Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary
Although the federal government has played a significant role in developing
water quality regulations and standards for municipal and industrial (M&I) water use,
it historically has provided a relatively small percentage of the funding for
construction of water supply and treatment facilities for M&I uses. Yet, several
programs exist to assist communities with development of water supply and
treatment projects, and it appears that Congress is more frequently being asked to
authorize direct financial and technical assistance for developing or treating water
supplies for M&I use.
This report provides background information on the types of water supply and
wastewater treatment projects traditionally funded by the federal government and the
several existing programs to assist communities with water supply and wastewater
recycling and treatment. These projects and programs are found primarily within the
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce, Department of
Defense (DOD), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The focus of some programs has been enlarged over the years. The Department
of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation was established to implement the
Reclamation Act of 1902, which authorized the construction of water works to
provide water for irrigation in arid western states. Congress subsequently authorized
other uses of project water, including M&I use. Even so, the emphasis of the
Bureau’s operations was to provide water for irrigation. Similarly, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense) constructed large reservoirs primarily
for flood control, but was authorized in 1958 to allocate water for M&I purposes.
Over the past 30-plus years, Congress has authorized and refined several programs
to assist local communities in addressing other water supply and wastewater
problems. These programs serve generally different purposes and have different
financing mechanisms; however, there is some overlap.
Funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies greatly.
For example, Congress appropriated $843 million for FY2005 for grants to states
under EPA’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program for drinking water facilities
and $1.1 billion for EPA’s SRF program for wastewater facilities; funds appropriated
for the USDA’s rural water and waste disposal grant and loan programs are $598
million for FY2005; HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
(used partly but not exclusively for water and wastewater projects) are $4.1 billion
for FY2005. In contrast, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title 16 program received a
total of $23 million for FY2005.
For each of the projects and programs discussed, this report describes project
or program purposes, financing mechanisms, eligibility requirements, recent funding,
and the Administration’s FY2006 budget request. The report will be updated.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works Program) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Water Supply Act Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Rural Utilities Service (Water and Waste Disposal Programs) . . . . . . . . . . 12
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Small Watershed Program) . . . . 15
Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Economic Development Administration (Public Works and
Development Facilities Program) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
List of Tables
Table 1. Federal Water Supply Program/Project Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federally Supported Water Supply and
Wastewater Treatment Programs
Introduction
Although the federal government has played a significant role in developing
water quality regulations and standards for municipal and industrial (M&I) water use,
it historically has provided a relatively small percentage of the funding for
construction of water supply and treatment facilities for M&I uses. Yet, several
programs exist to assist communities with development of water supply and
treatment projects, and it appears that Congress is being asked more frequently to
authorize direct financial and technical assistance for developing or treating water
supplies for M&I use. Recent proposals include “rural water supply projects” to be
built and funded by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior
(hereafter referred to as the Bureau), water recycling projects built and partially
funded by the Bureau, and programs for water supply and wastewater treatment
projects to be largely funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Interest
also has been growing in expanding the size and scope of the State Revolving Fund
loan programs under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, as well
as support for individual wastewater and drinking water projects through
congressionally earmarked grants in appropriations legislation.
This report provides background information on the types of water supply and
wastewater treatment projects traditionally funded by the federal government and the
several existing programs to assist communities with water supply and wastewater
treatment. Projects developed by the Bureau and the Corps typically require direct,
individual project authorizations from Congress. In contrast, projects funded by
other agencies are funded through standing program authorizations. These programs
are found primarily within the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of
Commerce, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The key practical difference is that with
the individual project authorizations there is no predictable assistance, or even
guarantee of funding after a project is authorized, because funding must be secured
each year in the congressional appropriations process. The programs, on the other
hand, have set program criteria, are generally funded from year to year, and provide
a process under which project sponsors compete for funding.
For each of the projects and programs discussed, this report describes purposes,
financing mechanisms, eligibility requirements, and recent funding. The report does
not address special projects and programs aimed specifically at assisting Indian
CRS-2
Tribes, Alaskan Native Villages, and Colonias,1 or other regional programs such as
those associated with the Appalachian Region or U.S. Territories.
Background
The federal government has built hundreds of water projects over the years,
primarily dams and reservoirs for irrigation development and flood control, with
M&I use as an incidental, self-financed, project purpose. Most of the nation’s public
municipal water systems have been built by local communities under prevailing state
water laws.
Over the past 30-plus years, Congress has authorized and refined several
programs to assist local communities in addressing other water supply and
wastewater problems. The agencies that administer these programs differ in scope
and mission. For example, the primary responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers are
to maintain inland navigation and provide for flood control, while EPA’s mission
relates to protecting public health and safeguarding the national environment.
Others, such as HUD and the Department of Commerce, focus on community and
economic development. Likewise, the specific programs discussed in this report —
while all address water supply and wastewater treatment — differ in important
respects. Some are national in scope (those of USDA, EPA, and the Department of
Commerce, for example), while others are regionally focused (the Bureau’s programs
and projects). Some focus primarily on urban areas (HUD), others on rural areas
(USDA), and others do not distinguish based on community size (EPA, the Bureau,
the Corps). In addition, these programs serve generally different purposes and have
1
Colonias typically are rural, unincorporated communities or housing developments near
the U.S.-Mexico border that lack some or all basic infrastructure, including plumbing and
public water and sewer.
CRS-3
Funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies greatly.
For example, for FY2005,2 Congress appropriated $843 million for grants to states
under EPA’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program for drinking water facilities
and $1.1 billion for EPA’s SRF program for wastewater treatment facilities; funds
appropriated for the USDA’s rural water and waste disposal grant and loan programs
total $598 million for FY2005; HUD Community Development Block Grant funds
(used partly but not exclusively for water and wastewater projects) are $4.1 billion
for FY2005. In contrast, the Bureau’s Title 16 reclamation/recycling program
received approximately $23 million for FY2005 — funding for the entire agency was
$965 million for FY2005. Collectively, congressional funding for these programs
has remained fairly level in recent years, despite the continuing pressure from
stakeholders and others for increased funding.
It is also important to note that state and local contributions are a significant
source of total funds available to local communities for drinking water and
wastewater improvements. For example, from FY1991 through FY2000, states
contributed about $10.1 billion to match $18 billion in EPA capitalization grants for
drinking water and wastewater SRFs and made about $13.5 billion available for these
activities under state-sponsored grant and loan programs and by selling general
obligation and revenue bonds.3
The following table summarizes financial and other key elements of the projects
and program activities discussed in this report.
2
FY2005 appropriations for programs and projects described in this report were provided
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, P.L. 108-447. Division J, Title I,
Section 122 of this act included a general 0.80% reduction to be applied proportionately to
each discretionary account and each item of budget authority, and within each program,
project, and activity in the law. Throughout this report, discussion of FY2005 funding
reflects the required reduction from the congressionally specified level. For example, the
appropriated amount for drinking water SRF grants was $850 million, but was reduced to
$843 million by the 0.80% rescission.
3
U.S. General Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office). Water
Infrastructure: Information on Federal and State Financial Assistance, November 2001,
GAO-02-134: 18. Hereafter, GAO Water Infrastructure.
CRS-4
USDOI Bureau Multi-purpose De facto loan 0%/100%, with Not applicable Not readily (Total agency
of Reclamation projects, interest for available approps.
which may M&I uses** request is
include M&I* (Total agency $943 million)
approps.are
$965 million)
USDOI Bureau Wastewater De facto grant Up to $1.3 million $23 million $10.2 million
of Reclamation reclamation (see 25%/75%; (FY2005
(Title 16 of and reuse* discussion on dollar limits approps.)
P.L. 102-575) pages 6-9) may apply
USDOI Bureau Non-Indian De facto grant Average of $10.4 million $72.6 million $49.1 million
of Reclamation “rural water (see 64%/26% (FY2005
supply”* discussion on (range from approps.)
pages 6-9), 15% repayment
plus loan to 80% —
some grants)
US Army Multi-purpose Loans 0%/100%, with Not applicable Not readily Not readily
Corps of water projects, interest** available available
Engineers which may
(general) include M&I* (Total agency (Total agency
approps. are approps.
$5.0 billion) request is
$4.3 billion)
U.S. Army “Environ- Design and 75%/25% Authorizations Not readily None
Corps of mental construction range from $0.2 available
Engineers infrastruc- grants million to $180
(multiple ture”* million
sections of
WRDAs and
annual Energy
and Water
Development
Approps. acts)
USDA Rural Municipal Loans and 0%/100% for Grants: $598 million $446 million
Utilities water supply grants loans $711,048
Service, Water and waste Direct loans:
and Waste disposal Up to $915,527
Disposal 75%/25% for (FY2003)
Program grants
CRS-5
USDA Small Multiple Project grants 0%/100% $650,000 $352 million $15 million
Watershed activities, but and technical total ($102 total, all for
Program generally must advisory Varies million, rehabilitation
include flood services according to ongoing projects
control purpose of programs; $250
measures improvement million,
activity emergency
work)
EPA, Clean Municipal Grants to 80%/20% for Average $1.091 billion $730 million
Water State wastewater states to grants to states capitalization
Revolving treatment, capitalize to capitalize grant to state:
Fund (SRF) nonpoint loan funds SRFs $20.99 million
Loan Program pollution (FY2005)
management,
National SRF loans to 0%/100% Average
Estuary local project (Project loans assistance
Program sponsors are repaid provided from
implemen- 100% to states) SRF: $3.1
tation million
(FY2004)
EPA, Drinking Public water Grants to 80%/20% for Average $843 million $850 million
Water State supply: states to grants to states capitalization
Revolving projects capitalize to capitalize grant to state:
Fund (SRF) needed to loan funds SRFs $15.6 million
Loan Program meet federal (FY2004)
drinking water SRF loans to 0%/100%
standards and local project (Project loans Average
to address sponsors are repaid assistance
serious health 100%) provided from
risks SRF: $2.5
million
(FY2004)
HUD, Multi-purpose Grants, 70% 100%/0% Not readily $4.11 billion Zero
Community community of which are available
Development development reserved for
Block Grant projects, urban areas
Program which may
include water
and waste
disposal
EDA, Public Multi-purpose Project grants Generally Average grant $65.6 million Zero
Works and economic 50%/50%; $1,313.432
Development development however, may (FY2003)
Facilities projects, range to
Program which include 80%/20% for
non-rural, non- non-Indian
residential projects
water and
sewer
* These projects generally must be authorized by Congress prior to construction.
** Although the ultimate federal cost-share may be 0%, unless otherwise stated, the federal government may provide
100% of initial construction costs allocated to M&I use, to be repaid over the life of the loan or repayment contract
(typically 40-50 years).
CRS-6
Bureau M&I water deliveries are generally incidental to larger project purposes.
However, since 1980, Congress has authorized construction of 10 non-Indian “rural
water supply” projects and 31 reclamation wastewater and reuse/recycling projects.
The latter, discussed below, are known as Title 16 projects because they were first
authorized in 1992 under Title 16 of P.L. 102-575. Title 16, the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Studies and Facilities Act, also authorized the Bureau
to undertake specific and general feasibility studies for reclamation wastewater and
reuse projects and to research, construct, and operate demonstration projects.
Historically, the Bureau constructed projects with federal funds, then established
a repayment schedule based on the amount of total construction costs allocated to
specific project purposes. Bureau project authorizations typically require 100%
repayment, with interest, for M&I water supply facilities; however, on some
occasions Congress has authorized other reimbursement terms. For example, for the
non-Indian portion of some Bureau “rural water supply” projects, Congress has
authorized 15%-25% repayment levels (85% and 75% federal cost-share,
respectively) and in at least one case, Perkins County Rural Water Supply System,
a grant of 75% of total project costs. The federal share of costs for Title 16 projects
is generally much higher as it is limited to a maximum of 25% of total project costs
or, for projects authorized since 1996, a maximum of $20 million. In most cases, the
federal share for Title 16 projects is non-reimbursable, resulting in a de facto grant
to local project sponsors.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. The Bureau carries out its water
supply activities in 17 western states as authorized by the Reclamation Act of 1902,
as amended (32 Stat. 388).
Eligibility Requirements. The Bureau carries out its water supply activities
in 17 western states as authorized by the Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended (32
Stat. 388). Hence, the water reclamation and wastewater recycling program is
limited to projects and studies in the 17 western states, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by Congress.4 Authorized recipients of program assistance include
“legally organized non-federal entities” (e.g., irrigation districts, water districts, and
municipalities). Construction funding is generally limited to projects where (1) an
appraisal investigation and feasibility study have been completed and approved by
the Secretary; (2) the Secretary has determined the project sponsor is capable of
funding the non-federal share of project costs; and (3) the local sponsor has entered
into a cost-share agreement with the Bureau.
4
For example, P.L. 106-566 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct general
planning and research activities in the State of Hawaii.
CRS-9
Development Appropriations, its concern about the potential costs of this program
and noted that local sponsors who proceed on their own prior to a federal
commitment to the project “do so at their own risk” (S.Rept. 105-44). The
committee also noted its support of the Bureau’s efforts to develop criteria to
prioritize the authorized projects currently awaiting funding.
Funding for the projects has been somewhat controversial recently. The
Administration’s request of $10.2 million for FY2006 is 55% less than enacted for
FY2005 and 67% less than enacted for FY2004. According to the Office of
Management and Budget, in years past the funding has been scaled back because the
“program serves a function that is a local responsibility.”
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works Program)
Under its civil works program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps,
Department of Defense) operates water resources projects throughout the country to
meet the agency’s navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental missions.
In many cases, this infrastructure provides multi-purpose benefits, including benefits
for fish and wildlife, recreation, and municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply.
More than 112 Corps reservoirs store 9.3 million acre-feet of M&I water. The Corps
has been given only limited authority for M&I water supply. M&I water supplied
from Corps reservoirs is incidental to the infrastructure’s primary purposes. The
provision of M&I water is subject to availability, and the associated costs are 100%
a local, nonfederal responsibility.
CRS-10
The Water Supply Act of 1958 (Title 3 of P.L. 85-500) authorized the Corps to
recommend economically justified M&I water supply storage space in new or
existing reservoirs. Although it is possible to retrofit previously constructed projects
to supply M&I users, the planning for such needs is not an explicit Corps
responsibility. In its policy manual (Engineer Publication 1165-2-1), the agency
states that it “recognizes a significant but declining federal interest in the long range
management of water supplies and assigns the financial burden of supply to users.”
Before 1992, the Corps generally was not involved with environmental
infrastructure projects; since 1992, Congress has authorized more than 220
environmental infrastructure projects. Appropriations, however, have not kept pace
with authorizations; only a subset of authorized Corps environmental infrastructure
projects have received appropriations. The Clinton and Bush Administrations
generally left environmental infrastructure projects out of their Corps budget
requests. The Bush Administration’s FY2006 request continued this trend by seeking
no funds for studies or construction of environmental infrastructure projects.
Congress has added funds for environmental infrastructure activities. For example,
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of FY2005 (P.L. 108-447)
included at least $44 million in appropriations for environmental infrastructure
projects.
As with the rural water supply and Title 16 projects of the Bureau, the future
implementation of authorized local infrastructure projects has the potential to create
a new, and perhaps competing, mission to the Corps’ traditional navigation, flood
CRS-11
Water Supply Act Projects. The following describes projects carried out
under the Water Supply Act of 1958.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. Water Supply Act of 1958 (Title III
of P.L. 85-500, as amended, 72 Stat. 320; 43 U.S.C. § 390b). For information on the
Corps’ civil works program, see [http://www.usace.army.mil/public.html#Civil].
Department of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service (Water and Waste Disposal Programs)
The USDA administers grant and loan programs for water and wastewater
projects, with eligibility limited to communities of 10,000 or less. USDA prefers
making loans to finance water and waste disposal projects; grants are made only
when necessary to reduce average annual charges to a reasonable level for the area.
These programs are administered at the national level by the Rural Utilities
Service (RUS) at USDA. RUS allocates program funds to the Rural Economic and
Community Development (RECD) state offices through an allocation formula based
on rural population, poverty, and unemployment. District RECD offices actually
administer the programs locally. In recent years, approximately 65% of loan funds
and 57% of grant funds have been obligated to water projects; the remainder have
been obligated to waste disposal projects.
There is heavy demand for water and waste disposal funds. In January 2000,
RUS had a backlog of approximately $3.3 billion in grant and loan applications for
its water and waste disposal assistance programs.5 In addition to this, EPA’s 2001
drinking water infrastructure needs survey showed over $31 billion needed by small
water systems serving 3,300 or fewer people over the next 20 years to install,
upgrade, or replace infrastructure to ensure safe drinking water. The 2000 EPA
wastewater needs survey reported that small communities with a population under
10,000 need to spend $16 billion for their wastewater facilities to be in compliance
with the Clean Water Act.
Financing Mechanism. USDA provides grants and loans for water and
waste disposal projects. There is no statutory distribution formula. Funds are
allocated to states based upon rural population, number of households in poverty, and
unemployment. There are no matching requirements.
Water and Waste Disposal Loans. The Rural Development Act of 1972
authorized establishment of the Rural Development Insurance Fund under the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Among other activities, this fund
is used for loans (direct and guaranteed) to develop storage, treatment, purification,
or distribution of water or collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in low-income
5
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001 Budget. Explanatory Notes for the Committee on
Appropriations. Vol. 2: 22-22, 22-23. The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) authorized USDA
to use $360 million in Commodity Credit Corporation monies for a one-time reduction in
the backlog of qualified, pending grant and loan applications for water systems and waste
disposal systems.
CRS-13
rural areas. Loans are repayable in not more than 40 years or the useful life of the
facilities, whichever is less. USDA makes either direct loans to applicants or
guarantees up to 90% of loans made by third-party lenders such as banks and savings
and loan associations.
Loan interest rates are based on the community’s economic and health
environment and are designated poverty, market, or intermediate. Poverty interest
rate loans are made in areas where the median household income (MHI) falls below
the higher of 80% of the statewide nonurban MHI or the poverty level and the project
is needed to meet health or sanitary standards. The market rate is adjusted quarterly
and is set using the average of a specified 11-bond index. It applies to loans to
applicants where the MHI of the service area exceeds the statewide nonurban MHI.
The intermediate rate applies to loans that do not meet the criteria for the poverty rate
and which do not have to pay the market rate. As of January 2005, all three interest
rates are 4.5%.
Water and Waste Disposal Grants. Grants for the development costs of
water supply and waste disposal projects in rural areas also are authorized under the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Only communities with poverty and
intermediate rate incomes qualify for USDA grants. An eligible project must serve
a rural area which is not likely to decline in population below that for which the
project was designed and constructed so that adequate capacity will or can be made
available to serve the reasonably foreseeable growth needs of the area.
Grant funds may be available for up to 75% of the development cost of a project
to reduce user costs to a reasonable level. Grants may be used to supplement other
funds borrowed or furnished by applicants for project costs, and may be combined
with loans when the applicant is able to repay part, but not all, of the project costs.
6
Rural electric cooperatives are private entities that build and manage rural utility systems.
The 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) authorized rural coops to expand from their traditional
electricity and telephone services. An estimated 80 to 90 rural electric coops (less than 10%
of the total number of coops nationwide) currently are involved in some aspect of drinking
water or wastewater management, with the majority dealing with drinking water
management.
7
GAO Water Infrastructure: 10-11.
8
RCAP is designed to give RECD state offices flexibility in targeting financial assistance
to community and regional needs. Thus, within the three components of RCAP, up to 25%
of funds can be transferred between programs within any state, as long as transfers do not
result in changes in the national funding stream of more than 10%.
CRS-15
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. Statutory authority for the water and
waste disposal loan and grant programs is the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended, Section 306, 7 U.S.C. 1926. Regulations for these
programs are codified at 7 CFR Parts 1778-1780. For additional information on RUS
water and environmental programs, see [http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/index.htm].
9
U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Budget Summary 2006 — Rural Development.
10
The Emergency Watershed Protection Program component is used to restore the natural
functions of a watershed after a natural disaster has occurred, and to minimize the risks to
property and life posed by floods by purchasing easements on floodplains. Appropriations
vary widely from year to year, and activity levels can vary widely both from year to year and
place to place. Spending is usually authorized in emergency supplemental legislation. In
FY2005, for example, $250 million was authorized, with the largest amount, $120 million,
going to Florida to respond to damage caused by four hurricanes that made landfall there
during the fall of 2004.
CRS-16
Under P.L. 566, 1,755 projects had been authorized through FY2004. Of that
total, 987 have been completed, while 546 others are active. Also, 155 were
subsequently deauthorized, 25 are inactive, and 41 have reached the end of their
project life. The number of projects continues to grow, but slowly. In FY2004, five
new projects were authorized for funding. These five projects had a total federal cost
of almost $15 million and local cost of almost $8 million.
Most all the P.L. 566 projects (1,436 of 1,755) are designed to provide flood
control benefits. About half the projects provide multiple benefits. Other benefits
include drainage (316 projects), recreation (296), erosion (290), water quality (224),
public water supply (204), fish and wildlife (150), and water conservation (42).
Among the overall benefits that NRCS identifies are 27,644 domestic water supplies
and almost 48 million people. An NRCS representative indicated that municipal
water supply was more popular in earlier years, and that project sponsors have not
been proposing this as a purpose as frequently in recent years.
Each P.L. 566 project is initiated by a local project sponsor. Project sponsors
provide assistance in preparing plans and installing whatever measures are needed
to implement those plans. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in
USDA works with the project sponsor to develop the plan, provides the necessary
technical assistance, and may assist in all aspects of planning and construction.
Either NRCS or the local organization may administer construction contracts.
The 11 projects that were specifically authorized under P.L. 534 are each much
larger and more expensive then P.L. 566 projects. These projects, which encompass
a total of more than 35.4 million acres, about the same size as Iowa, are divided into
component projects in sub watersheds. NRCS reports that 319 work plans for sub
watersheds encompassing more than 24 million acres have been completed. This is
about 74% of the estimated total planning work load. With the exception of the two
smallest projects, the estimated federal costs for each of these projects ranges from
more than $40 million to more than $330 million. Two of the projects have been
completed, and work on the remainder continues in one or more sub watersheds.
Both laws have similar objectives and are implemented following similar
procedures. Both programs fund land treatment, and nonstructural and structural
facilities for flood prevention, erosion reduction, agricultural water management,
public recreation development, fish and wildlife habitat development, and municipal
or industrial water supplies. Structural measures can include dams, levees, canals,
pumping plants, and the like. Local sponsors agree to operate and maintain
CRS-17
completed projects. USDA estimates that benefits to the country totaled almost $1.5
billion in FY2004. Projects with municipal water supply benefits were grouped
within non-agricultural benefits, which totaled almost $547 million.
Some of the oldest projects that have exceeded their design life (the design life
is 50 years, and dams were constructed starting in 1948) need rehabilitation work to
continue to protect public health and safety by reducing any possibility of dam
failure, and to meet changing resource needs. In 2004 alone, 264 dams will reach
the conclusion of their design life. That number will continue to grow each year, and
by 2015 will total more than 3,800. In response to that concern, Congress passed a
new rehabilitation program in section 313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse
Improvement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-472) as an amendment to the 1954 law. It
authorized appropriations of $5 million in FY2001, increasing each year to $35
million in FY2005, to make structural improvements to meet safety and performance
standards and extend the life of the project. It required the federal government to pay
65% of the total rehabilitation costs but no more than 100% of the actual construction
cost, and prohibited spending for operations and maintenance. Rehabilitation
projects also provide an opportunity to modify projects to provide additional benefits,
including municipal water supplies.
Congress has appropriated more than $85 million since FY2000, and these funds
have been allocated in every state. The largest recipients have been Oklahoma ($14.2
million) and Texas ($11.9 million). By September 30, 2004, 37 dams had been
completely rehabilitated. In addition, rehabilitation had been authorized for 66 dams
in 13 states, and planning continues on the rehabilitation of an additional 53 dams.
Furthermore, 240 assessments were completed during FY2004 alone. NRCS
calculated the benefits of the 37 completed projects to include over $2 million in
reduced monetary losses, and identified more than 24,000 individuals and almost
2,500 homes and businesses that benefit in some way from the projects.
Congress amended this program in section 2505 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L.
107-171) to provide higher and increasing levels of discretionary funding through
FY2007, and also mandatory funding for the first time. The mandatory funding level
would gradually rise to $65 million in FY2007 then drop to $0 in FY2008, while the
discretionary funding level would also gradually rise to $85 million in FY2007.
rural municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement,
and water conservation. Almost all projects address flood prevention and control.
Funding. The budget request for FY2006 includes the following: $0 for the
P.L. 566 projects, a decline of $65.1 million from the FY2005 appropriation; $0 for
the P.L. 534 projects, which were funded at $9.9 million in FY2005; and $12.2
million for the rehabilitation program, a reduction of $15.1 million from the $27.3
million provided in FY2004. As in previous years, the FY2005 appropriations (in
P.L. 108-447, Division A) included numerous earmarks in the conference report;
NRCS identifies 90 earmarks with a total cost of almost $68 million. Limits placed
on Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations funding included no more than $35
million for technical assistance, no more than $1 million to carry out activities related
to the Endangered Species Act, and none of these funds can be used to pay for
technical assistance that supports implementation of conservation programs receiving
mandatory funding through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Historically, overall watershed funding has varied a great deal from year to year.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, annual appropriations averaged around $160
million. Much of this variation is the result of appropriations for the emergency
component, which varies widely from year to year. Some consider this program to
be a public works effort which supports local employment and economic
development, while others consider it to be a “pork barrel” program which provides
support to projects that are frequently of limited merit. In most years recently, the
CRS-19
Administration (regardless of which party controls the White House) has requested
significant funding reductions which Congress has rejected, although FY2006 is the
first time, at least in many years, that an Administration has called for no funding.
Past history strongly suggests that Congress will not support this request for FY2006.
In historic terms, funding under the Clean Water Act has been the largest federal
program for wastewater treatment assistance. Since 1973, Congress has appropriated
more than $75 billion in program grants. Funds are distributed to states under a
statutory allocation formula and are used to assist qualified projects on a priority list
that is determined by individual states. These funds are used to assist states and
localities in meeting wastewater infrastructure needs most recently estimated by EPA
and states at $181 billion nationally for all categories of projects eligible for federal
assistance under the law.
In 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act (P.L. 100-4) and initiated a new
program of federal capitalization grants to support State Water Pollution Control
Revolving Funds (SRFs). Prior to 1989 (when the SRF program became effective),
states used their allotments to make grants to cities and other eligible recipients.
Since 1989, federal funds (grants of appropriated funds) have been used to capitalize
state loan programs, or SRFs, with states providing matching funds equal to 20% of
the federal funds to capitalize the SRF. All 50 states, plus Puerto Rico, participate
in the clean water SRF program. Over the long term, the loan programs are intended
to be sustained through repayment of loans to states, thus creating a continuing
source of assistance for other communities. Rural and non-rural communities
compete for funding; rural areas and other small communities have no special
priority, nor are states required to reserve any specific percentage for projects in rural
areas. Nevertheless, rural areas are not shut out of the program. EPA data indicate
CRS-20
that since 1989, nationally, 63% of all loans and other assistance (comprising 23%
of total funds loaned) have gone to assist communities with 10,000 people or fewer.
Financing Mechanism. Clean water SRFs may provide seven general types
of financial assistance: making loans; buying or refinancing existing local debt
obligations; guaranteeing or purchasing insurance for local debt obligations;
guaranteeing SRF debt obligations (i.e., to be used as security for leveraging the
assets in the SRF); providing loan guarantees for sub-state revolving funds; earning
interest on fund accounts; and supporting reasonable costs of administering the SRF.
States may not provide grants from an SRF. Loans are made at or below market
interest rates, including zero interest loans, as determined by the state in negotiation
with the applicant. All principal and interest payments on loans must be credited
directly to the SRF.
Projects or activities eligible for funding are, initially, those needed for
constructing or upgrading publicly owned municipal wastewater treatment plans. As
defined in Clean Water Act section 212, devices and systems used in the storage,
treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage are eligible. These
include construction or upgrading of secondary or advanced treatment plants;
construction of new collector sewers, interceptor sewers or storm sewers; and
projects to correct existing problems of sewer system rehabilitation,
infiltration/inflow of sewer lines, and combined sewer overflows. Operation and
maintenance is not an eligible activity. All funds in the clean water SRF resulting
from federal capitalization grants are first to be used to assure maintenance of
progress toward compliance with enforceable deadlines, goals, and requirements of
the act, including municipal compliance. Following compliance with the “first use”
requirement, funds may be used for implementing nonpoint source management
programs and estuary activities in approved State Nonpoint Management Programs
and estuarine Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, respectively.
Since the clean water SRF programs were established in 1989, $1.84 billion has been
used to assist nonpoint management projects; none has gone to estuary plan activities.
Funding. Since the first congressional appropriations for the clean water SRF
program in FY1989, Congress has provided $23.7 billion in grants to capitalize
SRFs. Through June 2004, federal funds, together with state matching contributions
and repaid loans, have been used for $47.9 billion in SRF assistance to support
15,286 SRF loans and debt refinance activity. Most recently, Congress appropriated
$1.09 billion for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447, Division I), $231 million less than in
FY2004. For FY2006, the President’s budget requests $730 million for the clean
water SRF program, 33% less than was appropriated for FY2005 and 46% less than
the FY2004 funding level.
States must match 20% of the federal capitalization grant and develop annual
intended use plans that indicate how allotted funds will be used (including a project
priority list). The law generally directs states to give funding priority to projects that
(1) address the most serous health risks; (2) are needed to ensure compliance with
SDWA regulations; and (3) assist systems most in need on a per household basis,
according to state affordability criteria. Additionally, states must make available at
least 15% of their annual allotment to public water systems that serve 10,000 or
fewer persons (to the extent the funds can be obligated to eligible projects). In
FY2003, roughly 71% of DWSRF assistance agreements and 42% of funds went to
such systems.
Capitalization grants are allotted among the states according to the results of the
most recent quadrennial survey of the capital improvements needs of eligible water
systems. Needs surveys are prepared by EPA and the states, and the most recent
survey (2001) estimated that public water systems need to invest a minimum of
$150.9 billion over the 20-year period from 1999 through 2018 to ensure the
provision of safe drinking water.
Projects and activities not eligible for funding include projects primarily
intended to serve future growth or to provide fire protection, construction of dams or
reservoirs (except reservoirs for finished (treated) water), monitoring, and operation
and maintenance. Ineligible systems include those that lack the financial, technical
or managerial capacity to maintain SDWA compliance and systems in significant
noncompliance with any SDWA regulation (unless the project is likely to ensure
compliance).
11
GAO Water Infrastructure, pp. 11-13.
CRS-25
funding priorities and have considerable latitude to define community eligibility and
criteria, within general criteria in law and regulations. State grantees must ensure
that each activity meets one of the program’s three national objectives: benefitting
low- and moderate-income persons (the primary objective), aid in the prevention or
elimination of slums or blight, or assisting other community development needs that
present a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community.
Funding. For FY2005 (P.L. 108-447, Division I), Congress provided $4.11
billion for CDBG funds ($220 million less than in FY2004), of which approximately
$1.2 billion is available for smaller communities under the state program. For
FY2006, the President’s budget requests no funding for the CDBG program. Instead,
the budget proposes to consolidate the CDBG and 17 other community development
programs of HUD and the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Treasury, and
Health and Human Services into a new economic development program to be
administered by the Department of Commerce. The FY2006 budget requests $3.7
billion in funding for this new consolidated grant program, compared with $5.3
billion in budget authority for the 18 individual programs in FY2005. Administration
budget documents state that, although the intent of these programs is to help
communities in distress, many relatively well-off communities receive funding, and
many of the existing individual grant programs have been found to be duplicative or
ineffective.
Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
(Public Works and Development Facilities Program)
The Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce,
is authorized to provide development assistance to areas experiencing substantial
economic distress. Economic development grants for community water and sewer
projects are available through the Public Works and Development Facilities Program.
CRS-26
Under this federally administered program, public works grants are made to
eligible applicants to build or expand facilities needed to attract new industry,
encourage business expansion, and generate or retain long-term jobs in the private
sector. Economic development grants may be used for a wide range of purposes, but
frequently have a sewer or water supply element. Types of projects funded include
industrial parks, and water and wastewater facilities primarily serving industry and
commerce. According to GAO, from FY1991 through FY2000, EDA provided $1.1
billion in grants to local communities for drinking water and wastewater projects.12
Federal law requires that units of government retain ownership of EDA-funded
projects. Because EDA grants must directly encourage employment generation, these
grants generally are not available for rural residential sewer and water supply
development.
Qualified projects must fill a pressing need of the area and: (1) be intended to
improve the opportunities for the successful establishment of businesses, (2) assist
in the creation of additional long-term employment, and (3) benefit long-term
unemployed or underemployed persons and low-income families. Projects must also
fulfill a pressing need and be consistent with the comprehensive economic
development plan for the area, and have an adequate share of local funds. In addition,
eligible projects must be located in areas that meet at least one of the following
criteria: low per-capita income, unemployment above the national average, or an
actual or anticipated abrupt rise in unemployment.
12
GAO Water Infrastructure: 13-14.
CRS-27
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. The statutory authority for the Public
Works and Development Facilities Program is the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965, as amended, P.L. 89-136 (42 U.S.C. 3131, 3132, 3135,
3171), and Title II, P.L. 105-393 (42 U.S.C. 3211). Regulations are codified at 13
CFR Chapter III, Part 302, 305, 316, and 317. For more program information, see
Internet website: [http://12.46.245.173/ pl s / port al30/SYSTEM.
PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=11.300].