Handbook on Coordinating 

Funding for Water and 

Wastewater Infrastructure 

A Compilation of State Approaches 
Office of Water (4606M)


EPA 816-R-03-018


October 2003


www.epa.gov/ow Printed on Recycled Paper

Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

WHAT IS COORDINATED FUNDING? .............................................................................................. 5

WHAT FUNDING SOURCES CAN BE COORDINATED? ...................................................................... 7

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF COORDINATED FUNDING? ............................................................. 11

HOW CAN YOU GET STARTED? .................................................................................................. 13

WHAT CHALLENGES SHOULD YOU CONSIDER? ........................................................................... 15

HOW CAN YOU OVERCOME THE CHALLENGES AND IMPLEMENT YOUR APPROACH? .................. 17

HOW CAN YOU ASSESS YOUR EFFORTS? ..................................................................................... 21

APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES ........................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES .................................................. B-1

APPENDIX C: STATE COORDINATED FUNDING OVERVIEW ........................................................ C-1

i
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATED FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

ii
Introduction

S

tates and the federal government have funded billions of dollars’ worth of improvements to drinking 

water and wastewater infrastructure. Even so, drinking water and wastewater utilities across the 

country still need to significantly increase their investments to upgrade aging and deteriorating 

capital assets. In response to this need, utilities, states, and the federal government have recognized the 

importance of making financial assistance easier to obtain. Many states have established approaches to 

coordinate funding (see Appendix C). Because there are numerous ways to coordinate funding, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) surveyed six states – Arizona, California, Montana, New York, 

Pennsylvania, and Washington – to identify the keys to the success of their coordinated funding approaches (see Appendix A). This handbook presents the lessons learned by these states so that other 

states may understand the benefits and challenges of coordinating funding efforts. 

The Need For Funding 

Over the past several years, several studies have highlighted the need for substantial investment in the 

nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Estimates of the cost of this investment vary, but 

EPA’s Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis1 estimated that the capital needs for clean 

water from 2000-2019 will approach $388 billion, and the capital needs for drinking water during the same 

period will be almost $274 billion. Given the significant size of this investment, the need for coordination 

among funding assistance programs to get the biggest “bang for the buck” has never been greater. 

Although most water infrastructure funding comes from user fees, state and federal aid compose a significant portion of the nation’s water infrastructure investment. From fiscal year (FY) 1991 through FY 

2000, nine federal agencies made available approximately $44 billion for drinking water and wastewater 

capital improvements.

2 Four of the agencies – EPA, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Commerce – accounted for 98 

percent of this funding, as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1: Federal Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Funding Sources 

1

1

 U.S. EPA Office of Water, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, EPA-816-R-02-020, September 2002. 

2

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Financial Assistance for Water Infrastructure, GAO-02-134, November 2001. 

A gency F unding Program A cronym % of Fed. Funding

E PA

C lean Water State Revolving Fund C WSR

5 7

D rinking Water State Revolving Fund D WSR

U SDA R ural Utilities Servic R U 2 

H UD C ommunity Development Block Gran C DB 1 

C ommerce E conomic Development Administratio E D

F

F

e S 8

t G 0

n A 3 
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

2

EPA provides the majority of the water and wastewater infrastructure funding from these four 

agencies. wever, most of the assistance from HUD and all of the assistance from RUS specifically 

target disadvantaged systems, rural utilities, or other communities in need of financial and technical 

assistance. 

infrastructure of systems most in need of guidance – those that may not be aware of, or have the 

resources to apply for, funding assistance. 

$1.1 billion over the last ten fiscal years, was provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, and the Small Business Administration. 

Over the past ten fiscal years, state governments provided nearly $25 billion for utilities to invest in 

water infrastructure.

3 The primary sources of state funding were legislative appropriations, dedicated fees and taxes, and proceeds from the sale of general obligation and revenue bonds. y 

states allocated additional funds to provide financing through other state-sponsored programs. The 

General Accounting Office (GAO) identified 120 such programs in 46 states that provide funding for 

drinking water or wastewater infrastructure projects.

4 

The Need to Coordinate 

Clearly, there are many federal and state funding programs. These programs vary in the type and 

amount of assistance they provide, the requirements they set for recipients, their application processes, their funding schedules, and their goals. rams focus on public health and environmental protection, some on small systems, and others on economic development. 

network of available state and federal funding sources can be time consuming, confusing, and overwhelming for water systems, particularly small systems that often need help the most. 

Recognizing the need to coordinate funding at the federal level, in 1997 EPA, HUD, and USDA 

issued a joint memorandum on “Cooperation and Coordination on Jointly Financed Water and Wastewater Activities” to encourage cooperation among federal, state, and local drinking water and wastewater infrastructure-funding agencies (see page 8 for more information). eral states have already 

been successful at efforts to coordinate funding at the state level. 

positioned to understand, address, and prioritize the needs and challenges of water and wastewater 

utilities within their borders. Therefore, state funding programs can coordinate with a focus on 

alleviating the specific burdens faced by their utilities. , efforts at the state level, where 

programs are implemented, will determine the success of coordinated funding. eady have 

the power, tools, and flexibility to coordinate their infrastructure assistance efforts. As the case 

studies in this handbook show, this potential has already been realized by many states. 

Efforts to coordinate funding can enhance communication between, and reduce administrative work 

for, the funding agencies. een state and federal agencies can result in competition and duplication of effort, wasting the limited resources (such as staff time) of utilities and 

funding agencies. tion at the state and federal levels and increased communication between 

state and federal agencies benefit those seeking assistance and those providing assistance. 

3

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Financial Assistance for Water Infrastructure. 4

 Ibid. 

Ho

Funding from HUD and RUS is critical to building, improving, and maintaining the 

The federal assistance not provided by the four agencies, 

Man

Some prog

Navigating the 

Sev

State programs are often best 

Ultimately

States alr

Limited interaction betw

Coordina
INTRODUCTION 

Using this Handbook 

This handbook provides information for states that are just beginning to coordinate and offers ideas 

for states that have already implemented some form of coordinated funding. It first discusses the 

elements of coordinated funding, the reasons to coordinate funding, and the benefits of coordinated 

funding. The handbook also presents the approaches of six states that have successfully coordinated 

drinking water and wastewater infrastructure-funding programs. Based on the lessons learned from 

these six states, the handbook answers the following questions: 

• How Can You Get Started? 

• What Challenges Should You Consider? 

• How Can You Overcome the Challenges and Implement Your Approach? 

• How Can You Assess Your Efforts? 

The six states featured in this handbook completed detailed surveys on their coordinated funding 

efforts, which are included in Appendix A. Sample coordinating documents for the six states surveyed, including a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a pre-application screening form, can 

be found in Appendix B. Appendix C includes a summary of the coordinated funding efforts of all 

states. 

3
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

4
WHAT IS COORDINATED FUNDING? 

What is Coordinated 

Funding? 

C oordinated funding is a means of improving public health and environmental quality by: 

• Simplifying drinking water and wastewater utilities’ search for funding. 

• Improving the match between available assistance and a system’s specific needs. 

• Enhancing communication among water infrastructure-funding agencies. 

• Creating a simplified, less redundant review process. 

What Forms Can Coordinated Funding Take? 

States can choose from a wide range of coordinated funding strategies tailored to best suit the needs 

of their funding agencies and of their drinking water and wastewater systems. Coordinated funding 

may evolve from a series of informal meetings into more formalized coordination, as was the case in 

Arizona, Montana, and Washington. Coordinated funding efforts can target utilities that need additional assistance, as was done in California, or they can address funding needs state-wide, regardless 

of an applicant’s location, size, or financial condition, as happened in Arizona. The advice from 

states that have attempted coordinated funding is: Don’t be afraid to start small. 

Figure 2: Coordinating Funding Spectrum 

5

Identify Applicants 

Application Process 

Review Applications 

Award Funding 

Funding Fairs & Websites 

Coordinated Technical 

Assistance 

Informal Review Meetings 

Share Project Information 

One-stop Meetings 

Screening Form 

Regular Review Meetings 

Coordinate Requirements 

Informal
Figure 2 shows examples of the forms that a coordinated funding program can take, from informal 

cooperation to formal coordination. Funding agencies can work together to develop programs that 

coordinate at any point in the assistance process. However, funding should be coordinated at a point 

that suits the circumstances of each state or agency. If the funding agencies in your state generally 

do not communicate with each other, your best strategy may be to start gradually with a carefully 

planned process. As the goals of agencies harmonize, the level of coordination can increase. 

The forms of coordinated funding employed by the six states surveyed for this handbook cover a 

broad spectrum, as shown in Figure 3. Several of the states, including Arizona and Montana, have 

integrated many aspects of all the major funding agencies. On the other hand, Pennsylvania’s effort 

primarily involves informal cooperation among agencies, except for the uniform environmental 

review (UER), which is formally coordinated. Information on the survey responses of each state is 

provided in Appendix A. 

Figure 3: Coordinated Funding Approaches from Surveyed States 

S tate

O ne-Stop

M eetings or

S creening

T echnical

A ssistance

M OU/

M OA

J oint

E nvironmental

R eviews

R egular

P roject

R eview

M eetings

F unding

F airs or

E vents W ebsite

U niform

A pplication

A Z

C A

M T

N Y

P A

W A

6
What Funding 

Sources Can be 

Coordinated? 

A s noted previously, there are many federal and state drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure funding programs. The primary federal drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure funding sources are described below. Figure 4 summarizes the characteristics 

of the primary federal funding sources. 

EPA’s DWSRF. Established by the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA), the DWSRF provides capitalization grants to states.

States must match 20 percent of their annual capitalization grants. State

DWSRF programs provide low-interest loans or other assistance to public

water systems to finance infrastructure projects needed to maintain or

achieve compliance with the SDWA. As of June 30, 2002, the DWSRF

program had provided water systems with $5.1 billion to fund more than

2,500 eligible projects. The FY 2003 federal appropriation for state capitalization grants totaled $844.5 million.

www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html

EPA’s CWSRF. Authorized by the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water 

Act (CWA), the CWSRF provides capitalization grants to states. States must 

match 20 percent of their annual capitalization grants. State CWSRF programs provide low-interest loans or other assistance to publicly owned wastewater systems and nonpoint source pollution control and estuary management 

projects. As of June 30, 2002, the CWSRF program had financed 12,500 

wastewater treatment, nonpoint source, and estuary management projects 

totalling over $38.7 billion. The FY 2003 federal appropriation for state 

capitalization grants totaled $1.34 billion. 

www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm 

USDA’s RUS. RUS provides infrastructure assistance for rural drinking 

water and wastewater utilities through leadership, financial assistance, and 

technical guidance. Its Water Programs Division (under the Water and Environmental Programs) administers four grant and loan programs for the development of safe and affordable water supply systems, sewage systems, and 

other waste disposal facilities. In FY 2002, the Division awarded close to 

$2.1 billion in direct or guaranteed loans and grants to rural communities for 

the development of drinking water and waste disposal facilities. Between 

7
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

1985 and 2002, RUS water and wastewater obligations exceeded $17.4

billion. Approximately $1.3 billion in assistance was made available in FY

2003.

www.usda.gov/rus/index.html

HUD’s CDBGs. Since 1981, HUD has distributed block grants directly to 

entitlement communities and to states for distribution to non-entitlement 

communities, which include cities with populations of fewer than 50,000 

and counties with populations of fewer than 200,000. Of the 50 states, 

only Hawaii does not participate. HUD aims to provide decent housing, 

healthy living conditions, and economic opportunities primarily for lower 

income communities. Projects funded by block grants must either benefit 

lower income people or help prevent or eliminate “slums and blight.” Systems have used assistance from block grants to meet state and federal 

regulations by developing new water sources, improving treatment, replacing 

distribution system pipes, and taking other actions. Between FY 1985 and 

FY 2001, HUD allocated over $62.8 billion in block grants to non-entitlement and entitlement communities. In FY 2002, allocations totaled more 

than $4.3 billion. Entitlement communities spent about 1.7 percent ($63.7 

million) of their FY 2002 block grants on drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure improvements, while non-entitlement communities spent 

about 33.6 percent ($423.9 million) improving drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. 

www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/index.cfm 

Commerce’s EDA. EDA’s mission is to “enhance community success in 

attracting private capital investment and lucrative job opportunities.” EDA 

offers assistance to rural and urban areas where unemployment is high and 

incomes are low. EDA grants can be used to underwrite the planning and 

construction costs for projects in these areas that will lead to the creation of 

jobs in the community. EDA’s Public Works Program helps communities that 

are in economic decline upgrade their physical infrastructure, including 

drinking water and wastewater facilities. Total obligations for the Public 

Works Program for FY 2002 were $249.9 million. From FY 1991 through 

FY 2000, EDA provided communities with approximately $1.1 billion in 

grants for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. 

http://12.39.209.165/xp/EDAPublic/Home/EDAHomePage.xml 

8
WHAT FUNDING SOURCES CAN BE COORDINATED?

9

DWSRF CWSRF RUS HUD (CDBGs) EDA

Drinking Water Funding

Wastewater Funding

Grants

Loans

Disadvantaged

Systems/Communities Only

Eligible Recipients

Publicly- and

Privately-owned

Community Water

Systems, NonProfit NonCommunity Water

Systems

Publicly owned

treatment

works, nonprofit groups,

homeowners, &

farmers

Public entities,

non-profit

groups, &

federally

recognized

Indian Tribes

Designated

entitlement and

non-entitlement

communities &

insular areas

Rural or urban

economically

distressed areas

Annual Assistance Provided $1.3 billion

(SFY 2002)

$4.4 billion

(SFY 2003)

$2.1 billion

(FY 2002)

$487.6 million

(FY 2002)

$249.9 million

(FY 2002)

Figure 4: Comparison of Primary Federal Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

Funding Sources

Federal and state financing programs vary in their funding, their requirements for recipients, their application processes, and their funding schedules. EPA, HUD, and USDA issued a joint memorandum

on “Cooperation and Coordination on Jointly Financed Water and Wastewater Activities” to encourage

cooperation among federal, state, and local drinking water and wastewater infrastructure funding agencies.

The memorandum suggested numerous ways to enhance coordination:

• Cooperation between SRF, CDBG, and USDA state programs and directors in the preparation of

the consolidated, operating, intended use, and strategic plans required by EPA, HUD, and USDA.

• Elimination of obstacles in program regulation or state policy in order to coordinate funding cycles

or share information that would enable these agencies to work together.

• Harmonization of environmental review documentation requirements so that only one environmental document is needed per project.

• Regular meetings by funding agencies to determine which projects should be funded and by whom.

• Joint funding of projects where applicants meet the requirements of all funding agencies (if

efficient and reasonable).

Many states have taken steps to implement these approaches, thus enhancing coordination at the state

level. In addition, states have opportunities to coordinate funding among state sources. he results of

these efforts benefit participating funding agencies and systems in a number of key ways, as outlined in

the next section.

In 1997,

T
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

10
+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

What are the Benefits of 

Coordinated Funding? 

STATE BENEFITS SYSTEM BENEFITS 

+ Removes barriers and improves 

communication between agencies 

+ Allows access to better information 

about the advantages and disadvanwith similar goals and purposes. tages of all available funding oppor-

+ Provides staff with a forum to 

discuss projects, matches applicants 

with appropriate funding sources, 

+

tunities. 

Accelerates the entire application 

process. 

and resolves conflicts between 

various funding program requirements. + Increases the likelihood that funding 

will be secured so that necessary 

+ Avoids duplication of work by 

agencies, thereby reducing adminisinfrastructure improvements will be 

made, thus improving water quality 

and public health protection. 

+

trative burden and maximizing 

scarce resources. 

Reduces the likelihood that applicants will switch to another funding 

+ Creates the most appropriate funding 

packages for projects that address the 

community’s infrastructure need 

(e.g., combining loans and grants) in 

source during the process (i.e., the most efficient way (in terms of 

venue shopping). costs and timing). 

+ Increases the ability to provide 

technical assistance to applicants 

+ Simplifies the application process, 

reducing the burden on utility staff 

from the beginning of the applica- and freeing more resources for plantion process to the completion of ning and operations. 

+

construction. 

Reduces administrative expenses. + Reduces time spent venue shopping. 

It is important to remember that any reduction in administrative burden for state agencies or for 

systems frees staff time and resources to provide increased public assistance and public health 

protection. The following section provides a simple way to establish a coordinated funding approach 

in your state. Where possible, the experiences of states that were surveyed are described. 

11
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATED FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

12
How Can You Get 

Started? 

No two states and no two funding programs are alike. How you get started will depend on 

your specific situation. This section presents some general ideas on how to start a coordinating initiative, but there is no one right way to begin. In states like New York, coordination starts in the Governor’s office. More likely, coordination will begin as informal collaboration 

among staff at various agencies. In Arizona, a CDBG program manager organized the first coordination meeting for interested agencies and groups statewide to discuss drinking water and wastewater 

issues. One of Washington’s coordinating committees began when staff from state and federal 

agencies wanted to discuss shared funding and technical assistance issues. Here are a few ways to get 

started: 

Seeds Identify the various sources of water infrastructure funding in your state, 

including federal and local programs. You may already know of programs that are open to 

cooperation, as well as some that are not. Although the ideal effort might coordinate all 

funding programs in your state, such a far-reaching goal is often unrealistic, especially at 

the outset. You can still create significant benefits even if you only coordinate with one 

other agency. Think about starting with the “low-hanging fruit” to build momentum. 

Seeds Determine the formal and informal sources of coordination that may already be in place. These sources could include recognition of the types of projects 

that each agency is most suited to fund, or it could be in the relationships that field staff 

in regional offices have cultivated. Prior to creating their UER, Pennsylvania’s infrastructure funding programs had interacted at planning meetings with water utilities. Therefore, 

regional staff from most of the state agencies already had good working relationships and 

understood each other’s programs. 

Seeds Consider a motivating theme for your coordination efforts. Arizona agencies 

coordinate because “available technical and financial resources are scarce and should be 

maximized as much as possible” and “what is good for the community or system should be 

the driving force.” Washington, Arizona, and California launched coordinated efforts to 

target small utilities because they generally had the fewest resources, the least awareness 

of assistance programs, and the most problems with capacity. Programs in New York 

wanted to provide a single point of contact for systems seeking infrastructure funding. 

Coordinating to help a specific set of utilities may affect the coordinating tools you use 

and the partners you seek. Program staff in Montana wanted to work together so that 

each agency could better achieve its mission. 

13
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATED FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

Seeds

Seeds

Seeds

Host a meeting with representatives from other agencies to brainstorm opportunities for additional coordination. These meetings can be informal gatherings of colleagues, such as those held in Montana and Washington, or formal committees, such as the 

one formed in Pennsylvania. At this stage, open communication between staff from all 

agencies involved is essential to identifying “problem areas” in the state’s funding network. For example, programs may have different funding cycles or application requirements. The problems identified at this stage will shape the form(s) of coordination that 

you choose. 

Solicit input from former and potential applicants. Work with systems to identify the problems they have had, are having, or could have in navigating the available 

funding opportunities. This initiative may identify problems that applicants face but of 

which funding agencies are unaware. One of the coordinating committees in Washington 

continually seeks input from utilities on how funding programs can better assist local 

governments. 

Decide on an approach. Using the ideas generated by the agencies and applicants, 

consider the form that coordinated funding efforts should take and the level of cooperation your state aims to achieve. Every state will have a different strategy. It may be 

helpful to develop a time line (especially if your strategy calls for a gradual move towards 

coordination) or an MOU. Arizona decided that the easiest way to increase communication and assistance to systems was to hold monthly joint meetings with project applicants 

to discuss their proposals. California decided to focus on simplifying the application and 

documentation process for small systems. New York chose to create a formalized, coordinated application review process to help applicants obtain the optimal funding package for 

their projects. Pennsylvania began creating a UER to reduce the planning and design 

overhead for utilities, as well as the confusion and delays caused by discrepancies among 

programs. 

Communication is the key! 

14
What Challenges 

Should You Consider? 

Coordinating drinking water and wastewater funding programs may not be easy, but its benefits 

can certainly make overcoming these obstacles worthwhile. Potential obstacles include: 

Program Differences. The objectives of each program, and therefore the eligibility 

requirements, may be different. Despite common goals among coordinating agencies, it 

may be difficult or impossible to eliminate all differences in program requirements, funding cycles, etc., due to the specialized mandates and purposes of each agency. Most states 

surveyed cited differences in program requirements as a barrier to cooperation. 

Because of the large number of funding programs, understanding the requirements and the 

focus of each one is daunting. Before substantial progress can be achieved in coordinating 

these programs, however, this understanding needs to be developed. It is not expected, 

and not necessarily desired, that any program should abandon its requirements or change 

its focus. California decided to accept the differences and work around them. Staff in 

New York decided to focus on commonalities rather than the differences that could 

impede the development of a uniform application or a joint tracking database. Staff in 

Pennsylvania were able to rely on relationships built from years of informal cooperation 

and communication in creating their UER. 

Lack of Time and Resources. Coordinating funding among agencies may require 

significant volunteer efforts by agency staff. For the first ten years of the effort in Montana, Commerce employees made up the coordinated funding committee’s entire staff. 

However, as the efforts expanded, the staffing burden became overwhelming, and the 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the Department of Health and 

Environmental Science volunteered to share staffing of the coordinating effort. The 

committee in Arizona has overcome the lack of resources by relying on volunteerism. 

One agency has taken the lead in organizing meetings, creating agendas, fielding inquiries, 

and following up on requests. 

15
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATED FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

Lack of Staff Interest and Engagement. Agency staff members involved in coordinated funding efforts will still have responsibilities to their agencies. It may be challenging to keep staff from focusing entirely on their own agency’s needs, rather than on the 

goal of coordinating funding. Forming sub-committees, as was done in Montana, is one 

way to keep staff members engaged, communicating, and focused on coordination. Any 

communication and regular contact between staff will help keep coordinated funding a 

top priority. 

16
How Can You Overcome 

the Challenges and 

Implement Your 

Approach? 

The presence of any of the challenges discussed in the previous section should not preclude 

funding coordination. Even states with successful coordinated funding programs have 

faced obstacles and are still working to overcome them. Focusing on the needs of the 

communities should help agency representatives overcome hurdles. 

This section provides some ideas on how to think about overcoming challenges and implementing a coordinated funding strategy. You may find that some – or all – may work in your state. 

Identify available resources in terms of staff, budget, materials, and partnerships 

with water industry organizations. In Montana and Washington, staff from the funding programs have volunteered to implement their approach. Programs trade off on 

hosting the meetings, preparing the agendas, and keeping the minutes. Montana 

convinced the state’s engineering community to promote and support the coordinated 

application process in the state. Utilities are more likely to participate when their 

consultants and technical assistance providers urge them to attend state workshops and 

meetings. California’s efforts benefit from the support of the California Rural Water 

Association and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation. 

Divide duties for your implementation strategy among participating 

parties, either informally through verbal agreements, as in Washington and 

Pennsylvania, or formally through an MOU, as in Arizona, Montana, and New York. 

Delegated duties may range from developing a joint application or environmental 

review package to organizing workshops and funding fairs. While some duties may 

require the input of all participating agencies, others will not. Consider forming subcommittees to address each duty. Before forming sub-committees, Montana found 

that volunteer members were not working on common problems between meetings, 

which slowed progress. Subcommittees can ensure that: 

• Work takes place between formal meetings. 

• All agencies remain involved and focused on coordinating funding. 

• No single agency’s staff is forced to do all of the work. 

17
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

Allow some room for differences in programs. As part of their coordinating 

effort, agencies in California identified the differences in their programs so they could 

more clearly communicate those differences to applicants early in the process. Montana found that the best way to proceed with coordination was to focus on similarities 

rather than the differences. This “common ground” eventually allowed Montana to 

create a uniform application. In New York and Pennsylvania, each agency retains 

independent decision-making authority to fund projects based upon its mission. If 

your coordinating team is flexible, your programs may harmonize over time as coordination increases. New York’s committee is now trying to minimize the differences 

between programs. Montana’s Uniform Application Supplement has evolved to the 

point where the state will soon drop the word “Supplement” from the title and allow 

programs to ask systems for materials to supplement the “Uniform Application.” 

Maintain communication among the participating agencies. The partners in 

Arizona’s and New York’s coordinating programs meet quarterly to discuss current 

projects and anticipate future joint efforts. Pennsylvania’s agencies informally solicit 

input from each other prior to approving a funding request. 

Initiate buy-in and education efforts for all interested parties. In addition to 

water utilities, you may include the legislature, agency administrators, and the public. 

Education for systems could include: 

• Holding workshops, funding fairs, or meetings for local governments and system 

operators seeking financial assistance. Arizona hosts monthly meetings throughout 

the state that allow utilities seeking funding to discuss assistance options with all 

funding programs at once. California hosts funding fairs across the state that 

bring all the funding programs “under one tent.” Montana holds work shops in the 

spring and fall of each year, varying the topics to match the funding cycles. 

• Creating a website to provide information on funding to communities and systems. 

Washington has created a searchable database of funding sources that is now available 

through a website. New York’s committee created a website with a self-assessment 

tool that allows utilities to determine the sources of funding for which they are eligible. 

• Providing funding assistance materials directly to systems. Montana’s committee 

developed an outreach video that it sends to local government officials who are interested in finding water infrastructure assistance. One committee in Washington created 

an Infrastructure Assistance Directory for local governments. 

In addition, each participating agency should promote the coordinated funding effort 

18
HOW CAN YOU OVERCOME THE CHALLENGES AND IMPLEMENT YOUR APPROACH? 

as part of its normal outreach program. This can increase awareness of coordinated 

funding in your state with very little additional cost or effort. Staff members from 

partner agencies in Arizona, California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington 

discuss the coordination initiative at all meetings, conferences, trainings, and public 

appearances. In addition, several states have worked with industry groups to get the 

word out to utilities. Montana uses annual meetings of organizations such as Montana 

Rural Water Systems, Inc., Montana League of Cities and Towns, and the Montana 

Association of Counties to publicize its coordinated funding efforts. Similarly, New 

York uses county planners, the Rural Community Assistance Program, and New 

York Rural Water Association to inform communities of coordinated funding opportunities. 

Keep in mind that coordinated funding is not intended to remove the entire burden on 

applicants. Applicants are still responsible for assessing their own needs and securing 

financing. 

Choose projects that would benefit most from multi-agency assistance and 

cooperation, and match these projects with the funding sources in your state best 

suited to fund them. At their meetings with systems, Arizona agencies informally 

agree on which agency should fund each project. One of the committees in Washington uses a two-page screening application to determine the most appropriate source(s) 

of funding. A state could decide to consolidate project lists so that all programs work 

together to address systems in order of priority. 

Track your results so that you can publicize your program’s success. New York 

created a common tracking database for all projects that go through the coordinated 

funding process. Arizona gives annual awards to the best project, garnering positive 

publicity for both the funding programs and the utility. You may want to promote 

the success of your initiative with water utilities, state decision-makers (such as legislators), and federal agencies. 

19
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

20
How Can You 

Assess Your Efforts? 

A s you work to increase coordination, you will discover unexpected opportunities and challenges. Your successful efforts may make reluctant programs more likely to agree to coordinate. Your coordination tools may need some fine-tuning. How you assess and modify your 

efforts will depend on your strategy, your partners, and your experiences. This section provides a few 

ideas on how to assess your initiative. 

Conduct exit interviews or evaluations with applicants that have been through the 

coordinated funding process. These interviews can help you identify your program’s 

strengths and weaknesses. Are utilities finding the process easier to understand and less 

burdensome to complete? Are projects being completed more quickly? Are staff in 

funding programs saving time? 

Host an evaluation meeting with participating agencies after the first few 

months of coordination to discuss progress and identify any barriers. Continued communication between agencies is essential to successful coordination. Did your coordinated 

efforts work as you had imagined? What were the barriers? How should the initiative be 

changed? 

Hold regular meetings of participating agencies to ensure that the process is 

functioning smoothly and to identify new opportunities for coordination. You may decide 

to change your initiative or increase coordination. As noted earlier, agencies in Arizona 

and New York meet quarterly to review projects and discuss new coordination issues. The 

Montana committee has been meeting regularly to develop a common initial application, a 

mutually acceptable method for determining hardship, and a uniform environmental 

review document. 

Follow developments in other states’ coordinated funding programs to get 

new ideas that may benefit your own program. For example, Montana has created an 

outreach video that California is considering adopting. 

21

COORDINATION IS AN ON-GOING 

PROCESS 
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATED FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

22
Appendix A: State 

Profiles and Survey 

Responses 

A ppendix A presents profiles of the coordinated funding approaches in Arizona,

California, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington and their responses to brief

surveys about their approaches. While a survey was sent to each state’s DWSRF contact,

each respondent was asked to consult with, and incorporate the views of, their funding partners. The 

responses to these surveys were used to better understand how each state’s coordinated funding 

program operates and, more broadly, to identify patterns and common themes in coordinated funding 

efforts. 

The experiences of these six states, as discussed throughout this handbook, highlight the diverse 

forms that coordinated funding can take and the benefits that can result. These states are continually 

working to improve their ability to help water and wastewater systems address their infrastructure 

needs. 

A-1
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

A-2
Arizona

APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

Arizona 

Arizona’s Rural Water Infrastructure Committee 

(RwIC) is composed of representatives from 

various infrastructure loan and grant programs, 

state lending authorities, technical assistance 

providers, private banks, and engineering firms. 

It was initiated by Arizona’s CDBG Manager in 

1990 to help small drinking water and wastewater 

systems navigate the federal, state, and local 

ARIZONA PARTNERS 

Regular members of RwIC: 

• Water Infrastructure Finance Authority 

• Rural Development, USDA 

• Arizona Small Utilities Association 

• Rural Community Assistance Corporation 

• Arizona State Environmental Training and 

Technology Center 

• Greater Arizona Development Authority 

• Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

• Arizona Department of Commerce, CDBG 

Program 

• Arizona Department of Water Resources 

• Border Environment Cooperation Commission 

• North American Development Bank 

Website: www.wifa.state.az.us 

assistance programs and comply with all applicable regulations. It has evolved into a “one-stop 

shopping” entity for communities and small water systems in need of assistance. 

RwIC’s goals are to: 

• Maximize the scarce resources available for infrastructure financing. 

• Focus on communities and systems, rather than on competing state and federal bureaucracies. 

• Provide “cradle to grave” assistance to projects, especially for small, rural systems that do not 

have the resources to complete all the steps necessary to finance an infrastructure project. 

With no governing statute or executive order, RwIC has considerable flexibility to deal with the needs 

of each system. Owners and operators looking for infrastructure funding have all of their questions 

answered at monthly RwIC meetings. Since RwIC provides both financial and technical assistance, it 

is not uncommon for RwIC meetings to be followed up by on-site technical assistance visits and 

reviews of existing design plans. The meetings also allow system representatives and elected officials 

to meet with representatives of public and private funding sources to explore all available funding 

options for their infrastructure projects. 

RwIC has increased cooperation across various governmental agencies. It is now commonplace for 

officials at one agency to coordinate with their counterparts in another agency to aid a system. Agencies that run state funding programs also routinely publicize other funding programs during their 

normal outreach efforts. In addition, the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA) 

– one of the main sources of infrastructure funding in the state – annually highlights utilities that 

have successfully coordinated funding sources to improve their infrastructure. These profiles generate positive publicity for the systems and RwIC. RwIC has assisted approximately 200 systems in 

Arizona. Two-thirds of their projects have been completed. In addition, RwIC’s approach has 

expedited assistance and funding for projects, even when only one agency is involved. 

A-3
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

ARIZONA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY 

Getting Started 

Q: Who initiated/spearheaded the process for establishing the coordinated funding approach in your state? 

A: A CDBG Manager in the Arizona Department of Commerce first started RwIC meetings in 1990 

to discuss drinking water and wastewater issues among various interested agencies and groups statewide. Around 1996, senior staff from WIFA and from the Arizona USDA RD suggested ways for the 

group to hold project meetings to implement technical and financial infrastructure assistance for 

eligible jurisdictions and systems. The RwIC process has expanded from this initial concept. 

Q: What was the rationale behind establishing the approach (e.g., decision to focus on rural 

systems, decision to do a uniform environmental review versus a uniform application, etc.)? 

A: The rationale behind RwIC continues to be multifaceted: 

• There is the recognition that available technical and financial resources are scarce and should 

be maximized as much as possible. 

• We also recognize that what is “good for the community or system” should be the driving 

force, rather than competition among federal, state, and local bureaucracies. 

• Another important consideration for coordination is the concept of “cradle to grave” 

assistance for projects. We found that many small, rural systems do not have the resources to 

prepare to receive funding in terms of system analysis, planning, and design, to name a few. 

By offering technical assistance as well as financial assistance, RwIC has fostered many 

infrastructure projects that might otherwise never have become ready for funding and 

construction. 

Q: Please identify any significant milestones you achieved during the process of 

establishing your coordinated funding approach. 

A: Our projects have had an estimated 66% success rate! The RwIC has become a highly effective 

force in shepherding drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects to completion. In 

reviewing our records, members of RwIC were surprised to note that two-thirds of the 150 to 200+ 

projects reviewed were funded and completed. This process sometimes takes about three years from 

conception to completion for a major project. Often, a community will return for consultation with 

RwIC several times before a project is completed. For example, they may seek technical assistance 

and funding for planning and, when that is completed, return for financial assistance for the project 

itself. 

Q: What specific challenges/obstacles did your state face in establishing its coordinated 

funding approach and how did your state overcome them? 

A: Since RwIC is informal and not funded, one of the problems and challenges is how to get the 

paper work of RwIC accomplished. Our solution is volunteerism. From time to time, RwIC was 

staffed by various individuals in participating agencies. Currently this is being handled by the 

Arizona Small Utilities Association. They organize project meetings, send out agendas, field 

inquiries, and follow-up on many requests. Because the work of the association is closely affiliated 

with that of RwIC, this arrangement works well. One other challenge we have is how to interest 

more private water systems in using RwIC as a resource. We believe it is not the RwIC process itself 

that discourages participation, but the fact that there is really only one source of low-cost funding – 

WIFA. Here, coordinated funding is usually not required. 

A-4
APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

ARIZONA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

Implementing the Approach 

Q: How does your state handle differences in program requirements and priorities among 

the various funding sources? 

A: It is not that much of an issue in Arizona, and not many program requirements are jointly handled 

by a procedure. Each project is handled on a case-by-case basis at RwIC project meetings. Our 

philosophy of “What is best for the community” rules. We also have another rule, which is “If you 

can qualify for a grant, go for it.” When a project will ultimately be funded by RD because that is the 

best course of action for the community (regardless of whether or not WIFA or other funding is 

involved), then RD program requirements are the primary concern up-front. WIFA and RD have a 

Memorandum of Understanding regarding environmental reviews (ERs). WIFA accepts RD’s ER 

whenever there is a joint financing. As far as priorities are concerned, WIFA and RD hold quarterly 

meetings to review current projects and anticipate joint efforts. Otherwise, participation in RwIC 

project meetings often establishes, on an informal basis, which agency(ies) may fund what projects. 

Q: How does your state make the public aware of its coordinated funding efforts? Public 

meetings, funding fairs, websites, newsletters? 

A: All of the above and by every means available to its primary members. RwIC members routinely 

advertise RwIC in their individual agency outreach efforts. Additional methods include Powerpoint 

presentations, special events, publications, and networking. 

Assessing the Approach 

Q: How many potential funding applicants do you think you reach every year through the 

coordinated funding approach? 

A: We have room for 4-5 project presentations per monthly project meeting. Sometimes a month is 

skipped. Therefore, we handle 40-50 projects per year. Not all require coordinated funding. Approximately 10 to 20 percent end up with coordinated technical or financial assistance and/or 

funding. Applicants appreciate the expedited assistance and funding they receive through our RwIC 

process. 

Q: Do you believe that the coordinated funding approach in your state has been effective at 

getting projects funded and why? 

A: The RwIC has been extremely successful in expediting projects, not just coordinating funding. 

The “One Stop Shopping” approach is effective and efficient. Most public jurisdictions are now 

familiar with how RwIC works. We also make it a practice to hold our meetings throughout the 

regions and be available to applicants in more remote locations. 

Q: Is your state considering any improvements/enhancements to its approach? 

A: We are open to improvements/enhancements. No improvements are underway at this time, 

however, there is interest in pursuing joint environmental reviews more formally. 

Q: What changes at the federal level do you think would help to enhance coordination? 

A: Federal acceptance and endorsement at top levels by EPA (SRFs), HUD, and RD to foster state 

solutions to interagency infrastructure funding coordination would be appreciated. This objective is 

currently being pursued through the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities Small 

Community Water Infrastructure Exchange group headed up by Ohio’s Steve Grossman. 

A-5
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

A-6
California

APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

California 

The California Financing Coordinating Committee 

(CFCC) was created in 1998 by an MOU signed by 

state and federal agencies that provide financial 

assistance for infrastructure projects in California. 

The CFCC is a formal committee that aims to: 

• Foster cooperation between agencies. 

• Encourage more efficient use of funds. 

CALIFORNIA PARTNERS 

CFCC members represent: 

• USDA RUS's Water Division 

• State Water Resources Control Board 

• California Department of Health Services 

• California Department of Housing and 

Community Development 

• California Department of Water Resources 

• Infrastructure and Economic Development 

Bank 

Website: www.cfcc.ca.gov 

• Reduce administrative costs for recipients and agencies. 

• Provide a forum to resolve conflicts between state and federal program requirements. 

Small, rural systems have the fewest resources and face the most problems, so the CFCC was created 

mainly to help these systems obtain assistance. Subsequently, these systems were targeted for simplified forms and application processes to help them overcome the often difficult and expensive task of 

applying for funding. 

The CFCC uses a variety of tools to meet its goals. It has a common funding inquiry form that a 

system can fill out to have its proposed project referred to the appropriate funding agency. The 

CFCC sponsors funding fairs at which agencies explain their programs and make themselves available 

to discuss specific plans; it also advertises at meetings held by individual member agencies. The 

CFCC’s Website has information about each agency’s programs and documents explaining what joint 

procedures are in place. The CFCC is considering creating a technical assistance video, similar to 

videos produced in other states, to further its goals. 

One of the biggest obstacles confronting the CFCC is the different requirements of the funding 

agencies. To minimize possible confusion, the CFCC provides applicants with as much information 

as possible about the requirements and priorities of the different programs. When the statutes and 

regulations allow, the CFCC tries to find common ground between the programs. 

The CFCC annually assists an estimated 200 to 500 applicants. The CFCC attributes this success to 

matching project funding to specific applicant needs and providing additional technical assistance to 

small, rural systems. 

A-7
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

CALIFORNIA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY 

Getting Started 

Q: Who initiated/spearheaded the process for establishing the coordinated funding approach 

in your state? 

A: It was either HUD or USDA’s RD. 

Q: What was the rationale behind establishing the approach (e.g., decision to focus on rural 

systems, decision to do a uniform environmental review versus a uniform application, etc.)? 

A: It was felt that the small, rural projects were the ones with the fewest resources and most problems. These systems needed simplified forms and application processes, as they would be frightened 

off if things were too complicated, difficult, or expensive. 

Q: Please identify any significant milestones you achieved during the process of establishing 

your coordinated funding approach. 

A: Probably the most significant would be the establishment of the Funding Fairs. 

Q: What specific challenges/obstacles did your state face in establishing its coordinated 

funding approach and how did your state overcome them? 

A: The biggest obstacle was the different requirements for the various agencies. These were not so 

much overcome as simply recognized and eventually accepted. 

Implementing the Approach 

Q: How does your state handle differences in program requirements and priorities among the 

various funding sources? 

A: If there are differences in program requirements, then we acknowledge these and try to let the 

applicants know of the differences up front. Where there are different priorities, we once again 

acknowledge them but may try to reach a compromise if it is within the statutes, regulations, or 

guidelines. But in general, where there are conflicting requirements or priorities, each funding agency 

must follow its own requirements. 

Q: How does your state make the public aware of its coordinated funding efforts? Public 

meetings, funding fairs, websites, newsletters? 

A: Funding Fairs are one of our main outreach/marketing methods. We also have been upgrading 

our web page; see: http://www.cfcc.ca.gov. 

Discussing the CFCC at other meetings is also an excellent way of advertising with the systems. 

There is now a pretty extensive network throughout the state that discusses the CFCC and advertises 

their meetings and Website; groups such as the California Rural Water Association and the Rural 

Community Assistance Corporation are big proponents of the CFCC. 

Assessing the Approach 

Q: How many potential funding applicants do you think you reach every year through the 

coordinated funding approach? 

A: We estimate that the CFCC reaches 200–500 potential applicants each year. 

A-8
APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

CALIFORNIA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

Q: Do you believe that the coordinated funding approach in your state has been effective at 

getting projects funded and why? 

A: Yes, it has been successful, mainly because we are able to “fit” project funding to specific applicants and their needs. The “co-funding” of projects also includes additional technical assistance to 

the smaller rural projects. 

Q: Is your state considering any improvements/enhancements to its approach? 

A: We continue to make changes. We are considering doing a video similar to the one produced by 

Montana. 

Q: What changes at the federal level do you think would help to enhance coordination? 

A: The major need is to place the same requirements on each of the agencies that provide federal 

subsidized funding. USDA, HUD, and EPA should all apply funding requirements in the same manner (National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Minority-owned Business Enterprise/Woman-owned Business Enterprise, etc.). 

It would also be helpful if those same agencies would allow more flexibility for providing funding for 

small, rural communities. 

A-9
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

A-10
Montana

APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

Montana 

In 1982, an employee of the Montana 

Department of Commerce began to organize professionals in key state agencies into 

a group that would focus on drinking water 

and wastewater financing. The result of 

this initiative was the Water, Wastewater 

and Solid Waste Action Coordinating Team 

(W2

ASACT). The main goals of this group 

were to coordinate emerging state funding 

programs, help local governments take full 

advantage of those programs, and facilitate 

communication between program staff. 

Given the large geographical area that 

needed to be covered, increasing communication among agencies, especially at the 

regional office level, was paramount. 

W2

ASACT was also intended to serve as a 

forum through which federal program 

representatives could talk about their 

various projects. W2ASACT has no legislaMONTANA PARTNERS 

W2ASACT members include: 

• Bureau of Reclamation 

• HUD - Montana Field Office Helena 

• Department of Commerce - EDA 

• EPA 

• Rural Development, RUS 

• Midwest Assistance Program 

• Montana Assoc. of County Water and Sewer Systems 

• Montana Association of Counties 

• Montana League of Cities and Towns 

• Montana Rural Development Partners 

• Montana Rural Water Systems, Inc. 

• CDBG 

• Community Technical Assistance Program 

• Public Water Supply Section 

• INTERCAP Program 

• Local Government Center 

• Local Government Services Bureau 

• Montana Water Center 

• Municipal Wastewater Assistance Program 

• Renewable Resources Grant and Loan Program 

• Community Services Bureau 

• State Drinking Water Revolving Fund 

• State Wastewater Revolving Fund 

• Treasure State Endowment Program 

• Technical and Financial Assistance Bureau 

Website: www.dnrc.state.mt.us/cardd/wasact.htm 

tive mandate or executive order and receives no funding for staff. Its membership is composed of 

representatives from state, federal, and non-governmental agencies with a stake in infrastructure 

assistance. 

In 1997, W2

ASACT finalized a uniform application supplement for infrastructure funding programs. 

It was prompted by the MOU between RUS, EPA, and HUD declaring that uniform applications were 

acceptable and valuable to local governments. The supplement contains core technical information 

common to all infrastructure funding program applications, including a project summary, proposed 

funding package, budget, system information, and a preliminary engineering report. Entities seeking 

funding still must fill out specific applications for certain programs, but the uniform application 

supplement has reduced the overall burden of applying for funds. 

W2

ASACT also created Project Planning Grants to assist cash-strapped communities. These grants, 

matched dollar-for-dollar by local governments, assist communities in hiring engineers and other 

technical assistance providers. Many communities in need of infrastructure improvements do not 

have enough money to assess their needs and plan a major project. The Project Planning Grants 

address this problem and enable communities to apply for grants and loans to improve their infrastructure. Thanks to the uniform application supplement, nearly all drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure projects in Montana are using the coordinated approach. 

A-11
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

W2ASACT has also streamlined accounting, environmental assessments, and supplemental contracts. 

Its Website has a master list of projects to help facilitate the tracking of resources and projects. In 

addition, W2

ASACT publishes technical assistance manuals, distributes a technical assistance video, 

and holds workshops throughout the state. These workshops provide technical assistance to local 

governments as well as information on where to find additional technical, financial, regulatory, and 

managerial assistance. 

W2

ASACT also operates as an “advisory body” for legislative change. It works to identify opportunities for state policy changes, including metering all users, providing more money for preliminary 

assessments, creating more regional systems, and improving coordination between programs through 

statutory changes. Some of the suggested statutory reforms have reduced the redundancy of programs and eliminated the contradictions in requirements between programs. W2

ASACT acts as an 

intermediary between different organizations if problems arise or if projects are delayed by procedural hurdles. 

Currently, W2

ASACT conducts much of its business through the following subcommittees: 

• Tribal Interests 

• Accounting Assistance 

• Project Administration Coordination 

• Technical Assistance 

• Internet Website 

• W2

ASACT Video 

• Standard Documents 

• Environmental 

A-12
APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

MONTANA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY 

Getting Started 

Q: Who initiated/spearheaded the process for establishing the coordinated funding approach 

in your state? 

A: The Department of Commerce initiated the concept of W2ASACT in 1982. At that time, the 

Legislature had created the Water Development Program (WDP) in the Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation. WDP initiated both a grant program and a loan program that would 

finance drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. The Farm Home Administration was 

also a key funding source for rural communities. In addition, the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences had the Construction Grants Program, funded by EPA, which also provided 

regulatory oversight for communities. Staff level professionals agreed that by working together, 

every program could better achieve its goals. 

Rather than establish a formal group under an executive order or through legislation, it was the 

program staff that committed to working together. By taking a “low key” approach, programs were 

not threatened by the coordination process. Instead, staff professionals who had been “stepping on 

each other’s toes” on specific projects saw the opportunity to work together and coordinate their 

activities. 

Q: What was the rationale behind establishing the approach (e.g., decision to focus on rural 

systems, decision to do a uniform environmental review versus a uniform application, etc.)? 

A: Initially, the motivation was simply to communicate. Montana is a large state with few residents. 

Separately, the financial resources available were insufficient for many projects to proceed. By 

working together, the staff realized their programs could bring success to projects that had been 

languishing. 

Q: Please identify any significant milestones you achieved during the process of establishing 

your coordinated funding approach. 

A: The most significant changes to W2ASACT occurred in the early 1990s. By this time the 

W2ASACT group had grown to include new programs and technical assistance providers. However 

the Department of Commerce and their staff still bore the entire burden of hosting the coordinating 

meetings, preparing the agendas, and keeping track of the minutes. In 1994, the agencies from the 

Department of Commerce, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and the DHES 

volunteered to share the burden of coordinating W2ASACT. A new, enthusiastic, and organized 

chair, Barb Neuworth, was appointed from DHES. Additionally, the group agreed to form subcommittees to work on specific issues between the bi-monthly meetings. Without staff for the program, 

W2

ASACT members were not working on common problems between meetings, which slowed 

progress. The subcommittees decided to become more organized and began to seriously discuss 

common funding applications. 

Q: What specific challenges/obstacles did your state face in establishing its coordinated 

funding approach and how did your state overcome them? 

A: The biggest challenge was keeping program staff focused on coordination as opposed to returning 

to their agency and business as usual for the 2 months between meetings. As mentioned above, the 

formation of subcommittees and assigning specific tasks to be accomplished between meetings was 

the key to success. 

A-13
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

MONTANA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

Implementing the Approach 

Q: How does your state handle differences in program requirements and priorities among the 

various funding sources? 

A: We handle differences from the bottom up. Rather than trying to change national or state policy, 

the first thing we have tried to do is identify what we have in common. Focusing on similarities, not 

differences, has been key. We all fund infrastructure projects, we all request funding information 

from applicants, and we all require engineering and environmental reports. 

The best example of this is the Uniform Application Supplement. Notice the word “Supplement”; 

initially, that is how we saw the project. Agencies would have their application and then it would be 

supplemented by the “uniform” information. In practice this has reversed itself. Applicants fill out 

the Uniform Application Supplement and then submit specific program information to add to the 

common engineering, environmental, and financial information contained in the Uniform Application 

Supplement. Most programs refer to the document as the Uniform Application and W2

ASACT will 

eventually drop “Supplement” from the name. For the SRF programs, the Uniform Application 

Supplement is the loan application. 

Q: How does your state make the public aware of its coordinated funding efforts? Public 

meetings, funding fairs, websites, newsletters? 

A: W2ASACT holds workshops in the spring and fall of each year. Workshop topics vary according to 

program funding cycles. For example, we may focus on how to hire an engineer in the fall and on 

how to fill out the Uniform Application Supplement in the spring. These meetings are advertised 

through direct mail to local governments throughout the state. Also, the engineering community has 

identified these as key meetings for their clients and for the firms themselves. W2ASACT workshops 

are highly attended because that is where you want to start when you seek state and federal financial 

assistance for infrastructure improvement projects. Annual meetings of organizations like Montana 

Rural Water Systems, Inc., Montana League of Cities and Towns, and Montana Association of Counties are another way that W2

ASACT agencies get the word out. 

Three years ago, W2

ASACT agencies funded the development of a video aimed at local government 

officials trying to get started on funding needed infrastructure improvements. The video is made 

available at all workshops and meetings, and we have sent many out to local governments and engineering firms. 

W2

ASACT also has a Webpage and, in the upcoming year, we hope to make this page easier to find 

and to improve the information that is available. Project tracking lists, lists of agencies and links, 

and a description of W2

ASACT are the basics of the Website today. In the near future, we hope to 

have more interactive “PowerPoint” type presentations and more technical assistance opportunities 

available. 

A-14
APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

MONTANA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

Assessing the Approach 

Q: How many potential funding applicants do you think you reach every year through the 

coordinated funding approach? 

A: By adoption of the Uniform Application Supplement by all W2ASACT agencies, nearly all drinking 

water and wastewater infrastructure projects are using the coordinated approach in Montana. The 

exceptions are the smaller and simpler projects that may need only one grant or loan source. The 

vast majority of projects require multiple funding sources, and the Uniform Application Supplement 

makes applying to more than one program much easier. Therefore, most applicants share the same 

financial, project, and environmental information with the key financial providers. 

Q: Do you believe that the coordinated funding approach in your state has been effective at 

getting projects funded and why? 

A: Yes. The key was the Uniform Application Supplement. In the past, local governments may have

had to fill out as many as five different applications that often asked for the same, or similar, information. This made the entire process inefficient for the local governments. Today, the Uniform

Application Supplement greatly reduces the cost of applying for financial assistance.

Another key step was the institution of Project Planning Grants. W2

ASACT identified the lack of

grant funds to assist local governments in paying for professional engineering as a key obstacle to

addressing need. Mayors and council members were reluctant to take limited cash balances and hire

engineers. Often rates were kept so low that the utility did not have the money to pay for an engineer. By funding Project Planning Grants, matched dollar-for-dollar by local governments, communities have received engineering and technical assistance to identify system problems, develop alternative solutions, discuss environmental impacts, and identify funding sources. Over 100 planning

grants were given to local governments in the last year. Many of these have resulted in grant and

loan applications for construction.

Q: Is your state considering any improvements/enhancements to its approach?

A: Yes, constantly. W2ASACT is working on a common supplement to the Montana Bid Specifications to give engineers and contractors a single target concerning the financial requirements associated with the bid specs. W2

ASACT is working on improving its Website, and a subcommittee is

working on common environmental review procedures.

Q: What changes at the federal level do you think would help to enhance coordination?

A: Most importantly, true commitment by HUD, EPA, and Rural Development. W2ASACT-type

agencies are where the “rubber meets the road.” We can accomplish a lot at that level. If agencies at

a national level would get excited about working together, not by forming new policies or legislation,

but by meeting and working on drinking water and wastewater together like state coordinating

groups, there could be great progress. Communication is the key to coordination. Oh, more money

would help too.

A-15
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

A-16
New York

APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

New York

On February 18, 2002, Governor George Pataki 

announced the creation of the Water and Sewer 

Infrastructure Co-funding Initiative to improve water 

infrastructure through enhanced state and local 

government partnerships. The Initiative’s main goal 

is to streamline and expedite the funding process by 

helping communities locate sources and procure 

funding for their infrastructure improvement 

NEW YORK PARTNERS 

Members of the Co-funding Initiative represent: 

• CWSRF 

• CWSRF Hardship Assistance 

• DWSRF 

• DWSRF Hardship Assistance 

• Appalachian Regional Commission Area 

Development Program 

• Small Cities CDBG 

• RUS Water and Wastewater Disposal Loan 

and Grant Program 

• Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act 

Website: www.nycofunding.org 

projects. The Initiative hopes to become the central source and single contact for systems wishing to 

obtain information on and assistance with the application process. To this end, the Initiative maintains a Website that has information on the funding programs available to communities, a selfassessment tool for communities to determine their eligibility for each program, and instructions on 

how to apply for funding. 

The Initiative includes a steering committee and various subcommittees composed of staff from each 

funding agency. The steering committee meets bi-monthly to review overall progress, determine 

courses of action, and hear status reports from the subcommittees. Sub-committees address the 

development of specific areas, such as: 

• Establishing procedures for the joint review of applications for co-funding. 

• Exploring the development of a joint application. 

• Developing a common initial application for the SRFs and the Rural Development Grant 

Program. 

• Developing shared databases. 

The Initiative was formalized in an MOU signed by New York’s Department of Health, Department 

of State, Environmental Facilities Corporation, Governor’s Office for Small Cities, Department of 

Environmental Conservation, and USDA’s Rural Development Office. The MOU recognizes the 

common goal of these organizations – funding drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects 

– and outlines ways for the organizations to work together. In addition, the Initiative actively informs communities about available funding sources through workshops and brochures. New York 

has created the position of Co-funding Coordinator to administer its coordinated funding initiatives. 

It is estimated that representatives from more than 1,000 communities have heard about the Cofunding Initiative. 

A-17
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

NEW YORK’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY 

Getting Started 

Q: Who initiated/spearheaded the process for establishing the coordinated funding approach 

in your state? 

A: The Co-funding Initiative was created under the direction of Governor Pataki in response to his 

Quality Communities Task Force Report, which called for streamlining environmental infrastructure 

funding processes. The initiative is a collaborative inter-agency effort between the New York State 

Environmental Facilities Corporation, State Department of Health, Governor’s Office for Small 

Cities, Department of State, State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development, Rural Utilities Services. 

Q: What was the rationale behind establishing the approach (e.g., decision to focus on rural 

systems, decision to do a uniform environmental review versus a uniform application, etc.)? 

A: The rationale behind establishing the Co-funding Initiative was to provide a central source and 

single contact for obtaining information on and assistance with the application processes. The 

Initiative was also formed to formalize a coordinated application review process to help applicants 

obtain the maximum funding package for their projects. 

Q: Please identify any significant milestones you achieved during the process of establishing 

your coordinated funding approach. 

A: Milestones include the creation of the following: 

• Memorandum of Understanding between Co-funding agencies. 

• Co-funding Website that features a self-assessment tool to determine which funding programs 

a project may be eligible for. 

• Co-funding brochure. 

• Co-funding workshop that includes a Powerpoint presentation. 

• Database of project information. 

• Co-funding Coordinator title. 

Q: What specific challenges/obstacles did your state face in establishing its coordinated 

funding approach and how did your state overcome them? 

A: The Co-funding Initiative continues to develop. Specific challenges that we have encountered to 

date include: 

• Working with the specific requirements of each funding program. The Co-funding Steering 

Committee is working on identifying common requirements and flexibilities with different 

requirements. 

• Developing a database of project information that all co-funding partners can use. A 

subcommittee was formed to develop database tools, and progress is ongoing. 

• Individual funding application. A subcommittee was formed to explore the feasibility of 

developing a single funding application. The subcommittee is working on an initial common 

application between two funding programs, the State Revolving Funds and the Federal Rural 

Development Water/Wastewater Grant Program, which will be submitted prior to the community submitting a full application. 

A-18
APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

NEW YORK’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

Implementing the Approach 

Q: How does your state handle differences in program requirements and priorities among the 

various funding sources? 

A: As stated in the MOU, each program retains separate and independent decision-making functions 

for determining the projects that it funds. Program requirement differences are being reviewed by 

various subcommittees, and ideas on minimizing these differences are being discussed. Regarding 

priorities, the Project Review Sub-committee meets on a quarterly basis to discuss applicants and 

issues, such as readiness for construction and environmental review status, that could impact the 

project’s priority as viewed by each agency. 

Q: How does your state make the public aware of its coordinated funding efforts? Public 

meetings, funding fairs, websites, newsletters? 

A: • Agency staff members regularly give Co-funding presentations and participate in panel discussions at a variety of conferences and training programs around the state. 

• The Co-funding Website at www.nycofunding.org. 

• Other service providers such as county planners, the Rural Community Assistance Program, 

and New York Rural Water Association help make communities aware of this initiative. 

• A Co-funding brochure distributed at conferences and included in mailings. 

• A press release issued by the Governor announcing the Initiative. 

Assessing the Approach 

Q: How many potential funding applicants do you think you reach every year through the 

coordinated funding approach? 

A: Through various outreach efforts previously noted, it is estimated that representatives from more 

than 1,000 communities have heard about the Co-funding Initiative. Since the announcement of the 

Co-funding Initiative a year ago, 30 communities have sought funding through the Co-funding Initiative. 

Q: Do you believe that the coordinated funding approach in your state has been effective at 

getting projects funded and why? 

A: New York State has been effectively co-funding projects informally for many years. It is expected 

that by formalizing such activities through the Co-funding Initiative, more communities will be aware 

of co-funding and even more projects will be co-funded. This formalized approach is relatively new 

and, for the most part, developing according to expectations. 

Q: Is your state considering any improvements/enhancements to its approach? 

A: The Co-funding Initiative remains an on-going effort, and it is expected that new developments 

will continue to be incorporated. We are exploring the feasibility of developing a single Co-funding 

application for all funding programs. In the meantime, we are working on developing a common 

initial application between the State Revolving Fund and the federal Rural Development funding 

programs. We are also working on developing a mutually acceptable method for determining hardship and on creating a single environmental review document for all funding programs. 

A-19
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

NEW YORK’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

Q: What changes at the federal level do you think would help to enhance coordination? 

A: We are currently reviewing the program requirements of the various agencies in an effort to 

identify specific areas where changes at the federal level would simplify the overall application 

process. Coordinated programmatic processes between the federal funding agencies, common requirements, or flexibility in program requirements, (such as accepting requirements already met for 

other funding program applications), would be extremely helpful in simplifying and streamlining the 

process. 

A-20
Pennsylvania

APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

PENNSYLVANIA PARTNERS

Pennsylvania 

The Uniform Environmental Review (UER) process, 

initiated by the local RUS office, was finalized in July 

2001. It standardizes the process for documenting the 

environmental effects of proposed drinking water and 

wastewater infrastructure projects that seek financial 

assistance from state or federal funding sources in 

Pennsylvania. It was designed to complement existing 

Programs and agencies participating in the UER 

process: 

• Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund 

(PENNVEST, DEP, EPA) 

• Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund 

(PENNVEST, DEP, EPA) 

• RUS' Waste Disposal Grant and Loan Program 

(USDA-RD) 

• CDBG Program (DCED, HUD) 

• Other Federal Funding Efforts (EPA) 

Website: www.pennvest.state.pa.us 

planning and permitting programs by streamlining environmental reviews and avoiding duplication of work by 

multiple agencies. The UER will also reduce delays and confusion caused by discrepancies between various 

programs’ requirements. 

Prior to the UER, PENNVEST (Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority) had been informally 

coordinating with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), local planning officials, 

and other funding sources. In addition, PENNVEST staff met with staff from RUS, CDBG, and other funding 

agencies to help ensure the success of various water, sewer, and stormwater projects throughout the state. The 

UER grew out of that existing cooperation. It is expected that each UER will be prepared to satisfy all technical documentation required by the DEP for permit or planning approval. This may include Preliminary Engineering Reports or Planning and Feasibility Studies. A UER should include: 

• Project description and need. 

• Summary of alternatives considered. 

• Environmental consequences of the selected alternative. 

• Summary of mitigation. 

• Evidence of public participation. 

• Any related exhibits. 

Applicants for funding are encouraged to coordinate efforts with the DEP and relevant funding agencies before 

project planning begins. 

At the outset, the UER process experienced some turf battles. However, these were quickly overcome as 

agencies reconciled the various requirements of their programs. An official from PENNVEST attributed the 

agencies’ ability to overcome their differences to the relationships that had previously been cultivated by the 

regional staff of the various funding programs. As a result of the UER creation process, agency staff better 

understand the mechanisms, requirements, and procedures of their counterparts in other funding agencies. 

Both PENNVEST and DEP have Websites that provide information to applicants and allow them to interact 

with the agencies. In addition, “How to Apply” sessions are held each spring by PENNVEST. Other public 

meetings are also held throughout the year to disseminate information and collect feedback. 

Because of these efforts, all of the approximately 200 PENNVEST applicants per year are aware of the 

coordination between the various funding agencies. 

A-21
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

PENNSYLVANIA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY 

Getting Started 

Q: Who initiated/spearheaded the process for establishing the coordinated funding approach 

in your state? 

A: The UER effort had been ongoing in various stages for several years. We finally formed a work 

group that involved many stakeholders and worked through the bulk of the issues through the efforts 

of the PA DEP and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s RUS offices. 

Prior to this formalization, PENNVEST had established a planning consultation protocol in 1988 

that required all applicants to participate in a planning meeting with DEP, PENNVEST, local planning officials, and other potential funding sources. This resulted in a cooperative effort and allowed 

a more coordinated allocation of limited resources. In addition, PENNVEST regional staff routinely 

meet with regional U.S. Department of Agriculture’s RUS staff, county CDBG administrators, and 

other funding agencies as appropriate. PENNVEST staff also provided input to the statewide 

CDBG funding office, EDA, and ARC. These efforts are crucial to the success of the water, sewer, 

and storm water projects under consideration throughout the Commonwealth, regardless of the 

funding source. 

Q: What was the rationale behind establishing the approach (e.g., decision to focus on rural 

systems, decision to do a uniform environmental review versus a uniform application, etc.)? 

A: The legislation that created PENNVEST included a rural system focus. Pennsylvania has a large 

number of water/sewer systems, and many of the small, distressed systems seem to have not had 

access to funding sources. PENNVEST strives to fill that gap. The UER is a step to help applicants 

reduce the overhead involved in completing the planning and design required in order to be ready for 

a funding offer. The missions of many of the funding agencies (both state and federal) are significantly different from each other, and, therefore, a uniform application did not seem to be realistic at 

the time. In fact, we could not persuade the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to buy into the UER 

process, even though they duplicate much of the effort on projects that are jointly funded. 

Q: Please identify any significant milestones you achieved during the process of establishing 

your coordinated funding approach. 

A: Applicants can now complete one environmental review that will be accepted by all potential 

funding sources except the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Q: What specific challenges/obstacles did your state face in establishing its coordinated 

funding approach and how did your state overcome them? 

A: A certain level of turf protection was experienced but was quickly dissipated with the realization 

of the benefits that can be garnered by the applicants. The relationships that had been cultivated by 

regional staff members helped the different agencies accept the process. Input from the consulting 

community and administrators also helped develop a workable process that would satisfy the regulatory aspects while addressing cost and other concerns of applicants. We were never able to obtain 

acceptance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

A-22
APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

PENNSYLVANIA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

Implementing the Approach 

Q: How does your state handle differences in program requirements and priorities among the 

various funding sources? 

A: We provide or solicit input to or from other agencies in order to consider differences prior to the 

decision to fund a project. When conflicts rise to the surface, the funding agency can decide how to 

act based upon their mission. For instance, we have found that, in some cases, PENNVEST has a 

more conservative view of Agricultural Land Preservation and land use than some of the other 

funding agencies, including the USDA. Since PENNVEST requires a sign-off by local planning and 

agriculture preservation boards prior to funding a project that may have land use impacts, 

PENNVEST could potentially not fund a project that could later be funded by the USDA’s RUS, 

because RUS does not require the same level of local review and input. This is a position that 

PENNVEST has taken based upon its mission and the impact that drinking water and sewer funding 

may have on local land use. Obtaining local sign-off ensures PENNVEST funded projects are 

consistent with local land use and agricultural preservation efforts. 

Each project that PENNVEST considers for funding is ranked and evaluated by either PA DEP for 

public health, environmental, and technical issues or by the PA Department of Community and 

Economic Development (DCED) for economic development, private investment, and job creation 

considerations. PENNVEST combines these rankings, develops a comprehensive list of projects in 

priority order, and makes funding recommendations to its Board of Directors based upon this information. 

Q: How does your state make the public aware of its coordinated funding efforts? Public 

meetings, funding fairs, websites, newsletters? 

A: Pennsylvania has a number of outreach efforts. PENNVEST has four regional project specialists 

that cover different areas of the state providing basic information and consultation services. Each 

Regional PA DEP office has staff that work with PENNVEST and local community leaders to 

disseminate information as well. The PA DCED, DEP, and PENNVEST participate in a large 

number of statewide association meetings that involve the Commonwealth’s local and county governments as well as investor-owned utilities. The Commonwealth has also been very aggressive in 

marketing services through the Internet. PENNVEST and DEP have interactive Websites that can 

be used to access information, ask questions, and begin a dialogue. In addition, we conduct annual 

“how to apply” sessions each spring and a series of information exchange meetings each fall that are 

used to disseminate, as well as collect, information as to how the program is working. 

Assessing the Approach 

Q: How many potential funding applicants do you think you reach every year through the 

coordinated funding approach? 

A: Each of the 150 to 200 new applications that PENNVEST receives each year is cognizant of the 

coordinated funding efforts. 

Q: Do you believe that the coordinated funding approach in your state has been effective at 

getting projects funded and why? 

A: Coordinated funding is critical to funding projects in Pennsylvania. It allows projects to proceed 

to construction that would otherwise languish in the sea of red tape. Utilizing the tools available 

A-23
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

PENNSYLVANIA’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

and maximizing the limited resources that are available to various agencies, we are able to mix and 

match different funding sources to develop a package that will best suit the particular project. The 

icing on the cake is that all (or most) is completed up front in order to ensure adequate funding as 

early in the process as possible. 

Q: Is your state considering any improvements/enhancements to its approach? 

A: We continue to monitor our efforts and make modifications as appropriate. 

Q: What changes at the federal level do you think would help to enhance coordination? 

A: Our main suggestion is to allow maximum flexibility of available funds so that states may be able 

to develop funding packages that relate to a specific project. Federal money should consider state 

and local priorities before committing project funds. The U.S. Army Corps should also accept the 

UER process for their projects. 

A-24
Washington

APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

Washington 

Two main bodies in the State of Washington coordinate funding for drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure projects. The Washington Community 

Economic Revitalization Team (WA-CERT) has 

been active since 1993. It was created to respond to 

locally defined needs – focusing mainly on rural 

counties and the tribes within those counties – with 

a program that is flexible and innovative. WA-CERT 

is an information clearinghouse of technical and 

financial assistance provided by federal, state, and 

other sources to prioritized local and tribal projects. 

It is a partnership involving ten federal agencies, 

three state agencies, tribal governments, local governments, public ports, economic development 

councils, not-for-profits, and lending institutions 

whose members are appointed by the governor. 

WA-CERT’s accomplishments include: 

• Developing a single point of entry for federal and 

state programs serving designated, rural, natural 

resource impact areas. 

• Creating a seamless service delivery that maximizes partnerships. 

• Providing training to rural communities through 

the WA-CERT Rural Communities Symposium 

and other avenues. 

WASHINGTON PARTNERS 

WA-CERT members: 

• Office of Trade and Economic Development 

(OTED) 

• Small Business Administration 

• USDA's Rural Development 

• OTED's Community Economic Assistance 

Center 

• HUD 

• WA Department of Ecology 

• WA Department of Health 

• Indian Health Service 

• EDA 

• Community Economic Revitalization Board 

Website: www.oted.wa.gov/ed/wacert/Home.asp 

IACC members: 

• Department of Community, Trade and 

Economic Development (CTED) 

• USDA's Rural Development 

• Conservation Commission 

• WA Department of Ecology 

• US Army Corps of Engineers 

• NW Small Cities Services 

• WA Department of Transportation 

• WA Department of Health 

• WA Emergency Management Division 

• US Department of Energy 

• Indian Health Service 

• EPA 

• Bureau of Reclamation 

• Office of State Treasurer 

• Association of WA Cities 

• WA Department of General Administration 

Website: www.infrafunding.wa.gov 

• Investing over $300 million in local priority projects since 1994. 

Washington’s Infrastructure Assistance Coordination Council (IACC) was established in the mid1980s as an information clearinghouse of technical and financial assistance. The non-profit organization is composed of 40 volunteer voting members who represent numerous federal, state, and local 

government associations as well as non-profit technical assistance firms and universities. IACC is 

not directly linked to any governmental agency, though its members often speak for their respective 

organizations during IACC meetings. 

A-25
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

IACC’s main goal is to improve the delivery of technical and financial infrastructure assistance to 

local governments. It grew out of the desire to have staff at the various funding agencies regularly 

set aside time to talk to each other, share information, and network. IACC maintains an updated and 

searchable database of more than 215 state and federal programs. It has also started to provide free 

or low-cost software to local governments and other jurisdictions to aid in their search and application for funds. Finally, IACC sponsors a conference that brings together funding agencies and technical assistance providers that aid individual systems. This conference is held once every two years. It 

provides an opportunity for local governments and other jurisdictions to find funding sources and 

technical assistance and for lending agencies to coordinate funding and streamline the lending process. 

IACC decided against creating a single application for the various infrastructure lending programs. 

Members believed that any unified application would be so long and cumbersome it would make the 

process harder and discourage local governments from applying for funding. Instead, IACC has been 

able to unify limited elements of various applications, promote the best features of all the applications, and advocate for unifying the funding cycles of all lending programs. 

A-26
APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

WASHINGTON’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY 

Getting Started 

Q: Who initiated/spearheaded the process for establishing the coordinated funding approach 

in your state? 

A: IACC: The ad hoc group originally known as the Intergovernmental Public Facilities Finance 

Committee (IPFFC) was initiated in 1986 by staff representatives from state and federal agencies 

who wanted to provide an opportunity to discuss shared issues and coordinate funding and technical 

assistance to communities. 

TIMBER TEAM: was established as a comprehensive approach to interagency coordination involving human services, education, retraining, and community and economic development programs, that 

focused on service delivery to targeted individuals and communities. 

WA-CERT: was created in 1993 by Presidential order and included federal agencies, EPA, and 

Governor-appointed local elected officials. WA-CERT assumed the Timber Team budget in 1999. 

Q: What was the rationale behind establishing the approach (e.g., decision to focus on rural 

systems, decision to do a uniform environmental review versus a uniform application, etc.)? 

A: IACC (or IPFFC) as an “approach” initially came out of the desire by state and federal staff to 

share program and common project information in order to better serve Washington’s communities. 

With local governments facing increasing public facility needs and limited financial assistance, sharing information and coordinating efforts seemed a way to improve the investment of financial and 

technical resources. It began as an informal gathering and expanded to be a more structured organization. But, it is still dependent on the volunteer efforts of state and federal staff. The initial “decision” was for staff to take the initiative to begin regularly setting aside time to talk to each other, 

share information, and network. 

This IACC organization has supported several “approaches” through the years. A basic activity has 

been to offer a conference to bring local governments and engineers together with the funding and 

regulatory agencies to network and coordinate their various forms of assistance. Another basic 

activity has been the creation of the Infrastructure Assistance Directory to provide a single resource 

guide for local governments. IACC also tried to establish a system of coordinating technical assistance teams for local projects, but this was too difficult to sustain, and the need was somewhat met 

by the WA-CERT approach. 

IACC has supported several other activities through the years. The basic rationale has always been 

that public facility assistance is not keeping up with the need. Therefore, IACC seeks to answer the 

question: How can the state and federal funding providers make the best use of resources, and how 

can we assist local governments in accessing financial and technical assistance? 

The Timber Team provided targeted and coordinated technical assistance to individuals, communities, and businesses impacted by the curtailment of the federal timber harvest. In 1992, the Timber 

Team began a “seamless service delivery” approach, with the philosophy that it is the job of state 

and federal program staff to find the best mix of programs to help a community address a priority 

need. 

A-27
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

WASHINGTON’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

WA-CERT’s process continued the one-stop shopping approach, pioneering the concepts of scoping 

agents and technical teams – a bottom-up (community driven) approach to coordination, teaching 

project development techniques to other staff and communities through a variety of training workshops and WA-CERT Rural Communities Symposium. 

Q: Please identify any significant milestones you achieved during the process of establishing 

your coordinated funding approach. 

A: • Rural Development, Community Development Block Grant, and the Department of Ecology 

will accept each other’s environmental work, if coordinated early. 

• Offering infrastructure assistance conferences. 

• Creation of IACC’s searchable Infrastructure Assistance Directory. 

• Establishment of non-profit status (state). 

WA-CERT’s two-page project proposal form, scoping agents, technical team approaches, web-based 

application process, and Symposium. 

Q: What specific challenges/obstacles did your state face in establishing its coordinated 

funding approach and how did your state overcome them? 

A: Staff continue to address various challenges/obstacles. The challenge for any sustained coordinated effort is having the authorization to work in a collaborative way. 

Implementing the Approach 

Q: How does your state handle differences in program requirements and priorities among the 

various funding sources? 

A: Due to the decline in levels of certain funding for community and economic development programs, coordination is even more important. Some information is shared between programs (e.g., 

community income status information between Rural Development and Community Development 

Block Grant, environmental review information between the Department of Ecology, Community 

Development Block Grant, and Rural Development), though differences in program requirements and 

priorities among the various funding sources are not really “handled.” 

Q: How does your state make the public aware of its coordinated funding efforts? Public 

meetings, funding fairs, websites, newsletters? 

A: IACC Conference; www.infrafunding.wa.gov; fact sheets; and, training events. Thirty-one counties 

and 26 tribes prioritize projects through the WA-CERT system. The state and federal agency staff 

scan those lists of projects identifying those that fit their priorities, funding programs, etc. 

Assessing the Approach 

Q: How many potential funding applicants do you think you reach every year through the 

coordinated funding approach? 

A: We are unable to estimate the total number of applicants that are reached by our coordination 

efforts. 

A-28
APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES 

WASHINGTON’S COORDINATED FUNDING SURVEY (CONT’D) 

Q: Do you believe that the coordinated funding approach in your state has been effective at 

getting projects funded and why? 

A: Yes. A good example of these efforts are agency staff that coordinate to assist small, rural communities that are simultaneously struggling with economic vitality and compliance with health and 

environmental regulations. 

Q: Is your state considering any improvements/enhancements to its approach? 

A: New ideas are always being considered. 

Q: What changes at the federal level do you think would help to enhance coordination? 

A: Giving applicants fewer federal requirements to meet. 

A-29
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

A-30
Appendix B:

Sample Documents

From Surveyed States

A ppendix B provides sample documents used by the six profiled states. The documents 

include: 

• Arizona’s Project Information Form used to gather basic system and project information. 

• California’s Common Funding Inquiry Form used to route potential applicants to the appropriate funding agency(ies). 

• A sample of Montana’s Project Tracking Tables, which track the progress of each project 

funded through W2

ASACT.

• The Memorandum of Understanding that created the Co-funding Initiative in New York. 

• Flowcharts created by PENNVEST to show how drinking water and wastewater systems 

move through the application and funding processes in Pennsylvania. 

• A “snapshot” of IACC’s Web site, which allows systems to identify available sources of 

funding in Washington. 

B-1
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES 

AZ - RWIC Project Information Form 

B-2

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 

PROJECT INFORMATION FORM 

(To be utilized by all project applicants within the State of Arizona) 

1. Name of Community/Facility/System: 2.County: 

3. Previous name of Facility/System, if applicable: 

4. Type of Organization: op ( Other ( 

If other, please explain: 

5. Total Population Served: 6. Number of Connections: 

7. Contact 8. Telephone Number: 

Title: 9. Fax Number: 

10. Address 11.E-Mail Address 

(If Applicable): 

12. Type of Project (Please Check): Water ( Wastewater ( Solid Waste ( 

13. Population of Project Service Area: 14. Number of Service Connections or users: 

Complete the following (If you do not have accurate study data, please provide an estimate): 

15. Median Income of Service Area: 16. % Poverty Level of Service Area: 

17. Provide a description of the problem. 

18. (a) 16. (b) (Date) 

19. Describe the proposed solution. 

I. GENERAL INFORMATION 

II. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SERVICE AREA INFORMATION 

III. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND 

Municipality ( ) Special/Domestic District ( ) Investor Owned ( ) Co- ) ) 

Person: 

) ) ) 

Estimated Project Cost: $ Estimated By: 

APPLICABLE BACKGROUND INFORMATION 
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

B-3

20. Please check all that apply to resolving the problem. 

Not Certain of How and Where to Begin Lack Organization/Cooperation 

Public Is Unaware of the Problem Lack Public Support for Solution 

Need Qualified Consultants Experiencing Technical Problems 

Lack financial Options Regulatory Problems 

Environmental Issues Other: 

If Environmental or Other Issues are applicable, please explain: 

21. Have you contacted any agencies or lending sources about funding? Yes No ( ) 

BECC ( CDBG ( GADA ( USDA – Rural Development ( ) WIFA ( Other ( 

If Other, please identify: 

22. Have you received on-site Technical Assistance? Yes ( No ( ) 

Check source(s) of Technical Assistance Received: 

ASETT Center ( RCAC ( ASUA ( Other ( If Other, please identify: 

IV. FINANCIAL RATE, COLLECTION AND FUND INFORMATION 

23. Rates: Monthly/Quarterly/Other 

Rates by “Uses” – e.g. $1.00 gallons beyond base of 5,000 gallons 

24. Please provide th e latest summary of your revenues an d expenditu res. (If you have audited financi 

s t a t e m e n t s , t h e r e w i l l b ea s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d “ C o m b i n e d S t a t e m e n t o f R e v e n u e s a n d E x p e n d i t u r e s ” . ) 

Please Check: ( ) 

) ) ) ) ) 

Please check: ) 

) ) ) ) 

Service Residential Rates Commercial Rates Date of Last increase 

Water 

Base: 

Use: 

Base: 

Use: 

Wastewater 

Base: 

Use: 

Base: 

Use: 

Solid Waste 

Base: 

Use: 

Base: 

Use: 

22. Are water and wastewater separate funds? 

23. Please complete budget information. 

Annual Budget Water Fund Wastewater Fund 

Total Collections 

Operation/Maintenance/Replacement 

Annual Debt Service 

Reserve/Sinking Fund Balance 

Available/Uncommitted Balances 
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES 

CA - CFCC Common Funding Inquiry 

B-4
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

This page intentionally left blank. 

B-5
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES 

MT - W2ASACT Project Tracking Tables 

B-6

sample

APPLICANT PROJECT Status 

YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR 

Hebgen Basin-West 

Yellowstone Refuse 

District 

Composting facility 

for municipal solid 

waste D $ 99 

Lake County Solid 

Waste District Transfer station F $ (02) $ (?) 

Total Solid Waste $ $ $ $ $ 

YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR 

Arlee W&S District, 

Lake Co. 

New wastewater 

system D $ 00 $ 99 $ 99 

Ashland W&S District, 

Rosebud Co. New treatment plant D $ 01 $ 01 

Big Sky (Phase III) 

Treatment 

improvements C $ (02) 

East Missoula 

New collection system 

& connect to 

Missoula C $ 99 $ 97 $ 00 

Florence W&S District, 

Ravalli County 

New wastewater 

system F $ (03) $ 01 $ 99 $ (?) 

Virginia City New treatment plant D $ 02 $ 01 

Total Waste Water $ $ $ $ $ 

YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR 

Blackfeet Tribe 

New source and 

treatment plant to 

provide water to East 

Glacier and Browning F/D $ 01 

Clyde Park 

New well and 

distribution 

improvements C $ 01 $ 01 

Eureka 

Supply and treatment 

improvements C 

Lacasa Grande Estates 

W&S District, Lewis & 

Clark Co. New water system C $ 01 

Lockwood W&S 

District, Yellowstone 

Co. 

Treatment 

improvements F $ (?) 

Phillipsburg Source improvements C $ 98 $ 98 

Total Water $ $ $ $ $ 

YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR 

Colstrip 

Distribution & 

collection C 

Libby 

Water & wastewater 

extension of services F $ (02) $ (?) 

Upper/Lower River 

Road, Cascade Co. 

Connect to City of 

Great Falls F $ (02) 

Total Water & Sewer $ $ $ $ $ 

Year Notations: The year in parentheses following the amount denotes that the applicant has submitted an application to the funding source and is awaiting a funding 

by the funding source. question mark in parentheses denotes that the applicant has indicated in an application to another funding source that it is planning to submit 

year with a question mark in parentheses , indicating that the applicant has definite plans to apply or re-submit an application in that year. 

Other Funding Source Notations: CDBG = Community Development Block Grant Program; DNRC = Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; 

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; EDA = Economic Development Agency; STAG = State and Tribal Assistance Grant; Unknown = Funding has been 

Status: PE = Preliminary Engineering; F = Obtaining Financing; D = Final Design; C = Construction; X = Project Completed 

CDBG Grant 

DNRC 

Grant 

INTERCAP Loan 

(non-interim) 

Water 

Water & Sewer 

Solid Waste 

Waste Water 

DNRC 

Loan RD Grant 

99,425 

100,000 640,182 

- 199,425 - 640,182 -

500,000 14,000 1,517,800 

385,500 100,000 

100,000 

400,000 100,000 940,000 

500,000 100,000 16,325 2,170,000 

500,000 100,000 

2,285,500 500,000 - 30,325 4,627,800 

4,637,415 

100,000 721,000 

100,000 

335,000 

400,000 30,000 

735,000 230,000 - - 5,358,415 

100,000 241,275 

100,000 

- 200,000 - 241,275 -

A 
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

B-7

sample

LOCAL 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST COUNTY 

YEAR YEAR YEAR Source YEAR 

$ 02 $ $ Gallatin 

$ (02) $ $ Lake 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

YEAR YEAR YEAR Source YEAR 

$ 99 $ 99 $ $ 

S&K Tribes ($320,000) 

MDEQ Planning Grant ($12,745) 98 $ Lake 

$ 01 $ 01 $ $ 

DNRC Planning Grant ($6,500) 

Coal Board ($185,000) 

EDA ($115,000) 

99 

01 

02 $ Rosebud 

$ 02 $ (02) $ $ Private Sources $ Gallatin 

$ 00 $ 97 $ $ 

MDEQ Planning Grant ($23.925) 

EPA Grant ($241,835) $ Missoula 

$ (?) $ 01 $ 

DNRC Planning Grant ($6.325) 

MDEQ Planning Grant ($10,000) 

STAG ($2,000,000) 01 $ Ravalli 

$ 02 $ 01 $ $ MDEQ Planning Grant ($9,981) 99 $ Madison 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

YEAR YEAR YEAR Source YEAR 

$ 01 $ 01 $ 

TSEP/Browning ($500,000) 

State 

CDBG/Browning($500,000) 

EPA ($720,000) 

NAHASDA ($1,500,000) 

TSEP/East Glacier ($306,555) 

EDA ($1,500,000) 

97 

(00) $ Glacier 

$ 01 $ $ 

CDBG Planning Grant ($4,500) 

DNRC Planning Grant ($10,000) 

Unknown ($500,000) 

98 

00 $ Park 

$ 02 $ 01 $ $ Lincoln 

$ (02) $ 99 $ MDEQ Planning Grant $ Lewis & Clark 

$ (?) $ (02) $ $ 

DNRC Planning Grant ($10,000) 

TSEP PER Grant ($5,000) (01) $ Yellowstone 

$ 98 $ 99 $ $ CDBG Planning Grant $ Granite 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

YEAR YEAR YEAR Source YEAR 

$ (02) $ $ MT Coal Board $ Rosebud 

$ (02) $ $ 

DNRC Planning Grant ($10,000) 

CDBG Planning Grant ($10,000) $ Lincoln 

$ (?) $ (03) $ $ 

DNRC ($10,000) DEQ/SRF & 

DOC/CDBG ($13,200) 

STAG ($2,000,000) 02 $ Cascade 

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

RD Loan TSEP Grant

decision. year without parentheses denotes the year the project was funded 

an application to this funding source. question mark without parentheses denotes that funding is authorized, but funding is not yet committed. Note that CDBG may have a 

RD = Rural Development; SRF = State Revolving Fund; TSEP = Treasure State Endowment Program; IHS = Indian Health Service; BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs; 

anticipated from a particular funding source, but the application was unsuccessful and a new source has not been identified. 

OTHER 

SRF Loan FUNDING

4,136,000 159,058 4,394,483 

500,000 1,056,818 2,297,000 

- 4,136,000 500,000 1,215,876 - 6,691,483 

742,100 500,000 11,338 322,745 2,814,833 

116,750 500,000 28,750 306,500 1,437,500 

7,000,000 500,000 2,500,000 8,959,013 19,059,013 

2,053,200 500,000 298,017 265,760 4,556,977 

2,170,000 500,000 16,325 7,472,650 

724,000 500,000 23,460 9,981 1,857,441 

4,965,300 7,840,750 3,000,000 2,861,565 9,880,324 37,198,414 

1,545,805 500,000 5,026,555 11,709,775 

429,000 19,000 514,500 1,783,500 

619,000 369,000 95,920 1,083,920 

650,000 500,000 4,950 1,254,950 

643,828 500,000 229,727 15,000 1,723,555 

241,000 121,900 344,123 7,496 1,144,519 

1,974,805 2,153,828 1,990,900 688,770 5,568,501 18,700,219 

2,617,000 400,000 700,000 3,717,000 

500,000 400,000 20,000 1,261,275 

792,000 500,000 10,800 2,023,200 3,426,000 

- 3,409,000 1,000,000 810,800 2,743,200 8,404,275 

The amount indicated is only an estimate and the amount if awarded could be higher or lower. The 

A 
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES 

NY - MOU for Co-Funding Initiative 

New York: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

COORDINATION OF WATER AND SEWER FUNDING ACTIVITIES 

This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is by and between the New York State 

Department of Health (DOH), an agency of the State of New York, the New York State Department of 

State (DOS), an agency of the State of New York, the New York State Environmental Facilities 

Corporation (EFC), a New York State public benefit corporation, the New York State Governor’s Office 

for Small Cities (GOSC), a unit of the New York State Housing Trust Fund Corporation, the New York 

State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), an agency of the State of New York, and the 

United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA RD). (Such entities individually 

sometimes referred to as a “Government Agency” and collectively, “Government Agencies”). 

A. WHEREAS, the Government Agencies entering into this MOU each have funding programs that assist 

communities, including small and rural communities, to finance projects that have water and/or sewer 

needs (““projects””). These Government Agencies operate separately and independently from each other, 

and each Government Agency has separate and independent decision-making functions for determining the 

projects it funds. 

B. WHEREAS, such projects may be eligible to receive funding from any or all of the Government 

Agencies. In order for a project to receive funding from the Government Agencies, an applicant must apply 

to each Government Agency separately. Coordinating this application process, while retaining each 

Government Agency’s separate and independent decision-making responsibilities, will simplify the 

application process for potential applicants and enhance customer service. 

C. WHEREAS, projects may be eligible to receive funding from any or all of the Government Agencies. 

Cooperation and communication between such Government Agencies is necessary to ensure optimum 

funding potential and assistance. A formal funding coordination process will ensure that applicants have the 

opportunity to receive funding from the most appropriate funding source(s), and that the Government 

Agencies are using available funds as effectively as possible. 

D. WHEREAS, this MOU addresses key recommendations in Governor Pataki’s Quality Communities 

Interagency Task Force Report dated January 2001, which calls for Government Agencies to study 

community growth in New York State and develop means to assist communities in implementing effective 

land development, preservation and rehabilitation strategies that promote both economic development and 

environmental protection. The Quality Communities Interagency Task Force also made recommendations 

for agencies to review current policies and practices concerning state funding to local governments and to 

stream line the state funding application process. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in cooperation of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the 

Government Agencies agree as follows: 

A. The Government Agencies enter this joint MOU to formalize the coordination of water and sewer 

financing activities for the purpose of improving service to communities seeking project financing. The 

water and sewer funding programs addressed by this MOU are as follows: 

(i) Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC): Administered by DOS, this program provides funding to the 14 

Southern Tier counties in the Appalachia region of New York State. ARC financial assistance to projects in 

all Appalachian counties are only a small catalytic part of a larger package of state and federal investments 

for particular infrastructure efforts and are almost always co-funded with such funds. 

B-8
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

(ii) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): Administered by EFC and DEC, CWSRF provides reduced


rate financing to recipients for municipally owned water quality protection projects. 


(iii) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Small Cities Program: Administered by the GOSC, the HUD


CDBG Small Cities Program provides grants to eligible cities, towns and villages with a population under


50,000 persons and counties under 200,000 for projects principally benefitting low and moderate income


persons by revitalizing neighborhoods, expanding affordable housing and economic opportunities, and/or


improving community facilities. 


(iv) Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Administered by DOH and EFC, the DWSRF provides


reduced rate financing and grants for municipally and privately owned public water systems to undertake


needed drinking water infrastructure projects.


(v) 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act: Administered by DEC, the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act


provides grants to municipalities or entities designated by municipalities for the implementation of water


quality improvement projects including wastewater treatment improvement, aquatic habitat restoration and


non-point source abatement and control


(vi) USDA RD: Provides loans, grants and loan guarantees for drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste


and storm drainage facilities in rural areas and cities and towns with a population of 10,000 or less. Public


bodies, non-profit organizations and recognized Indian tribes may qualify for assistance. 


B. To enhance customer service, simplify the application process and formalize the coordination of jointly


financed water and sewer funding activities, the Government Agencies each acknowledge and agree to:


(i) Promptly establish a permanent Water and Sewer Co-funding Committee (Co-funding Committee)


consisting of representatives from each of the Government Agencies who are a party to this MOU, in order


to carry out the tasks needed to achieve the MOU objectives (as described above in paragraphs B and C)


and to meet on a regular basis for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating actions toward achieving the


objectives of this MOU;


(ii) Cooperate in preparing and distributing a common screening mechanism that enables potential funding


recipients to determine if they may be eligible for funding offered by the different Government Agencies;


(iii) Cooperate in developing an efficient mechanism and process to obtain fundamental information that


each government agency requires of an applicant to minimize the applicant’’s duplication of effort;


(iv) Facilitate the exchange of information among the Government Agencies to maximize the delivery of


resources to communities in need of infrastructure improvements;


(v) Jointly finance projects whenever feasible and appropriate; 


(vi) Provide the support to coordinate jointly financed water and sewer financing activities; and


(vii) Provide training outreach on government water and sewer financing programs to inform potential


recipients of funding opportunities for which they may be eligible.


C. The list of contacts for each of the Government Agencies who are a party to this MOU is attached as 

Appendix A. 

D. This agreement will commence when executed by the last of the Government Agencies identified in this 

MOU and remains in effect until terminated by any party giving to the others not less than sixty (60) days 

written notice that on or after a date therein specified, this agreement shall be terminated and canceled. 

B-9
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES 

PA - Flow Chart 

���� ����� � �������� �����

������������ �������������� ���������� ���������

����������� ������������� ����������

���������

������������

������� ����������� ���� ���������

�������� �������� ������������

�������� ���� ��� ������� ������� �������� ������������

�������

�������� �������� ��������������������

��������������� ���������� ������ ���

����� �� ����������

�������� �������� ��� �����������

������ ��� ������� ��������

������������������� ���������

�������� ������������������������� ��������

������� ��������

�������������� ����������

����������������������� ����� ������

��������������������������������� ��������� �

��� ��� �����������

�������� ����� �������

��������� ��������

���� ������� ���������������� �������

����� ������������

���������

��������� ��� �������� ���������� ��� ��� ����������

B-10
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

���� �����������������

������������ �������������� ���������� ���������

����������� ��� ��������� ����������

���������

������� ����������� ���� ���������

�������� �����������������������������������

��� ������� �������

�������� ������������

�������

�������� �����������������������������

����� �� ����������

������� ������ �������

������ ����������� �� ���

��� ���������������

������������

���������������������

������� ���������������� �� ������������

������ ���� ��������

���������� ��������

������������

������� �������

������� ����� ������������������ ���� ��� ������

�����������

������� ���������������� ��

������������ ������ ���� ��

�������

���������

���� ������� ������������������������

���������

��������� ���������� ���������� ��� ��������������

��� ������� ��������

��� ������� ��������

��������� ����������� ��� ����� �� ���������

������� ��� ����������� �������� ����� �������

��������� ��������

����� ������������

B-11
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES 

WA - IACC Website 

B-12
Appendix C: 

State Coordinated 

Funding Overview 

Appendix C provides a summary table of the coordinated funding efforts for all states. The 

information summarized in the table was gathered from research conducted by EPA on each 

state. The information is focused primarily on the states’ implementation of EPA’s SRF 

programs. After the initial research was completed, each state’s SRF program was contacted to verify 

its information and to make changes as necessary. While the information presented was accurate at 

the time it was gathered, some of the information may change due to the dynamic nature of state 

coordinated funding programs. 

C-1
C-2

S tate C oordinate F unding? C oordinated Funding Approach

N ame of Group/

O rganization

F ostering Coordinated

F unding?

W ebsite 

Coordinate

Selection of

Systems

Uniform

Application

Packages

Uniform

Environmental

Reviews

MOU

Meetings

(Indicate how

often)

Conferences/

Workshops/

Funding Fairs

Other (specify)

A L Yes   Quarterly

A K Yes  Quarterly 

A Z Yes 

Quarterlygeneralmeetings andmonthly projectmeetings

Project of the

Year Award

CommunityCharettes

Rural Water

Infrastructure

Committee (RwIC)

www.wif

A R Yes Uniform Pre- Application Monthly Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee www.180

C A Yes    

California

Finance

CoordinatingCommittee(CFCC)

www.cfcc

www.sw

www.dhs

SRFindex

C O Yes

SeparateMOUs with

Depts. of Local

Government,

the Water

Quality Control

Division of CODept. of

Health, and

the CO Water

Conservation

Board

Quarterly  Discussion of pooling funds Funding Coordination Committee www.cdp

Drinking_

C T Yes

Possible, but

has not yet

happened

Possible, but

it is untestedsince no

projects have

actually been

co-funded

Possible, but it

is untestedsince no

projects have

actually been

co-funded

Occasionally if

needed, but

nothing on aroutine basis




C-3

S tate C oordinate F unding? C oordinated Funding Approach

N ame of Group/

O rganization

F ostering Coordinated

F unding?

W ebsite 

Coordinate

Selection of

Systems

Uniform

Application

Packages

Uniform

Environmental

Reviews

MOU

Meetings

(Indicate how

often)

Conferences/

Workshops/

Funding Fairs

Other (specify)

D E Y es

C oordinate

i nformally

w ith

U SDA/RD

N o, but

g enerally

a ccept other

a gencies'r eviews

Q uarterly

S emi-annual

E xpo through

D elTech

C ommunityC ollege anda nnual events:

D E RWA; DE

I nst. for Local

G overnment

L eaders, etc.

U niformP aymentD isbursementR equest

F L Y es

U nder

D evelopm ent Q uarterly

F L's annual

S RF

W orkshop

i ncludes alld rinking watera nd

w astewaterf unding

a gencies

D eveloping

c learinghouse

w ebsite

F lorida Rural Water

A ssociation

G A Y es

W ith Statef unded loan

p rogram

G EFA attendsa nnualm eetings ofn on-profits

D eveloping

c oordinatedm arketing anda pplicationa ssistance

w ww.gef

H I N o

I D Y es Q uarterly  A dvantage H andbook A dvantage Group w ww.ido

i ndex.htm

I L Y es  Q uarterly

I nfrastructure Funding

C oordinating

C ommittee

I N Y es

N o, but

e nvironmentalr eviewsc oordinated

M onthly

E nvironmental

I nfrastructure Working

G roup, headed by the

I ndiana Rural

D evelopment Council

w ww.IN.

I A Y es

U niform Prea pplication

o nly

M onthly

A nnualw orkshopw ith

c onsultinge ngineers

D WSRF funds

m ayc omplemento ther grants

( e.g., CDBGs)

w ww.sta

e pd/wtrs
C-4

S tate C oordinate F unding? C oordinated Funding Approach

N ame of Group/

O rganization

F ostering Coordinated

F unding?

W ebsite 

Coordinate

Selection of

Systems

Uniform

Application

Packages

Uniform

Environmental

Reviews

MOU

Meetings

(Indicate how

often)

Conferences/

Workshops/

Funding Fairs

Other (specify)

K S Y es M onthly Y e

S everal projects

h ave received

S RF and CDBGa ssistance

K ansas Inter-Agency

C ommittee (KIAC)

K Y Y es  M onthly

L A Y es I nfrastructure I nformation Center w wwsrch

M E Y es 

N o, but will

c oncur withe nvironmentalr eview fromo ther fundinga gency

T wice per year

M aine Drinking Water

P rogram, USDA/RD,

D ept. of Economic

a nd Community

D evelopment

w ww.sta

M D Y es

C oordinate

w ith

U SDA/RD

a nd partialc oordination

w ith otherf unding

p artners

P artial with

U SDA/RD  Q uarterly

A nnual

e vents:M arylandM unicipal

L eague,

M aryland

A ssociation of

C ounties, etc.

D WSRF Project

P riority List,

c reated duringa nnual projects olicitation,u sed toc oordinate

f unding with

o ther agencies

w ww.md

M A N o

M I Y es A s needed

M ichigan Dept. of Env.Q uality Partnership

w ith USDA/RD

( wastewater only)

w ww.mic

0 ,1607,7

w ww.deq

d eq-ead-

M N Y es  O nly for C WSRF

B iannually (or

m ore often if

n eeded) with

R uralD evelopmentB iannually with

C DBG

A nnually with

A rmy Corps of

E ngineers

A ttend

c onferences oro ther events

w ith funding

p artners

A ll funders use

C WSRF and

D WSRF Project

P riority Lists

" Who's Hot, Who's

N ot" meetings

s




S tate C oordinate F unding? C oordinated Funding Approach

N ame of Group/

O rganization

F ostering Coordinated

F unding?

W ebsit

Coordinate

Selection of

Systems

Uniform

Application

Packages

Uniform

Environmental

Reviews

MOU

Meetings

(Indicate how

often)

Conferences/

Workshops/

Funding Fairs

Other (specify)

M S Y es

M O Y es

C oordinat ion with

U SDA/RD

a nd CDBG

U nder

d evelopment M onthly 

O ther grants

m ay be used toc omplement

D WSRF loans.

A lso, DWSRF

p rogramp rovidesi nterim loans.

W ater and Wastewater

R eview Committee

M T Y es   B imonthly  V ideo

W ater, Wastewater,

a nd Solid Waste

A ction Coordinating

T eam

w ww.dn

N E Y es

C ommonp re-applicat ion

A dopt other

a gencies'r eviews

M onthly H eld s eparately

D WSRFand

C WSRFp rogramsp rovide interim

f inancing

W ater WastewaterA dvisory Committee

N V Y es

P roject must

b e on the

D WSRFP rojectP riority List

t o be

e ligible fors tate grant.S ystems use

D WSRF

r anking as

p art of theirp rojectd ocumentat ion.

E nvironmental

r eviews notp erformed forn on-federally

f unded

p rojects ina ccordance

w ith NEPA.

D WSRF hasN EPA-like

p rocessa pproved by

E PA.

Q uarterly

A s part of

o ngoing

A WWA,

N evada Rural

W aterA ssociation,

a nd others

Q uarterly" Waterlines"n ewsletterp rovidesi nformation ona ssistance and

f unding sources

I nfrastructure for

N evada Communities

( INC), coordinated by

R ural Community

A ssistance Corporation

( RCAC)

w ww.rcaw ww.rca

F all2001

C-5
C-6

S tate C oordinate F unding? C oordinated Funding Approach

N ame of Group/

O rganization

F ostering Coordinated

F unding?

W ebsite 

Coordinate

Selection of

Systems

Uniform

Application

Packages

Uniform

Environmental

Reviews

MOU

Meetings

(Indicate how

often)

Conferences/

Workshops/

Funding Fairs

Other (specify)

N H Y es  Q uarterly

S omes eminars on" FundingO ptions" are

w orked intot he yearly

D rinking

W ater Trade

S how

N J N o

N M Y es I n progress

Q uarterly ones top-shopm eetings

N MI nfrastructureF inance

C onference,

A ssociation of

C ounties

A nnual

C onference,M unicipal

L eague

A nnual

C onference,

R ural Water

C onference,a nd DFA

L ocal

G overnment

B udget

C onference

R ural Water

A ssociation

R ural Community

A ssistance Corporation

( RCAC)

N Y Y es  

B imonthly

s teeringc ommitteem eetings

F unding selfa ssessment

t ool

W ater and Sewer

I nfrastructure CoF unding Initiative w ww.nyc

N C Y es A s needed

N D N o
S tate C oordinate F unding? C oordinated Funding Approach

N ame of Group/

O rganization

F ostering Coordinated

F unding?

W ebsite 

Coordinate

Selection of

Systems

Uniform

Application

Packages

Uniform

Environmental

Reviews

MOU

Meetings

(Indicate how

often)

Conferences/

Workshops/

Funding Fairs

Other (specify)

O H Y es

C oordinating Committee works to

s treamline interagency funding provisions.

F inance Committee coordinates financial

r esources for small communities.

T echnology Transfer Committee identifies

a nd develops new or underutilized

t echnologies for small communities.

Q uarterly

C urriculumC ommitteeo ffers

w orkshops for

l ocal officials

o n water and

w astewater

s ystems

S mall Communities

E nvironmentalI nfrastructure Group

w ww.sce

O K Y es   M onthly F unding Agency C oordinating Team w ww.stat

O R Y es    

w ww.ohdw ww.eco

P A Y es  

w ww.depw ww.pen

P R N o

R I Y es

P ossible, but

h as not yeth appened

F unding

a genciesc oordinate

e nvironmentalr eviews so

t hat there is

l ittle or nod uplication ofe ffort

O ccasionally ifn eeded, but

n othing on ar outine basis

A tlantic States

R ural Water

w orks with the

S tate ands uggests cof undingo pportunities if

a borrower can

b enefit from it

A tlantic State RuralW ater Association

S C N o

C-7
C-8

S tate C oordinate F unding? C oordinated Funding Approach

N ame of Group/

O rganization

F ostering Coordinated

F unding?

W ebsit

Coordinate

Selection of

Systems

Uniform

Application

Packages

Uniform

Environmental

Reviews

MOU

Meetings

(Indicate how

often)

Conferences/

Workshops/

Funding Fairs

Other (specify)

S D Y es  Q uarterly with U SDA/RD

C ooperate with

D ept. of

T ransportation

t o coordinate

r oad, water,a nd

w astewater

p rojects

w ww.sta

w wfprg.h

T N Y es

W ith Rural

U tilities

S ervice

N o, but

e nvironmental

r eviews

c oordinated

A s needed

A nnual

e vents: TNM unicipal

L eague

C onference

P ublications

( Finding Money

I II)

T X Y es 

W ith ORCA

( HUD Funds)

f or

E conomicallyD istressed

A reas Projects

A s needed

N umerous

g rants and

l oans

a dministered

t hrough Texas

W ater

D evelopment

B oard

w ww.tw

w ww.tw

f inancial

U T Y es A s needed

T he Water

D evelopment

C oordinating Council

w ww.dri

V T Y es

C oordinate

i nformally

w ith

U SDA/RD

N o, but has

b eenc onsidereda nd remains

a possibility



Q uarterlym eetings tor eview projects tatus

B iannualE ngineers

W orkshop

E ngineers

L iaison

C ommitteem eets quarterly

a nd deals withg eneral issuesp ertaining to

f unding

p rograms

V ermont Dept. of Env.

C onservation and

U SDA/RD
S tate C oordinate F unding? C oordinated Funding Approach

N ame of Group/

O rganization

F ostering Coordinated

F unding?

W ebsite 

Coordinate

Selection of

Systems

Uniform

Application

Packages

Uniform

Environmental

Reviews

MOU

Meetings

(Indicate how

often)

Conferences/

Workshops/

Funding Fairs

Other (specify)

V A Y es 

E ach agency

g enerallya ccepts theo thers'

r eviews, and a

f ormal process

i s almostc omplete

A t least

q uarterly

P roject

s pecificS mall Business

I nstitute

p resentation.O thera genciese ncouraged toa ttend VA

D ept. ofH ealth

w orkshops.

F unding Partners

( not a formal name)

W A Y es     F unding D atabase

W ashington

C ommunity Economic

R evitalization Team

( WA-CERT)

W ashington's

I nfrastructure

A ssistance

C oordination Council( IACC)

w ww.infr

W V Y es  P re-applicati- o n M onthly  W V Infrastructure and J obs Development C ouncil w ww.wv

W I Y es S emi-monthly 

P roject

A ffordabilityW orksheet

F unding

S ources

H andbook

D rinking Water and

W astewater Funding

S ources

w ww.dnr

c findex.h

W Y Y es   B i-monthly 

R egular

i nteragencyd iscussions andc oordinatione fforts

h ttp://deqi ndex.asp

C-9
United States


Environmental Protection Agency


Washington, DC 20460


Visit the EPA Office of Water Funding website at 

www.epa.gov/water/funding.html 

Where to go for 

more information: 

Seeds

Office of Water (4606M) Printed on Recycled Paper 

www.epa.gov/safewater October 2003 

EPA-816-R-03-018