The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Decentralized Systems
Developing Partnerships to Broaden Opportunities
June 2012
EPA-832-F-12-028
Clean Water
State Revolving Fimd
»EPA
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems,
such as onsite or cluster systems, can be an
effective alternative to meeting clean water
needs in suburban and rural areas compared to
centralized treatment. These and other
infrastructure projects that benefit water
quality are eligible for funding through the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
programs. CWSRF loan funds provide low-
interest financing for clean water infrastructure,
including both point and nonpoint source
projects, in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Since
the CWSRF was established in 1987, over $90
billion in funding has been provided to nonpoint
source, estuary, and traditional and
nontraditional wastewater treatment projects
throughout the United States.
In February 2009, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed into law,
with the primary intention of creating jobs and
stimulating the economy by investing in vital
infrastructure projects to ensure the long-term
vitality of the nation. To contribute to this goal,
$4 billion in ARRA funds was appropriated to
the CWSRF program. The Act specified that 20
percent of the funds appropriated were to be
used for projects that fell under one or more of
four categories: water efficiency and
conservation, energy efficiency improvements,
environmentally innovative activities, and green
infrastructure. This became to be known as the
"Green Project Reserve" (GPR). The GPR
presented a unique opportunity to direct
CWSRF funding towards many types of
innovative and sustainable projects that a
number of state CWSRF programs had not
previously pursued. States funded more than 50
projects addressing decentralized treatment
systems with ARRA CWSRF funds.1
DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT AND THE ARRA GPR
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems
offer a cost-effective alternative to traditional
centralized treatment plants. These localized
systems collect, treat, and disperse water from
individual dwellings or small communities or
service areas and can be an ideal solution for
effective wastewater treatment in rural or
suburban areas, where centralized collection
and treatment may be impractical or inefficient.
There were two types of decentralized
treatment systems funded under the ARRA
Green Project Reserve: onsite systems and
cluster systems. Onsite systems include any
kind of individual system, from septic tanks with
localized dispersal to advanced onsite
treatment technologies, such as fixed film and
suspended growth processes. Cluster systems,
by contrast, provide treatment for anywhere
from two homes to hundreds of homes.
Currently, as many as 50 percent of onsite
sytems are located in suburban areas of the
United States. More than half of existing onsite
septic systems are greater than 30 years old,
1 Data obtained from the EPA Clean Water Benefits
Reporting System.
-------
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Decentralized Systems - Developing Partnerships to
Broaden Opportunities
and studies show that these systems report the
most problems and failures.2 Failing septic
systems are a type of nonpoint source pollution
and one of the leading causes of water quality
impairment in the nation. When onsite systems
fail, it can allow untreated effluent to leach into
groundwater, posing significant public health
risks. For example, pathogens and other
microorganisms in sewage-contaminated water
supplies can lead to disease outbreaks, while
increased nutrient content can lead to excess
algal growth. Bacteria such as fecal coliform and
E. coli can be found in untreated effluent, as
well as other microorganisms that have been
linked to illnesses such as Giardia lamblia,
Balantidium coli, and viruses such as rotavirus
and hepatitis A virus.
they were classified as categorically eligible for
the ARRA GPR under the environmentally
innovative category. Over $20 million of ARRA
GPR assistance went to fund decentralized
treatment projects.3
CHOOSING DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT SOLUTIONS
While centralized treatment may make the
most sense for areas with high population
density that produce a relatively high volume of
wastewater, decentralized systems can have a
number of distinct advantages for smaller
communities. For example, operational costs
are reduced by treating effluent close to its
source. The risks associated with failure are also
reduced as impacts are less widespread and
easier to resolve.
Decentralized treatment systems provide an
alternative solution to these problems. In
addition to addressing existing water quality
issues from aging or failing systems, they can
also have environmental benefits beyond those
of centralized treatment plants as a result of a
localized approach to collection, treatment, and
dispersal. For example, localized treatment
conserves water within the watershed through
groundwater recharge. In addition, smaller
volumes of discharge to waterbodies make it
possible to disperse pollutants more effectively,
reducing the potential for environmental
damage. Localized treatment also decreases the
energy needs and potential water losses
involved in moving effluent large distances
through wastewater collection systems.
Because decentralized wastewater treatment
solutions represent an alternative way of
addressing a critical environmental concern,
Purdue University (2005). Septic System Failure.
Available at
http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/henv/
henv-l-w.pdf.
Site conditions can also impact wastewater
treatment decisions. Different treatment
technologies are suited to different sites based
on factors such as soil type and topography.
Cost and level of treatment must also be
considered. There is a broad range of options
for both onsite and cluster systems. For
example, the most basic form of an onsite
system is a traditional septic tank and
drainfield. However, there are also advanced
treatment options that create a higher quality
effluent and reduce pollutants entering the
watershed. Following treatment, most
decentralized systems disperse the treated
effluent to the soil, where it undergoes further
treatment, although some also directly
discharge to waterbodies. The many options
available in decentralized treatment make it
possible for communities to choose a system
that is most appropriate for their needs.
Data obtained from the EPA Clean Water Benefits
Reporting System.
-------
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Decentralized Systems - Developing Partnerships to
Broaden Opportunities
THE VALUE OF PARTNERSHIP BUILDING
One way that many states maximized the
impact of their CWSRF ARRA grant was through
the use of partnerships. Partnering with other
state agencies, local governments, or nonprofit
organizations is a way to identify new
borrowers and increase the efficiency of the
loan process, and ultimately the impact of the
loan.
Many states, such as Ohio, have limitations on
providing loans directly to individual
homeowners due to the burden of
administering large numbers of loans.
However, the Ohio CWSRF program has formed
partnerships with local government agencies
and provided ARRA funds to these agencies that
then passed funding along to individual
homeowners with failing onsite systems. West
Virginia used partnerships to help ensure that
all of the water quality goals they set for their
decentralized projects were met, which would
have been difficult for resource-constrained
communities to do on their own. As a result, the
beneficial impact of these projects increased
exponentially. Case studies from these two
states demonstrate the importance and utility
of partnerships.
Ohio
Through creative use of state and local
partnerships, Ohio funded more decentralized
wastewater treatment projects than any other
state with ARRA funds as part of their Home
Sewage Treatment System (HSTS) program.
Through the HSTS program, repair or
replacement of onsite treatment systems were
eligible for ARRA CWSRF principal forgiveness
loans equaling 75 percent of the total project
cost. Funding agreements were made with local
government agencies, which then passed the
money on to homeowners, who were
responsible for obtaining funding for the
remaining 25 percent of the project costs.
The state also worked in partnership with local
health districts to manage projects and ensure
project compliance, both in terms of state rules
and ARRA requirements. These health districts
were responsible for review and approval of the
individual projects before the CWSRF would
reimburse communities for the costs. Through
cooperative action at all levels - including state,
county or municipality, health district, and
homeowner - Ohio's HSTS program was able to
fund repairs and replacements for a large
number of aged or failing onsite treatment
systems and ensure cleaner water for the state.
Ohio plans to continue to fund projects under
this program in future funding cycles.
West Virginia
A decentralized wastewater treatment
demonstration project in Lincoln County, West
Virginia provides another example of the
benefits of partnerships. In 2005, the Lincoln
County Commission and West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection began
a project funded by the U.S. EPA to
demonstrate the water quality benefits of
installing innovative decentralized wastewater
systems for homes where current septic
systems were failing or nonexistent.4 The
success of the initial phase of this project led
Lincoln County to apply for further funding
under the ARRA GPR. The county was awarded
a $719,000 principal forgiveness loan for 19
additional systems in the Left Fork Watershed.
U.S. EPA (2005). Lincoln County- US EPA Cooperative
Project: Final Report—Key Lessons Learned.
Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/mudriverwv finalr
eport.pdf
-------
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Decentralized Systems - Developing Partnerships to
Broaden Opportunities
This demonstration project is an excellent
example of a true community effort.
In addition to a large amount of community
involvement, including dozens of meetings to
ensure transparency, partnerships were formed
that helped to maximize knowledge gained
from the project. For example, ecology classes
in Lincoln County schools participated in water
quality testing. University partnerships also
proved critical. The biotechnology department
at Marshall University assisted the Lincoln
County Commission in water quality testing,
which determined that E. coli in the watershed
was the result of human contamination. West
Virginia University also was able to provide
support to water testing efforts, as well as
institutional knowledge related to water
treatment. The results of the water quality tests
performed by these university partners were
used to measure the impact of the installation
of new onsite systems for participating homes.
This information contributed to fact sheets and
other materials that will be used to showcase
its benefits to the Left Fork community and
beyond.
CONCLUSION
The environmental and public health risks
associated with aging or failing onsite
wastewater systems result from untreated
sewage leaching into surface and groundwater.
This often causes the eutrophication of
waterbodies through excessive algal production
resulting from high nutrient loads, creating a
hypoxic environment where aquatic species
cannot survive and humans may be exposed to
harmful toxic microbes, protozoa, bacteria and
viruses. The CWSRF, as demonstrated through
the ARRA GPR, can provide attractive funding
solutions that enable decentralized systems to
retain the flexibility and affordability that makes
them so valuable in rural and suburban areas
while also protecting water quality through
rehabilitation and replacement efforts. The use
of partnerships and creative funding
mechanisms can provide greater access to
these funding opportunities, thus maximizing
the long-term benefits and impact of
decentralized wastewater projects.
For more information please see our website
http://www.epa.gov/cleanwatersrf
------- |