 6. Additional requirements for applicants seeking financial assistance for construction. The
request for listing a construction project on the project priority list under this part must include:
A. a map of the geographical area;
B. the population and number of households to be served;
C. a description of the current drinking water supply system;
D. a discussion of any existing and potential problems or failures in the current drinking water system;
E. an analysis of possible alternatives for the correction of the problems or failures, including a cost estimate
for each alternative;
-------
F. the selection of an alternative, including the reasons for the selection of this alternative and a detailed
cost estimate; and
G. for public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 persons, the status of the applicant's implementation
of an approved emergency and water conservation plan required under Minnesota Statutes, section
103G.291.
Subp. 7. Priority points. A project must be assigned project priority points before being listed on the
project priority list. The commissioner must review and approve the information submitted under subpart 4,
5, or 6 before assigning project priority points. Approval must be based on the determination that the
information addresses the requirements under subpart 4, 5, or 6 and an evaluation that the selected alternative
will provide a solution to the problems presented. A project's priority points must be the total number of
priority points assigned under parts 4720.9020 to 4720.9040. The project priority points may be recalculated
when new information becomes available until the project is placed on the intended use plan as provided in
part 380.0255.
Subp. 8. Listing order. Projects must be listed on the project priority list in descending order according to
the number of total priority points assigned to each one. When two or more projects have the same priority
point total, the project sponsored by the entity with the lowest median household income must receive the
highest priority.
4720.9020 PUBLIC HEALTH PRIORITY POINTS.
Subpart 1. Existing eligible public drinking water supply. Only existing eligible public drinking water
supply projects can be assigned priority points under subparts 2 to 4.
Subp. 2. Acute violations. A maximum of 100 priority points may be assigned to a project as described in
items A to E.
A. 25 priority points must be assigned if there has been one or more violations defined as an acute violation
in Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 141.32(a)(l)(iii)(A), within the past 36 calendar months.
B. 25 priority points must be assigned if there has been one or more violations defined as an acute violation
in Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 141.32(a)(l)(iii)(B), within the past 36 calendar months.
C. 25 priority points must be assigned if there has been one or more occurrences defined as a waterborne
outbreak in Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 141.2, within the past 36 calendar months.
D. 25 priority points must be assigned if there have been one or more violations of the maximum
contaminant level for total coliforms pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section
141.32(a)(l)(iii)(C), when total coliforms are determined to be present in the well(s) of a groundwater system
or at the point of entry for a surface water system within the past 36 calendar months.
-------
E. 15 priority points must be assigned if there have been one or more violations of the maximum
contaminant level for total coliforms pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section
141.32(a)(l)(iii)(C), when total coliforms are determined to be present in a part of the system other than the
well(s) of a groundwater system or at the point of entry for a surface water system within the past 36 calendar
months. Points may not be assigned under this item if points have been assigned under item D.
Subp.3. Failure to comply with treatment technique requirements.
A. 15 priority points must be assigned if there have been one or more failures to comply with a treatment
technique requirement pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 141.70 to 141.74.
B. 13 priority points must be assigned if there have been one or more failures to comply with a treatment
technique requirement, other than those referred to in item A, within the past 36 calendar months. Additional
points must not be assigned for multiple failures to comply with the same requirement.
Subp 4. Violations of nonacute primary maximum contaminant levels. Fifteen priority points must be
assigned if there has been a violation of any nonacute primary maximum contaminant levels within the past
36 calendar months.
Subp. 5. Contaminated private wells. Only projects that will result in the creation of an eligible public
water supply or connection to an eligible public water supply may be assigned points under this subpart.
More than 50 percent of the private wells in the proposed project service area must meet a criterion in item A
or B for priority points to be assigned under item A or B. If 50 percent or less of the private wells in the
proposed project service area meet the criterion, one-half of the listed points must be assigned. Results of
tests, done in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved analytical methods, must
be submitted.
A. Twenty five priority points must be assigned if test results indicate that a condition exists that meets the
criteria in subpart 2, item A, B, C, or D.
B. Ten priority points must be assigned if a drinking water advisory has been issued by the Minnesota
Department of Health.
4720.9025 INADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY PRIORITY POINTS.
Subpart 1. Consistently provide. For the purposes of this part, the term, "consistently provide" will mean
that, at all times, the minimum pressures and flow rates for plumbing fixtures as defined in the Minnesota
Plumbing Code part 4715.1770, are maintained.
Subp. 2. Existing public drinking water supplies. For existing public drinking water supplies serving
more than 1000 people, evidence of the implementation of an emergency and water conservation plan
approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section
103G.291, subdivision 3, must be provided to the
commissioner before priority points will be assigned under this item.
A. Fifteen priority points must be assigned if an existing public drinking water supply is unable to
consistently provide adequate water for the domestic water supply, excluding industrial and commercial uses.
-------
B. Seven priority points will be assigned if an existing public drinking water supply is able to consistently
provide adequate water for the uses listed under item A, but is unable to consistently provide water for other
uses, including industrial and commercial.
Subp. 3. Inadequate supply from private wells. Only projects that result in the creation of an eligible
public water supply or connection to an eligible public water supply may be assigned points under this
subpart.
A. Fifteen priority points must be assigned if more than 50 percent of the private wells in the proposed
project service area are unable to consistently provide an adequate amount of water for general household
purposes as demonstrated by an analysis of the aquifer supply and the demand for water in the area.
B. Five points must be assigned if 50 percent or less of the private wells in the proposed project service area
meet the criteria in item A.
4720.9030 PUBLIC DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITY
POINTS.
Subpart 1. Existing public drinking water supplies. Only existing eligible public drinking water supply
projects may be assigned priority points under this part. A project may be assigned priority points under only
one subpart. If it has been assigned points under parts 4720.9020 or 4720.9025, it may not be assigned
points under this part.
Subp. 2. System Reliability. Seven priority points must be assigned to projects that will address a
demonstrated need for a new backup well or interconnection with another public water supply.
Subp. 3. Looping of water mains. Seven priority points must be assigned to projects that will address a
demonstrated need for looping of watermains.
Subp. 4. Chlorine feed equipment. Seven priority points must be assigned to projects that will address a
demonstrated need for chlorine feed equipment.
Subp. 5. One day storage. Six priority points must be assigned to projects that allow the supply to have
one day storage capacity equal to the average daily use.
Subp. 6. Other infrastructure projects. Five priority points must be assigned to projects that will address
a demonstrated need for new or upgraded public drinking water facilities if priority points have not been
assigned under subpart 2, 3, 4, or 5.
4720.9035 ADDITIONAL PRIORITY POINTS CATEGORIES.
Subpart 1. Natural disaster. In order to be assigned priority points under this subpart, a description of the
existing public drinking water supply, or portion thereof, damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster must be
submitted along with a statement that other state or federal disaster relief is not available.
A. Fifteen extra priority points must be assigned if more than 50 percent of the proposed project will replace
or repair the existing public drinking water supply damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster.
-------
B. Ten extra priority points must be assigned if 50 percent or less of the proposed project will replace or
repair the existing public drinking water supply damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster.
Subp. 2. Compliance. Ten extra priority points must be assigned if the proposed project will enable an
eligible public drinking water supply to comply with an administrative penalty order, bilateral compliance
agreement, permit, or other enforceable document issued by the Minnesota Department of Health.
Subp. 3. Consolidation. Ten extra priority points must be assigned if the proposed project will result in the
consolidation of existing public drinking water supplies.
Subp. 4 Source water protection. Three extra priority points must be assigned if the proposed project, or
any portion thereof, is needed in order to protect the drinking water source.
4720.9040 FINANCIAL NEED.
Subpart 1. General. Only projects sponsored by community public drinking water supplies can be assigned
priority points under this part.
Subp. 2. Median Household Income. The metropolitan and nonmetropolitan median household income
levels of the state must be determined from income data from the most recent census of the United States or
from data from the state demographer.
A. A municipal community public water supply must use the median household income for the appropriate
political subdivision or subdivisions encompassing its service area, except as provided in item C.
B. A nonmunicipal community drinking water supply must use the median household income for the smallest
political subdivision encompassing the nonmunicipal community drinking water supplies, except as provided
in item C.
C. If there is reason to believe that the United States census data or the data from the state demographer is
not a currently accurate representation of the median household income, documentation of the reasons why
the data is not an accurate representation may be submitted. If the commissioner, after review, agrees, the
applicant may submit additional information regarding median household income. The information must
consist of reliable data from local, regional, state or federal sources, or from a survey conducted by a reliable
impartial source. The median household income level must be updated to reflect the most current and
accurate figures.
Subp. 3. ASSIGNMENT OF POINTS, A project sponsored by a community public drinking water supply
with a median household income less than either the median household income for a metropolitan or
nonmetropolitan area, as applicable, must be assigned five priority points.
-------
j OHIO I
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following six categories:
• Public Health Issues - Points may be given to projects to correct acute contamination occurring in the past
12 months, chronic contaminants, and secondary standard violations. For acute violations, 0 to 100 points
per item (MCL violations, Nitrate, SWTR) will be given depending on the frequency or level of
contamination. For chronic violations (lOCs, VOCs, Radionuclides, THMs) 0 to 20 points per contaminant
will be given based on contaminant level. Points will also be given for other chronic health issues (e.g., lead
and copper, boil status, contaminated private wells). One point per standard will be given for secondary
standard iron and manganese violations.
• Compliance with Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Act - Projects to achieve or maintain federal
and State SDWA compliance by eliminating design deficiencies or inadequate storage and distribution
infrastructure will receive points. Projects may receive 5 to 20 points each for various deficiencies
associated with water quantity, water source, and water treatment plants. They may also receive 5 to 20
points each for various storage and distribution deficiencies.
• Effective Management - Points may be given to projects that implement beneficial management practices
such as backflow prevention programs, preventative maintenance programs, and water conservation
programs (1 point per program).
• Consolidation and Regionalization - Points may be given to projects that have the potential for, or propose
to involve, consolidation of water systems (25 points for potential and 25 additional points for each system
that commits to interconnection).
• Affordability - Points will be given to projects based on affordability. If the water and sewer rates for the
system are more than the Combined Water and Sewer Benchmarks1 or if the eligible water system has no
rate structure, the project will receive 20 points.
Population Distribution - Projects will receive up to 24 points based on population, with the maximum
number of points going to the smallest systems. For example, systems that serve fewer than 500 people will
receive 24 points. Those that serve more than 30,000 people will receive only 3 points.
Benchmarks were developed using data obtained from the Ohio EPA=s 7997 Sewer and Water
Rate Survey and the 1990 U.S. Census Report of MHI for Ohio.
-------
OHIO
PROJECT PRIORITY RANKING AND SELECTION
The purpose of the priority ranking system is to establish a list of eligible projects to be funded in a manner
that the most serious risks to public health are given the highest priority.
All eligible projects will be rated with respect to six categories to determine their ranking and selection for
funding under the DWSRF. These categories are:
1. Public health issues
2. Continued compliance with federal and state SDWA requirements
3. Bonus points for effective management
4. Consolidation/regionalization
5. Affordability
6. Population
Any projects ranking will be the sum of all points received in each category. However, before any final
funding is granted, each project will be carefully evaluated to ensure that the project addresses all issues for
which points are scored. Each category is briefly described below.
1. Public Health Issues
The greatest emphasis will be placed on addressing public health issues related to the acute contaminants
microbial and nitrate. The period of analysis will be the 12 months prior to inclusion on the priority list.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violations caused by failure to monitor or report will not be included in
the analysis. The following are the points assigned to the various levels of contamination.
Acute contaminants per 12 months
Bacteriological /contamination (Actual confirmed, not monitoring and/or reporting violations)
No MCL violations 0 points
1-2 MCL violations 50 points
3 or more violations 100 points
Nitrate
Level consistently less than 5.0 mg/1 0 points
Level >5.0 mg/1 < 10 mg/1 5 0 points
Level > 10 mg/1 100 points
-------
Surface Water Treatment Rule
No violations treatment technique violation points 0 points
1-2 treatment technique violations 50 points
3 or more treatment technique violations 100 points
Chronic contaminants will be addressed as shown below with greater weight being given to exceedances of
the Unreasonable risk to Health (URTH) value as published by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) in the latest table of Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories.
Chronic Contaminant Groups: Inorganic Chemicals (IQCs). Volatile Organic Chemicals fVOCs).
Radionuclides. Trihalomethanes (THMs)
No MCL violations 0 points*
Above MCL < URTH 10 points*
Greater than URTH 20 points*
*multiply by the number of violations in each contaminant group
Lead and Copper
In compliance 0 points
Exceedance of copper action level 5 points
Exceedance of lead action level 10 points
Boil Status (on boil advisory)
No boil advisories 0 points
Boil advisory 1-10 weeks 7 points
Boil advisory > 10 weeks 15 points
Disinfectant Residual in the Distribution System (for 12 month period)
0-5 violations 0 points
5-25 violations 10 points
25 or more 20 points
-------
Contaminated Private Wells*
If 51% or more of the wells in the
project area are contaminated 60 points
If less that 50% but more than
25% 30 points
If less than 25% but more than
0% 20 points
*Based on best estimate after consultation with local health department
Note: Only fundable project is service from a public water system, preferably extension of existing system.
While not directly related to public health, Ohio does enforce the secondary standards for iron and
manganese. Therefore, the following point allocation has been included in the priority ranking system.
Secondary Standards
Any exceedance of iron and/or manganese standard 1 point*
*per standard
2. Compliance with Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Act
The next category is continued compliance with federal and state Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The
condition of the physical infrastructure has been selected as an indicator or predictor of the systems ability to
remain in compliance. The rational being that without adequate supplies of source water, with inadequate,
undersized or deteriorated plants, and with inadequate finished water storage and/or distribution systems, a
public water system will be unable to maintain compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
Included in this portion of the evaluation are bonus points to reward systems that are taking steps to stay in
compliance with state requirements and to reduce water usage. The following are the points assigned to the
various elements in this category.
Design Deficiencies
Quantity
Adequate 0 points
Shortage during peak demand 5 points
Shortage during peak season 10 points
Continual shortage 15 points
Source
Ground Water Under the Direct influence
of Surface Water (GWUDI)(final) 20 points
Improper well construction 10 points
Inadequate intake structure 20 points
-------
Plant
Inadequate processes 5 points*
Insufficient plant capacity 20 points
Deteriorated plant 20 points
*points for each inadequate process. Processes to be considered are: chemical feed, rapid mix, clarification
(flocculation/settling), filtration, disinfection control, aeration/stripping, ion-exchange, corrosion control, and
pumping. Maximum-45 points.
Inadequate processes and insufficient plant capacity projects will require a sufficiency evaluation to
determine if operations are optimized prior to ranking.
Storage and Distribution System
Storage
Greater than or equal to 1 day 0 points
Adequate hydropneumatic tank but
less than one day's storage 5 points
Inadequate hydropneumatic tank
and/or less than 1 day's storage 10 points
Distribution
Low pressure 10 points
Deterioration 20 points
Inadequate size 20 points
3. Bonus points for effective management
Backflow prevention program 1 point
Contingency plan 1 point
Bacteriological sample siting plan 1 point
WHP program in progress 1 point
Preventative maintenance program 1 point
Water conservation program (unaccounted water loss of 15% or less) 1 point
Metered system 1 point
4. Consolidation/Regionalization
The third category considered is Consolidation/Regionalization. This category is included to support the
concept that larger systems are more apt to have managerial, financial and technical capabilities to ensure
continued compliance with current and future requirements of both federal and state Safe Drinking Water
laws and regulation. The following elements are considered. Points are given to the applicant for the loan
only, and not to systems for which the points are earned.
-------
Projects which provide the potential for consolidation (there are
existing public water systems which could connect to the project
without political conditions and adequate capacity to serve them) 25 points
If the project involves the consolidation/regionalization of
more than one community water system or an eligible
noncommunity water system and there is a signed commitment
letter to tie in or an ordinance mandating tie-in 25 points/
additional
system
If the project involves the consolidation/regionalization of
more than one noncommunity water system (for-profit
Privately owned PWS) and there is a signed commitment
letter to tie in or an ordinance mandating tie in 25 points/
additional
system
5. Affordabilitv Criteria
The next category is affordability. One of the best indicators of affordability is the environmental/health
utility burden placed on a household (i.e. the cost of water/sewer service). A higher degree of financial
burden will be placed on water systems with relatively lower populations because the user base will be
smaller over which the cost of the utility service is recovered. Per household analysis is relevant in that
household costs of infrastructure improvements are a function of the population size of the community or
service area.
Not all public water systems have sewer systems associated with them and some public water systems have
no rate structure on which to base comparisons. Therefore it was necessary to develop a means to evaluate
affordability in these circumstances, and to set some default limits for public water systems with no economic
data. The options are presented below.
If entity is an eligible water system that does not have a rate
structure (e.g. Mobile Home Parks, Schools) (By default) 20 points
If Combined Water and Sewer Benchmarks (1990) are or = Annual Water and Sewer Rates (1995) 0 points
For systems with only an existing water system
If the Water Benchmark (1990) is < Annual Water Rate(1995) 20 points
If the Water Benchmark (1990) is > or = Annual Sewer Rate (1995) 0 points
-------
For systems with only an existing sewer system
If the Sewer Benchmark (1990) is < Annual Sewer Rate (1995) 20 points
If the Sewer Benchmark (1990) is > or = Annual Sewer Rate (1995) 0 points
Sewer and Water Benchmark Values
The affordability analysis is performed through an economic screening which measures the financial impact
of the rate structure on a residential user or household. This is accomplished through a comparison of the
current annual cost per residential user to a sewer AND/or water benchmark value. Benchmarks were
developed using data obtained from the Ohio EPA's 1991 Sewer and Water Rate Survey and the 1990 U.S.
Census Report of median household income (MHI) for Ohio.
In developing the sewer and water benchmark values, sewer and water rates as a percentage of income were
analyzed for: 1) all communities that responded to the 1991 Sewer and Water Rate Survey, and 2) only those
communities that responded to the Survey and had either a sewer and/or water rate increase. The benchmarks
are based on Ohio communities that had a
sewer rate and/or water rate increase, because these rates should best reflect current conditions and costs of
wastewater treatment plants and/or water supply systems. It is assumed that communities raised their rates to
meet these prevailing costs and conditions.
The income value of $25,155 represents the median of the 1989 Median Household Income for Ohio cities
and villages that responded to the 1991 Sewer and Water Rate Survey.
Sewer Benchmark
Of the Ohio communities which experienced a sewer rate increase during 1990 through 1991, The following
values were established by an analysis of the 75th and 90th percentiles for this group:
Income Benchmark
1989 MHI < $25,155 1.5% of MHI
1989 MHI >$25,155 1.9% of MHI
Water Benchmark
Of the Ohio communities which experienced a water rate increase during 1990 through 1991, the following
values were established by an analysis of the 75th and 90th percentiles for this group:
Income Benchmark
1989 MHI < $25,155 1.1% of MHI
1989 MHI >$25,155 1.5% of MHI
-------
6. Population Distribution Points
The final category is population served by the water system. As it is a goal of the program to give particular
emphasis and assistance to smaller systems, more points are awarded to communities which have relatively
smaller populations. The lower the population, the smaller the user base, and the less likely it is for such a
community to realize economies of scale in the financing of a drinking water system. Recognizing that the
smaller the system the more likely it would be to need assistance in financing, the following point weighting
was developed.
Population or Service Area Points
0<500 24 points
500<750 22 points
75 0< 1000 20 points
1000<2000 18 points
2000<3000 16 points
3000<5000 14 points
5 000< 10,000 12 points
10,000<30,000 8 points
30,000
-------
WISCONSIN
Priority Ranking Criteria
Projects will be prioritized based on points accrued in the following four categories:
• Risk to Human Health - Points are given for only one item from (a) or one from (b)
(a) Acute Contaminants: Projects that eliminate an MCL violation for total/fecal coliform will receive 500
points (300 points if it eliminates an anticipated MCL violation). Projects that eliminate an MCL violation
for water treatment deficiencies will receive 400 points (200 points if it proposes to eliminate anticipated
violations). Projects that eliminate a nitrate/nitrite MCL exceedance will receive 300 points (100 points for
an anticipated violation).
(b) Chronic Contaminants: The chronic contaminants are grouped as inorganics, VOCs, synthetic organics,
radionuclides, or THMs. Different point values will be given depending on the type of contaminant and
whether it exceeded or is anticipated to exceed the MCL.
• Affordability - A project will be granted additional points if it is associated with a system considered most
in need of financial assistance on a per household basis. The total number of points will be based on
population served, with an emphasis on the smallest systems, and MHI. The system must serve a population
of fewer than 10,000 persons and have an MHI less than or equal to 80 percent of the State MHI to acquire
any points in this section.
• Secondary Contaminants & System Compliance - Projects that seek to eliminate compliance issues may
receive points in 21 categories that address State regulations. Points per item range from 4 to 10 and include
10 points to reduce State MCLs, 10 points to address documented storage deficiency, 4 points if the project
includes replacement of asbestos-cement pipe material, 4 points for projects including long-term zebra
mussel control, etc. No points will be given for a project that has already received points under the first
category.
• System Capacity - Projects may receive points for all criteria related to the technical, financial, and
managerial capacity of the public water system. For example, if the applicant has written an emergency
action plan or implemented a private well abandonment ordinance, then 5 additional points per item will be
given.
Notes
Tie-Breaking Procedure - If two or more projects have the same priority score, the project serving the
larger population shall have the higher priority.
Funding Ceiling - There is a biennial funding limit of 25 percent for applicants.
-------
WISCONSIN
SUBCHAPTERII - Priority Scoring and Ranking System
NR 166.25 Priority scoring criteria. The purpose of the priority scoring criteria is to establish a list of
eligible projects to be funded in a manner that is in accordance with the federal requirements of the 1996 Safe
Drinking Water Act reauthorization. Consistent with the act, the following criteria shall apply:
Note: The act requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that priority ranking be given to projects that
1) address the most serious risk to human health; 2) are necessary to ensure compliance with the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (including requirements for filtration); and 3) assist systems
most in need on a per household basis according to state affordability criteria. The department will give
first priority to acute public health risk, particularly those related to microbiological organisms and
second priority given to situations that pose chronic and longer term health risks to consumers, such as
organic chemical contamination. The scoring criteria also considers issues that are related to
infrastructure upgrading or replacement to address those projects (or portions of a project) which are
eligible for funding but not included in the first two sections.
(1) Risk to human health.
A project shall be assigned points based on criteria in a single category in par. (a) or a single category in par.
(b) but not from both. If the severity of the problem is not reflected in any of the following categories, the
department will determine the number of points the project shall be assigned.
(a) Project addresses a maximum contaminant level (MCL), action level (AL) or treatment technique
violation, or an acute or chronic health hazard.
1. Acute contaminants: The acute contaminants are divided into three groups. Points are
awarded in the following manner for a project that eliminates a problem that poses an acute
health hazard from one of these groups:
a. Total/fecal coliform - five hundred (500) points shall be awarded to a project that
proposes to eliminate an MCL violation that has occurred or will address a
confirmed waterborne disease outbreak as defined in s. NR 809.04(65).
b. Water treatment deficiencies - four hundred (400) points shall be awarded to a
project that eliminates violations of filtration requirements (turbidity) given in s. NR
809.76 and disinfection requirements in s. NR 809.77 or confirmed microbial
(including Giardia and Cryptosporidium) contamination found in finished water.
c. Nitrate/nitrite - three hundred (300) points shall be awarded to a project that
eliminates a continuing nitrate/nitrite MCL exceedance.
-------
2. Chronic contaminants: The chronic contaminants are divided into five subgroups;
inorganics, volatile organic chemicals (VOC), synthetic organic chemicals (SOC),
radionuclides, and total trihalomethane compounds (THM). Points shall be awarded in the
following manner for a project that eliminates a chronic health hazard from these groups of
chemicals:
a. For each subgroup, other than the THM subgroup, only the MCL exceedance of
greatest percentage magnitude is to be used for the point calculation, even though
multiple contaminant MCL exceedances might be occurring. For exceedances in
multiple subgroups, see letter c below. The MCL exceedance shall be divided by
the current MCL or AL and then multiplied by 50 to obtain a subgroup point total.
b. For the THM subgroup, the total sum THM exceedance as defined in NR 809.23
is used for the calculation similar to letter a. above.
c. For MCL exceedances in more than one subgroup, the highest point level of the
subgroups shall be used as the primary number to be divided by the current MCL or
AL and then multiplied by 50. The other subgroup exceedances will be divided by
their respective MCL or AL and then multiplied by 10. The total point value shall
be the sum of points in each subgroup.
(b) Project prevents an anticipated MCL, AL, or treatment technique violation or critical health
hazard. Points shall be awarded to a single group under either 1. or 2 to a project that proposes to
eliminate an anticipated acute or chronic health hazard.
1. Acute contaminants: The acute contaminants are divided into three groups. Points shall
be awarded from one of the following groups for a project that eliminates an anticipated
acute health hazard.
a. Total/fecal coliform - three hundred (300) points shall be awarded to a project
that eliminates an anticipated MCL violation, where no actual violation has yet
occurred.
b. Water treatment deficiencies - Two hundred (200) points shall be awarded to a
project that proposes to eliminate anticipated violations of filtration requirements
(turbidity) given in s. NR 809.76, interim enhanced surface water treatment rule
requirements, or microbial (including Giardia and Cryptosporidium) detections in
the raw water.
c. Nitrate/nitrite - one hundred (100) points shall be awarded to a project that
proposes to eliminate an anticipated nitrate/nitrite violation.
-------
2. Chronic contaminants: The chronic contaminants are divided into five subgroups;
inorganics, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs),
radionuclides, and total trihalomethane compounds (THMs). Points shall be awarded in the
following manner for a project that eliminates an anticipated chronic health hazard from
these groups of chemicals:
a. Twenty (20) points shall be awarded to a project that proposes to eliminate an
anticipated exceedance of an inorganic, volatile organic chemical, synthetic organic
chemical, radionuclide or total trihalomethane chemical contaminant. An additional
five (5) points shall be awarded for each additional subgroup addressed by a project
that eliminates an anticipated exceedence.
(2) Financial need.
Projects will be granted additional points if the project is associated with a system considered most in need of
financial assistance on a per household basis. The number of points will be determined by evaluating table A
and table B for the public water system in question and totaling the points allocated in the point columns. A
public water system must have a population less than 10,000 and a median household income less than or
equal to 80% of the states median household income to acquire any points in this section.
TABLE A
POPULATION
0-99
100-999
1000-1999
2000-2999
3000-4999
5000-9999
POINTS
30
25
20
15
10
5
TABLE B
Median Household Income
75%-80%
70%-74%
65%-69%
60%-64%
<60%
POINTS
5
10
15
20
25
(3) Projects that address a secondary contaminant violation or system compliance with ch. NR 811, except
that no points will be awarded for specific areas already receiving points under sub. (1). A project shall be
assigned points from the following categories:
(a) Ten (10) points shall be awarded if the project will reduce a secondary drinking water
contaminant, as listed in s. NR 809.60(2), to a level below the aesthetic standard.
(b) Ten (10) points shall be awarded if the project addresses areas of inadequate distribution system
pressure, as defined in s. NR 811.63(1).
(c) Ten (10) points shall be awarded if the project will address a documented storage deficiency
(excludes fire demand) within an existing public water supply system.
(d) Ten (10) points shall be awarded if the project addresses a source or capacity deficiency where
there is a demonstrated need within the existing public water supply system.
(e) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes replacement of lead service lines.
(f) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes long term zebra mussel control.
-------
(g) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes installation of an auxiliary power source
to a well, pump station, or water treatment plant.
(h) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes replacement of asbestos-cement pipe
material.
(i) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes upgrading of existing or SCADA system.
(j) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes installation or replacement of fluoridation
equipment.
(k) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes the upgrading of existing facilities for
capturing, holding, or disposing of waste (liquid or solid) generated from the water system operation.
(1) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes the replacement of undersized mains (less
than six inches in diameter).
(m) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes the looping of water mains and/or the
elimination of dead end watermains.
(n) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes treatment that reduces the potential for
formation of disinfection by-products including trihalomethanes.
(o)Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project as a secondary benefit will increase the fire
protection of the community.
Note: If the primary purpose of the project is to improve the fire protection of the system, the
project is not eligible for funding.
(p) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project will include the installation of a water booster
station or pressure reducing station to improve the quality of service to the customers by supplying
water at a more acceptable level.
(q) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes the installation of an additional river,
railroad, or highway crossing to a major system divide that results in better system reliability.
(r) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes the replacement of one or more pumps or
pump motors that are no longer functional, or have reached the end of their useful life.
(s) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project improves the intake structure for a surface water
plant.
-------
(t) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the public water system currently has a documented water loss
in excess of 30% and the project reduces the water loss within the system.
(u) Four (4) points shall be awarded if the project includes removal of watermains that pass through
sanitary sewer manholes.
(4) System capacity points. Points shall be awarded to a project based on the technical, financial and
managerial capacity of the public water system in the following manner:
(a) Five (5) points shall be awarded if the applicant has a written emergency action plan for the
public water system.
(b) Five (5) points shall be awarded if the applicant has and is implementing a private well
abandonment ordinance for the public water system.
(c) Five (5) points shall be awarded if the applicant has a wellhead protection plan and ordinance for
all the wells in the public water system.
(d) Five (5) points shall be awarded if the applicant has a certified operator and provisions for a
certified back-up operator.
(e) Five (5) points shall be awarded if the applicant has a cross connection control program for the
public water system.
(f) Five (5) points shall be awarded if the applicant has a dedicated replacement fund for the water
system.
(5) Project priority score. The total points from subsections (1) through (4) shall be added together to
determine the final project priority score.
NR 166.26 Procedure for determining and updating project priority scores.
(1) An applicant intending to apply for safe drinking water loan program financial assistance under ch. NR
166 shall submit to the department an intent to apply form and a project priority ranking form.
(2) No project shall be assigned a priority score or be placed on the project priority list until a completed
priority ranking form has been submitted by the applicant and evaluated by the department.
(3) Upon completion of the review and determination of the priority score, the department shall notify the
applicant in writing of the determination.
(4) The department may review and, if necessary under the requirements of this chapter, recalculate priority
scores to assure accuracy and timeliness of the information provided. The department shall notify the
applicant in writing of any change in the priority score.
(5) If the applicant objects to the department's determination of the priority score in sub. (3) or (4), the
applicant shall notify the department in writing within 30 days. The notice shall state the specifics of the
objection. The applicant shall submit any information which supports the objection and the priority score
which the applicant believes should be assigned to the project based on this information.
-------
(6) Upon receipt of a notice under sub. (5), the department shall reevaluate its determination of the project
priority score and shall notify the applicant. If the department denies the requested priority value, it shall
state the reasons in writing.
(7) Notwithstanding sub. (4), an applicant may request a reevaluation of its project priority score or any
factor thereof at any time. The department shall notify the applicant of the results of the reevaluation in the
same manner as required in sub. (5).
NR 166.27 Project ranking system.
(1) The department shall maintain a project priority list which shall be based on the intent to apply forms
submitted and shall rank the projects for which priority scores have been determined. The projects shall be
ranked in the order of descending priority score, with the project with the highest priority score ranked first.
A funding list shall be developed consisting of all projects for which applications have been submitted as per
s. NR 166.05(2).
(2) In case 2 or more projects have the same priority score, the project serving the larger population shall
have the higher priority.
(1) Projects will normally be funded in the order they appear on the funding list. Projects on the funding list
may be by-passed, upon written notice by the department, if any of the following situations occur:
(a) The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 require that 15% of the funds available for
loans shall go to small systems with a population of less than 10,000. In the event that ranking the
projects in descending order do not result in 15% of the funds going to small systems with a
population less than 10,000, systems under 10,000 will be given priority until the 15% requirement
is met.
(b) Requirements of NR 166.10 are not met.
(c) A project is withdrawn by an applicant.
(d) The department determines that the applicant is unable to proceed with construction of the project
in the fiscal year in which funds are requested.
(e) The project failed to meet the engineering review requirements or does not have department
approval of the project.
(f) The applicant has reached the 25% biennial funding cap.
(g) The DOA is unable to certify the applicant's ability to repay the loan.
(h) Refinancing restrictions.
------- |