w.
% pro^
State Revolving Funds: Financing Drought
Resilient Water Infrastructure Projects
U.S. EPA Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
January 2018
1/
? v1
!« 191
I
;;
'll| t
"¦ "M ;
1 /
r Si '
1M'
m
•iia, ;
¦ ill r*
t?M" I1 \
rrffl
]'];•
M J *
U.S. EPA^ Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
-------
Acknowledgements
The report would not have been possible with valuable input from the California State Water Resources Control
Board, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, and the Texas Water Development Board. EPA staff in the CWSRF
and DWSRF programs also provided important feedback.
The report was supported by the Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the U.S. Department of Energy.
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
2
-------
Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Executive Summary 5
Introduction 6
Background 6
State Highlights 8
California 8
Oklahoma 8
Texas 10
SRF Policies and Actions that Support Drought Resilient Investment 11
SRF Programmatic Goals 11
California Drought Resilience Goals 11
Oklahoma Drought Resilience Goals 11
Texas Drought Resilience Goals 11
Other Notable State Drought Resilience Goals 12
SRF Incentives 12
Priority Points 12
DWSRF priority points that support drought resilience: 15
Reduced Interest Rate 16
Principal Forgiveness ("PF") 17
State Requirements 17
SRF Complementary Funding, Funding Networks, and Technical Assistance 18
Complementary State Funding 18
Emergency Funding 20
Funding Networks 21
Technical Assistance 21
Drought Information 22
Water Efficiency Investment 23
Conclusion 25
U.S. EPA Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center 25
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
3
-------
List of Abbreviations
AWWA-American Water Works Association
CWA - Clean Water Act
CWS - Community Water Systems
CWSRF - Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DWSRF - Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FSP - Fiscal Sustainability Plan
GPR-Green Project Reserve
IUP - Intended Use Plan
NIMS - National Information Management Systems
OWRB - Oklahoma Water Resources Board
PF-Principal Forgiveness
PWSDER - California Public Water System Drought Emergency Response
PWS - Public Water Systems
SDWA-Safe Drinking Water Act
SRF-State Revolving Fund
State Water Board - California State Water Resources Control Board
SWIFT-State Water Implementation Fund for Texas
TWDB - Texas Water Development Board
WRFP - California Water Recycling Funding Program
WRRDA - Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
-------
Executive Summary
The duration and impact of drought vary across the
Western United States, and in the last five years many
states have grappled with widespread water shortages,
wildfires, and crop and livestock losses. The economic
impact of these events is felt regionally and nationally, but
even more so in the affected communities. While drought
conditions in 2017 have improved in many areas across the
West, there is recognition that the effects of drought could
become severe again and water resources may be
increasingly scarce in the future.1 Long-term planning and
investment are essential to delivering and maintaining
water infrastructure services that have the capacity to
mitigate the recurring impacts of drought.
EPA's Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
is collaborating with states and federal agencies to share
successful examples of infrastructure investment that
create drought resilience. The "State Revolving Funds:
Financing Drought Resilient Water Infrastructure Projects"
was developed to highlight how 13 western states have
used the Clean Water State Revolving Fund ("CWSRF"),
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ("DWSRF"), and other
complementary state funds to address drought. The report
highlights innovative funding policies and programmatic
actions that states are using to support drought resilient
investment and operations through incentives, state
requirements, and technical assistance.
The report includes examples of SRF projects funded to
address water availability, conservation, efficiency, and
reuse. Specific features of SRF programs were studied to
see how states are encouraging these types of projects
through programmatic goals, incentives such as priority
points and principal forgiveness, state level requirements,
complementary state funding, emergency funding
mechanisms, technical assistance, and drought
information sharing.
The report reviews 13 western states because these states
are some of the most drought prone in the country and
have experienced significant drought conditions since
2010. However, the examples in the report can be used
more widely to provide policymakers and communities
across the country with options to support water
infrastructure that prepares for the impacts of recurring
drought.
The CWSRF and DWSRF provide financial assistance to a
wide variety of water infrastructure projects, many of
which enhance community resiliency in a variety of ways.
The examples in this report therefore, should not be taken
as comprehensive of SRF policies or actions that affect
drought resilience.
Drought will continue to be a concern for communities and
water utilities. By highlighting innovative funding policies
and programmatic actions, the report provides examples
of how states can effectively use the SRF and other state
resources to support drought resilient infrastructure
investment.
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
5
-------
Introduction
The purpose of the report is to highlight how 13 western
states have used their Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds (collectively, the "CWSRF",
"DWSRF", "SRF" or "SRFs"), the largest federally supported
funding programs for water infrastructure, to encourage
infrastructure investments that can effectively mitigate
impacts from drought on communities across the West
through the strategic use of incentives, state
requirements, and other methods.
The Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act
(collectively, the "CWA", "SDWA" or the "Acts") establish
the legal requirements for the CWSRF and DWSRF
programs, respectively. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") is responsible for administering the annual
federal appropriation that capitalizes each state's CWSRF
and DWSRF and oversees compliance with the related
federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act
provisions. Congress appropriates approximately $2 billion
each year to EPA, who then awards capitalization grants to
each of the 51 CWSRFs and DWSRFs in accord with
allocation requirements mandated by the Acts. These
appropriations together with state matching
requirements, retained earnings and recycled SRF program
dollars support financial assistance commitments, usually
in the form of loans, to water utilities, local governments
and other eligible entities. In 2016, relying on these
resources, the DWSRF provided $2.47 billion to 708
assistance agreements2 and the CWSRF provided $7.62
billion to 1,362 assistance agreements3 for water and
wastewater infrastructure projects.
States operate their SRFs independently, however, and
have the flexibility to use the SRF to address their individual
needs within statutory guidelines. The independence and
flexibility of the SRFs results in a wide spectrum of funding
priorities and program objectives.
The SRF programs provide assistance for a broad range of
eligible projects to assist communities in becoming
drought resilient primarily through water conservation and
reuse. Most of these projects were not specifically
designed to mitigate drought, but nonetheless better
position utilities and their customers to conserve and use
water resources more efficiently. The provision of SRF
financial assistance for conservation and reuse projects is
not meant to take the place of conventional wastewater or
drinking water treatment projects. For DWSRFs,
addressing public health concerns are always given more
weight in the scoring process compared to nontraditional
efficiency or conservation projects. Likewise, for CWSRFs,
water quality improvements generally receive priority over
nontraditional conservation and reuse projects. However,
by combining traditional projects with nontraditional
approaches, the SRFs can provide cost effective solutions
to managing water resources.
This report reviewed the SRF Intended Use Plans (lUPs) and
Annual Reports to identify the types of unique and
innovative mechanisms being used by the SRFs to
encourage drought resilience, how SRFs are achieving
these results in conjunction with other state programs, the
amount of SRF water efficiency investment since 2010, and
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
6
-------
highlights opportunities for SRFs to expand their efforts to
help states mitigate drought impacts and become more
resilient. While there are many types of projects including
green infrastructure projects that can address drought
resiliency states have almost exclusively funded water
conservation and reuse projects.
Background
The primary information for the report comes from SRF
Intended Use Plans ("lUPs"), Annual Reports, and program
websites. These sources identify program goals, incentives,
requirements, and other mechanisms SRFs have used to
encourage drought resilient project investments. The
report covers 13 drought prone western states across EPA
Region 6 (New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), Region 8
(Colorado, Montana, Utah, Wyoming), Region 9 (Arizona,
California, Nevada), and Region 10 (Idaho, Oregon,
Washington).
For the purposes of this report "drought resilient" refers to
projects that focus on or substantially include the
following: water conservation, source water protection,
water loss prevention, water audits, leak detection, meter
replacement, aquifer storage and recovery, irrigation
modernization, water recycling, reclamation, and reuse.
There are other CWSRF and DWSRF eligible projects that
could also be considered drought resilient, so the findings
in this report should not be taken as exhaustive of SRF
activity.
Data from the CWSRF and DWSRF National Information
Management Systems ("NIMS") were analyzed to
determine the amount of the Green Project Reserve
("GPR") financial assistance that was provided in the water
efficiency category from 2010 to 2016. GPR consists of four
categories: water efficiency, energy efficiency, green
infrastructure, and environmentally innovative projects.
The GPR requirement was initially created with passage of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 for
both the DWSRF and CWSRF. GPR reporting became
discretionary for the DWSRF in 2012.
The GPR reporting requirements do not capture all
projects that could be considered "green" since SRFs must
only designate enough projects to satisfy the annual
requirements of the federal capitalization grant. This
inherently understates the total dollar value and number
of "green" or water efficiency projects completed. While
an underestimate, the GPR is the only uniform data
available on water efficiency projects from every SRF
program.
In addition to GPR, there are other CWSRF federal
requirements that can drive drought resilient investments
by directing assistance recipients to evaluate and maximize
the potential for efficient water use, reuse, and
conservation for their project. CWSRF loan recipients for
publicly owned treatment works projects are required to
have a Fiscal Sustainability Plan ("FSP") as part of the 2014
Water Resources Reform and Development Act
("WRRDA") amendments to the Clean Water Act. The FSP
includes an inventory of critical assets that are part of the
treatment works; an evaluation of the condition and
performance of inventoried assets or asset groupings; a
certification that the assistance recipient has evaluated
and will be implementing water and energy conservation
efforts as part of the plan; and a plan for maintaining,
repairing, and, asnecessary, replacing the treatment works
and a plan for funding such activities.4 States have
flexibility in determining the specific elements of an FSP.
Public CWSRF assistance recipients are also required to
complete a Cost and Effectiveness Analysis for their project
beginning October 1, 2015 as part of the WRRDA updates.
The Cost and Effectiveness Analysis requires that the
recipient has selected, to the maximum extent practicable,
a project that maximizes the potential for efficient water
use, reuse, recapture, conservation, and energy
conservation, taking into account the cost of constructing
the project or activity; the cost of operating and
maintaining the project or activity over the life of the
project or activity; and the cost of replacing the project or
activity.5 States have flexibility in determining the specific
elements of a Cost and Effectiveness Analysis.
A more detailed look at SRF responses to drought and
project examples were provided by state SRF staff and EPA
Regional staff for California, Oklahoma, and Texas. The
examples demonstrate successful uses of the CWSRF and
DWSRF to fund drought resilient projects.
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
7
-------
3EUEP.E DROUGHT
LIMIT OUTDOOR
WATERING
State Highlights
California
Since its creation in 1967 the California State Water
Resources Control Board ("State Water Board") has tried
to balance the uses of California's limited water resources
and support water infrastructure investment. From 2012
to 2016 the state experienced a severe drought causing the
Governor to declare a continued state of emergency and
issue mandatory water reductions for certain users.6
During the drought the State Water Board participated in
drought-coordination committee meetings to decide how
to direct financial resources to communities experiencing
drought-related emergencies. The State Water Board and
its partners developed several approaches to address
emergency shortages and invest in longer-term
sustainable water supplies.
Short-term responses:
The California State Legislature appropriated $15 million
from the Cleanup and Abatement Account and the State
Water Board added $4 million to provide interim
emergency drinking water funds to disadvantaged
communities facing drought-related emergencies or
contaminated water supplies:/ In addition, the State Water
Board used the DWSRF Local Assistance Set-Aside to
provide funding support for the Public Water System
Drought Emergency Response ("PWSDER") program. The
PWSDER program received a $15 million California State
General Fund appropriation to provide funding for interim
and/or permanent solutions for community water systems
and public water systems owned by school districts
experiencing drought-related water shortages or
threatened emergencies.8
Long-term solutions:
The State Water Board has used the SRFs to fund a variety
of drought resilient projects that support broader state
initiatives. In 2014 California voters approved Proposition
1 which authorized $7.5 billion in general obligation bonds
for a variety of water projects ncluding surface and
groundwater storage, ecosystem and watershed
protection, and drinking water protection. The State Water
Board manages Proposition 1 funds for five programs,
including $625 million for the Water Recycling Funding
Program ("WRFP").9 As of March 6, 2017 the State Water
Board had paired $131 million in WRFP grants with $541
million in 1% CWSRF loans to support the construction of
27 recycled water projects for a total investment of $673
million.10 The State Water Board has used the DWSRF to
fund projects that meter unmetered systems including 11
major water meter projects worth $107 million since 2009.
These projects support California state requirements that
all urban water suppliers install meters on their service
connections by 2025.11
The State Water Board has made it easier for applicants to
apply for funding with holistic management of various
grant and loan funding sources. Prospective borrowers
submit one application through the Financial Assistance
Application Submittal Tool ("FAAST"), and the State Water
Board puts together the best funding package based on the
applicant's needs and eligibility. FAAST helps applicants
save time and effort yet still takes advantage of the many
funding programs the State Water Board offers.
U.S. EPA^ Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
8
-------
Oklahoma
Oklahoma has a long history of living with drought. It was
the record drought of 1957 that lead to the creation of the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board ("OWRB"). Oklahoma
has been very proactive in addressing the drought of 2010-
2015 using the SRFs and other state funding. In 2012 the
State Legislature passed the Water for 2060 Act with the
goal of using no more freshwater in 2060 than was used in
2010 to meet Oklahoma's needs. The OWRB has aligned
the goals of the CWSRF, DWSRF, and other programs to
reflect the recommendations from Water for 2060 in order
to encourage and incentivize water efficiency, reuse, and
conservation measures.
Oklahoma has paired the SRF with other state funding
programs to address drought, such as OWRB's drought
grant programs and the Financial Assistance Loan Program.
The OWRB administers three emergency grant programs
to assist communities facing drought during governor
declared emergencies. The programs can award priority
points based on the type of water use, how water efficient
the project is, the severity of the Palmer Drought Index,
and whether systems have an increasing block rate
structure,11 There are no restrictions on these state
programs interacting with the SRF, and they have been
used successfully to co-fund projects with the SRF or to
fund crucial projects that were not SRF eligible.
Projects that used OWRB funding to become more drought
resilient include:
¦ The City of Altus, located in southwest Oklahoma, was
experiencing recurring periods of drought causing the
two reservoirs that serve as the City's water supply to
reach severely low levels, curtailing irrigation and
causing major economic impacts. In 2015 the City of
Altus Municipal Authority used a $2.3 rniiilon DWSRF
loan and a $575,000 Emergency Drought Relief grant
to upgrade their water supply and distribution system
for their 7,535 water customers to serve the
community with a population of 19,813. The project
constructed a water line to serve existing rural
customers and converted an existing water line to a
raw water supply line from well fields in nearby
Texas.1®
¦ The Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District
("MCD") delivers water to six cities including Duncan
and Lawton, and serves approximately 250,000
people. Due to continued drought Waurika Lake
dropped to 19% capacity in 2015 and the water level
was approaching the lowest operable intake gate,
threatening to cut off the supply entirely.14 Waurika
Lake MCD used a $10 miiiion loan from the OWRB
Financial Assistance Program and $2.0 million in local
funds to dredge 75,000 cubic yards of sediment from
the intake channel, replace the lower gates on the
intake structure, and install a floating intake unitatthe
deepest point of the lake. Since the project was not
eligible for SRF financial assistance, the Financial
Assistance Loan Program was able to provide below
market rate terms for a project of critical regional
importance.
U.S. EPA^ Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
9
-------
Texas
The Texas Water Development Board ("TWDB") was also
created In 1957 In response severe drought. The TWDB
has focused on the conservation and responsible
development of water resources ever since. Texas
experienced its second worst drought on record from 2010
to 2014 and its worst single year drought on record in
2011, causing TWDB to introduce new efforts to plan for
drought and finance water projects such as creation of the
SWIFT program in 2013,15
TWDB is responsible for developing the state water plan
every five years which charts the development,
management, and conservation of Texas' water resources
for the next 50 years based on past drought conditions and
expected population growth. The state water plan is based
on 16 regional water plans and is very focused on planning
in the context of drought and maintaining sufficient water
supplies. TWDB maintains an interactive website for the
state water plan that shows water demand, supplies, and
potential shortages over time, geographic regions, and for
all water user groups including municipal, irrigation,
manufacturing, livestock, steam electric power, and
mining.16
To implement the priorities of the state water plan TWDB
operates numerous financial assistance programs
including the CWSRF, DWSRF, SWIFT, Agriculture Water
Conservation Program, Texas Water Development Fund,
and others. These financial assistance programs give TWDB
many tools to fund water and wastewater infrastructure
projects that meet the needs of multiple users. The 2017
state water plan includes approximately 50 projects that
are or will be funded by the SRFs, and all SRF projects are
reviewed for consistency with the state water plan.17
Projects that used TWDB SRF funding to become more
drought resilient:
¦ The City of Raymondville experienced surface water
supply issues due to on-going drought in south Texas
and needed to develop a second, sustainable source
water supply. The City is using a $2,145,000 DWSRF
loan and $1,655,000 in principal forgiveness to
construct a public water supply well and a 2.0 million
gallon per day reverse osmosis treatment facility to
create additional water supplies for their customers.
The project is also rehabilitating an existing well with
Texas Department of Agriculture funding and
replacing approximately 4,500 feet of deteriorated
water distribution lines to address water loss. The
project is part of the Texas State Water Plan and is
expected to be completed in the summer of 2017.18
¦ The City of McAllen needed to off-set its potable water
usage while providing water for irrigation to a new
2,600-acre subdivision, a youth sports complex, and
several schools. The City is using a $7,110,000 CWSRF
loan and $1,239,567 in green project principal
forgiveness to make mprovements to its' North
Wastewater Treatment Plant to produce Type 1 non-
potable reuse water for land application. The project
includes converting an abandoned aeration basin into
a reuse storage vessel, construction of a booster pump
station, and approximately seven miles of reclaimed
water transmission lines. The project is part of the
Texas State Water Plan and construction is anticipated
to begin in April 2017.19
U.S. EPA^ Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
-------
SRF Policies and Actions that
Support Drought Resilient
Investment
There are many ways that the CWSRF and DWSRF can
support and encourage drought resilience for both
communities and water and wastewater systems. This
report groups SRF policies and actions into four categories:
1) SRF programmatic goals that support drought resilience;
2) SRF incentives that encourage drought resilient projects
such as priority points, reduced interest rates, and
additional subsidy such as principal forgiveness; 3) State
requirements that encourage water conservation that are
in addition to federal requirements; 4) Other activities such
as complementary funding programs, emergency funding,
coordination with other funding entities, technical
assistance and information sharing.
SRF Programmatic Goals
Each state CWSRF and DWSRF publishes programmatic
goals in the IUP and Annual Report. These goals are short
and long-term and span a range of topics from maintaining
the perpetuity of the state's fund to addressing compliance
issues and impaired waters. Some SRFs have developed
specific goals to encourage and fund projects that have a
sustainability element such as water conservation, water
reuse or recycling, low-impact development, climate
resilience, emerging ecosystem service marketplaces, and
more. The following examples illustrate some of the IUP
goals that support SRF drought resilient investment.
California Drought Resilience Goals
¦ The California State Water Resources Control Board
("State Water Board") CWSRF supports the three goals
of the California Water Action Plan: more reliable
water supplies; the restoration of important species
and habitat; and a more resilient, sustainably
managed water resources system (water supply,
water quality, flood protection, and environment) that
can better withstand inevitable and unforeseen
pressures in the coming decades.20
¦ The State Water Board adopted a resolution to
emphasize sustainability as a core value for all Water
Board activities and programs. This includes actions
that affect the CWSRF such as promoting recycled
water use, water conservation, and low-impact
development and assigning a higher priority to
climate-related projects.21
¦ The DWSRF has a short-term goal to facilitate drought
relief through expedited funding efforts to help ensure
that eligible Public Water Systems ("PWS")
experiencing or facing imminent threats of drought-
related drinking water emergencies will achieve
permanent solutions.22
¦ The DWSRF has a short-term goal to provide funding
for water meter projects as part of the GPR, even
though use of the capitalization grant for GPR eligible
projects is now discretionary.23 From 2009 to 2016 the
DWSRF funded 11 major water meter projects worth
$107 million.24
Oklahoma Drought Resilience Goals
* The CWSRF has a long-term goal to assist communities
in integrating innovative water conservation practices
including reuse, reclamation, conservation incentives,
water efficiency, energy efficiency, stormwater runoff
mitigation, green infrastructure or other measures
thatwill assist Oklahoma in reaching thegoalsoutlined
in the Water for 2060 initiative into their projects.25
¦ The CWSRF has a short-term goal to create strategies
and finance implementation of the Water for 2060
initiative by encouraging non-point source,
stormwater, green infrastructure, water/energy
conservation and water reuse projects.26
¦ The DWSRF has a short-term goal to continue to refine
their Capacity Development Program, including a
Water Loss Audit Pilot Study that assists communities
in identifying and mitigating water loss. DWSRF has
adopted a policy that a Water Loss Audit will be
conducted on any new public water supply, any public
water supply that desires a loan through the DWSRF,
and any public water supply that requests a Water
Loss Audit be conducted on its water system.27
Texas Drought Resilience Goals
* The CWSRF has a short-term goal to encourage the
use of green infrastructure and technologies by
offering principal forgiveness for green infrastructure,
, water efficiency, or for the environmentally
innovative portions of projects.28
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
11
-------
¦ The CWSRF has a long-term goal to promote systems
that employ effective utility management practices
through a priority rating system that awards points to
projects that address specific targets, goals, or
measures in a water conservation and/or drought
contingency plan, and/or address specific goals in a
system-wide or plant-wide energy assessment, audit,
or optimization study.29
¦ The DWSRF has a short-term goal to encourage the
use of green infrastructure by offering principal
forgiveness for green infrastructure, energy efficiency,
water efficiency, or environmentally innovative
portions of projects. During state fiscal year 2016
Texas set a goal to allocate an equivalent of 10% of the
capitalization grant to approved green project costs.30
¦ The DWSRF has a long-term goal to promote effective
utility management by awarding priority points for a
variety of practices including implementation of water
plans, water conservation strategies, use of reclaimed
water, and projects increasing energy efficiencies.31
Other Notable State Drought Resilience Goals
* The Arizona DWSRF has a short-term goal to
encourage green infrastructure for stormwater, water
and energy efficiency improvements and other
environmentally innovative activities.32
¦ The Idaho DWSRF has a short-term goal to direct a
minimum of approximately 10% of the capitalization
grant to sustainability efforts such as the GPR.33 While
sustainability efforts can include many types of
projects, water efficiency projects are eligible. To date
Idaho's GPR efforts have resulted in a recurring
savings of 459 million gallons of water per year.
¦ The Nevada CWSRF encourages the reclamation and
reuse of wastewater as part of its water quality
goals.34
¦ The Oregon CWSRF has a goal to support emerging
markets in obtaining SRF financing, which includes but
is not limited to, irrigation districts.35 Oregon has
provided funding to irrigation districts to modernize
their systems which can save significant amounts of
water from evaporation and leakage, helping districts
become more drought resilient. Oregon is establishing
protocols and procedures to effectively use the SRF to
support irrigation infrastructure modernization.36
¦ The Utah CWSRF has a short-term goal to provide at
least 10% of the capitalization award to recycled water
and water reuse projects.37
¦ The Washington DWSRF has a short-term goal to
provide assistance for consolidation or
interconnection of water systems to improve service
or capacity. Incentives for this goal include
consolidation grants and up to 50% principal
forgiveness to construction loan projects that include
consolidation of public water systems serving at least
15 connections or 25 people per day for at least 60
days per year.38
¦ The Washington DWSRF has a long-term goal to
promote resilient infrastructure. This involves
implementing an investment grade energy audit
requirement for all construction loans.39
SRF Incentives
State SRF programs can provide incentives for utilities to
voluntarily incorporate drought remediation into projects
seeking SRF funding. To receive funding a project must be
on the state's project priority list. Projects are ranked by
priority points and for the DWSRF projects must be funded
in priority order. States can award extra points to projects
addressing drought. States set the interest rate for their
programs and may reduce the rate for projects that
address drought issues. Another option available to states
is additional subsidization through principal forgiveness for
drought related projects. Utilities proposing projects that
address drought can either increase the probability of
funding and may reduce the cost of financing by utilizing
these incentives.
Priority Points
SRFs use criteria to award priority points to project
applicants and then rank those projects for the annual
Project Priority List and IUP. SRF funding criteria must
support the requirements of the CWA and SDWA, but SRFs
can also choose to award priority points for a variety of
factors. The relative value of priority points varies based on
a state's overall priority point system, therefore points are
not comparable between SRFs. Generally, projects that
address immediate public health needs, compliance, or
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
.2
-------
impaired water bodies are eligible for the largest share of
priority points. The maximum point totals for SRF scoring
criteria are listed below where available. Many SRFs award
priority points based on sustainability efforts and readiness
to proceed. The examples below offer smaller point values
compared to public health or compliance categories but
can be useful in giving a drought resilient project an edge
in the ranking process over similar projects.
CWSRF priority points that support drought resilience:
California CWSRF assigns projects to one of five priority
classes (A through E) and also awards sustainability points
which are used to rank projects within the same class.
Examples include:
• Water recycling projects that provide for treatment
and delivery of municipal wastewater or groundwater
for uses that will offset or augment state and local
water supplies qualify as Class C. Projects that are
necessary to meet state policy regarding recycled
water are also assigned Class C.40
• Projects that incorporate climate change adaptation
qualify for one sustainability priority point.41
• Projects that incorporate wastewater or storm
water/urban runoff recycling, water conservation,
energy conservation, low impact development, or
reduce the use of other vital resources qualify for one
sustainability point.42
Colorado CWSRF has five sections in the priority scoring
model including sustainability/Green Project Reserve.
Examples include:
• Projects that incorporate GPR components at a
minimum of 20% of total project costs (up to 35 points
available).43
• Projects that implement a source water protection
plan (5 points).44
• Planning and design grants where projects will
generate and/or utilize reclaimed water for direct re-
use, or correct a water loss issue (10 points).45
Idaho CWSRF has seven priority sections with a maximum
of 610 points available. Sustainable infrastructure efforts
are eligible for up to 50 points and include:
• Systems that will implement green building
management based on Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design ("LEED") operation and
maintenance criteria (10 points), and projects that will
construct or renovate buildings to meet LEED design
and construction criteria (10 points).46
• Projects that will implement wastewater reuse when
other alternatives have been considered (10 points).47
• Projects that will implement Class A reclaimed water
distribution system or "purple pipe" (10 points).48
• Projects that will implement groundwater recharge by
land application (10 points).49
• Systems that will consolidate with another
wastewater system (10 points).50
Nevada CWSRF has three priority classes (A through C) and
within each class projects are given priority points and
ranked. Points for water quality, readiness, asset
management, and green projects apply to all priority
classes. Examples include:
• Projects that provide treatment beyond water quality
standards or permit requirements in order to reclaim
and reuse wastewater qualify for Class B and 10
points. Class B projects are necessary to increase
reliability or sustainability.51
• Projects with reclaimed water distribution qualify for
Class B and 8 points.52
• Projects that incorporate GPR components including
installation of water meters, replacement or
rehabilitation of distribution lines that have
documented water loss, and reuse of treated effluent
are each eligible for 5 points.53
New Mexico CWSRF has five point categories with
maximum of 700 points available, including
financial/affordabiIity (100 points), sustainability (75
points), and a bonus category for the GPR (25 points).
• In the financial/affordability category, applicants that
have a rate structure with block rates that increase
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
13
-------
over time by an ordinance receive 25 points and other
block rates receive 15 points. Flat rate structures
receive no points.54
• In the sustainability category, projects that result in
physical regionalization and consolidation can receive
20 points.55
• Points for sustainability are also awarded to projects
that establish a watershed service funding structure (5
points), or include water efficiency, reuse, and
conservation measures (5 points).56
• Any project that incorporates GPR eligible
components can qualify for 25 points.57
Oklahoma CWSRF has five priority areas with a maximum
of 600 points available: project type (70 points), water
quality restoration (20 points), water quality protection (10
points), programmatic (100 points), and readiness to
proceed (400 points). Drought resilient priorities include:
• Treatment works or water quality projects that are
designed to increase capacity, reliability, or efficiency,
and projects designed to reclaim/reuse wastewater
(30 points).58
• Recycling and water reuse projects that replace
potable sources with non-potable sources, including
gray water, condensate and wastewater effluent
reuse systems (where local codes allow the practice),
and extra treatment costs and distribution pipes
associated with water reuse (40 points).59
• Construction projects other than those above that
align with Oklahoma's Water for 2060 goals (30
points).60
• Engineering and design projects that have non-
potable use within the wastewater system, and
engineering, planning, and studies for direct and
indirect potable water reuse systems, pending new
water reuse rules (20 points).61
• Projects that implement the recommendations of a
conservation plan or water audit (5 points).62
Oregon CWSRF has three priority categories for non-
planning loans: water quality standards and public health
considerations, watershed and health benefits, and other
considerations. Within the watershed and health benefits
category priority can be given to:
• Projects that integrate or expand the use of natural
infrastructure, or use approaches including, but not
limited to, water quality trading.63
• Projects that incorporate or expand water efficiency
including, but not limited to, using improved
technologies and practices to deliver equal or better
services with less water, such as conservation, reuse
efforts or water loss reduction and prevention.64
Texas CWSRF has priority points available for publicly
owned treatment works, nonpoint source pollution,
estuary management, and for all eligible projects. Priority
points can be given to:
• Treatment projects where a majority of CWSRF funds
are used to implement measures to reduce the
demand for publicly owned treatment works capacity
through water conservation, efficiency, or reuse (5
points).65
• Projects where a majority of CWSRF funds are used to
implement innovative approaches to manage, reduce,
treat or recapture stormwater or subsurface drainage
water (15 points).66
• Projects where a majority of CWSRF funds are used to
implement reuse or recycling wastewater,
stormwater, or subsurface drainage water (5
points).67
• Projects that address a specific goal in a water
conservation plan (1 point).68
• Projects that are consistent with a state or regional
water plan, integrated water resource management
plan, regional facility plan, regionalization or
consolidation plan (2 points).69
Utah CWSRF has four priority categories and the special
consideration category includes:
• Projects that have a documented water conservation
plan (20 points).70
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
14
-------
DWSRF priority points that support drought resilience:
California DWSRF assigns projects to one of six priority
categories (A through F). Drought resilient priorities
include:
• Compliance or shortage projects that address water
quantity problems caused by source capacity or water
delivery capability that is insufficient to meet existing
demand qualify for Category C.71
• Inadequate reliability projects that address non-
metered service connections or defective water
meters qualify for Category D. Projects that address
community water systems and public water systems
owned by public schools, with a single source and no
backup supply also qualify for Category D.72
• Projects that result in the consolidation of water
systems receive priority over other projects within the
same category.73
Colorado DWSRF awards priority points across six
categories including source protection/conservation and
sustainability. Within these categories points are given for:
• Systems that have increasing block rates (15 points) or
seasonal rates (10 points) to encourage
conservation.74
• Projects that will implement water metering, leak
detection and/or other water conservation and
efficiency infrastructure applications at a minimum of
20% of total project costs (10 points).75
• Projects that establish a protective zone to address
potential pollution as a result of wildfires in burn scar
areas (10 points).76
• Projects that correct compliance issues, water quality
problems, and/or water supply problems through
physical consolidation and regionalization of water
systems (10 points).77
Idaho DWSRF has six priority sections with a maximum of
260 points available. Sustainability efforts have a maximum
of 50 points available and the incentives section has a
maximum of 10 points. Examples include:
• Projects that incorporate sustainability in
management-based efforts (50 points), technology-
based efforts (50 points), and construction practices
(30 points).78
• Systems that have a current source water protection
plan (2 points).79
• Systems that have a conservation-oriented rate
structure (2 points).80
Montana DWSRF has five priority categories with a
maximum of 350 points available.
• Projects that construct a regional public water supply
that would serve two or more existing public water
supplies (30 points).81
New Mexico DWSRF has six priority categories with a
maximum of 162 points available, including regionalization
(14 points), water efficiency (23 points), and sustainability
(16 points). The following priority points are awarded
within the six categories:
• Projects that replace potable water with non-potable
sources such as greywater and reuse systems (3
points).82
• Water utilities that have drought contingency or water
conservation policies to manage seasonal demand or
water shortages (2 points).83
• Regionalization projects for two or more public water
systems that will consolidate or physically connect (5
points) and emergency interconnection projects (3
points).84
• Water efficiency projects that meter an unmetered
system (8 points) or reduce water loss by replacing or
rehabilitating distribution lines (5 points).85
• Systems that maintain a water conservation plan with
the State Engineer or utilize AWWA water loss control
methods (1 point).86
• Projects that include renewable energy or energy
efficiency measures (2 points), green infrastructure
features such as rainwater harvesting or grey water (2
points), and other environmentally innovative ways to
produce, treat, or deliver water (2 points).87
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
15
-------
Oklahoma DWSRF awards points for nine priority factors
including quantity deficiencies, consolidation and source
water protection:
• Projects that resolve a continual shortage of water (60
points) or a seasonal shortage of water (60 points) due
to source, treatment, or distribution problems will be
awarded points. Projects may only meet one of these
conditions.88
• Projects that result in the consolidation (20 points),
interconnection (10 points), or improvement of
services such as back-up or emergency supply (10
points) for two or more water systems. Projects may
meet more than one of these conditions.89
• Water supply systems which have implemented
source water protection programs such as watershed
protection programs or wellhead protection programs
(100 points).90
Texas DWSRF has five priority categories that are summed
and multiplied by 10 before adding points for effective
management and affordability. Examples, equally
weighted, include:
• Projects that address system water loss greater than
25% (2.5 points).91
• Projects that address a specific goal in a water
conservation plan (1 point).92
• Projects that involve the use of reclaimed water (1
point).93
• Projects that are consistent with a municipal and/or
state watershed protection plan, water efficiency
plan, integrated water resource management plan,
regional facility plan, or regionalization or
consolidation plan (2 points).94
Utah DWSRF has five priority categories with a maximum
of 425 points available, including:
• Systems that have a high leak rate in distribution lines
(10 points).95
• Separately, Utah DWSRF awards points for financial
need with 100 points available:
• Reduced interest and fees to applicants that are
creating or enhancing a regionalization plan (16
points).96
• Reduced interest and fees to applicants that have a
rate structure that encourages conservation (6
points).97
Washington DWSRF scores projects based on five risk
categories, readiness to proceed, and bonus points, with
the highest risk categories given the most weight.
• Risk category 4 includes system resiliency projects that
protect against a range of natural events including
flooding, long-term drought, and earthquakes (50
points). Qualifying projects include adding a
redundant source or modifying a surface water intake
to operate under drought or flood conditions.98
• Readiness to proceed points are given to water
utilities with current distribution system leakage of
10% or less (1 point). If leakage is over 30% the
applicant may be asked to reevaluate the project.99
• Bonus points are given to projects that meter an
unmetered system or for systems that are not fully
metered (2 points).100
Wyoming DWSRF has a priority system with four categories
and a maximum of 555 points available, including:
• Projects that address distribution system equipment
that is deteriorated and results in numerous or serious
leaks (20 points).101
Reduced Interest Rate
SRFs can offer reduced interest rates for certain types of
projects or borrowers. Reduced interest rates are typically
extended to borrowers that face affordability challenges.
However, other methods of awarding interest rate
subsidies for drought resilient projects include:
¦ The Arizona CWSRF and DWSRF offer reduced interest
rates to borrowers if the majority of project costs are
related to green components.102
¦ The California CWSRF offered a one-time drought
relief 1% interest rate for any eligible water recycling
project that was submitted by December 2, 2015. In
many cases the State Water Board combined 1%
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
.6
-------
CWSRF financing with a grant from the Water
Recycling Funding Program.103
¦ The Colorado CWSRF offers 0% interest up to $2.5
million to projects that implement eligible green
components equal to or greater than 20% of the total
project cost. This incentive is only offered until the
GPR requirement has been met.104
¦ Projects in Wyoming that meet GPR requirements are
eligible for a 0% interest rate from the CWSRF105 and
DWSRF106 instead of the standard 2.5% interest rate.
Principal Forgiveness ("PF")
SRFs can offer PF for certain types of projects or borrowers.
Principal forgiveness is often used for disadvantaged
communities. The following are examples of how PF has
been used to support drought resilient projects:
¦ The Arizona CWSRF and DWSRF offer PF for projects
where the majority of costs are related to green
components.107
¦ The California CWSRF offers PF to projects that
address water and energy efficiency, mitigation of
stormwater runoff, and sustainable planning, design,
and construction. Eligible projects include water or
energy conservation assessments, audits, or plans,
water reuse, water or energy reducing devices, and
water meters. Water reuse projects are limited to $2.5
million PF and are not eligible if funded through the
Water Recycling Funding Program. Water or energy
conservation assessments, audits, and planning are
eligible for up to $35,000 PF. For construction
projects, 50% of total, actual costs associated with
water or energy conservation or sustainable planning,
design, or construction up to $4.0 million are eligible
for PF.108
¦ The New Mexico DWSRF offers up to 25% PF to
projects that are 100% categorically green, and
considers other projects with a business case
explanation.109
¦ The Oklahoma CWSRF offers PF for certain project
categories, the types and amounts of which vary year
to year: indirect potable reuse to reduce the demand
on publicly owned treatment works (not to exceed
$200,000); engineering, planning and design, and
construction for water reuse (not to exceed
$439,750); green infrastructure (not to exceed
$439,750); and other GPR projects, if the other
categories are not used.110
¦ The Oklahoma DWSRF offers PF for consolidation or
regionalization of water systems.111
¦ The Utah CWSRF may provide additional subsidy in the
form of PF to projects addressing water efficiency or
energy efficiency, mitigating stormwater runoff, or
that encourage sustainabiIity.112
¦ The Texas CWSRF and DWSRF offer up to 15% PF if the
project contains green components that are at least
30% of the total project costs. Green projects address
water efficiency, energy efficiency, mitigation of
stormwater runoff; or encourage sustainable project
planning, design, and construction.113
¦ The Washington DWSRF offers up to 50% PF to
construction loan projects that include consolidation
of other public water systems that serve at least 15
connections or 25 people per day for at least 60 days
per year.114
¦ The Wyoming CWSRF and DWSRF may offer PF to
projects that are eligible for the Green Project
Reserve.115
State Requirements
In addition to the federal requirements of the SDWA and
CWA such as the Fiscal Sustainability Plan, some SRFs
implement state-level requirements for SRF assistance
recipients that focus on water conservation and efficiency.
The following requirements can drive more projects to
adopt drought resilient measures.
• The State of California has certain water conservation
requirements for financial assistance applicants and
requires compliance with specific state water
management laws where applicable. These include
urban water management planning, Delta Plan, and
water metering requirements.116 The State Water
Board implements these requirements for the SRFs
and other programs.117
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
17
-------
• The California Assembly Bill 2572 enacted in 2004
amended the water code to require, with certain
exceptions, that urban water suppliers install water
meters on all municipal and industrial water service
connections located within their service area by
2025.118 The DWSRF is a continued source of funding
for these projects.
• Water utilities in Colorado that distribute or supply
2,000 acre feet of water or more per year are required
to have a water conservation plan approved by the
Water Conservation Board in order to receive DWSRF
assistance.119
• In Nevada water utilities are required to have a water
conservation plan for all financial assistance including
the DWSRF. The plan must be updated every five years
and approved by the Nevada State Engineer's
Office.120
• Utah DWSRF applicants must have adopted a water
conservation plan prior to executing a loan
agreement.121
• The Texas CWSRF and DWSRF require applicants to
have a water conservation and drought contingency
plan for loans greater than $500,000. Water
conservation plans include targets and goals for
efficiency, reuse, other options.122
• The Texas CWSRF and DWSRF also require that utilities
must use a portion of any financial assistance to
mitigate water loss if the utility's total water loss
meets or exceeds the threshold for that utility in
accordance with Texas Administrative Code. This
requirement may be waived if the SRF finds the utility
is addressing the water loss.123
• To receive DWSRF financial assistance in Washington,
water systems must have source meters on all existing
and proposed new sources of water supply, or include
source metering as part of the proposed DWSRF
project. In most cases, systems must also have service
meters on all existing connections or must include
service meter installation as part of the proposed
project.124
• Washington also requires an Investment Grade
Efficiency Audit for all state infrastructure funding,
including projects that receive funding from the
CWSRF and DWSRF, to show that the project includes
energy saving strategies. The requirement can be met
by one of four options: recent documentation of
energy savings, a third party design review of energy
intensive processes for projects that do not fit into a
traditional energy audit, a finding of no obtainable
energy savings for projects with minimal or no energy
use, or a formal audit from an electric utility or energy
services company.125
SRF Complementary Funding,
Funding Networks, and Technical
Assistance
In addition to providing incentives and state requirements
for the SRFs states are helping communities become
drought resilient in other ways. Several states have
invested in water infrastructure funding programs that can
provide financial assistance for drought resilient projects
that complement SRF eligibilities or even co-fund with the
SRF. States have used their SRFs to offer emergency
financial assistance that can be accessed by communities
facing immediate drought conditions. Several SRFs are
members of funding coordination groups that meet to
collaborate with other state and federal funding sources
that can fund drought resilient projects. The SRFs also
provide technical assistance to water and wastewater
systems for a variety of issues including water loss auditing
and drought planning, and some SRF websites link to
drought specific information.
Complementary State Funding
The following are examples of state funding programs or
sources that complement the SRF in funding drought
resilient projects.
¦ California Water Recycling Funding Program ("WRFP")
- The State Water Board provides grant and loan
assistance for the construction of water recycling
facilities through the WRFP. Many WRFP projects
have also received 1% financing from the CWSRF.
Funding for this program is being provided from
proceeds of Proposition 1 state bond issues.126
¦ California Integrated Regional Water Management
Grant Program - Provides grants to protect
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
-------
communities from drought, protect and improve
water quality, and improve local water security by
reducing dependence on imported water. The
program is managed by the California Department of
Water Resources and the State Water Board is a
partner by passing along grant eligible projects.127
¦ Colorado Water Revenue Bond Program - Provides
funds up to $500 million, without legislative review, to
entities for water and wastewater projects not eligible
under the SRF. The Colorado Water Resources and
Power Development Authority subsidizes the costs of
the bond issuance for the program. Eligible projects
include water and wastewater treatment plants,
pump stations, dams/reservoirs, water rights,
pipelines, hydro-electric projects, wells, meters,
reuse, and storage tanks.128
¦ Colorado Watershed Protection and Forest Health
Projects - The Colorado Water Resources and Power
Development Authority is authorized to issue up to
$50 million in bonds to fund projects that include, but
are not limited to, activities to achieve fire prevention
or wildfire hazard reduction or post-fire remediation,
soil stabilization, water supply continuance, or water
quality maintenance or improvement within the
watershed.129
¦ New Mexico Rural Infrastructure Program - Provides
financial assistance to municipalities, water districts
and sanitation districts serving less than 20,000
people, or counties serving less than 200,000, for the
construction or modification of water supply,
wastewater, and solid waste facilities. The maximum
loan per entity is $2 million per fiscal year.130
¦ Oklahoma Financial Assistance Loan Program -
Provides financial assistance for projects related to
water and/or sewer system improvements or
refinancing of existing debt obligations incurred by
communities for a variety of projects. The program's
loan terms can extend up to 30 years and can fund
drought resilient projects not eligible under the
SRFs.131 The OWRB encourages all projects funded
through the program to be consistent with the state's
goals to address drought. The Financial Assistance
Loan Program also funds the Emergency Grant
Program though interest earnings on investments.132
¦ State Water Implementation Fund forTexas ("SWIFT")
- Provides financial assistance for projects in the state
water plan through revenue bonds. SWIFT helps
communities develop and optimize water supplies at
cost-effective rates with eligibilities that reach further
than the SRF to include reservoirs, well fields, and
purchasing water rights. The program provides low-
interest loans, extended repayment terms, deferral of
loan repayments, and incremental repurchase terms
for projects with state ownership aspects. A water
conservation and drought contingency plan is
required for financial assistance greater than
$500,000.133
¦ Texas Agriculture Water Conservation Grant and Loan
Program - Provides financial assistance for agricultural
water conservation programs or projects. The
program is used for projects that improve
infrastructure, equipment and efficiency of irrigation
delivery, and technical assistance and education
related to agricultural water use and conservation.
Loans are available for terms up to 10 years.134
¦ Utah Wastewater Loan Program - Provides funding for
certain water quality projects that can include drought
resilience and gives additional project flexibility
compared to the SRFs. State matching funds for the
SRF are generated from the Wastewater Loan
Program. 135The Utah Permanent Community Impact
Board (CIB) provides loans and grants to counties,
cities and towns that are impacted by mineral
resource development on federal lands within the
State of Utah. Because local communities cannot
collect taxes from federal lands, their ability to provide
necessities like roads, municipal buildings, water and
sewer service is diminished. To reduce that burden, a
portion of the federal lease fees are returned to the
Community Impact Board to distribute to the
impacted communities for eligible projects such as
water and sewer services. 136
¦ Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of
Water Resources under Utah Code Section 73-10-1
provides revolving funds to give technical and financial
assistance to water users to achieve the highest
beneficial use of water resources within the state. The
Board of Water Resources administers three revolving
construction funds: the Revolving Construction Fund,
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
.9
-------
the Cities Water Loan Fund, and the conservation and
Development Fund. Funding is available for projects
that conserve, protect, or more efficiently use present
water supplies, develop new water, or provide flood
control.137
Emergency Funding
States and SRFs can offer emergency funding assistance to
communities dealing with immediate drought impacts. The
following are examples of emergency drought funding
mechanisms.
¦ The Arizona SRF may approve emergency funding for
eligible applicants if a declaration of emergency is
made by the Governor of Arizona or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Loan terms cannot
exceed one year and are no more than $250,000 per
emergency event.138
¦ The California DWSRF Local Assistance Set-Aside
provided funding for state operational costs to
support the Public Water System Drought Emergency
Response ("PWSDER") program. The PWSDER
program received a $15 million California State
General Fund appropriation to fund drought
emergency drinking water related projects.139
¦ The California Cleanup and Abatement Account was
repurposed in 2016 to provide interim emergency
drinking water funds to disadvantaged communities
facing a drought related emergency or contaminated
water supplies. The State Water Board supplemented
these funds with $4 million, and a total of $19 million
was available for bottled water, well repair, hauled
water, emergency interties, and other emergency
response efforts.140
¦ Oklahoma Emergency Drought Grants - In 2012 the
Governor declared a "State of Emergency Due to
Drought." The OWRB responded by making $300,000
available to provide grants to fund community
drought projects. The Emergency Drought Grants are
a subset of the Emergency Grant Fund. There is
$500,000 available for drought assistance during a
Governor declared emergency. The maximum funding
per project is $100,000, subject to a 15% match
requirement. Priority points are awarded based on the
type of water use (human consumption, agriculture,
increase capacity, fire protection), severity of the
Palmer Drought Index, and to systems that have an
increasing block rate structure.141
¦ Oklahoma Emergency Drought Commission & Relief
Fund - In 2013 the Oklahoma legislature provided
$1.1 million in one-time funding for drought
mitigation and related projects. Assistance was limited
to counties in a governor declared emergency and had
to be approved by the Emergency Drought
Commission (since dissolved). Eligible projects
included agricultural water conservation, water for
livestock, rural fire suppression, soil conservation, and
other activities. Priority points were awarded based on
the type of water use, severity of the Palmer Drought
Index, and to systems that had an increasing block rate
structure.142
¦ Oklahoma Water for 2060 Drought Grants - In 2014,
in concert with the Water for 2060 Act, Oklahoma
made $1.5 million available to communities who
demonstrated water efficiency and supported
drought resiliency. The Water for 2060 Drought Grant
program was available for FY 2015 only with a
maximum funding per project of $500,000. Priority
points were awarded based on the estimated increase
in water efficiency, severity of the Palmer Drought
Index, and to systems that had an increasing block rate
structure.143
¦ The Texas CWSRF and DWSRF provide limited
emergency funding at 0% interest to qualifying
utilities. The funding mechanism is often used for
drought situations but can be used for other qualifying
reasons.144
¦ The Washington DWSRF emergency loan program
provides funding for publicly and privately owned not-
for-profit community water systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people that were impacted by an
unforeseen event, such as flooding, drought, fire, or
earthquake. The maximum amount allowed per entity
is $100,000 with up to 75% PF based on affordability,
a 1.5% fixed interest rate, with the ability to reduce to
1% based on affordability, and a 6-year loan term.145
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
20
-------
Funding Networks
Many SRFsare members of funding networks, committees,
or other infrastructure coordination groups that meet to
collaborate with other state and federal funding sources.
These groups have resources that can fund drought
resilient projects.
¦ The Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona
manages the CWSRF and DWSRF and is a member of
the Rural Water Infrastructure Committee ("RWIC"),
an informal partnership of various federal and state
agencies that provides loans, grants and technical
assistance to Arizona's rural communities. RWIC
serves as a "One-Stop Shop" for rural communities
with a population of less than 10,000.146
¦ The California State Water Board participated in six
California Financing Coordinating Committee ("CFCC")
funding fairs during SFY 15/16. The CFCC funding fairs
provide members of the public and infrastructure
development professionals current information on
funding options available for different project
types.147
¦ The Infrastructure for Nevada Communities ("INC")
group consists of the major funding sources and
technical service providers in Nevada and helps to
coordinate water quality financing. This collaborative
effort maximizes the limited funding dollars to support
the greatest number of projects and provide cost
savings for communities.148
¦ The Oklahoma Funding Agency Coordinating Team
("FACT") is a group of federal and state organizations
that offer financing to eligible Oklahoma public
entities for water and wastewater projects. The
purpose of the team is to facilitate the funding process
through communication and streamlined application
processes. FACT is hosted by the Oklahoma Rural
Water Association.149
¦ The Texas Water Infrastructure Coordination
Committee ("TWICC") is a one-stop shop for
information on funding eligibility or technical
assistance for water systems facing infrastructure or
compliance issues. TWICC is a collaborative effort by
State and Federal government agencies and technical
assistance providers promoting an efficient process
for affordable, sustainable, and innovative funding
strategies for water and wastewater infrastructure
projects that protect public health.150
Technical Assistance
SRFs can use their financial resources to provide technical
assistance to water and wastewater systems to assist with
varioustechnical, managerial, and financial capacity issues.
DWSRFs use their set-asides for technical assistance, a
portion of which can address water loss, drought planning,
and related activities.
¦ The Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona
is enhancing their conservation efforts by starting a
water loss control program using SRF set asides to hire
contractors that can work directly with utilities to
implement American Water Works Association
procedures. Utilities throughout the state will receive
training in analyzing and managing non-revenue
water, and learn AWWA water loss auditing and
validation practices to improve system efficiency.151
¦ The California State Water Board provides a wide array
of technical assistance to small and disadvantaged
communities through the SRFs and other programs,
including leak detection/water audits, project
coordination, legal assistance, and engineering and
environmental analysis. This assistance can be used
for drought resilient projects that improve distribution
systems, water storage, interconnections,
consolidation, water sources, and water meters.152
¦ The Oklahoma Water Resources Board developed the
Oklahoma DroughtTool for communities and planners
in collaboration with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
The tool outlines drought management concepts and
planning options with links to other resources.153
¦ Spurred by drought, the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality used the DWSRF Local
Assistance Set-Aside to implement a water loss audit
pilot study to determine the extent of water loss from
community water systems ("CWS"). The Southwest
Environmental Finance Center trained staff on how to
conduct a water loss audit utilizing American Water
Works Association's water loss auditing method and
software. Forty small CWSs volunteered to participate
in the pilot. The audit results are being used to help
the CWSs identify and develop a plan to address water
loss. DWSRF Set-Aside funds have been used to
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
2]
-------
provide technical assistance through the Oklahoma
Rural Water Association ("ORWA") to some of those
40 CWSs. The technical assistance provided by ORWA
will be assisting water systems in leak detection and
meter analysis to reduce water loss.154
¦ The Oklahoma CWSRF has piloted the use of
administrative funds to offer mapping services to
small systems. The water, wastewater, and
stormwater infrastructure mapping is free to the
system and the data can be viewed through a secure
web login available on any smart device at anytime.155
¦ The Utah Division of Drinking Water will use DWSRF
set-aside funds for a water use study to review the
Division's minimum source capacity requirements that
help ensure water systems have enough water to
meet demand. The three-year study will evaluate
indoor and outdoor residential usage for a sample of
water systems in order to identify periods of high
water use and set reasonable minimum source
capacity requirements based on the findings.156
Drough t In forma tion
To further assist local drought resilience efforts, some SRF
websites link to drought specific information or monitoring
data, as well as water conservation resources for utilities
and consumers.
¦ California drought actions and information and water
conservation information.157
¦ Nevada Drought Forum158
¦ Oklahoma Drought Monitoring and water
conservation information.159
¦ Oregon Drought Watch160
¦ Texas drought response and water conservation
information.161
¦ Utah Drought Information162 and water
conservation163
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
22
-------
Water Efficiency Investment
The CWSRF and DWSRF can encourage certain types of
projects by offering various forms of additional subsidy for
GPR projects. Each GPR category includes eligible projects
that build drought resilience, but water efficiency projects
such as water conservation plans and recycling and water
reuse projects that replace potable sources are generally
the most relevant to drought resilience.164 Since the GPR
became discretionary for the DWSRF in 2012, states can
choose whether to report the number and value of water
efficiency assistance agreements. The water efficiency GPR
data illustrates some, but certainly not all, of the SRF
drought resilient financial assistance provided from 2010
to 2016.
CWSRF Water Efficiency Assistance Provided from 2010 to 2016165
WATER EFFICIENCY WATER EFFICIENCY AS
STATE ASSISTANCE PROVIDED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
(millions) ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
Arizona
$30.9
9.5%
California
$512.6
13.4%
Colorado
$4.8
1.4%
Idaho
$4.2
1.8%
Montana
$5.5
2.1%
Nevada
$8.6
5.0%
New Mexico
$5.3
3.4%
Oklahoma
$5.6
1.1%
Oregon
$23.3
5.4%
Texas
$38.3
1.9%
Utah
$3.9
2.4%
Washington
$23.5
3.4%
Wyoming
$9.6
6.0%
Total $676.0
Average 4.4%
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
23
-------
The most common projects funded by the CWSRFs through
the GPR water efficiency category were for water reuse
and recycling treatment, distribution, pump stations, and
166 California funded the majority of reuse/recycling
projects with assistance in the GPR water efficiency
totaling $512.6 million, and had the highest proportion of
water efficiency investment compared to total assistance
provided at 13.4%. Other projects in the water efficiency
related facilities. Some reuse projects replaced prior
reliance on potable water for public parks irrigation.
category included replacing flood irrigation units with
more efficient center pivot systems, replacing open
irrigation canals with piped systems to prevent water loss,
and meter replacements.
DWSRF Water Efficiency Assistance Provided from 2010 to 2016167
WATER EFFICIENCY WATER EFFICIENCY AS
STATE ASSISTANCE PROVIDED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
(millions) ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
Arizona
$18.4
5.4%
California
$99.7
6.4%
Colorado
$15.2
6.0%
Idaho
$17.0
16.8%
Montana
$16.8
13.4%
Nevada
$0
0.0%
New Mexico
$2.1
2.3%
Oklahoma
$22.0
4.3%
Oregon
$11.6
7.2%
Texas
$101.1
13.1%
Utah
$13.2
11.6%
Washington
$5.4
1.0%
Wyoming
$8.2
6.5%
Total $330.7
Average 7.2%
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
2.
-------
The most common projects funded by the DWSRFs
through the GPR water efficiency category were for
automated water meters. From 2010-2016 nearly every
state funded projects to install new meters or replace
inaccurate meters.168 Texas and California supported the
largest investment in water efficiency categorical projects
totaling $101.1 million and $99.7 million169, respectively,
while the Idaho DWSRF had the highest proportion of
water efficiency investment compared to total assistance
provided at 16.8%. Other projects funded in the water
efficiency category included water line replacements for
particularly problematic lines, leak detection and leak
detection equipment, water storage tanks, and enclosing
reservoirs to prevent loss from evaporation.
Conclusion
While drought conditions vary year to year and have
improved in 2017 across parts of the West170, there is a
need for long-term planning due to the periodic nature of
drought conditions. The SRFs, supported by EPA,
inherently fund many projects that conserve and reuse
water as a byproduct of SRFs' flexible eligibilities and
states' policy choices. Recent federal requirements from
WRRDA such as the CWSRF Fiscal Sustainability Plan and
Cost and Effectiveness Analysis are driving more projects
to include water conservation and efficiency measures,
which in turn make communities more drought resilient.
The 13 states highlighted in the report have SRF programs
that are promoting drought resilience with specific
programmatic goals, borrower incentives, state level
requirements for funding, and other actions that are within
statutory guidelines and complement overall program
objectives. These actions and policies harness the flexibility
of the SRF programs and provide examples for other states
to promote drought resilience in their communities.
U.S. EPA Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
The Water Finance Center is an information and assistance center, helping communities make informed decisions for drinking
water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure to protect human health and the environment. Through its technical
assistance to states, local government and non-governmental entities the Water Finance Center helps communities understand
their financing options, improving the effectiveness of federal funding, and supporting local decision-makingfor resilient water
infrastructure.
If you have any questions, please contact the Water Finance Center at:
¦ waterfinancecenter@epa.gov
¦ www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter
1 U.S. Drought Portal, https://www.drought.gov/drought/data-maps-tools/outlooks-forecasts
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
25
-------
2 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, National Information Management System (NIMS),
https://www.epa.gov/drinkingwatersrf/drinking-water-state-revolving-fund-national-information-management-system-
reports
3 Clean Water State Revolving Fund, National Information Management System (NIMS), https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-
water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf-national-information-management-system-reports
4 Clean Water Act section 603(d)(1)(e); and U.S. EPA Water Resources Reform and Development Act Guidance, 2015.
5 Clean Water Act section 602(b)(13); and U.S. EPA Water Resources Reform and Development Act Guidance, 2015.
6 California State Water Resources Control Board, Drought Year Water Actions,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/actions.shtml
7 California State Water Resources Control Board, Cleanup and Abatement Account Interim Emergency Drinking Water,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/caa/dw_droughtfund/
8 Public Water System Drought Emergency Response (PWSDER) program,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/drought/PWSDER%20Final%20Drought
%20Fact%20Sheet%20SWRCB.pdf
9 California State Water Resources Control Board, Proposition 1,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/propositionl.shtml
10 Jim Maughan, California State Water Resources Control Board, Executed Agreements for Water Recycling Projects,
3/6/2017.
11 California Assembly Bill 2572, Water Meters, 2004,
https://leginfo. legislature. ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200320040AB2572
12 Lori Johnson, Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
13 Ibid.
14 "Resilient Water Supply for an Uncertain Future," Dave Taylor, Waurika Lake Master Conservancy District,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/session_2_-
_dave_taylor_resilient_water_supply_for_an_uncertain_future.pdf
15 Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas: 2017 State Water Plan.
16 Texas State Water Plan, https://2017.texasstatewaterplan.org/statewide
17 Phone conversation with Matt Nelson and Mark Wyatt, Texas Water Development Board, 3/7/2017.
18 Mark Wyatt, Texas Water Development Board, 3/15/2017.
19 Ibid.
20 California State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016-2017 Intended Use Plan,
6/21/2016.
21 Ibid.
22 California State Water Resources Control Board, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016-2017 Intended Use Plan,
6/21/2016.
23 California State Water Resources Control Board, The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Source Water
Protection Program, 2014-2015 Annual Report.
24 Provided by Juanita Licata, U.S. EPA Region 9, 3/13/2017.
25 Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
26 Ibid.
27 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
28 Texas Water Development Board, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Annual Report.
29 Ibid.
30 Texas Water Development Board, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Annual Report.
31 Ibid.
32 Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona, SFY 2017 Drinking Water Intended Use Plan.
33 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Annual Report.
34 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, State Revolving Fund, SFY 2015 Annual Report.
35 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program, SFY 2017 Intended Use
Plan Update #1, 2/6/2017.
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
26
-------
36 Phone conversation with Kimberly Carlson, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 10/17/2016.
37 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
38 Washington State Department of Health, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Annual Report, 12/29/2016;
Washington Administrative Code 246-290-020.
39 Ibid.
40 California State Water Resources Control Board, Policy for Implementing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
2/17/2015, section IV. Program Management,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/docs/final_policy_0215.pdf
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Colorado Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, 2015 Annual Report, Attachment I.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid. Attachment III.
46 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan, Attachment
III.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Intended Use Plan.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
54 New Mexico Environment Department, Priority Ranking System for Point Source and Non-Point Source Projects,
1/24/2014, https://www.env.nm.gov/cpb/CWSRFPage.htm
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
58 Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
63 Oregon Secretary of State, Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 54 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program, 340-054-
0026, http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_054.html
64 Ibid.
65 Texas Water Development Board, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan, Appendix C.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Utah Administrative Code, R317-100, Utah State Project Priority System for the Utah Wastewater Project Assistance
Program, http://utrules.elaws.us/uac/r317-100
71 California State Water Resources Control Board, Policy for Implementing the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund,
1/1/2015, section V. Program Management,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/services/funding/DWSRF_Policy.shtml
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 Colorado Drinking Water Revolving Fund, 2016 Intended Use Plan, Attachment I.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid.
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
27
-------
77 Ibid.
78 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
81 Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan,
Appendix 1.
82 New Mexico Environment Department and New Mexico Finance Authority, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY
2017 Intended Use Plan, Appendix B.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
88 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan,
Appendix A.
89 Ibid.
90 Ibid.
91 Texas Water Development Board, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan, Appendix C.
92 Ibid.
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid.
95 Utah Administrative Code, R309-705, Financial Assistance: Federal Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program,
https://rules.utah.gOv/publicat/code/r309/r309-705.htm#T6
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid.
98 Washington State Department of Health, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 2016 Guidelines, Appendix A.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid.
101 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Wyoming Water Development Commission, and Wyoming State Loan
and Investment Board, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan, Appendix 2.
102 Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona, 2016 State Water Agency Practices for Climate Change Adaptation.
103 California State Water Resources Control Board, Water Recycling Funding
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/propositionl_funding.shtml
104 Colorado Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, 2016 Intended Use Plan.
105 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Wyoming State Loan and Investment Board, Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
106 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Wyoming Water Development Commission, and Wyoming State Loan
and Investment Board, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
107 Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona, 2016 State Water Agency Practices for Climate Change Adaptation.
108 California State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016-2017 Intended Use Plan,
6/21/2016.
109 New Mexico Environment Department and New Mexico Finance Authority, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY
2017 Intended Use Plan.
110 Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
111 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
112 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
113 Texas Water Development Board, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan; Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
114 Washington State Department of Health, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Annual Report, 12/29/2016.
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
28
-------
115 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Wyoming State Loan and Investment Board, Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan; Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
116 California State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2015-2016 Annual Report.
117 Phone conversation with Jim Maughan, California State Water Resources Control Board, 3/7/2017.
118 California Assembly Bill 2572, Water Meters, 2004,
https://leginfo. legislature. ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200320040AB2572
119 Colorado Drinking Water Revolving Fund, 2016 Intended Use Plan.
120 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, State Revolving Fund, SFY 2015 Annual Report.
121 Utah Administrative Code, R309-700-4(24), Financial Assistance: State Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan
Program, https://rules.utah.gOv/publicat/code/r309/r309-700.htm#T4
122 Texas Water Development Board, Water Conservation Plans,
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/conservation/municipal/plans/index.asp
123 Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
124 Washington State Department of Health, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, 2016 Guidelines.
125 Washington Department of Ecology, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Investment Grade Efficiency Audit,
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding/FundPrgms/CWSRF/CWSRFres.html; and Washington State Department of
Health, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Annual Report, 12/29/2016.
126 California State Water Resources Control Board, Water Recycling Funding Program,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/
127 Phone conversation with Jim Maughan, California State Water Resources Control Board, 3/7/2017.
128 Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, Colorado Water Revenue Bond Program,
http://www.cwrpda.com/index.php/programs/water-revenue-bonds-program
129 Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, Watershed Protection and Forest Health Projects,
http://www.cwrpda.com/index.php/programs/watershed-protection-and-forest-health-projects
130 New Mexico Environment Department, Rural Infrastructure Program, https://www.env.nm.gov/cpb/RIPProgram.htm
131 Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Financial Assistance Loan Program,
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/financing/loan/bondloans.php
132 Provided by Lori Johnson, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 3/16/2017.
133 Texas Water Development Board, State Water Implementation Fund for TexaSi
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/financial/programs/swift/index.asp
134 Texas Water Development Board, Agriculture Water Conservation Loan Program,
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/financial/programs/AWCL/index.asp
135 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Annual Report.
136 Sources: https://jobs.utah.gov/housing/cib/ https://water.utah.gov/Board/MakeApp.html
137 Ibid.
138 Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona, SFY 2017 Drinking Water Intended Use Plan.
139 California State Water Resources Control Board, The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Source Water
Protection Program, 2014-2015 Annual Report.
140 California State Water Resources Control Board, Cleanup and Abatement Account Interim Emergency Drinking Water,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/caa/dw_droughtfund/
141 Oklahoma Water Resources Board, http://www.owrb.ok.gov/financing/grant/emergencydroughtgrants.php
142 Oklahoma Water Resources Board, http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/drought/drought_commission.php
143 Oklahoma Water Resources Board, http://www.owrb.ok.gov/financing/grant/droughtgrants.php
144 Texas Water Development Board, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
145 Washington State Department of Health, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Annual Report, 12/29/2016.
146 The Arizona Rural Water Infrastructure Committee, http://www.rwic.net/
147 California Financing Coordinating Committee^httpy/www.cfcc.ca.gov/
148 Infrastructure for Nevada Communities, https://ndep.nv.gov/bffwp/nwwpa.htm
149 Oklahoma Funding Agency Coordinating Team, http://www.owrb.ok.gov/FACT.php
150 Texas Water Infrastructure Coordination Committee, http://twicc.org/
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
29
-------
151 Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona, 2016 State Water Agency Practices for Climate Change Adaptation.
152 California State Water Resources Control Board, Proposition 1 Technical Assistance Funding Program,
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/propositionl/tech_asst_funding.shtml
153 Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma Drought Tool, http://www.owrb.ok.gov/drought/
154 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2017 Intended Use Plan.
155 Phone conversation with Joe Freeman and Lori Johnson, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 3/14/2017.
156 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2016 Intended Use Plan.
157 California State Water Resources Control Board, Drought Information and Actions,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/index.shtml; and Water Conservation,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/index.shtml
158 Nevada Drought Forum, http://drought.nv.gov/
159 Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Drought Monitoring, http://www.owrb.ok.gov/drought/; and Water for 2060,
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/2060/index.php
160 Oregon Drought Watch, http://www.oregon.gov/gov/policy/Pages/Drought.aspx
161 Water Data for Texas, Drought in Texas, https://waterdatafortexas.org/drought; and Texas Water Development Board,
Water Conservation, http://www.twdb.texas.gov/conservation/index.asp
162 Utah Division of Water Resouces, What is Drought, https://water.utah.gov/WaterConditions/WhatlsDrought.html
163 Division of Water Resource Conservation Program, dhttps://conservewater.utah.gov
164 U.S. EPA, Green Project Reserve Guidance for the CWSRF, https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/green-project-reserve-guidance-
clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf
165 CWSRF National Information Management System Reports 11/7/2016, https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-water-state-
revolving-fund-cwsrf-national-information-management-system-reports
166 Clean Water Benefits Reporting System.
167 DWSRF National Information Management System Reports 10/24/2016,
168 Drinking Water Project and Benefits Reporting System.
169 Includes 2010-2015 data, 2016 NIMS data not available for California DWSRF.
170 U.S. Drought Monitor, http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
U.S. EPA, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center
30
------- |