Connect

Department 

E n v i r o n m e n 

Protection Connect

Ofce of the Treasurer M

Municipal Bond Bank Maine Departm

of Environmental Protection Massachus

Water Pollution Abatement Trust Massachus

Department of Environmental Protection New Hamps

Department of Environmental Services Rhode Island Clean W

Finance Agency Rhode Island Department of Environmental Managem

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Vermont Municipal B

Bank New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Environme

Infrastructure Trust New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation New Y

Department of Environmental Conservation Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board Pu

Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environme

Control Maryland Department of the Environment Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Autho

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virg

Resources Authority West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection West Virginia Water Developm

Authority Alabama Department of Environmental Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection Geo

Environmental Facilities Authority Kentucky Infrastructure Authority Kentucky Division of Water Mississippi Departmen

Environmental Quality North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources South Carolina Department of He

and Environmental Control South Carolina Budget and Control Board Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Tenne

Comptroller of the Treasury Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana State Bud

Agency Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Michigan Municipal Bond Authority Minnesota Public Facilities Authority Minne

Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Department of Agriculture Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Ohio Water Development Authority Wiscon

artment of Natural Resources Wisconsin Department of Administration Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission Arkansas Developm

ance Authority Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality New Mexico Environment Department Oklahoma Water Resources Board Texas W

elopment Board Iowa Department of Natural Resources Iowa Finance Authority Kansas Department of Health and Environment Kansas Departmen

ministration Kansas Development Finance Authority Missouri Department of Natural Resources Missouri Environmental Improvement and Ene

ources Authority Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Nebraska Investment Finance Authority Colorado Water Resources and Po

elopment Authority Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Department of Local Affairs Montana Department of Environme

ality Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation North Dakota Department of Health North Dakota Municipal Bond Bank So

kota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Utah Department of Environmental Quality Wyoming Department of Environmental Qua

oming Ofce of State Lands and Investments Arizona Water Infrastructure Finance Authority California State Water Resources Control Board Haw

artment of Health Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Idaho Departmen

ironmental Quality Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Washington Department of Ecology Connecticut Department of Environme

tection Connecticut Ofce of the Treasurer Maine Municipal Bond Bank Maine Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Water Pollu

tement Trust Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Rhode Island Clean W

ance Agency Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Vermont Municipal B

k New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust New York State Environmental Facilities Corpora

w York Department of Environmental Conservation Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Delaw

artment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Maryland Department of the Environment Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Autho

nsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Resources Authority West Virginia Departm

Environmental Protection West Virginia Water Development Authority Alabama Department of Environmental Management Florida Departmen

ironmental Protection Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Kentucky Infrastructure Authority Kentucky Division of Water Mississippi Departm

Environmental Quality North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources South Carolina Department of Health and Environme

ntrol South Carolina Budget and Control Board Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Illin

ironmental Protection Agency Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana State Budget Agency Michigan Department of Environme

ality Michigan Municipal Bond Authority Minnesota Public Facilities Authority Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Department of Agricul

Connect

Department 

E n v i r o n m e n 

Protection Connect

Ofce of the Treasurer M

Municipal Bond Bank Maine Departm

of Environmental Protection Massachus

Water Pollution Abatement Trust Massachus

Department of Environmental Protection New Hamps

Department of Environmental Services Rhode Island Clean W

Finance Agency Rhode Island Department of Environmental Managem

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Vermont Municipal B

Bank New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Environme

Infrastructure Trust New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation New Y

Department of Environmental Conservation Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board Pu

Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environme

Control Maryland Department of the Environment Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Autho

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virg

Resources Authority West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection West Virginia Water Developm

Authority Alabama Department of Environmental Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection Geo

Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs

2006 Annual Report

Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report

For the past 20 years, the Clean Water State Revolving Funds in 50 States and Puerto Rico have 

made a unique, lasting and significant contribution to achieving and maintaining water quality 

benefits in our nation’s waters. The CWSRFs have grown to become a steady and reliable source 

of affordable financing of sustainable water infrastructure needed by communities throughout 

the country. I commend to you their Annual Report of 2006 that documents the performance 

and underscores the promising benefits of the CWSRFs.

Benjamin H. Grumbles

Assistant Administrator

Office of Water
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.



Table of Contents

CWSRF Program: Reaching Communities, Achieving Success 2

CWSRF Outreach: Enhanced Communications 4

Measuring and Communicating Environmental Benefits 7

Funding Environmental Benefits 9

State Agencies that Manage CWSRF Programs 12

CWSRF PISCES Awards: Performance and Innovation in the SRF 13

2006 PISCES Award Winners: Performance and Innovation 14

Creating Environmental Success

CWSRF 2006 Performance Highlights 16

2006 Financial Performance Overview 19

New CWSRF Initiatives for 2007 23

CWSRF At-A-Glance 24
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report



For nearly twenty years, the Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program has been a 

model of financial integrity and environmental 

success. Comprised of 51 individual state 

programs, the CWSRF has provided over $57 

billion in assistance with almost 18,000 loans 

since its inception in 1988. 2006 marks an 

important milestone in the CWSRF: it is the 

first time that over $5 billion in assistance has 

been provided in any one year.

Borrowers have benefited from billions of dollars in interest 

savings through the CWSRF program’s low-interest loans. 

Recent efforts to develop a nation-wide environmental 

benefits reporting system have helped the CWSRF program 

quantify the environmental impact of its investments. Since 

reporting began in early 2005, states have entered data on 

over 3,500 projects totaling $11.3 billion. The information 

shows that CWSRF loans are helping communities restore 

and protect aquatic wildlife, recreational uses, and drinking 

water sources. The reporting also underscores the fact that 

CWSRF assistance benefits millions of people throughout 

the United States. This 2006 Annual Report will highlight 

these advances in benefits reporting, as well as other 

accomplishments and new developments from the past year. 

Going forward, many CWSRF borrowers will have the 

opportunity to achieve even greater benefits from their loans 

through lower interest payments. In 2006, the Office of 

Water issued a statement affirming EPA’s policy on extended 

term financing for CWSRF assistance. The policy allows 

some borrowers the option to have an assistance repayment 

term that is greater than 20 years, which results in lower 

annual payments. 

In the past year, the national CWSRF program increased 

support for state CWSRF outreach efforts to ensure that 

program benefits are being effectively communicated to 

communities and others that can gain from low-cost SRF 

project financing. All state CWSRF programs conduct 

outreach to their potential borrowers, with each program 

employing techniques that are customized for its state. EPA 

is working with individual states to facilitate an exchange of 

useful communications strategies and to develop additional 

outreach tools to help states achieve their programmatic 

goals, such as attracting new borrowers and targeting 

priority environmental needs. Several of these tools have 

already been implemented by states, and EPA will track their 

effectiveness. 

The CWSRF continued to recognize outstanding 

performance and innovative strategies within the program 

with the PISCES Awards (Performance and Innovation 

in the SRF Creating Environmental Success). In 2006, 

Awards were given to individual projects for the first time; 

these projects are creative and innovative models for other 

communities to follow. 

The year 2007 will mark the 20th anniversary of the 

passage of the Clean Water Act amendments that authorized 

the CWSRF program. The CWSRF has helped thousands 

of communities throughout the United States achieve 

cleaner and healthier water. The program staff are always 

considering how to further expand the benefits of the 

CWSRF to more communities and more people. By making 

loans more affordable through extended term financing, 

promoting investment in sustainable infrastructure, and 

encouraging greater creativity in project planning and 

development, the CWSRF will remain an important 

financing tool for many years to come. 

CWSRF Program:

Reaching Communities, Achieving Success

2006 marks an 

important milestone in 

the CWSRF: it is the first 

time that over $5 billion 

in assistance has been 

provided in any one year.
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.



Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Performance Summary Statement

Statement of Fund Activity ($ Millions)

	 	 2006	 2005

Annual Fund Activity

Federal Capitalization Grants 928.5 1,355.6

State Matching Funds 223.9 209.4

New Funds Available for Assistance 4,648.4 4,209.1

Project Commitments (Executed Loan Agreements) 5,034.4 4,834.7

Project Disbursements 4,357.8 4,595.8

Cash Draws from Federal Capitalization Grants 1,064.1 1,305.7

Cumulative Fund Activity

Federal Capitalization Grants 24,180.2 23,251.6

State Matching Funds 5,049.2 4,825.3

Funds Available for Assistance 60,956.1 56,307.7

Project Commitments (Executed Loan Agreements) 57,698.1 52,663.6

Project Disbursements 49,514.1 45,156.4

Cash Draws from Federal Capitalization Grants 22,194.3 21,130.2

Source: EPA’s CWSRF National Information Management System (June 30, 2006).

Note: 2005 data were revised from the 2005 Annual Report to incorporate updated state information.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report



The Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

program has funded important water quality 

projects since 1988. SRF managers have 

implemented innovative and successful loan 

assistance options to address their states’ 

most pressing environmental and public 

health needs. Enhancing service and reaching 

out to communities with priority projects is 

an ongoing effort in the CWSRF program. 

Over the years, many states have increased 

the level of outreach they conduct and have 

implemented new approaches to providing 

information about the CWSRF program. 

Several states have recently begun new efforts 

to evaluate how their primary customers 

– local communities – perceive their state’s 

CWSRF program so they can adjust outreach 

approaches or modify assistance programs to 

meet local needs.

All 51 CWSRF programs conduct outreach to their local 

communities through websites, meetings, newsletters, or 

other methods. Many states have developed sophisticated 

and comprehensive outreach strategies in order to meet 

various goals, such as encouraging more nonpoint source 

projects, maintaining or increasing the fund utilization 

rate, or educating decision-makers about the benefits of the 

CWSRF. 

The states’ communications efforts pay off. In 2006, 

the program entered into 1,858 loans or assistance 

agreements for eligible projects, the largest number in 

CWSRF history and almost 400 more than the previous 

CWSRF Outreach:

Enhanced Communications

year. More than half of the loans or assistance agreements 

went to communities with a population below 3,500. 

Furthermore, 1,183 nonpoint source projects were funded 

in 2006. 

There can be challenges in communicating the benefits 

of the CWSRF to communities. Staff turnover at the 

community level means that outreach involves a frequent 

reeducation process. At the same time, staffing resources 

available for outreach in state CWSRF programs can be 

limited. In addition, some communities do not have the 

capacity to analyze all of their financing options. They 

may therefore choose an option that they have used in the 

past, even though it may not be the most cost-effective 

alternative. 

The greatest outreach tool is the CWSRF itself. Borrowers 

save millions of dollars in interest each year compared with 

other sources through the Fund’s below-market interest 

rates. There is also significant flexibility in the types of 

projects that can be financed with the CWSRF. In 2006, 

the Office of Water issued a statement affirming EPA’s 

policy on extended term financing for CWSRF assistance. 

The policy allows financing to extend beyond twenty years, 

making payments more affordable for many communities. 

A 2005 survey conducted by the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors found that almost 40 percent of the 414 cities 

polled used the SRF, with small and medium cities (less 

than 100,000 population) using the SRF for most or all of 

their water infrastructure projects.*

In a new effort to help states take their outreach efforts 

one step further, EPA has made itself available to assist 

states in developing outreach plans and other tools that 

may enhance their efforts. Some of the products that EPA 

is developing include: 

Communications Plans

EPA is tapping experienced communications professionals 

with expertise in state and federal environmental programs 

*Richard F. Anderson. “Major Capital Investment in Water and Wastewater 

Infrastructure: City Practices and Attitudes Concerning the State Revolving 

Fund Program.” U.S. Conference of Mayors, Mayors Water Council. 

Washington, D.C., July 25, 2006.

The greatest outreach 

tool is the CWSRF itself.
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.



to assist CWSRF programs. EPA 

will be working with at least two 

states to develop and implement 

comprehensive CWSRF outreach 

plans in 2007. Each state will begin 

by gathering information on existing 

and potential borrowers. Through 

interviews and focus groups, the state 

will learn how communities perceive 

the CWSRF program and how they 

make financing decisions. 

Armed with this information, the 

states will work with communications 

professionals to set programmatic 

goals and develop an outreach plan 

to help achieve those goals. The 

states, with EPA assistance, will 

work towards implementing the 

communications plan and monitoring 

the outcomes. 

Strategies and case studies will be 

shared with other state CWSRF 

programs, along with suggestions 

on how they may be implemented 

elsewhere. 

Financing Alternatives

Comparison Tool

EPA recently developed a financing 

calculation tool that will allow 

communities to compare the cost of 

SRF financing with other financing 

options. The Financing Alternatives 

Comparison Tool (FACT) will give 

users the flexibility to input and 

compare information for any number 

of basic financing options, including 

CWSRF, tax-exempt bonds, grant/

loan combinations, bank loans, and 

more. In addition to entering their 

financing terms and construction and 

design costs, users will be able to 

input the other expenses associated 

with each financing option, including 

legal fees, financial advisory fees, 

and reporting costs. This tool allows 

communities to compare their 

various financing options in a more 

comprehensive way than has been 

possible to date. 

Learning From CWSRF 

Programs’ Experiences

EPA is also seeking to improve 

communications across CWSRF 

programs by encouraging all staff to 

share ideas and case studies. EPA 

has launched an online message 

board (http://cwsrf.invisionzone.

com) where users can ask questions, 

share ideas and discuss issues. The 

message board is available to all 

CWSRF staff in states and EPA. In 

addition, in 2007, the CWSRF will be 

re-launching the SRF’s Up newsletter. 

Over the years, many states 

have increased the level of 

outreach they conduct and have 

implemented new approaches to 

providing information about the 

CWSRF program. 

The newsletter will provide state and 

regional CWSRF staff with regular 

updates on policy changes, case 

studies, and other useful information. 

Awards 

States and communities can use the 

PISCES Awards (Performance and 

Innovation in the SRF Creating 

Environmental Success) to publicize 

local successes and case studies, 

informing potential borrowers of 

the types of innovative projects 

that can be funded with CWSRF 

dollars. Media reports on PISCES 

Award winners also bring new 

attention to the program and its 

successes. In 2006, awards were 

given for individual projects. More 

information on the 2006 PISCES 

Awards and the winners can be found 

on page 13.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report



Outstanding Examples of State Outreach Activities

Florida: Florida’s SRF program 

holds an annual two-day workshop 

for consultants, water and 

wastewater facilities managers, 

and financial managers. The 

workshop covers SRF program 

requirements and updates, and 

provides some information on 

other financing options. Over 200 

people attended the event in 2006, 

a substantial portion of whom had 

no prior knowledge of the SRF. It 

has proven to be an effective way 

to inform community leaders and 

consultants in Florida about the 

benefits of the SRF. 

New Jersey: The New Jersey 

Environmental Infrastructure Trust 

runs a 30-second television spot on 

the state public television station, 

which is the main source for state 

government news. The Trust also 

sends all community decisionmakers information about their 

programs three times per year. 

Arizona: The Water Infrastructure 

Finance Authority staff members 

spend a large part of their time 

traveling to communities to 

discuss the SRF program. They 

also organize “large check” 

ceremonies with the state governor 

in borrower communities whenever 

possible. 

Indiana: Indiana implemented 

a nonpoint source sponsorship 

program in 2005 which provides 

borrowers with a 0.5 percent 

interest rate reduction if they 

do a nonpoint source project 

in conjunction with a public 

treatment works project. By 

spreading the word through fact 

sheets, newsletters, and meetings 

with communities and consultants, 

the state was able to make $74 

million in nonpoint source loans in 

only two years. 

Montana: In 2005, Montana’s 

SRF program produced a short 

informative and amusing video on 

the process involved in obtaining SRF 

financing. It is sent to any community 

that applies for a state planning grant. 

In the year since it was released, over 

100 copies of the videos have been 

distributed throughout the state. 

In addition, the program conducts 

three SRF workshops around the 

state each year, which draw 100 to 

150 attendees. Events are publicized 

through mailings to all public works 

directors and mayors. As a result 

of the video and workshops, the 

SRF program has found that its 

applications and projects are of higher 

quality.

Iowa: Iowa’s SRF program 

recently made the decision to assist 

communities with the environmental 

review. To inform them of this 

change and other services, the 

Department of Natural Resources 

hosted five workshops around 

the state in the fall of 2006. The 

workshops were primarily aimed at 

consulting engineers and councils 

of governments. The Iowa Finance 

Authority also runs ads in magazines 

aimed at local governments and 

utility managers. 

Michigan, Alaska: Michigan’s and 

Alaska’s SRF programs conducted 

surveys in 2006 of their current and 

potential borrowers. The survey 

results help them understand how 

the programs are perceived and how 

communities make infrastructure 

financing decisions. 

New Mexico, Texas: Both states 

have recently completed marketing 

plans, which outline programmatic 

goals and the activities to help 

achieve those goals. Some of their 

strategies include reaching out to 

non-compliant communities and 

marketing to consulting engineers. 

Pennsylvania: PENNVEST hosts a 

comprehensive website that allows 

potential borrowers to register 

for the application process and 

enter basic information about 

their system. Users can take the 

information entered and compare 

PENNVEST funding with any 

other funding scenario. The 

agency also hosts approximately 

six workshops around the state 

annually to help communities learn 

more about how they can fund 

infrastructure through PENNVEST. 

Another important outreach tool 

is a requirement for each approved 

loan recipient to attend a training 

session that details the settlement, 

draw-down, and close-out 

processes. 
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.



In recent years, the CWSRF program has 

undertaken an ambitious effort to add 

outcome-based performance information 

to its strong financial record. 2005 was a 

productive year for this effort, featuring the 

debut of a CWSRF benefits reporting system 

and a suite of environmental indicators 

for measuring water quality and public 

health effects. With the help of these tools, 

states can now demonstrate the measurable 

contributions of the CWSRF program to 

supporting Clean Water Act goals.

The benefits reporting system is the product of a 

collaborative effort between states and EPA. Although 

participation is voluntary, in 2005 all 51 states began 

tracking indicators linking CWSRF project assistance to 

environmental benefits. The indicators convey four areas 

of achievement: providing subsidy to borrowers, providing 

service to the general population, addressing water quality 

problems, and protecting and restoring waterbody uses. 

In FY 2006, states reported the preliminary results of 

these indicator measures for their CWSRF projects. The 

measures are based on water quality program data that 

are already collected through permits, standards, and 

other sources, so they present the environmental value 

Measuring & Communicating

Environmental Benefits

of the CWSRF while minimizing the reporting burden to 

states. From these reports, states and EPA can track the 

CWSRF’s progress in helping water systems meet and 

maintain compliance with Clean Water Act regulations. 

The information also allows CWSRF program managers 

to measure the effectiveness of every loan dollar used 

to protect and restore fisheries, recreational areas, and 

drinking water sources. 

The CWSRF benefits reporting system currently contains 

project-level data for almost 2,000 loans. Data fields 

connect expected water quality improvements to the 

waterbodies they affect. Users can choose from a 

customized list of designated surface water uses for the 

affected waterbodies and input the population served by 

the project. Due to its accessibility, the CWSRF benefits 

reporting system acts as a communication conduit between 

state-level program managers and EPA Regions. The 

system generates customizable reports at the state, regional 

and national level, giving program managers a strategic 

view of the ways the CWSRF program is addressing water 

quality issues. This one-screen data entry system is a 

straightforward way to track the environmental and public 

health contributions of the CWSRF program. 

The projects listed on the next page were taken from 

the CWSRF benefits reporting system to demonstrate 

how loans can be tracked in conjunction with the 

environmental and public health needs that they serve.

The information will allow CWSRF program 

managers to measure the effectiveness of every 

loan dollar used to protect and restore fisheries, 

recreational areas, and drinking water sources. 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report



n Stamford, Connecticut used a 

$73,561,481 loan at a 2 percent 

interest rate for modernization of 

a wastewater treatment facility to 

accomplish denitrification. The 

73,848 people* directly served 

by the facility are now enjoying 

the benefits of water quality 

improvement in the Stamford 

Harbor, a marine fish, shellfish 

and wildlife habitat used for 

commercial shellfish harvesting.

n New York, New York used a $32 

million CWSRF loan at 2.34 

percent interest to construct a 

facility to eliminate combined 

sewer overflows into the Paerdegat 

Basin. As a result of the project, 

more than 8 million people* will 

benefit from improved water 

quality in the Jamaica Bay Wildlife 

Refuge. 

n Worcester County, Maryland used 

a CWSRF loan for the replacement 

of lagoon aeration and lagoon 

fencing to improve water quality 

in the Chincoteague River, a 

threatened waterbody. The project 

will help preserve the river for 

recreation, aquatic life, industrial 

water supply, and agricultural 

water supply.

n In Cary, North Carolina, a 

$5,000,000 CWSRF loan at 

2.2 percent interest funded an 

Environmental Impact Statement 

and preliminary design for a 

project at Western Wake County 

Regional Water Reclamation 

Facility. The project will 

contribute to water quality 

improvement in the Cape Fear 

River, used as a Class IV and V 

water supply for the community. 

n Fortville, Indiana used a 

$1,630,000 loan at a 3.4 percent 

interest rate for sewer separation 

to reduce combined sewer 

overflows impacting the Fall Creek 

– Flatrock Creek tributaries. The 

project will serve a population of 

3,000 people* and will contribute 

to water quality improvement in 

the tributaries, used for full-body 

contact recreation and warm water 

aquatic habitat. 

n In Beebe, Arkansas, a $750,000 

CWSRF loan at 3.75 percent interest 

was used to construct interceptors 

and a new pump station to eliminate 

manhole overflows affecting the 

White River and Cypress Bayou. 

The project will contribute to 

water quality maintenance in the 

waterbodies, used for recreation and 

domestic water supply. 

n Clinton, Missouri used a CWSRF 

loan to fund a collection system 

extension and rehabilitation, as 

well as manhole rehabilitation. 

The project contributes to water 

quality improvement in the South 

Grand River, allowing the 10,050 

people* served by the project to 

continue to use the waterbody as 

a warm water fishery and drinking 

water supply. 

n In Kalispell, Montana, a $3.9 

million CWSRF loan was used to 

construct a wastewater treatment 

plant. The project will improve 

water quality in Ashley Creek 

and Flathead Lake, benefiting the 

18,400 people* who rely on the 

waterbodies for drinking water 

supply. 

n Reno, Nevada used an $11 million 

CWSRF loan to replace and 

rehabilitate sewers, benefiting 

150,000 people.* The project 

will maintain water quality in the 

Truckee River for recreation and 

aquatic life. 

n In Anchorage, Alaska, a $2 million 

dollar CWSRF loan at 1.5 percent 

interest was used to make process 

improvements at the John Asplund 

Water Pollution Control Facility. 

The project will protect the Cook 

Inlet from wastewater discharge, 

benefiting 260,000 people.* 

*Total users of utility systems where reported 

CWSRF projects occur. 

The benefits reporting system is the product of a 

collaborative effort between states and EPA.
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.



CWSRF Assistance Supports Surface Waterbody 

Designated Uses

The $11.3 billion in CWSRF loans 

reported in the environmental 

benefits effort have financed over 

3,500 projects that serve more 

than 75 million people. Over 1,300 

borrowers have used CWSRF loans 

to clean up rivers, lakes, and streams 

for swimming and fishing. In 2006 

alone, $3.7 billion in loans served 36 

million people and provided lowinterest financing to 500 borrowers. 

The following graphs show how the 

CWSRF targets a variety of impaired 

water sources in support of Clean 

Water Act goals.

Advancing Clean Water Act

Goals

The measures show that the CWSRF directly 

supports the goals of the Clean Water Act by 

restoring or protecting the beneficial uses of 

a river, lake, or stream. Over 75 percent of 

the total funding reported goes to projects 

that aim to preserve water quality for aquatic 

life, provide for water recreation, and protect 

drinking water. The CWSRF assistance used 

to protect and restore these priority uses 

– $7.6 billion for aquatic wildlife, $8.7 billion 

for recreational and aesthetic uses, and $2.2 

billion for drinking water sources – directly 

benefits the millions of people who rely on 

clean waterbodies for health and enjoyment. 

In addition to preserving surface waterbody 

uses, the CWSRF provides financial support 

for Clean Water Act goals by passing on 

interest rate savings to municipalities and 

utility customers. 

Funding Environmental Benefits

Note: Graphs represent the cumulative data submitted by states in the CWSRF benefits 

reporting system to date.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report

10

Serving the Public

In addition to serving the public through lower utility 

bills and improved wastewater services, the CWSRF 

also improves local water quality. Projects that clean up 

polluted streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries will improve 

drinking water supplies for 14 million people, preserve 

recreational waters for over 68 million, and provide for 

safer fish and shellfish consumption for 31 million.* In 

addition, more than 45 million people will enjoy protected 

and restored fish and wildlife habitats as a result of 

CWSRF projects.* Because water quality improvements 

also benefit downstream water supplies, the total 

population served by CWSRF projects is even greater than 

the numbers shown here. 

Impaired Waterbody Protection and Restoration: Population Served

CWSRF Projects Address Public Health

*Total users of the utility systems where reported CWSRF projects occur.

Note: Graph represents the cumulative data submitted by states in the CWSRF benefits reporting system to date.

Note: Graph represents the cumulative data submitted by states in the CWSRF benefits reporting system to date.
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.

11

Funding Priority Water Projects

CWSRF programs rank all project applications for funding 

according to public health and compliance criteria. The 

ranking systems, developed by the states, ensure that 

CWSRF funding goes first and foremost to projects with 

the greatest impact on human health and the environment. 

The benefits data indicate that the majority of funding is 

used to help impaired or threatened waterbodies achieve 

compliance with Clean Water Act regulations. Projects to 

improve water quality received $8.2 billion, far exceeding 

the $2.2 billion spent on projects to maintain the current 

water quality. 

CWSRF Assistance Helps Maintain and Improve Water Quality of Receiving Waterbodies

Economic Benefits

The CWSRF’s investment in water quality goes beyond 

environmental benefits to provide significant, documented 

economic benefits as well. Cleaner drinking water and 

better wastewater treatment improves the health of the 

general public, resulting in fewer sick days and increased 

productivity. The CWSRF also provides significant 

economic benefits to the cities, towns, and municipalities 

receiving low-interest loans. Because the interest rate on 

CWSRF loans is lower than the market rate, the savings 

to borrowers constitutes a substantial subsidy. According 

to the cumulative data recorded in the benefits reporting 

system to date, the CWSRF has saved borrowers more 

than $3.7 billion in interest costs. In 2006 alone, the 

CWSRF provided almost $1.3 billion in interest subsidies 

to help borrowers improve their water resources at an 

affordable cost. In addition, the CWSRF aids economically 

disadvantaged communities through flexible financing 

options such as zero percent interest rates and extended 

financing terms.

Note: Graph represents the cumulative data submitted by states in the CWSRF benefits reporting system to date.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report

12

State Agencies that

Manage CWSRF Programs

EPA Region 1 – Boston, Massachusetts

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

Connecticut Office of the Treasurer

Maine Municipal Bond Bank

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

Vermont Municipal Bond Bank

EPA Region 2 – New York, New York

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust

New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation

New York Department of Environmental Conservation

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board

Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority

EPA Region 3 – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Maryland Department of the Environment

Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Virginia Resources Authority

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

West Virginia Water Development Authority

EPA Region 4 – Atlanta, Georgia

Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority

Kentucky Infrastructure Authority

Kentucky Division of Water

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

South Carolina Budget and Control Board

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury

EPA Region 5 – Chicago, Illinois

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Indiana State Budget Agency

Indiana Finance Authority 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Michigan Municipal Bond Authority

Minnesota Public Facilities Authority

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Minnesota Department of Agriculture

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Ohio Water Development Authority

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin Department of Administration

EPA Region 6 – Dallas, Texas

Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission

Arkansas Development Finance Authority

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

New Mexico Environment Department

Oklahoma Water Resources Board

Texas Water Development Board

EPA Region 7 – Kansas City, Missouri

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa Finance Authority

Kansas Department of Health and Environment

Kansas Department of Administration

Kansas Rural Water Finance Authority

Kansas Development Finance Authority

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Missouri Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources 

Authority

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

Nebraska Investment Finance Authority

EPA Region 8 – Denver, Colorado

Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Colorado Department of Local Affairs

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

North Dakota Department of Health

North Dakota Public Finance Authority

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments

EPA Region 9 – San Francisco, California

Arizona Water Infrastructure Finance Authority

California State Water Resources Control Board

Hawaii Department of Health

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

EPA Region 10 – Seattle, Washington

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Washington Department of Ecology
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.

13

CWSRF PISCES Awards:

Performance and Innovation in the SRF

As a flexible and reliable municipal finance 

tool, the CWSRF program provides an 

opportunity for borrowers to pursue creative 

nonpoint source and wastewater infrastructure 

projects. In 2005, the inaugural PISCES 

Awards (Performance and Innovation in 

the SRF Creating Environmental Success) 

recognized one state in each EPA Region 

where project managers had best exemplified 

the potential of the CWSRF program through 

effective and innovative program management. 

The 2006 PISCES Awards highlight 

organizations and civic bodies that have used 

their expertise in planning, management, and 

financing to successfully further EPA water 

quality protection goals. The important work 

demonstrated by award winners is vital for 

reconciling the mounting challenges of water 

infrastructure funding with ever-pressing state 

and local needs. 

In addition to recognizing the performance and ingenuity 

of featured borrowers, the PISCES Awards act as a 

showcase for innovative uses of the CWSRF program. 

The CWSRF has financed many projects to improve the 

sustainability of wastewater infrastructure and improve the 

environmental health, recreational resources, and economic 

well-being of cities, towns, and municipalities across the 

country. The 2006 PISCES Awards honor borrowers who 

have used CWSRF funds to go above and beyond what 

has been achieved in the past. By providing a forum for 

pioneering practices to be shared, the PISCES Awards 

encourage standard infrastructure financing practices to 

evolve to a new level of efficiency. 

In 2006, states identified a total of 30 outstanding 

borrowers to receive the Second Annual PISCES Awards. 

Each state had the opportunity to nominate a borrower 

that demonstrated high-quality performance, financial 

integrity, and Clean Water Act compliance. Each nominee 

was also required to demonstrate outstanding performance 

in at least one of the following four areas: innovation in 

financing, innovative approach to project implementation, 

creative use of partnerships, and promotion of sustainable 

infrastructure. 

The 30 recipients of the 2006 PISCES Awards are 

exemplary models of resourcefulness and vision in the 

CWSRF program. Winners were recognized at the 

national meeting of the Council of Infrastructure Financing 

Authorities (CIFA) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 

November 2006. 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report

14

Region 10

n Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, AK: 

Constructed a remote supervision facility to ensure 

proper operation of unsupervised facilities

n Farmers Irrigation District, Hood River, OR: 

Implemented a multifaceted sustainability plan that 

improved flow in the Hood River and increased 

hydroelectricity generation

n LOTT Wastewater Alliance, Olympia, WA: 

Coordinated the cities of Lacey, Olympia, and 

Tumwater to create a wastewater resources 

treatment plan

Region 8

n Fort Collins, CO: Upgraded the city’s stormwater 

system using innovative methods and materials 

while retaining much of the original system

n Missoula, MT: Converted a sludge treatment 

system to a biological nutrient removal process, 

reducing nitrogen and phosphorus loading

n Pickerel Lake Sanitary District, Grenville, SD: 

Constructed a septic tank effluent pump collection 

system and artificial wetland treatment system 

n Cheyenne, WY: Renovated and upgraded water 

reclamation facilities, allowing the reclaimed water 

to be used for land applications

Region 9

n The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA: 

Purchased and conserved three watershed 

properties, protecting the land from overgrazing 

and urban encroachment

n Bullhead City, AZ: Completed the third phase 

of a city-wide sewering project, preventing 

contamination to the Colorado River

n Maui Department of Public Works and 

Environmental Management, HI: Installed new 

force main pumps and modified wastewater pump 

stations

n Washoe County, NV: Collaborated with Reno and 

Sparks to purchase water rights to a river and lake, 

and dedicate the water to instream flows

Region 6

n Henderson, LA: Constructed a wastewater 

treatment and collection system with $25/month set 

fees for this previously unsewered community

n Rio Rancho, NM: Upgraded the city’s wastewater 

treatment plant and implemented a water resources 

management plan to promote conservation

n Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority, OK: 

Rehabilitated the sewage system to correct illegal 

discharges and eliminate excess flows

n High Island Independent School District, Galveston 

County, TX: Replaced inadequate septic systems 

with a low pressure pump station and wetlands 

treatment system

n The Nature Conservancy, Little Rock, AR: 

Purchased 4,361 acres of wetlands, then restored, 

reforested and sold the property to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.

15

Region 1

n Greenville Estates Village District, NH: Replaced 

failing septic systems with a sewer collection and 

pumping system

Region 2

n Atlantic County Utilities Authority, NJ: 

Implemented a photovoltaic generation system to 

produce electricity at the wastewater treatment 

facility

Region 5

n Evanston, IL: Eliminated combined sewer 

overflows by building capacity to access an existing 

reclamation plant

n West Lafayette, IN: Modified a wastewater 

treatment plant to treat fats, oils, and grease, 

generating methane for electricity

n Dearborn, MI: Used a treatment shaft design to 

treat and divert combined sewer overflows at 

seventeen outfalls along the Rouge River

n Bayfield and Pike’s Bay Sanitary District, WI: Built 

a joint wastewater treatment facility that discharges 

70 percent fewer pollutants than typical plants

Region 3

n Rockville, MD: Enhanced and restored existing 

wetlands to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the 

Chesapeake Bay

n Lynchburg, VA: Used sewer separation, rainleader 

disconnection, and interceptor replacement to 

reduce combined sewer overflows

n AMD Reclamation, Dunkard Township, PA: Built 

an acid mine drainage treatment facility and outfall 

sewer, protecting surface water from raw mine 

discharge

Region 4

n Holloway Technology Inc., Leesburg, FL: 

Developed a process for large-scale plant irrigation 

that uses 20 percent less water than conventional 

methods

n Hartselle Utilities, Hartselle, AL: Initiated an 

inflow/outflow mitigation program that has reduced 

flows by over 20 percent and eliminated sanitary 

sewer overflows

n Jumpertown, MS: Constructed a collection system, 

lift station, pump station, and treatment facilities in 

this previously unsewered community

n Wilson, NC: Created a water reclamation system 

and improved the city’s solids processing, reducing 

land application costs by 30 percent

2006 PISCES Award Winners: 

Performance and Innovation Creating Environmental Success
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report

16

CWSRF 2006 Performance Highlights

A Growing Source of Project

Financing

In 2006, the CWSRF program funded $5 billion in 

projects, raising cumulative assistance to nearly $58 

billion. The program provides financing to approximately 

10 to 20 percent of the nation’s annual wastewater capital 

projects (muncipalities, states, and other federal programs 

provide the remaining funding).

CWSRFs Fund $57.7 Billion in Clean Water Needs through 2006

CWSRF Cumulative Assistance Reaches $57.7 Billion in 2006

POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Works CSO: Combined Sewer Overflow SSO: Sanitary Sewer Overflow

Funding Critical Projects

In 2006, the CWSRF continued to fund a broad range 

of projects. Wastewater system projects accounted for 

96 percent of the total funding. While nonpoint source 

projects accounted for just 4 percent of total funding, they 

received over $370 million in 2006, an increase of almost 

$138 million from 2005.
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.

17

Serving All Communities

Since its inception, the CWSRF program has provided 

substantial funding to many small and medium-sized 

communities. In 2006, 56 percent of all assistance 

agreements went to communities with populations of 

3,500 or fewer, and over $1 billion went to communities 

with fewer than 10,000 people.

Communities Served by CWSRFs in 2006

CWSRF Loans Save Communities 20 Percent (2006 Average)

CWSRF Loans Save Communities 20 

Percent on Average

According to a popular municipal borrowing index, the 

average municipal borrowing rate was 4.5 percent in 2006. 

The average CWSRF interest rate available for eligible 

loans was 2.0 percent. The typical cost savings realized 

by CWSRF borrowers represented a 20 percent savings on 

financing costs.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report

18

High Return on Federal Investment

The ratio of CWSRF project disbursements (i.e., total 

cash out to pay invoices) compared to federal outlays for 

projects (cash drawn from federal funds) is a measure 

of return on the federal investment to date. Currently, 

the rate of return is 2.23, higher than the 2005 rate of 

2.14 and the 2004 rate of 2.05. The return on federal 

investment is growing and will continue to grow due to the 

revolving nature of the program. 

The CWSRF Maintains a Strong Rate

of Fund Utilization

Due to below-market interest rates and flexible financing 

options, CWSRF funding continues to be in high demand. 

As of 2006, 95 percent of all available funds were 

committed to new projects. This efficient rate of fund 

utilization is one reason the return on federal investment 

will continue to grow over time. 

CWSRFs Return 2.23 Times the Federal Investment as of 2006

95 Percent of CWSRF Funds Committed to Projects as of 2006
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.

19

2006 Financial Performance

Overview

The Clean Water Act requires an annual 

financial audit of the 51 state-level CWSRF 

programs. Each state and Puerto Rico 

conducts these audits according to the 

generally accepted auditing standards 

established by the Governmental Accounting 

Standards Board (GASB). States often define 

their CWSRF programs as ongoing enterprise 

funds under the GASB definitions of funds. 

The standardized financial statements used for 

CWSRF programs include the following:

Statement of Net Assets

This statement describes a fund’s assets and liabilities 

through the end of the fiscal year. Assets include financial 

assets and capital assets; liabilities include both current 

and long-term liabilities. CWSRF fund assets include grant 

funds that have been drawn from the federal treasury to 

date, but do not include total grant awards. 

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Earnings

This statement describes the overall performance of the 

CWSRF fund over the reporting period. 

Statement of Cash Flows

This statement provides a detailed accounting of the actual 

flow of cash into and out of the CWSRF fund. 

Because the 51 constituent CWSRF programs are 

independent state-level entities, no nationally audited 

CWSRF program financial reports are available. However, 

using EPA’s National Information Management System, 

national aggregate financial statements have been 

developed and are included in the following pages. The 

statements are best viewed as non-audited, cash flow-based 

financial reports. 

Financial Statement Highlights

n Total assets increased by $3.2 billion, a 6.7 percent 

increase from 2005. 

n CWSRF program equity (net assets) totals $30.1 

billion, a 6.4 percent increase from 2005. 

n Total program revenues exceeded expenses by 

$1.8 billion, with interest earnings from loans and 

investments totaling over $1.6 billion. 

n Loan principal repayments to the CWSRF were 

nearly $2 billion.

n Leveraged bond proceeds added more than $2.2 

billion to program cash flow. 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report

20

Net Worth of the CWSRF is Increasing as Net Assets Grow Faster than Liabilities

Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Performance Summary Statement

Statement of Net Assets ($ Millions)

	 	 2006	 2005

Assets

Cash and Cash Equivalents 9,525.3 9,263.8

Debt Service Reserve - Leveraged Bonds 6,734.1 6,191.3

Loans Outstanding 34,314.3 31,939.9

Unamortized Bond Issuance Expenses 286.4 277.7

Total Assets 50,860.1 47,672.7

Liabilities

Match Bonds Outstanding 624.0 668.2

Leveraged Bonds Outstanding 20,122.8 18,700.4

Total Liabilities 20,746.9 19,368.6

Net Assets

Federal Contributions 22,194.3 21,130.2

State Contributions 3,811.9 3,654.8

Transfers of Non-Federal Funds from (to) DWSRF (374.1) (354.8)

Other Net Assets 4,481.2 3,873.8

Total Net Assets 30,113.2 28,304.0

Total Liabilities and Net Assets	 50,860.1	 47,672.7

Note: Under GASB 34 rules, “equity” is termed “net assets,” and is defined as the difference between assets and liabilities. 

Statement presents a compilation of reporting from 51 state programs and is not audited.

Sum of individual values may not exactly equal the total due to rounding error.

2005 data were revised from the 2005 Annual Report to incorporate updated state information.

Source: EPA’s CWSRF National Information Management System (June 30, 2006). 
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.

21

Interest Comprises over One Half of CWSRF Revenues

Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Performance Summary Statement

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Earnings ($ Millions)

	 	 2006	 2005

Operating Revenues

Interest on Investments 749.5 585.3

Interest on Loans 901.6 858.1

Total Operating Revenues 1,651.1 1,443.4

 

Operating Expenses	

Bond Interest Expenses 935.0 911.6

CWSRF Funds Used for Refunding 54.1 2.5

Amortized Bond Issuance Expenses 13.9 13.4

Administrative Expenses 40.7 42.6

Total Expenses 1,043.7 970.0

Nonoperating Revenues and Expenses	

Federal Contribution 1,064.1 1,305.7

State Contributions 157.0 144.9

Transfers from (to) DWSRF (19.3) (44.7)

Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 1,201.8 1,405.9

Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets 1,809.2 1,879.3

Net Assets	

Beginning of Year 28,304.0 26,424.7

End of Year 30,113.2 28,304.0

Note: Statement presents a compilation of reporting from 51 state programs and is not audited.

Sum of individual values may not exactly equal the total due to rounding error.

2005 data were revised from the 2005 Annual Report to incorporate updated state information.

Source: EPA’s CWSRF National Information Management System (June 30, 2006).
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report

22

Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Performance Summary Statement

Statement of Cash Flows ($ Millions)

	 	 2006	 2005

Cash Flows from Operating Activities	

Cash Draws from Federal Capitalization Grants 1,064.1 1,305.7

Contributions from States 157.0 144.9

Loan Disbursements Made to Borrowers (4,357.8) (4,595.8)

Loan Principal Repayments 1,983.4 1,824.1

Interest Received on Loans 901.6 858.1

Administrative Expenses (40.7) (42.6)

Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities (292.5) (505.5)

Cash Flows from Noncapital Financing Activities	

Gross Leveraged Bond Proceeds 2,235.0 1,645.1

Bond Issuance Expense (22.5) (23.7)

State Match Bond Proceeds 66.8 64.5

Cash Received from Transfers with DWSRF (19.3) (44.7)

Interest Paid on Leveraged and State Match Bonds (935.0) (911.6)

CWSRF Funds Used for Refunding (54.1) (2.5)

Principal Repayment of Leveraged Bonds (812.5) (807.7)

Principal Repayment of State Match Bonds (111.0) (74.8)

Net Cash Provided by Noncapital Financing Activities 347.3 (155.4)

Cash Flows from Capital and Related Financing Activities 0.0 0.0

Cash Flows from Investing Activities	

Interest Received on Investments 749.5 585.3

Deposits to Debt Service Reserve for Leveraged Bonds (542.9) (323.2)

Net Cash Provided by Investing Activities 206.7 262.2

Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents 261.5 (398.7)

Beginning Balance - Cash and Cash Equivalents 9,263.8 9,662.6

Ending Balance - Cash and Cash Equivalents 9,525.3 9,263.8

Note: Statement presents a compilation of reporting from 51 state programs and is not audited.

Sum of individual values may not exactly equal the total due to rounding error.

2005 data were revised from the 2005 Annual Report to incorporate updated state information.

Source: EPA’s CWSRF National Information Management System (June 30, 2006). 
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.

23

New CWSRF Initiatives

for 2007

In 2007, EPA will continue its efforts to 

report on environmental results, enhance 

state outreach techniques, recognize the most 

innovative and effective CWSRF programs and 

borrowers, and conduct training events for 

program staff. In addition to continuing these 

efforts, EPA has several new initiatives planned 

for the CWSRF program. 

Paying for Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Conference

EPA’s Paying for Sustainable Water Infrastructure 

Conference, scheduled to be held in Atlanta, Georgia 

in March 2007, will bring together stakeholders from 

all levels of government and the private sector to 

explore creative methods to pay for sustainable water 

infrastructure today and into the future. The Conference 

will address the challenge of integrating the many 

diverse tools and strategies to pay for sustainable water 

infrastructure. 

Participants will discuss these issues with leaders and peers 

in the four tracks: 

n Sustainable water infrastructure

n State and local innovations

n Federal roles in water infrastructure innovation

n International innovations in finance, technologies, and 

management 

Reporting Environmental Benefits in WATERS

WATERS is a tool on EPA’s website that gathers water 

quality information from various EPA Office of Water 

programs, including nutrient criteria, water quality 

standards, and impaired waters. It can display this 

information with maps, through the EnviroMapper 

program, or reports, using queries in AskWATERS. 

In 2007, EPA will begin uploading the data from the 

environmental benefits reporting database (described 

previously in this report) to the WATERS database. EPA will 

work with the states to develop queries, graphs, and tables 

that would be most useful to them. Users can run these 

queries to generate reports in AskWATERS. These reports 

will showcase the environmental benefits of the CWSRF to 

stakeholders, and allow states and EPA to incorporate data 

from other EPA programs into CWSRF reports. 

CWSRF Financial Accreditation Program

One of the major responsibilities of SRF personnel is 

ensuring proper financial management oversight of the 

SRF programs in their states. To aid in this important task, 

EPA Headquarters is developing a financial accreditation 

program for SRF staff members. 

The accreditation program will be a self-directed 

study program to enhance knowledge of the financial 

requirements of the SRF and financial management 

practices commonly found in the municipal finance 

industry. Participation will be voluntary and open to all 

EPA and state staff who work on SRF programs. 

The program will consist of an open book comprehensive 

exam with topics ranging from basic SRF financial 

management to more advanced financial areas. A fact sheet 

will provide individuals with a concise list of topics that 

will be covered in the exam and a list of relevant resources 

needed for study. A reference guide will also be provided, 

which will catalog outside educational resources, such as 

professional certification programs and continuing education 

courses. The accreditation program will be an important 

resource for individuals seeking to increase their knowledge 

of financial analysis and management in the SRF programs. 

SRF Online Discussion Forum

As discussed previously, the CWSRF has launched an 

online message board where SRF staff around the country 

can post announcements, ask questions, and discuss 

important issues. The forum is a valuable tool to increase 

communication between SRF staff in different states and 

EPA Regions who may not have many opportunities to 

interact with one another on a daily basis. In 2007, the 

CWSRF will continue to promote the discussion forum as 

an important management and communication tool. 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs / 2006 Annual Report

24

CWSRF At-A-Glance

Funds Available for Projects (Billions of Dollars)

	 	 2006	 1988-2006

Total Funds $4.6 $61.0 

Federal Cap Grants 0.93 24.2 

State Match 0.22 5.0 

Net Leveraged Bonds 1.82 19.0 

Net Loan Principal Repaid 1.17 9.1 

Net Interest Earnings 0.56 4.9 

Net Transfers with DWSRF (0.01) (0.4)

Less Adminsitration (0.04) (1.0)

Return on Federal Investment = 2.23 Times

SRF Assistance as Percent of Funds Available = 95 

Percent

Interest Rate in 2006 = 2 Percent (Market = 4.5 Percent)

27 States Leverage; 20 Issue Match Bonds

39 States Fund Nonpoint Source Projects

30 States Use Integrated Planning and Priority Setting 

Systems

40 States Fund Separate Grant / Loan Programs

Assistance Provided to Projects

	 	 2006	 1988-2006

Total, Project Type $5.0 $57.7 

(Billions of Dollars)

Wastewater Treatment 4.7 54.6

Nonpoint Source 0.37 2.4

Not Classified 0 0.7

 

Total, Population Served $5.0 $57.7 

(Billions of Dollars)

< 3,500 0.5 5.9

3,500 - 9,999 0.57 7.1

10,000 - 99,999 1.75 19.3

100,000 and Above 2.22 25.3

 

Total, Population Served 1,858 18,611

(Number of Loans)

< 3,500 1,039 8,995

3,500 - 9,999 303 2,950

10,000 - 99,999 371 4,668

100,000 and Above 145 1,998
Reaching Communities, Achieving Success.

For more information about the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, please contact: 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund Branch

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

(Mailcode 4204M)

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: (202) 564-0752

Fax: (202) 501-2403

Internet: www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
Connect

Department 

E n v i r o n m e n 

Protection Connect

Office of the Treasurer M

Municipal Bond Bank Maine Departm

of Environmental Protection Massachus

Water Pollution Abatement Trust Massachus

Department of Environmental Protection New Hamps

Department of Environmental Services Rhode Island Clean W

Finance Agency Rhode Island Department of Environmental Managem

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Vermont Municipal B

Bank New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Environme

Infrastructure Trust New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation New Y

Department of Environmental Conservation Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board Pu

Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environme

Control Maryland Department of the Environment Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Autho

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virg

Resources Authority West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection West Virginia Water Developm

Authority Alabama Department of Environmental Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection Geo

Environmental Facilities Authority Kentucky Infrastructure Authority Kentucky Division of Water Mississippi Departmen

Environmental Quality North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources South Carolina Department of He

and Environmental Control South Carolina Budget and Control Board Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Tenne

Comptroller of the Treasury Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana State Bud

Agency Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Michigan Municipal Bond Authority Minnesota Public Facilities Authority Minne

Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Department of Agriculture Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Ohio Water Development Authority Wiscon

artment of Natural Resources Wisconsin Department of Administration Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission Arkansas Developm

ance Authority Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality New Mexico Environment Department Oklahoma Water Resources Board Texas W

elopment Board Iowa Department of Natural Resources Iowa Finance Authority Kansas Department of Health and Environment Kansas Departmen

ministration Kansas Development Finance Authority Missouri Department of Natural Resources Missouri Environmental Improvement and Ene

ources Authority Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Nebraska Investment Finance Authority Colorado Water Resources and Po

elopment Authority Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Department of Local Affairs Montana Department of Environme

ality Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation North Dakota Department of Health North Dakota Municipal Bond Bank So

kota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Utah Department of Environmental Quality Wyoming Department of Environmental Qua

oming Office of State Lands and Investments Arizona Water Infrastructure Finance Authority California State Water Resources Control Board Haw

artment of Health Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Idaho Departmen

ironmental Quality Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Washington Department of Ecology Connecticut Department of Environme

tection Connecticut Office of the Treasurer Maine Municipal Bond Bank Maine Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Water Pollu

tement Trust Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Rhode Island Clean W

ance Agency Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Vermont Municipal B

k New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust New York State Environmental Facilities Corpora

w York Department of Environmental Conservation Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Delaw

artment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Maryland Department of the Environment Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Autho

nsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Resources Authority West Virginia Departm

Environmental Protection West Virginia Water Development Authority Alabama Department of Environmental Management Florida Departmen

ironmental Protection Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Kentucky Infrastructure Authority Kentucky Division of Water Mississippi Departm

Environmental Quality North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources South Carolina Department of Health and Environme

ntrol South Carolina Budget and Control Board Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Illin

ironmental Protection Agency Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana State Budget Agency Michigan Department of Environme

ality Michigan Municipal Bond Authority Minnesota Public Facilities Authority Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Department of Agricul

Office of Water | March 2007 | EPA-832-R-07-001