State DWSRF Program Summaries

Appendix A
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• State Goals In establishing the DWSRF program, Congress gave each state the flexibility to design a

program tailored to meet the needs of its water systems. Each state is required to include

short- and long-term goals for its DWSRF program within its Intended Use Plan (IUP).

These goals provide a framework to guide decision making within the state programs.

Key goals for each state programwere taken from the IUPs.

Structure of Loan Program

• Type of Program Direct loan programs are programs with loans made from federal funds, repayments, and

other earnings from the Fund. Leveraged programs are programs with loans made from

the proceeds of bonds issued by the program to increase the amount of funds available

for funding projects.

• Interest Rates Each state must describe in its IUP how the interest rates for its program are determined.

The weighted average of the interest rate charged on DWSRF assistance provided was

taken from DWNIMS.

• Disadvantaged Information on the features of the state’s disadvantaged assistance program was taken

Assistance Program from DWNIMS.

• Priority System The SDWA Amendments require that, to the maximum extent practicable, states give

priority to projects that (1) address the most serious risks to public health, (2) are

necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the SDWA, and (3) assist

systems most in need on a per household basis. Although each state must address these

three objectives, many states have developed additional categories, which reflect each of

the required objectives. The summary of categories for each state was taken from

Prioritizing Drinking Water Needs: A compilation of State priority systems for the Drinking

Water State Revolving Fund Program (EPA 816-R-99-001).

Project Needs and Demand

• Infrastructure Needs The reported needs were obtained from the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey:

Second Report to Congress (EPA 816-R-01-004), Exhibit B-1 and Exhibit C-1.

• Demand The reported demand was taken from the comprehensive list of projects included in the

most recent IUP for the state as of July 2001.

Funding for Projects

• First Grant Award The first grant award information was taken from the capitalization grant agreements.

States have the option of applying for the full grant award or for project and set-aside

funds separately.

• Loans Executed Information on the types of systems that received loans was taken from DWNIMS. If a

state has not funded a privately-owned system, this does not necessarily mean that it has

restrictions on funding privates. It could be that the state has yet to provide assistance to

a privately-owned system.

Appendix A Legend
Structure of Set-aside Program

• Information on set-aside activities conducted by the state was taken from the most recent Annual/

Biennial Report submitted by the state. Specific activities under the 4% administration and technical

assistance set-aside were not included because, with the exception of 4 states, all states are using the

funds solely to administer their DWSRF programs.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• This category includes activities conducted by the state to provide technical assistance to small systems

serving fewer than 10,000 people.

State Program Management (SPM)

• This category includes activities conducted by the state to: administer the state PWSS program; provide

technical assistance through source water protection programs; and develop and implement a capacity

development strategy or an operator certification program.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• This category includes activities conducted by the state to: delineate and assess source water protection

areas; provide loans to systems to acquire land or conservation easements; provide loans to systems to

assist in voluntary, incentive-based source water protection measures; make expenditures to establish and

implement wellhead protection programs; and provide assistance to systems as part of a capacity

development strategy.

Set-asides Chart

• All data in the chart came from DWNIMS for the period ending June 30, 2001. Set-aside amounts

reserved are those dollar amounts included in state workplans. Set-aside amounts expended are those

dollar amounts in workplans that have been expended on activities. Most of the workplans have a three

year term. Because funds are expended in accordance with a workplan, EPA believes that it is reasonable

to expect that roughly one-half to one-third of the funds will be unspent in any given year.

Program at a Glance

With the exception of the allotment percent and funds appropriated, all data in the table came from DWNIMS

for the period ending June 30, 2001.

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) Percentage of appropriated funds available to states. The FY97 formula is based on

PWSS grants and the FY98-FY01 formula is based on Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs Survey: First Report to Congress (EPA 812-R-97-001).

Funds Appropriated (FY97-01) Total amount of funds a state is eligible to receive from each fiscal year’s

appropriation based on an allotment formula.

Grants Received Total amount of federal grants awarded to the state. States have two years in which

to receive a grant award from a specific appropriation.

State Contributions Amount deposited into Fund to meet 20% match requirement. Includes additional

state match funds to meet future 20% match requirements and excess match

contributions.

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds Gross bond proceeds less costs incidental to bond issuance.

Total Funds Available Total funds made available for assistance including funds obligated through

executed loan agreements and unobligated funds.

Total Loans Executed (#, $) Number and dollar amount of total loan agreements executed.

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) Number and percentage of loans to small systems serving 10,000 people or fewer.

Projects Completed (#, %) Number and percentage of projects completed. Completion is the date when the

project is complete for the purposes for which it was undertaken and operations are

capable of being initiated.
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Protect public health and the environment and promote the completion of cost-effective water treatment,

storage, and distribution facilities.

• Assist systems in ensuring affordable water supplies.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also issues

bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.

• Interest rates are based on the prevailing interest rate for AAA

rated tax exempt municipal bonds less approximately 2%.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have been

about 3.8% over the last three years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: the nature

of benefit in terms of risks to human health and compliance,

the number of people benefitted per dollar, affordability, and

consolidation.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.1 billion, $674 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $34 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in August 1998.

• The first loan was executed in December 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 52 loans,

ranging from $115,000 to $12.7 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 63% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 52% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The water source for the City of Leeds was reclassified by the Alabama Department of Environmental

Management (ADEM), requiring installation of advanced treatment to ensure drinking water that meets all

current standards. The city received a $525,000 loan to install a package type facility as the most costeffective solution.

• The Limestone County Water System received a $4.9 million loan to install ultrafiltration treatment to

comply with water quality standards and to remove Cryptosporidium and Giardia Lambia. Completion of the

project allows the system to utilize its existing water supply source while providing capability to meet future

system needs.

• Harvest-Monrovia received a $10 million loan for a project that consists of a 10-MGD water treatment plant

for two existing water wells, two storage tanks, and an emergency interconnection with another water system.

Both water wells have failed to meet water quality standards and ADEM has directed the system to abandon

or provide additional treatment for these water supply sources. Together these wells provide 92% of the

water system supply.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Management

Alabama

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.19%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $48.4 million

Grants Received $48.4 million

State Contributions $9.1 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $47.6 million

Total Funds Available $116.3 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 52, $89 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 33, $29.2 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 32, 62%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $6.69 million (13.8%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.47 million (37%)

All figures in millions of dollars

GRAPH

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on helping small systems and

promoting wellhead protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide technical assistance to small

systems through a contract with the

Alabama Rural Water Association

(ARWA). On-site technical assistance

visits were conducted, training sessions

were held and attended by more than

300 Water Board members, and the

viability of water systems was assessed

throughout the state.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to create a capacity development

program to evaluate the viability of

designated public water systems.

• Funds were also used to support Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V well activities in the vicinity

of drinking water sources. This program, which has been in existence since 1983, has seen new applications

more than double in the last two years. Two new geologists will be hired to implement the program.

• Funds will be used to support an Optimization Program that is used to evaluate the ability of surface source

systems to meet new Enhanced Surface Water Treatment regulations.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water

and wellhead protection program.

• Funding from the state was offered for programs involving source delineation and contaminant inventory.

These programs will service approximately 40 ground water and 25 surface water systems a year.

• The state entered into a contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority to conduct source water assessments for

numerous water systems in northern Alabama.

• The state also used funds to support its wellhead protection program.

Alabama
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Protect public health, minimize the potential for drinking water contamination, and promote projects and

activities that use best management practices and affordable technology.

• Support the state’s goal of ensuring that all water systems provide water that is safe to drink.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a percentage of the current bond

rate, as defined by the Mutual Bond Index, and the

repayment period. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 2.5% to 4.2% over the last three

years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

principal forgiveness.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: public

health, compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act,

affordability, and additional considerations for projects that

implement measures such as adopting a debt retirement

plan, preparing construction plans, or regionalizing or

consolidating.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $539 million, $457 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $49.6 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in November 1997. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 34 loans,

ranging from $300,000 to $8.3 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 65% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 41% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Sitka completed a corrosion control facility for its drinking water system with two loans totaling

$721,000 from the DWSRF. By making adjustments to pH and alkalinity, the facility will bring copper and

lead levels in the treated water down to safe levels.

• A $4.8 million project jointly funded by a $2.5 million DWSRF loan (including $1.1 million in principal

forgiveness) and two state grants enabled the City of Cordova to satisfy a compliance agreement with the

State of Alaska that required the city to make improvements to its treatment facility to ensure compliance

with the Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Conservation

Alaska

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.15%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $57.2 million

Grants Received $49.4 million

State Contributions $9.9 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $61.6 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 34, $55 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 22, $22.6 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 11, 32%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its set-asides

on promoting source water protection

and providing technical assistance to

small systems.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used this set-aside to educate

and train water system operators. As part

of this effort, the state developed

intermediate level water system workshop

materials and held certification seminars

for highly skilled and specialized

personnel.

• The state held training workshops for

small system stakeholders on newly

revised operator certification regulations

in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau.

• The state completed four workshops

targeting Level 1 small system operators

and completed two training seminars for

small system technical assistance providers.

• The state also developed training materials for very small water systems. Workshops will be presented around

the state in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state did not reserve any funds from this set-aside.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to complete source water assessments of public water systems and

implement a statewide wellhead protection program.

• The state has begun to delineate and assess source water protection areas throughout the state. In addition,

funds are being used to aid water system owners in the development of local wellhead protection plans,

which include an identification of potential sources of contamination and the development of contingency

plans.

• The state used funds to hire staff (hydrogeologist and program coordinator) and purchase equipment

necessary to complete source water assessments of the state’s approximately 1,700 federally regulated public

water systems that use approximately 1,800 sources to supply drinking water to their customers.

• The state also used funds to hire four engineering consultant firms, through the use of task orders, to assist

the state in completing source water assessments of most of the state’s Class “B” public water systems

(transient non-community water systems).

• The state developed educational material (fact sheets, guidance manuals, Q & A’s) and provided outreach to

the public using a variety of methods (operator training workshops, presentations at conferences, articles in

newsletters, and publications).

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $5.07 million (10.3%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.25 million (44.4%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Alaska
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Facilitate access to and efficiently deliver financial and technical assistance.

• Coordinate with other funding sources, technical resources, and regulatory authorities.

• Assume a leadership role in water infrastructure finance.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state initiates all loans as direct loans. As cash

decreases, the state issues bonds to increase the amount

available for funding projects.

• Interest rates are based on the priority of the project and

the local fiscal capacity. Weighted average interest rates for

the program have ranged from 2.6% to 3.0% over the last

three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program which

offers 30 year loan terms, reduced interest rates to below

0%, and reduced security requirements. The Board has an

option to provide principal forgiveness.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories:

condition of facilities and sources, project benefits, local

fiscal capacity, prior funding, and consolidation and

regionalization.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.6 billion, $586 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $170 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in January 1998.

• The first loan was executed in June 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 54 loans, ranging

from $2,968 to $38 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 85% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 76% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Bella Vista Water Company received a $2.1 million loan to upgrade three small systems in its service area by

providing interconnections and adding a new water source to a system that currently relies on a single

source. This private water company operates four different water companies to serve the City of Sierra Vista

(with a population of 40,000) and Ft. Huachuca, a military installation (with a population of about

20,000). Systems will be extended and looped to provide service to customers in certified areas where

private wells are going dry.

• Francesca Water Company (FWC) received a $97,000 loan for new storage, booster pumps and other basic

improvements. FWC had virtually no water storage capacity. Additionally, two separate water systems were

combined to serve 88 connections (86 residential and 2 commercial).

Lead Agency:

Water Infrastructure Finance Authority

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Environmental Quality

Arizona

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.35%, 1.02%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $47.6 million

Grants Received $47.6 million

State Contributions $9.5 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $5.3 million

Total Funds Available $57.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 54, $102.3 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 46, $31.6 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 28, 52%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.99 million (16.8%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.98 million (49.8%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, providing technical

assistance to small systems, and

promoting wellhead protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this setaside to provide three types of

technical assistance: project, policy,

and operational. More than 30

systems have received assistance

through the program.

• Project technical assistance included

assisting individual water systems to

conceive, plan, design, and develop

infrastructure.

• Policy technical assistance included

developing and distributing guidance

for the benefit of water systems

throughout the state.

• Operational technical assistance included assisting individual water systems to improve day-to-day

operations.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to add staff to develop and manage its capacity development and

operator certification programs. The state developed a capacity development strategy, developed policies

and procedures for implementing capacity requirements, and made necessary changes to the state’s operator

certification rules.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state reserved funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source

water and wellhead protection program.

• The final source water assessment and protection program outlined steps to accomplish the assessment of

the state’s source waters and included a schedule and priorities for delineations and assessments. Using this

data, the state will tailor individual monitoring schedules for systems based on actual conditions.

• The state also provided technical assistance in the planning and implementation of local wellhead and

ground water quality protection plans to 26 communities throughout the state.

• The state has integrated a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements or to

implement measures to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination with its infrastructure

funding loan program.

Arizona
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Provide all Arkansans with safe, adequate, and affordable drinking water.

• Ensure that all public water systems achieve and maintain compliance with federal and state drinking water

standards, laws, rules, and regulations.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on Arkansas’ financial assistance

objectives, an analysis of communities’ ability to pay back

loans, and the state’s tax exempt bond rate. Weighted average

interest rates for the program have been about 3.5% over the

last two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers 30

year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: primary

MCL violations, source vulnerability, consolidation and

interconnection, affordability, and other deficiencies.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $1.5 billion, $855 million of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $89 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in January 2000. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 3 loans,

ranging from $2.5 million to $4 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 67% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 100% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The DWSRF program closed its first loan with the City of Mulberry for $2.5 million to aid in the completion of the city’s new water treatment plant.

• The City of Leachville received a $850,000 loan to construct a 350,000 gallon elevated water storage tank

and upgrade the existing 100,000 gallon storage tank. As a disadvantaged community, Leachville qualified

for a 30 year loan term.

Lead Agency:

Soil and Water Conservation Commission

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Health

Development Finance Authority Arkansas

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.42%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $55.4 million

Grants Received $44.3 million

State Contributions $9 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $41.6 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 3, $10.5 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 2, $6.5 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 1, 33%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $12.42 million (28%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.21 million (25.9%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on wellhead protection,

promoting source water protection, and

developing system capacity.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to enter into two contracts. The first,

awarded to the Arkansas Rural Water

Association, is focused on providing

technical and operational assistance to

small systems. The second, awarded to

the Community Resource Group, is

focused on assistance in the areas of

financial and managerial capacity.

More than 30 water systems have been

contacted for on-site capacity evaluations, which have led to the development of corrective plans of action.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program,

focusing on increasing consumer confidence report compliance rates. As a result of this effort, the state has

already seen a significant improvement in compliance.

• Funds were used to develop a capacity development strategy addressing existing systems. Two stakeholders

meetings were held to gather public input into this process.

• Funds were also used to revise the state’s operator licensing law and operator licensing examination format.

These changes are expected to bring the state’s licensing laws into full compliance with EPA’s operator

certification requirements.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a source

water and wellhead protection program.

• The state entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct source

water delineations. More than 1,400 source water delineations have been completed.

• The state also hired a hydrologist and purchased new Global Positioning System (GPS) devices, computers,

and software to upgrade the wellhead protection program’s technology.

Arkansas
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Assist public water systems throughout the state in addressing public health risks and in complying with the

Safe Drinking Water Act.

• Focus on projects which assist water systems considered most in need in terms of per household affordability.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are calculated as 50% of the average interest

rate paid by the state on general obligation bonds issued in

the prior calendar year. Weighted average interest rates for

the program have ranged from 1.5% to 2.3% over the last

two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30

year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers six categories: public

health risk, affordability, consolidation of systems, service

population, type of system, and size of system.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $17.4 billion, $3 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $7.7 billion in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in February 2000. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 21 loans,

ranging from $915,000 to $2.1 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 48% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 100% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The El Dorado Irrigation District has received a total of 4 loans, ranging from $915,293 to $1.7 million, to

line and cover 4 reservoirs with rigid covers and to construct related bypasses. These projects, benefitting

more than 85,000 people, will ensure that the district complies with the new Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule which requires that storage reservoirs for treated drinking water be covered.

• The Solano Irrigation District received a $2.1 million loan to construct a central water treatment plant for

the Gibson Canyon Improvement District, which serves a population of 450.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health Services

Cooperating Agency:

State Water Resources Control Board

California

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 6.03%, 10.83%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $401.9 million

Grants Received $317.6 million

State Contributions $63.5 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $350.6 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 21, $98.5 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 10, $12 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 8, 38%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $30.76 million (9.7%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $9.27 million (30.1%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting drinking water

program management, helping small

water systems, and developing source

water protection and capacity

development programs.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state provided outreach and

support for small systems through a

series of contracts, including one with

the California Rural Water Association

(CRWA) aimed at assisting small

systems that want to apply for DWSRF

funds.

• Small systems have benefitted from the

development of a Capacity Development Work Team, which consists of

staff from the Department of Health

Services and its local primacy agencies.

The Team’s primary focus is ongoing implementation of the state’s capacity development strategy, as well as

the evaluation and prioritization of technical assistance needs addressing capacity development and general

compliance for water systems.

• The state intends to develop a small water system technical assistance staff manual that will include

procedures for providing technical assistance, descriptions of available third party assistance, and guidance

document handouts.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to complete its capacity development strategy, establish policies and

procedures for implementing capacity requirements, and continue the development of a capacity development database to track the results of the strategy and its implementation.

• The state also entered into a contract with the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to assess,

develop, and present training programs to small water systems.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• Through its source water assessment program, the state entered into contracts with 33 local primacy agencies

to provide complete drinking water source assessments for all active public drinking water sources. More

than 120 assessments have been completed.

• The state also contracted with the University of California - Davis to develop geographic information system

(GIS) applications and decision support system tools in order to assist in identifying different source water

threats.

• The state developed a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements and implement

measures to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination. The types of projects eligible for

funding include: hazardous waste collection programs, education on best management practices, closure of

abandoned wells, and fencing out cattle from intakes, tributaries, or reservoir boundaries.

California
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Maintain the economic viability of the DWSRF while meeting current and projected drinking water system

needs in the state.

• Provide loans and technical and financial assistance to governmental agencies to facilitate effective planning,

design, financing, and construction or improvement of facilities to comply with the provisions of the

Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a program that provides leveraged loans for

projects over $1 million and direct loans for projects of $1

million or less. The state issues bonds to supplement the

grant funds for a leveraged loan program.

• Interest rates are set by the state so as to represent a discount

on the state’s market interest rates. Weighted average interest

rates for the program have ranged from 3.8% to 4.5% over

the last three years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: acute

health hazards, chronic health hazards, potential acute health

hazards, potential chronic health hazards, and other future

needs.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $2.5 billion, $809 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $643 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in October 1997. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 26 loans,

ranging from $188,700 to $15.4 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 58% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 80% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Julesburg received a $994,600 loan for the construction of a reverse osmosis treatment facility to

remedy compliance issues with nitrates. The small town also received assistance from a state grant program

and the Rural Development program.

• The Fountain Valley Water Authority received a $7.6 million loan to conduct an emergency replacement of

transmission lines that were damaged during flooding.

Lead Agency:

Water Resources and Power Development

Authority

Cooperating Agencies:

Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Department of Local Affairs

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.34%, 1.35%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $57.3 million

Grants Received $57.3 million

State Contributions $11.6 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $86 million

Total Funds Available $161.5 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 26, $137 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 15, $169 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 12, 46%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $9.36 million (16.3%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.55 million (16.6%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems, and

promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to conduct training programs for

managers and operators of small

systems through contracts with the

Colorado Rural Water Association, the

American Water Works Association, and

the University of Colorado School of

Continuing Education.

• Multi-day training sessions were

conducted and attended by more than

300 students.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state intends to use a portion of

the funds to hire 6.5 full-time employees to assist in the implementation of its Public Water System

Supervision (PWSS) program. The new staff will be involved in drafting regulations and in writing implementation manuals.

• Funds will be used to support new regulatory initiatives such as increasing the scope and frequency of

sanitary surveys, capacity development reviews, and investigation and response to incidents of non-compliance.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its capacity development program through the continued

implementation of system capacity reviews and an on-site sanitary survey effort. Three new system capacity

reviews were conducted.

• The state hired a project manager for the source water assessment and protection (SWAP) program and

developed new data-management tools and a SWAP web-site which includes information on the wellhead

protection program.

• The state intends to conduct source water delineations for ground water systems under its wellhead

protection program.

• More than 200 system site visits have been made under a state non-community drinking water system

sanitary survey initiative using local health departments as part of the state’s capacity development program.

This effort will eventually involve annual sanitary surveys of approximately 800 noncommunity ground water

systems.

Colorado
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Implement new statewide health initiatives in an effective and consistent manner.

• Meet the diverse needs of Connecticut’s drinking water providers through the program’s lending policies.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also issues

bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.

• Interest rates are based on the state’s bond rate, with adjustments made to address the tax exemption status and financial

condition of the applicant. Weighted average interest rates for

the program have been about 2.7% for the last three years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance program.

• The state’s priority system considers six categories: water

quality, water quantity, consolidation and interconnection,

proactive infrastructure upgrades, proactive measures covering

supply sources and distribution systems, and affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $986 million, $261 million of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan indentified a demand for more than $159 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in January 1998 (set-asides) and July 1998 (projects).

• The first loan was executed in May 1999. Through June 30, 2001 the state had executed 15 loans, ranging

from $210,000 to $12.7 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 60% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 78% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Portland received a $2.5 million loan to interconnect with the regional Metropolitan District

Commission of Hartford water system. Portland had been under a consent agreement with the state for

failure to comply with the Surface Water Treatment Rule because it was using an unfiltered surface water

source.

• Cook Willow Realty received a $705,332 loan to interconnect to Connecticut Water Company by using

ductile iron pipe. This plan will correct the Department’s finding regarding the exceedence of the Lead and

Copper Rule. It would also eliminate the cost of installing a corrosion control chemical feed system.

Lead Agency:

Department of Public Health

Cooperating Agencies:

Department of Environmental Protection

Office of the Treasurer Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.70%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-01) $51.5 million

Grants Received $43.8 million

State Contributions $8.8 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $13.3 million

Total Funds Available $52.6 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 15, $31.3 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 9, $7.4 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 5, 33%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its set-asides

on supporting its drinking water program, helping small systems, and promoting wellhead protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state provided outreach and support

for small systems through a series of

contracts. The state estimates that more

than 580 systems have received assistance

through the programs financed by this

set-aside.

• Small systems have benefitted from the

development of a toll-free assistance

service line, newsletters, and technical

workshops. Funds were also used to

provide scholarships to small system

operators to help them obtain certification.

• Funds are supporting a Small Town

Public Water System Advisory Council which addresses the special informational and training needs of the

owners/operators of small systems. Another contract developed a specialized introductory workshop on

waterborne disease and water quality with an emphasis on small public water systems using ground water.

• Small systems are also receiving specialized circuit rider assistance from the Atlantic States Rural Water and

Wastewater Association.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used all of the funds from this set-aside to add staff within its Public Water System Supervision

(PWSS) program. Three positions are assigned to various planning activities to assist in regional long-term

water supply planning. Four positions are assigned to regional engineering units that assist in drinking water

quality and engineering compliance activities.

• Other positions support the state’s non-community water system and laboratory certification programs and

other aspects of the drinking water program.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds to conduct source water assessments and implement a wellhead protection program.

• The Department of Public Health (DPH) is working with the Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) to develop a source water assessment program and implement a wellhead protection program. DPH is

funding DEP staff to help to identify issues in the wellhead protection arena.

• The state also used funds to strengthen ongoing activities within its drinking water program through the

capacity development program. This includes enforcement, engineering, and planning activities.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $13.56 million (31%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.73 million (27.5%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Connecticut
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Support the departmental goal that all Delaware communities will have water that is safe to drink all of the

time.

• Protect public health and promote the completion of cost-effective projects.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on 62.5% of the municipal bond yield

or corporate bond yield 10 days prior to closing. Weighted

average interest rates for the program have ranged from 3.0%

to 3.8% over the last two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers six categories: quality

deficiencies (i.e., violations of national public water standards),

quantity deficiencies, treatment/design deficiencies, financial

need, compliance with current and future regulations, and

regionalization.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $302 million, $119 million of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $20 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in June 2000. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 8 loans, ranging

from $34,321 to $3.2 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 100% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 100% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Frankford Water Department, serving a population of 600, received a $820,000 loan which

allowed the town to build a new treatment and storage facility, renovate existing storage, and upgrade water

mains.

• Two loans to Artesian Water Company will provide new community water systems to Fenwick Island and

South Bethany Beach where residents utilize existing private wells which are highly susceptible to storm

water damage and salt water intrusion and have high nitrate and iron levels.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health and Social Services

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Natural Resources and Delaware Environmental Control

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $27.1 million

State Contributions $2.5 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $22.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 8, $7.4 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 8, $7.4 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 1, 12.5%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.6 million (28%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.95 million (38.8%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on creating a capacity development program, helping small systems,

and promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state entered into contracts with

two technical assistance providers, the

Delaware Rural Water Association and

the Delaware Technical and Community College. In the last two years,

these two providers have assisted over

127 public water systems and operators

throughout the state.

• The program developed by the

Delaware Rural Water Association

provided “hands-on” technical

assistance to systems throughout the

state. The Association has also provided

financial assistance training which is

required for all municipal DWSRF applicants. A total of 35 people representing 15 municipal systems have

attended the training.

• Delaware Technical and Community College created a full curriculum of technical training courses for

drinking water system operators. They also offered exams for drinking water operator licensure. This

program provides operators with everything they need to obtain certification and acquire endorsements for

licensure in Delaware.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside for source water protection program administration and to support

its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), capacity development, and operator certification programs.

• The state used a portion of this set-aside to locate and inventory shallow (Class V) underground injection

wells which can negatively impact underground sources of drinking water.

• Funds were used to purchase lab equipment for the PWSS program. Funds were also used to create a

quarterly newsletter, which keeps water systems and interested stakeholders throughout the state informed of

new regulations, requirements, and other beneficial information.

• The state created an Advisory Council to oversee its operator certification program. This Council meets

monthly to review and approve drinking water operator applications.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside for source water delineations and assessments and for the creation of

a land acquisition program aimed at source water protection.

• The state staffed and equipped a team of four to lead its Source Water Assessment and Protection program

and created a Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee to assist them.

Delaware
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Use the DWSRF set-aside funds strategically and in coordination with the program loans to maximize the

DWSRF’s impact on achieving affordable compliance and public health protection.

• Encourage the consolidation and/or regionalization of public water systems that lack the capability to operate

and maintain systems in a cost-effective manner.

• Promote the development of the technical, managerial, and financial capability of all public water systems.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• The interest rate is set at 60% of the weekly average yield

reported in The Bond Buyer 20-Year GO Index for the

preceding quarter. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 3.0% to 3.4% over the last three

years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

30 year loan terms and principal forgiveness.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: public

health risks, compliance issues, affordability, population

size, and consolidation of systems.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $3.6 billion, $1.2 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $35 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 44 loans,

ranging from $35,700 to $20.3 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 77% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 76% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Steinhatchee Water Association, a disadvantaged community, received a loan and a subsidy totaling $2.1

million to build two wells, two pumps, a transmission line, a chemical additive facility, a 350,000 gallon

storage tank, and a backwash holding tank. These improvements will bring the system into full regulatory

compliance and help to protect public health.

• A private water system in Madison, a disadvantaged community, received a $92,000 subsidized loan to

consolidate service lines with the City of Madison in order to comply with state and federal regulations

concerning disinfection.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Protection

Florida

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.59%, 2.90%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $132.5 million

Grants Received $132.5 million

State Contributions $28 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $147.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 44, $143.9 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 34, $35.3 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 5, 11.4%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $16.27 million (12.3%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $7.19 million (44.2%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, assisting small systems, and

promoting wellhead protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state provided on-site support for

small systems through contracts with

the Florida Rural Water Association

(FRWA) and the Florida Association for

Community Action (FACA). Those

systems not in compliance are tracked.

• Small systems received assistance with

loan process planning, operator

training, capacity assessment, and

source water assessments from six FACA

circuit riders. Small systems also

received specialized technical assistance

from FRWA circuit riders.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds to implement capacity development measures with the aim of increasing state-wide

compliance from 94% to 98% by 2005. These measures include the tracking of troubled systems and the

development of improvement strategies for water systems in need.

• The state used funds to develop its consumer confidence report program and to support its Public Water

System Supervision (PWSS) program.

• The state also used funds to implement its source water protection program by developing an effective

strategy to prevent contamination of drinking water supplies.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a source

water and wellhead protection program. As part of this effort, several full and part-time geologists were hired

to provide delineation and assessment services.

• A circuit rider was provided under the contract with the FRWA to assist small systems in establishing

wellhead protection areas to meet source water requirements.

• The state intends to enter into a contract to locate and catalog all public drinking water system intakes in the

state.

Florida
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Support the continuation of prevention programs to ensure future compliance with drinking water

standards.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state’s market

interest rates arrived at annually by the GEFA Board of

Directors. Weighted annual average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 1.5% to 1.7% over the last three

years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: the

protection of public health through compliance assurance,

environmental criteria, affordability, and financial management/need.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2.4 billion, $1 billion of which was

for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $327 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in March 1997.

• The first loan was executed in July 1997. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 28 loans, ranging

from $190,000 to $8.2 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 79% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 77% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Jackson County/Arcade, a disadvantaged community, received a $173,100 loan and $272,860 subsidy to

extend its water system to approximately 100 residences on contaminated wells. The well contamination

resulted from ground water contamination by an oil recycling facility in an area known as Hidden Oaks.

• Fort Valley, a disadvantaged community with 8,005 residents received a $3 million loan and a $500,000

subsidy to replace 3 wells, construct a 300,000 gallon elevated storage tank, and water mains. This project

results from tetrachloroethylene contamination from area businesses causing the closure of 3 city wells. An

Emergency Order was issued under the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act as this contamination presented an

imminent and substantial danger to the city’s drinking water supply.

• The City of Statham, population 1,892, was under a Consent Order to upgrade its Barber Creek Filter

Plant and was offered a very reasonable loan of $9,660 and a substantial subsidy of $449,340. The

treatment capacity will be upgraded from 800,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day.

Lead Agency:

Environmental Facilities Authority

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Natural Resources

Georgia

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.05%, 2.14%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $90.3 million

Grants Received $57 million

State Contributions $8.2 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $52.4 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 28, $37 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 22, $16.9 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 10, 37%
All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program and providing technical

assistance to small systems.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this setaside to assist targeted systems in

developing operational and managerial

capacity and to educate system

operators in the best technology and

methods available.

• Through an ongoing contract with

Georgia Rural Water Association

(GRWA), four full-time circuit riders

visited more than 640 owners/

operators on-site in 2001 to help

improve their local systems. 93% of

these visits were at systems serving less

than 3,300 people.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds to support an operator training program developed in conjunction with the Georgia

Water and Wastewater Institute. In one year, more than 1,000 students attended 80 training courses.

• Funds were also used to implement a strategy to combat waterborne disease, which includes prevention,

monitoring and surveillance, public education, and response.

• The state developed a capacity development strategy with two control points to ensure all new non-transient

community water systems have adequate technical, financial, and managerial capacity.

• The state entered into a contract with Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association to establish a

statewide certification and recertification program for backflow assembly testers, using two nationally

recognized programs. Preventing backflow of contaminated water into distribution systems is an important

preventative tool for water systems.

• The state also accelerated its wellhead protection efforts, performed numerous ground water investigations

to characterize contaminated ground water and determine contamination sources, and increased public

awareness of the importance of source water protection.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water

protection program. The state completed source water assessments for 31 municipal water systems and 126

wells.

• The state contracted with Gainesville College to locate and perform wellhead protection area assessments for

300 public non-municipal water wells in southern Georgia.

• The state contracted with the University of Georgia to establish a series of communication and coordination

mechanisms for use among water programs. This process is aimed at building better communication with

local government officials and authorities involved in water resource management.

• The state also contracted with the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia to develop the Georgia

Water Management Campaign, which translates water management policies and planning into management

capacity and technical assistance to local governments in Georgia.

Georgia

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $12.99 million (22.8%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $5.79 million (44.6%)
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Assist water systems in efforts to protect the public health and environment of the state’s residents and

operate systems in compliance with state and federal regulations.

• Promote activities to encourage water systems to protect their drinking water sources and promote principles

of water conservation in their operations.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on the annual rate of the weekly bond

buyer’s 20-year general obligation index bond interest rate,

with adjustments. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 1.6% to 4.8% over the last two

years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories:

correction of acute health problems; correction of chronic

health problems; other public health criteria; and consolidation, prevention, and conservation.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $145.9 million, $123.7 million of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $102 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in December 1997.

• The first loan was executed in November 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 1 loan in

the amount of $7.8 million to a publicly-owned system.

• None of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.

• The state has 8 additional projects lined up for over $14.5 million, of which 7 of the projects (totaling $12.3

million) will go to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.

Project Examples

• The upcountry area on the island of Maui is composed of rural ranching communities on the slopes of

Haleakala, a dormant volcano. The Kamole water treatment plant serves 33,000 area residents and is a

supplemental source of drinking water for the entire upcountry area during times of drought. The system

received a $7.8 million loan to fund the construction of a surface water microfiltration facility to come into

compliance with turbidity requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule.

• The 8 additional projects include rehabilitation of a tunnel source to eliminate surface water influence, new

wells to replace spring, tunnel, and flume sources under the influence of surface water, and replacement of a

filter media and underdrain system at a treatment plant to comply with the Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health

Hawaii

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $349 million

State Contributions $7.6 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $36.1 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 1, $7.8 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 0, $0

Projects Completed (#, %) 1, 100%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.53 million (21.6%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.95 million (25.9%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems, and

assisting local and other state programs

with source water protection and

capacity development programs.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state is working to develop a

resource library and may develop a

contract to provide for direct small

system technical assistance to individual

systems.

• Small systems assistance will also be

integrated into the state’s local

assistance program contracts.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to support its Public Water System

Supervision (PWSS), capacity development, and operator certification programs.

• Within the PWSS program, set-aside funds supported upgrades of computer hardware for drinking water

personnel, travel for sanitary surveys, the acquisition and maintenance of appropriate laboratory analytical

capability, and the continued administration of the operator certification program.

• As part of its capacity development strategy, the state entered into a contract with the Rural Community

Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to provide training courses to more than 100 managers and 300 operators

representing municipal and private water systems throughout the islands. Training included assistance in

preparing water system distribution operators for the distribution system operator certification exam.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state primarily used funds from this set-aside for source water delineations and assessments. The state

conducted demonstration projects consisting of field assessments and delineations of four sources and

reported the results of those projects to the public.

• The state developed a newsletter, entitled “At the Source”, to inform public water suppliers and the general

public about the intent and progress of the source water assessment program. The state also funded source

water assessment and protection information sessions facilitated by The Groundwater Foundation to help

reach the public sector and water system operators.

• The state will be entering into a contract to provide direct support to deficient small systems by assisting

them in evaluating their capacity.

• The state will be entering into a contract to provide training courses for a three-year period for managers and

operators of public water systems to assist in improving capacity through educational activities.

Hawaii
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Protect the public health of citizens by offering financial assistance to construct the most cost-effective

drinking water facilities.

• Assist public water systems as they strive to achieve and maintain compliance with federal and state drinking

water standards.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on the state’s market interest rates and

the degree to which a project is required to comply with the

Safe Drinking Water Act. Weighted average interest rates for

the program have ranged from 2.0% to 4.0% over the last

three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30

year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers six categories: public

health emergencies or hazards, water quality violations

(microbiological, chemical, and treatment techniques),

facilities’ condition, overall urgency, consent or administrative

orders, and affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $487 million, $411 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $42 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in November 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 7 loans,

ranging from $285,500 to $6.4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 86% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 83% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Twin Falls received a $6.4 million loan to design and construct improvements to its distribution

and storage system and to install a system-wide electronic communication system.

• The Castle Mountain Creeks Association received a $400,000 loan to install a surface water filtration system

in order to meet the requirements of a voluntary Consent Order to come into compliance with the Surface

Water Treatment Rule.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Quality

Idaho

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.113%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $44.3 million

Grants Received $36.5 million

State Contributions $7.3 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $36.4 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 7, $18.2 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 6, $11.8 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 0, 0%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.4 million (20.3%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $4.4 million (59.5%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program and promoting source water

protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds to reimburse local

health departments throughout the

state for their own local aid programs

aimed at small systems.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to implement its operator certification

and capacity development programs.

• Funds were used to assist the Operator

Certification Board establish and

administer an exam for the certification

of very small system operators. Funds

were also used to expand an existing

contract to offer training classes for

operators of very small systems.

• Funds from this set-aside were used to pay for a portion of the salary of the employee charged with developing the state’s capacity development strategy.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set aside to develop and implement a source water protection program. A

source water assessment plan was developed and funds were used to augment the state’s wellhead protection

efforts.

Idaho
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Provide a stable and perpetual financing source for eligible public water supply systems within the state.

• Utilize available set-aside funds to further the development and implementation of source water protection

programs within the state.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program, but will be

changing to a leveraged program.

• Interest rates are based on a 50% discount on the market

interest rate. Weighted average interest rates for the program

have ranged from 2.6% to 2.9% over the last three years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers three categories: project

need based on public health risk and/or the need to improve

infrastructure to ensure compliance, population, and financial

hardship.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $6.1 billion, $2.5 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $514 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in December 1997. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 82 loans,

ranging from $69,000 to $10 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 72% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 58% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Dekalb received two loans totaling $7.8 million for the construction of five new water treatment

plants and the installation of over 16,000 feet of water mains with all necessary appurtenances to meet

radium standards.

• The City of Chicago received a $6.4 million loan for improvements to its drinking water treatment system.

Without the installation of the new equipment, the city would have been in danger of failing to meet

the new federal turbidity standards.

• The Village of Dieterich received a $130,000 loan to replace its deteriorated and inadequately sized elevated

storage tank. The replacement brought the Village into compliance with minimum state standards for

finished water storage volume.

Lead Agency:

Environmental Protection Agency

Illinois

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.07%, 3.48%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $143.2 million

Grants Received $143.2 million

State Contributions $27.9 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $171.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 82, $132.8 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 59, $49.3 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 39, 48%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $9.58 million (6.7%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $4.71 million (49.2%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on promoting source water

protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state did not reserve any funds

under this set-aside.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state did not reserve any funds

under this set-aside.

Local Assistance and Other State

Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to conduct source water assessments and

to implement a source water and

wellhead protection program.

• The state established a well recharge

area delineation program focused on

Illinois’ Priority Groundwater Protection Planning Regions. This program will delineate the five year recharge areas for community water system

wells which utilize unconfined aquifers within these regions. With the help of several public universities, the

information gained will be included in the Illinois EPA Internet Geographical Information System (GIS) at

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/groundwater/source-water-quality-program.html.

• The state also established a watershed delineation and assessment program for intakes, watersheds, and subwatershed boundaries for community water systems using surface water, as well as a non-community water

system delineation and assessment program.

• The state entered into a contract with the Illinois Rural Water Association to conduct local source identifications and perform susceptibility analyses.

• To better organize and present the data being gathered, the state is enhancing and integrating the existing

H2O Works, Water Body System, and Arc/Info GIS databases, and updating its website to make information

available to the public.

Illinois
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Decrease the percentage of public water systems serving water with acute and/or chronic contaminants to less

than 5% statewide by the year 2002.

• Ensure that new and presently operating public water systems have the capacity to produce water safe in

quality and adequate in quantity.

• Protect Indiana’s ground and surface water resources.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues

bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.

• Interest rates are based on a three tier system developed by

the Budget Agency which takes into account the median

household income as well as average water rates of the area

receiving assistance. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have been about 3.0% over the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: public

health protection, Safe Drinking Water Act compliance,

affordability, and public water system management.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $1.6 billion, $1.1 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $116 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 44 loans,

ranging from $255,000 to $24.3 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 80% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 77% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Cromwell received a $300,000 loan to build an iron removal treatment facility, drill a new well

field, and upgrade old distribution lines which had been responsible for elevated levels of lead in the town’s

water.

• The City of Jasper received a $15 million loan to remove atrazine and simazine from the city’s drinking

water. The project involves the construction of a new treatment facility, storage tank, and pump system.

• The City of South Bend will use its $2.6 million loan to upgrade current treatment facilities to ensure

removal of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs), and tetrachloroethane

from the city’s drinking water supply.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Management

Cooperating Agency:

State Budget Agency Indiana

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.05%, 1.22%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $62.5 million

Grants Received $62 million

State Contributions $12.6 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $70 million

Total Funds Available $142.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 44, $126.8 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 35, $55.5 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 9, 20%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $6.23 million (10%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $0.46 million (7.4%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on providing technical assistance

to small systems and promoting source

water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state will use funds from this setaside to provide on-site technical,

financial, and management assistance

through a series of contracts.

• Small systems will benefit from a tollfree assistance service line and technical

assistance workshops conducted

throughout the state by the Indiana

Section of the American Water Works

Association and the Rural Water

Association.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state intends to use this set-aside

to enhance its capacity development

program and to make improvements to its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program in the areas of

inspection (sanitary surveys) and compliance monitoring.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state reserved funds under this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a source

water and wellhead protection program.

• Source water assessment pilot projects have been initiated through contracts with the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS), the Indiana Geological Survey, and Bruce Carter Associates. These pilot projects consist of field data

collection, source water delineations, source inventories, and susceptibility analyses.

Indiana
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Improve the quality of drinking water to comply with primary drinking water standards.

• Ensure the long-term viability of existing and proposed water systems.

• Maintain the fiscal integrity of the fund and maintain the fund in perpetuity.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues

bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.

• Interest rates will be set at a fixed rate of 3.0%. Weighted

average interest rates for the program have ranged from

3.5% to 3.7% over the last two years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: water

quality and human health-related criteria, infrastructure and

engineering-related improvement criteria, special category

improvements for systems with wellhead or source protection plans or water conservation measures, affordability, and

population.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2.8 billion, $1.1 billion of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $80 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in December 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 30 loans,

ranging from $144,000 to $6.9 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 93% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 79% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Radionuclides such as radium are man-made or natural elements that emit radiation. Mount Pleasant

Municipal Utilities received a $5.9 million loan to bring its water system into compliance with radium

standards. The project involved the installation of a treatment system designed to remove high levels of

radium.

• The community of Janesville had elevated levels of nitrate in its drinking water supply. A $225,000 DWSRF

loan was awarded for the drilling of a new well to help correct this problem.

• The community of Norwalk had burgeoning demand and low pressure problems throughout its system,

increasing potential for drinking water contamination. A $1.2 million loan was awarded for the construction

of a new 1.2 million gallon elevated storage tank to meet Norwalk’s quantity demand and alleviate its

pressure problems.

Lead Agency:

Department of Natural Resources

Cooperating Agency:

Finance Authority

Iowa

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.34%, 1.58%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $64.4 million

Grants Received $52.1 million

State Contributions $10.4 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $10.6 million

Total Funds Available $70.6 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 30, $32.3 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 28, $29.6 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 12, 40%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $4.81 million (9.2%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.63 million (33.9%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on helping small systems and

promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds under this setaside to provide technical assistance to

small systems. The state entered into

several contracts to develop a small

system technical assistance directory

and a peer review program and to

provide laboratory analysis training,

viability technical assistance, workshops

on how to prepare a consumer

confidence report, and value engineering for selected DWSRF projects.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state did not reserve any funds

from this set-aside.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a wellhead

protection program.

• Source water assessments for surface systems have been completed for Iowa City, the University of Iowa,

Montezuma, and water systems in the Okoboji Lake area using these funds. Assessments for Des Moines,

Cedar Rapids, and Ottumwa are forthcoming. An Department of Natural Resources sub-bureau has

completed about 60% of the source water delineations and assessments for ground water systems.

Iowa
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Address the current drinking water funding needs in the state and maintain a viable fund to assist in meeting

the state’s long-term funding needs.

• Provide technical assistance to water suppliers to assure necessary projects are identified as candidates for

financial assistance.

• Use the program to build a comprehensive list of public water supply infrastructure needs in the state.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues

bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.

• Interest rates are set at 80% of the previous three months’

average Bond Buyer’s 20 Year Bond Index. Weighted average

interest rates for the program have ranged from 3.7% to 4.1%

over the last three years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: water

quality issues, consolidation, improvements to reliability,

affordability, and special categories that include upgrades to

meet future regulations, plant expansion, water treatment

waste discharges, and extension of a system to an unserved

area.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.6 billion, $802 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $132 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in December 1997.

• The first loan was executed in November 1997. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 62 loans,

ranging from $74,270 to $9.2 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 85% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 74% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Colwich, population 1,134, received a loan for $3.8 million to finance a complete water system.

Prior to construction of this water system, residences and businesses used individual wells, some of which

were contaminated.

• The Town of Florence, population 678, received a $200,000 loan and a Community Development Block

Grant to incorporate slow sand filters to resolve compliance problems with the existing treatment plant.

• Logan, population 568, had high levels of selenium and nitrate in their water. Logan received a $650,000

DWSRF loan and a $400,000 Community Development Block Grant to improve water quality.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health and Environment

Cooperating Agencies:

Department of Administration —

Development Finance Authority Kansas

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.12%, 1.41%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $56.4 million

Grants Received $56.4 million

State Contributions $11.3 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $69.6 million

Total Funds Available $137.4 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 62, $121 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 53, $76 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 19, 31%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.2 million (12.8%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.25 million (17.3%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program and helping small systems.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• Funding from this set-aside allowed the

state to contract with the Kansas Rural

Water Association to provide assistance

to small systems in resolving compliance issues, management issues,

operation and maintenance problems,

and improving performance of surface

water treatment plants.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state will use funds from this setaside to implement its existing system

capacity development strategy.

Local Assistance and Other State

Programs (LA)

• The state will use funds from this set-aside to contract with a third party to complete source water assessments.

Kansas
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Assist water systems in obtaining and maintaining compliance with federal and state drinking water

requirements and furthering public health protection.

• Provide technical assistance to small systems in areas that are most in need.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• The interest rate is set annually by the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority based on current market conditions,

availability of funds, and funding demand. Weighted

average interest rates for the program have ranged from

2.1% to 3.8% over the last two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: resource

development, water treatment, water distribution, extension

of service, and financial need.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $1.8 billion, $815 million of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $283 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in December 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 11 loans,

ranging from $32,000 to $5.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 64% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 14% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Bowling Green, with a population of 92,300, received a $3.3 million loan to construct a new

clearwell, storage tanks, and water distribution lines.

• The communities of Hickman, Providence, and Grayson all received planning and design loans to help them

prepare applications for assistance from the DWSRF for infrastructure projects.

Lead Agency:

Infrastructure Authority

Cooperating Agencies:

Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet Kentucky

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.52%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $58.5 million

Grants Received $46.6 million

State Contributions $9.4 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $48.3 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 11, $15.8 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 7, $2.2 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 0, 0%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.04 million (17.3%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.96 million (24.3%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program and promoting water source

protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state intends to use funds from this

set-aside to provide technical assistance

to small systems. Several contracts will

be awarded as part of this effort.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state intends to use funds from this

set-aside to support its Public Water

System Supervision (PWSS) program,

enhance its operator certification

program, and develop and implement a

capacity development strategy.

• The PWSS program will prepare and

distribute water quality reports and

consumer confidence reports.

• An operator training program will be developed with the Kentucky Rural Water Association (KRWA)

covering subjects such as consumer confidence reports, treatment rules, and disinfection profiling.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, develop a land acquisition

program, and implement a wellhead protection program.

• The state entered into contracts with 12 local area districts to delineate and assess source water protection

areas. Assessment reports include the delineation of watershed protection areas, an inventory of potential

contaminants, and a discussion of the risk of contamination.

• A wellhead protection program has been developed with the KRWA to help local communities develop their

own plans for wellhead protection and to assist them in the development of contingency plans for contamination.

• The state also developed a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to protect

drinking water sources from contamination. The state made a $360,000 loan to a system to acquire 180

acres for source water protection.

Kentucky
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Assist water systems throughout the state in achieving and maintaining the health and compliance objectives

of the Safe Drinking Water Act by providing financial assistance to meet infrastructure needs in a prioritized

manner.

• Promote the benefits of the program to as many water systems as possible to assure equitable distribution of

the available financing resources.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates that will result in below market rate loans are set

by the secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have been

about 3.5% over the last two years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: public

health effects, unacceptable physical condition, environmental

criteria, and affordability criteria.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $1.3 billion, $892 million of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for

more than $99.7 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in August 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 6 loans,

ranging from $1.5 million to $9 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 83% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, none of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Oakdale received a loan of $1.5 million to assist the city in improving its water quality and

complying with federal drinking water requirements. The funds will be used to replace deteriorating water

lines and make improvements to a water storage tank.

• The Town of Church Point will use loan funds to upgrade and expand its existing ground water treatment

plant. The project includes two new filters, rehabilitation of the two existing filters, rehabilitation of the

pipe gallery, a new aerator, a new clarifier, and other miscellaneous work.

• Ward Two Water District of Livingston Parish will use loan funds to construct 5 wells, 2 elevated tanks,

300,000 feet of line improvements, abandon existing wells no longer in service, and paint storage tanks.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health and Hospitals

Cooperating Agencies:

Department of Environmental Quality Louisiana

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.63%, 1.40%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $62.5 million

Grants Received $40.8 million

State Contributions $6.3 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $38.8 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 6, $16.6 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 5, $7.6 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 0, 0%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $9.54 million (23.4%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.62 million (27.5%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on capacity development,

promoting source water protection, and

providing technical assistance to small

systems.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• Both state staff and a contracted circuit

rider conducted on-site visits and

provided technical assistance to small

systems throughout the state. In one

year, 835 site visits were made,

averaging out to around 70 visits per

month.

• The state also held a series of quarterly

training sessions for small systems

throughout the state.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program and implement its capacity development

and operator certification programs.

• The state filled an engineer position for its PWSS program and intends to hire several more engineers and a

geologist.

• The state hired personnel on a contract basis to support its operator certification program. Over 1,260

operators completed certification tests in one year. Many very small system operators sought certification

voluntarily.

• Funds were also used to conduct capacity reviews for systems across the state.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside primarily to conduct source water assessments.

• The state entered into a contract to complete field assessments and to map source water assessment areas

using Geographical Information System (GIS) software. A total of 400 assessments have been completed.

Louisiana
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Maintain the fiscal integrity of funding programs for infrastructure projects and source water protection land

acquisition in perpetuity.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also

issues bonds to increase the amount available for funding

projects when needed.

• Interest rates are based on a 2% discount on the cost of funds

for similar tax-exempt debt as determined by the Maine

Municipal Bond Bank. Weighted average interest rates for

the program have ranged from 0.4% to 1.6% over the last

three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30

year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers seven categories in the

following areas: public health, low pressure problems,

aesthetics, construction for source protection, construction of

redundant facilities, system compliance/enforcement status,

affordability, population served, compliance history, cofunding, and public water system type.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $472 million, $296 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for $27 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in December 1997.

• The first loan was executed in March 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 38 loans,

ranging from $36,050 to $3 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 95% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 89% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Ashland had a storage tank coated with lead-based paint and a collapsing roof. With a median

household income (MHI) of only $13,638 and water rates of $320 per household per year, Ashland qualified

for maximum disadvantaged assistance. The state developed a funding package which forgave $73,541 of the

principal of a $98,865 DWSRF loan at 0% interest and included an additional $25,000 from Maine’s Rural

Development Council. The assistance will allow the town to ensure safe storage of its drinking water and will

reduce the water rates to the state’s target rate (1.3% of MHI).

Lead Agency:

Department of Human Services

Cooperating Agency:

Municipal Bond Bank Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.01%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.8 million

Grants Received $35 million

State Contributions $7 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $4.6 million

Total Funds Available $39.8 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 38, $29.8 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 36, $24.5 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 5, 33%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.56 million (24.5%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $5.02 million (58.6%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems,

acquiring land for source water

protection, and promoting wellhead

protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide assistance to small systems

through the Maine Rural Water

Association (MRWA) and the Maine

Water Utilities Association (MWUA).

MRWA received funding for two circuit

rider positions who made 789 on-site

visits to systems on topics such as

corrosion control, sampling, wellhead

protection, and public notification.

MWUA conducted 5 training sessions

at various locations throughout the

state.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to hire 13 additional staff in its Drinking Water Program. These

new staff positions support the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), source water protection, capacity

development, and operator certification programs.

• The state also used funds to purchase computer hardware and software for its PWSS program.

• Funding also supported the development of a strategy to address capacity issues for existing systems and

enhancement of the state’s source water protection program.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, implement a wellhead

protection program, and acquire land for source water protection.

• The state entered into a contract to complete delineations and assessment of ground water sources. Approximately 85 sand and gravel and 5 bedrock aquifer sources have been delineated.

• The state used funds to develop a revolving loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation

easements to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination. The state has made over $1.5

million in loans to 6 systems, including one loan that involved a joint easement with Lewiston-Auburn Water

Commission and Androscoggin Land Trust.

• Funds were used to provide comprehensive system planning grants as part of the state’s capacity development

strategy and wellhead protection grants. Funds were also used to hire a full-time employee who reviews and

approves new wellhead protection plans and works with systems to encourage participation in the state’s

voluntary wellhead protection program. The employee also evaluates and assesses applications for testing

waivers from public water systems.

Maine
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Provide low interest rate loans and other subsidies for drinking water system capital improvements to protect

public health and ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

• Ensure that drinking water projects are constructed and maintained at a reasonable cost for the users of the

system.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also

has a linked deposit program to reach small privatelyowned systems that may wish to seek a subsidized interest

rate loan through a local bank.

• The current interest rate is 40% of Market (Bond-Buyer

11-Bond Index), which over the past three years has been

lowered down from 60% of Market. Weighted average

interest rates for the program have ranged from 1.8% to

3.0% over the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that

offers lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness

and 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: public

health benefits, compliance benefits, environmental and

system reliability benefits, and affordability criteria

scoring.

• Selected projects must be in compliance with the state’s “Smart Growth” designated Priority Funding Areas

or be approved through an exception process.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.6 billion, $323 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $50 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in August 1997 (set-asides) and September 1997 (projects).

• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 22 loans,

ranging from $45,000 to $6 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 55% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 83% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Myersville received a $467,842 loan to replace an aging and inadequate water treatment plant,

serving approximately 1,000 customers, which was under a complaint and consent order by the Maryland

Department of the Environment for noncompliance. The improvements will allow the plant to meet the

Surface Water Treatment Rule.

• The Independence Village Water Cooperative, a privately-owned system serving 23 households, received a

$45,000 loan to replace a water storage tank and upgrade its aging water distribution system.

Lead Agency:

Department of the Environment

Maryland

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.40%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $47.8 million

Grants Received $37.9 million

State Contributions $8 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $52 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 22, $37.7 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 12, $14.3 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 12, 55%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.74 million (23.1%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $4.89 million (55.9%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on helping small systems,

promoting source water protection, and

supporting its drinking water program.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state uses a portion of this set-aside

to fund an agreement with the

Maryland Rural Water Administration

to provide a circuit rider program to

assist small systems.

• Funds are also used to staff two public

health engineers to provide technical

assistance to small systems.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state uses a portion of the funds

from this set-aside to partially staff

positions including public health

engineers, sanitarians, and environmental specialists involved in state program management. New equipment and computer hardware was also

purchased in order to continue to upgrade the state’s Public Drinking Water Information System (PDWIS)

as well as staff desktop applications.

• Funds were also used to support new state drinking water legislation, which included provisions on public

notification, capacity development, administrative penalties, consumer confidence reports, as well as work on

regulations related to federal changes since 1998 such as the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule, Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule, and operator certification.

• This set-aside also supports a process aimed at formally delegating oversight of transient non-community

water systems to Maryland’s counties. Twenty-one counties have accepted this delegation and receive funds

from this set-aside to help support them in this new responsibility.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state uses funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, to acquire land and conservation

easements for source water protection, to assist systems in achieving capacity development, and to implement

a wellhead protection program.

• The state uses a portion of funds from this set-aside to partially staff positions including public health

engineers, sanitarians, environmental specialists, and geologists involved in wellhead protection and capacity

development assistance

• Completed source water assessments and public meetings assist in notifying the systems and the public

about the availability of loans for land acquisition and conservation easements to protect vulnerable drinking

water sources.

• Source water assessment projects which this set-aside supported include: the Gunpowder Watershed

Assessment Project, the Potomac River Basin Selected Pathogens Study, the Ground Water Virus Study, Piney

Reservoir Study, Patuxtent River Reservoir Study, Susquehanna River Basin Assessment, Liberty Reservoir

Assessment, Potomac River Assessment, and the Source Water Assessment Plan.

• Informational meetings were held to publicize the availability of funds for wellhead protection projects.

Nine separate wellhead protection projects were also approved for funding, totaling over $534,000.

Maryland
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Support the protection of public health by ensuring that all Massachusetts communities have safe drinking

water.

• Develop and effectively manage a self-sustaining program to facilitate compliance by all public drinking

water systems with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

• Maintain a strong source water protection program as the first step in a multiple barrier approach to

maintaining excellent water quality.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues

bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.

• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state’s market

rates. Weighted average interest rates for the program have

been about 0% since the program’s inception.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program due to the high rate of subsidy already provided

and the need to preserve fund equity.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: public

health criteria, compliance criteria, affordability, and

program structure and implementation criteria such as

consolidation or restructuring and consistency with

watershed management plans.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $5.9 billion, $797 million of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $373 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in July 1998 (set-asides) and September 1998 (projects).

• The first loan was executed in July 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 35 loans, ranging

from $165,000 to approximately $12 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 37% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 31% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Leominster received a $4.5 million loan for a new design-build-operate multimedia filtration

plant. The city’s original slow sand filtration plant, built in 1934, treated water drawn from three surface

water reservoirs. Since the new system went online, filtered water turbidity has decreased, chlorine demand

has diminished, and the water system has received positive feedback from customers noticing improvements

in the taste of their water. As a result of using the DWSRF as a funding source, the city realized a savings of

10% on user rates.

• Seekonk received a $5.9 million loan for a new membrane filtration plant and the construction of a new well

to ensure compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Protection

Cooperating Agency:

Water Pollution Abatement Trust

Massachusetts

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.14%, 3.85%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $130.3 million

Grants Received $124.6 million

State Contributions $24.9 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $98.3 million

Total Funds Available $242.8 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 35, $161 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 18, $31.7 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 21, 60%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $18.83 million (15.1%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $9.95 million (52.8%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems,

developing capacity, and promoting

source water and wellhead protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to hire a circuit rider in each of its four

regional offices to provide technical

assistance to small systems on treatment, distribution, and regulatory

obligations. Circuit riders have also

provided support in completing

DWSRF loan applications. An

additional staff person assists small

systems with system classification and

operator certification training.

• The state also entered into a contract

with Massachusetts Coalition for Small

Systems Assistance to provide group training for hard to reach small systems on aspects of financial and

managerial capacity, sampling, source water protection, and operator training.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state continues to use funds from this set-aside to support 29 staff in its Drinking Water Program.

These staff support the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), source water protection, capacity

development, and operator certification programs.

• The state provided training classes for small systems on preparing consumer confidence reports and on the

managerial and financial aspects of operating a water system. The state also initiated a self-audit survey for

transient noncommunity water systems which captures technical, financial, and managerial information.

• The state developed a technical assistance program to assist water suppliers in protecting local and regional

drinking water supplies. Eligible projects include prioritizing land for protection and control, planning

riparian buffer zones, and addressing management of existing protected lands.

• The state provided regulatory reviews and technical assistance as part of its source water protection program.

Approximately 75% of the state’s community water systems have approved source water protection plans in

place. The Massachusetts Geographic Information Systems (GIS) program digitized data layers relating to

public water supply sources and their protection areas, land use, and potential contaminant sources.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water

and wellhead protection program.

• The state developed a wellhead protection grant program to encourage entities such as water system

suppliers, watershed groups, and regional planning agencies to conduct local drinking water protection

projects. Eligible projects include developing wellhead protection plans, installing fencing around public

wells, and implementing best management practices. The state has awarded a total of $2.6 million in grants

for 65 projects.

Massachusetts
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Develop effective partnerships with other federal and state financing sources to promote efficiency in

environmental review procedures and coordination of funding.

• Apply a capacity assessment program to new water suppliers and selected existing systems.

• Improve compliance status and reliability of public water systems.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a leveraged program. The state issues

bonds to increase the amount available for funding projects.

• Interest rates are based on the state’s current market

conditions, demand for funds, and the cost of compliance.

Weighted average interest rates have been about 2.5% over

the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

principal forgiveness and 30 year loan terms as well as

assistance in defraying the costs of planning documents

using technical assistance set-aside funds.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories:

drinking water quality and public health, infrastructure

improvement, population size, consolidation, wellhead

protection, and financial need.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $6.4 billion, $1.7 billion of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $134 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in December 1997 (set-asides) and June 1998 (projects).

• The first loan was executed in June 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 57 loans, ranging

from $330,000 to $8.4 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 67% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 42% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Colon received a $2.1 million loan as part of an effort to solve its chronic pressure problems

that, if left unchecked, could introduce contaminated water into the system through backsiphonage. A new

elevated storage tank and well were built, the main distribution lines were replaced, and the town’s water

lines were looped.

• The Town of Breckenridge received a $330,000 loan to construct a new well and connect it to the water

system, allowing compliance with state rules regarding source reliability.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Quality

Cooperating Agency:

Municipal Bond Authority

Michigan

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 4.75%, 2.94%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $148.3 million

Grants Received $145.6 million

State Contributions $30.6 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $80.9 million

Total Funds Available $245.8 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 57, $144.1 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 38, $67 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 36, 63%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, improving its operator

certification program, promoting

wellhead protection, and increasing

public awareness of drinking water

issues.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to assist small systems with operator

training, on-site assistance, and source

water assessments.

• The state has also awarded assistance to

three disadvantaged communities to

cover the planning costs associated with

applying for loans from the DWSRF.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to add staff to implement a capacity development program.

• The existing operator certification program was also expanded through the addition of three staff to improve

the structure and administration of the program.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state reserved funds to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water and wellhead

protection program.

• The state has developed an extensive source water assessment and protection program, coordinating with

Michigan State University, the Groundwater Education in Michigan Center, the U.S. Geological Survey, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and local health departments. This program will

identify contaminant sources, assess susceptibility, and inform the public about source water protection.

Locally, 20 surface water programs, 100 individual wellhead protection programs, and 32 ground water

programs have also been created through these efforts.

• The state has developed a comprehensive program to manage abandoned wells located inside delineated

wellhead protection areas. The program couples a statewide education program with demonstration projects

to promote this new program that will make grants from a state bond program to communities to locate and

plug abandoned wells. The state has also used funds to address approximately 210 improperly plugged

abandoned wells.

• The state also intends to develop a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to

protect source water.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $20.56 million (14.1%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $13.76 million (67%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Michigan
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Provide financial and other assistance to public water systems in order to protect public health and achieve

and maintain compliance.

• Maintain the perpetuity of the fund while providing the greatest possible number of loans through

leveraging of capitalization grants.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a leveraged loan program. The state

issues bonds as necessary to increase the amount of loan

funds available for medium to high priority projects.

• Interest rates are based on a top rate set at 0.5% below

market rate with up to 3.5% in additional discounts

possible based on demographic criteria. Weighted average

interest rates for the program have ranged from 3.0% to

3.5% over the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

principal forgiveness.

• The state’s priority system considers three categories: public

health criteria, infrastructure improvement criteria, and

financial need.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2.9 billion, $1.2 billion of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $124 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in April 1998.

• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 71 loans,

ranging from $29,000 to $16.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 97% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 74% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Clara City, a town of 1,300, was subject to an enforcement action by the state drinking water program due

to elevated nitrate/nitrite levels that were first detected in 1998. The city received a $3.1 million loan,

including $500,000 in disadvantaged community principal forgiveness, for a new well, reverse osmosis

treatment plant, storage tower, and water main.

• The City of Hawley’s aging water tank was leaking, and, in the winter, developed large icicles that were

dangerous. The City received a $660,000 loan to construct a new 250,000 gallon water tower to replace the

older one.

Lead Agency:

Public Facilities Authority—Department

of Trade and Economic Development

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Health Minnesota

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.35%, 1.66%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $92.3 million

Grants Received $79.3 million

State Contributions $18.5 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $19.3 million

Total Funds Available $112 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 71, $106.9 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 69, $80.4 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 66, 70%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its operator

certification program, helping small

systems, and promoting source water

protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide non-regulatory assistance to

water system operators to help them

effectively manage their public water

systems and identify potential sources

of contamination.

• Two positions within Minnesota Rural

Water Association (MRWA) were

funded from this set-aside. A ground

water technician assisted municipal

community water systems with

establishing wellhead protection

programs. A circuit rider provided nonmunicipal community water supplier

operator training and on-site technical assistance, emphasizing overall system operation, consumer confidence

reports, and operator certification.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state is using funds from this set-aside to expand its operator certification program and to address public

water system program expenses. Water operator exam preparation training is being offered at American Water

Works Association conferences.

• The state also placed a high priority on contacting systems that did not have certified operators. The state

sent warning letters to 77 municipal and 45 non-municipal community water systems and teamed with

MRWA to provide targeted certification assistance to systems with no certified operator. As a result of these

efforts, compliance with certification requirements has improved from 87% to 95%.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a source

water and wellhead protection program.

• The source water protection program provided communities with procedures, technical information, and

guidance in delineating source water protection areas, identifying contaminant sources, and implementing

source water protection plans.

• The state entered into contracts with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture to obtain significant contaminant source information for vulnerable water wells.

• The state also entered into a contract to identify potential spill sites and critical assessment areas in the

Upper Mississippi watershed incorporating EPA spill data and Army Corps of Engineers flow data.

• The state filled 8 of 9 full-time positions to work with community and non-community water systems on

their wellhead protection programs. The wellhead protection program was actively involved in approving

plans for new municipal wells, with approximately 50 plans being approved in one year. Program staff also

helped communities develop and implement these plans prior to review.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $9.25 million (11.7%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $6.75 million (73%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Minnesota
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Develop partnerships with the Community Development Block Grant program, the Appalachian Regional

Commission, and the Rural Utilities Service.

• Ensure the long-term life of the fund, meet state drinking water needs, obtain a satisfactory compliance rate,

and protect the public’s health.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state’s market

interest rates. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 3.0% to 3.4% over the last three

years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers seven categories:

primary drinking water standards, pressure deficiencies,

capacity expansion, back up water supply source projects,

existing facilities upgrades, secondary drinking water

regulations, and consolidation.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $22.5 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in September 1997. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 61 loans,

ranging from $5,649 to $1.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 72% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 61% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Olive Branch received two DWSRF loans totaling $2.4 million to implement a system-wide

improvement program aimed at improving pressure deficiencies, which, if left unchecked, could introduce

contaminated water into the system through backsiphonage.

• The Hilldale Water District had a history of noncompliance with Primary Drinking Water Standards relating

to storage deficiencies in its system. The water district received a $374,365 loan to fund a project designed

to bring the system, which serves 4,812 customers, into full compliance.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Environmental Quality

Mississippi

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.31%, 1.16%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $51.5 million

Grants Received $42.4 million

State Contributions $15 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $57.8 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 61, $37.5 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 44, $22.7 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 40, 66%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on helping small systems and

promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• Using funds from this set-aside, the

state created a program to provide

technical support to deficient systems

and management training for water

system officials. Over 67 separate

management training sessions with

1,800 participants were held throughout the state.

• An on-site technical assistance and

volunteer system was also created by the

Mississippi Rural Water Association

with funds from this set-aside. A total

of 427 visits have been conducted to

assist with matters involving water

conservation, violation and compliance

issues, operation and maintenance,

management, water treatment, and training.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state intends to use funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)

program.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement its source water

protection program.

• The state’s Delineation and Source Water Assessment Program has worked to verify the confinement of

aquifers for public water supply in 51 counties (62% of the counties). All the information collected was

mapped using Geographic Information System (GIS) software to ensure the continued protection of the

studied areas.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $4.76 million (11.2%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.69 million (56.5%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Mississippi
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Support the state’s goal of ensuring that all citizens will have water that is safe to drink all of the time.

• Protect public health, minimize waterborne diseases, and avoid waterborne disease outbreaks.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a leveraged loan program. The state

issues bonds to increase the amount available for funding

projects.

• Interest rates are based on a baseline of two-thirds of the

state’s market rates. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 3.2% to 4.5% over the last three

years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: Safe

Drinking Water Act compliance, public health, affordability,

disaster recovery, and consolidation.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2.2 billion, $1.2 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $193.8 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 17 loans,

ranging from $365,514 to $25.1 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 76% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 46% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The community of Marceline was facing serious non-compliance and public health risks because of inadequate treatment. Marceline received a $4.1 million loan to improve treatment facilities, storage methods,

and distribution lines for the system’s 2,645 customers.

• The Camden County PWSD #2 received a $702,625 loan to correct public health problems facing the

system. The loan provided funds for the construction of new wells, storage facilities, and distribution lines

for the system’s 1,690 customers.

Lead Agency:

Department of Natural Resources

Missouri

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.74%, 1.34%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $62.4 million

Grants Received $41.5 million

State Contributions $125 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $56 million

Total Funds Available $95.4 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 17, $64.1 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 13, $30.6 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 3, 18%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on helping small systems and

promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide small systems with technical

assistance aimed at improving their

technical, managerial, and financial

capacity.

• The state also provided engineering

service grants aimed at very small

systems. These grants fund up to 90%

of the cost of preparing an engineering

report (up to $10,000), which then are

used to determine if the system is

eligible for DWSRF loans or other

sources of funding. All options are

evaluated including consolidation,

regionalization, and resource sharing.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program by

adding personnel and contracting for services. Activities funded have included permitting and enforcement,

operator certification, capacity development, the creation of a drinking water information management

system, and the implementation of a consumer reporting initiative.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds under this set-aside to conduct source water assessments. Assessments are underway for

every public drinking water source in the state. Source water areas have been delineated using the watersheds

for surface water intakes and estimating the recharge areas for public wells based on local geology, well

construction, and pumping characteristics. Potential drinking water contaminants in these source water areas

have been identified by searching existing databases and are being verified by contract staff in the field.

Department geologists are compiling existing information to assess the susceptibility of each public well. All

of this information is stored in a geographic information system (GIS) where it can easily be used by program

staff and the general public.

• The state also intends to develop a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to

protect source water once sufficient data has been gathered through the assessment program.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.82 million (21.3%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $4.89 million (55.5%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Missouri
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• To continue building and maintaining a permanent, self-sustaining state revolving fund program that will

serve as a cost-effective, convenient source of financing for drinking water projects.

• To provide a financing and technical assistance program to help public water supplies achieve and maintain

compliance with federal and state drinking water laws.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state’s market

interest rates. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have been about 2.3% over the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories:

documented health risks, proactive compliance measures,

potential health risks, consolidation, and affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $833 million, $488 million of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for

more than $345 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in June 1998.

• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 32 loans,

ranging from $45,000 to $8.4 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 88% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 68% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Phillipsburg, population 900, received a $200,000 loan to finance a pumping station and

transmission main to connect a new well. The purpose of the well is to provide a source of ground water to

blend with surface water from a mountain lake in an effort to reduce corrosivity and get the system into

compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule.

• The Seeley Lake Water District received a $1.3 million loan for the construction of a new packaged rapid rate

surface water treatment plant and raw water intake. The District’s water system was in significant noncompliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule since the early 1990s and was under an Administrative Order

since 1994. The completion of the new facility, serving 1,900 residents, ensured compliance and the

Administrative Order was closed out.

• Virginia City received a $66,000 loan to fund the construction of a new steel storage tank to replace a

substandard wooden storage tank. With a reduced interest rate loan, this small community of 160 residents

was able to improve substandard elements of its water system.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Quality

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Natural Resources and

Conservation Montana

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.18%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $45 million

Grants Received $45 million

State Contributions $9.2 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $60.5 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 32, $43.2 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 28, $30.4 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 22, 69%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, providing assistance to small

systems, and promoting source water

and wellhead protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state provided outreach and

technical support through a contract

with the Midwest Assistance Program.

Approximately 88 systems have received

on-site assistance in identifying physical

problems with water system equipment,

record keeping, and acquiring and

training operators.

• Other services provided to water systems

and facilities included: helping

operators to identify and prioritize water

system needs; helping operators in

discussions with boards, councils and

other administrators; and discussing

capacity development, cross-connections, source water protection, water conservation, and operator certification requirements.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program and

to develop and implement its capacity development and operator certification programs.

• As part of its PWSS program, the state entered into a contract with the Montana Bureau of Mines and

Geology to search its Groundwater Information Center (GWIC) database so as to correlate well logs with

existing water system sources; to enter existing well log information into GWIC; to sample vulnerable wells;

and to collect latitude/longitude information for existing water system sources.

• The state also entered into a contract with the Natural Resources Information System to create a geographical

information system (GIS) database of water system sources using existing latitude/longitude information and

to train PWSS staff in the use of Internet interactive mapping applications.

• One new full-time certification technician was hired for the state’s operator certification program, helping the

operator certification program to certify over 1,300 water system operators in one year.

• The state also developed an interactive CD-ROM training video on source water assessment and delineation

procedures that has been distributed to a wide audience.

• The state intends to hire a contractor to provide capacity development services including on-site visits to

water systems.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state reserved funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source

water protection program.

• The state has entered into contracts to collect source water information and to make this information

available to the public. A web-based source water protection program query tool was developed that allows

the user to identify and map selected contaminant sources within a specified distance of public water

systems.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $5.34 million (11.9%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.53 million (47.3%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Montana
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• To assist public water systems in protecting the health and welfare of state residents by helping to assure safe,

adequate, and reliable drinking water.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates for standard loans are set at between 3% and

the state market rate, with adjustments based on the median

household income of the community served by the system.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have been

about 3.2% over the last two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms and partial

principal forgiveness (if a system qualifies).

• The state’s priority system considers three categories: the

public health benefit provided by the project, the financial

impacts of the project, and enforcement actions for noncompliance.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $820 million, $454 million of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $223 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in July 1998.

• The first loan was executed in September 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 49 loans,

ranging from $60,000 to $6.8 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 92% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 84% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Village of Kennard received a $460,000 DWSRF loan plus $20,000 of loan principal forgiveness to

fund water system improvements aimed at correcting inadequate water pressure and low water quality. As

part of this project, the village will cease to make use of two wells that are responsible for high levels of iron

and manganese in their water and will instead connect to the Town of Blair’s water system. A new storage

tower and booster pumps were also installed to address the village’s water pressure problems.

• The Village of Bruning received a $570,000 DWSRF loan plus $249,000 in loan principal forgiveness to

fund water system improvements that resolved a Department of Health and Human Services Administrative

Order for nitrate MCL violations. A new well and transmission main was constructed for the community

providing a safe drinking water supply. Water meters were also installed which encouraged water conservation by the citizens.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health and Human Services

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Environmental Quality

Nebraska

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.02%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $43 million

Grants Received $43 million

State Contributions $9.7 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $45.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 49, $44.8 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 45, $35.6 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 15, 31%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its set-asides

on providing technical assistance to small

systems and promoting source water

protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to enter into contracts with five technical

assistance providers aimed at the needs of

small systems. These providers make up

an alliance called the “Two-Percent Team”

which meets monthly to identify systems

that need assistance.

• The League of Nebraska Municipalities

provides training to water boards and

councils on their responsibilities.

• The Midwest Assistance Program

prioritized the needs of small systems and

helped those most in need apply for the

assistance best suited to their situation.

• The Nebraska Environmental Training

Center conducted workshops on water treatment operations, chlorination, and fluoridation.

• The Nebraska American Water Works Association provided educational manuals at no cost to small systems

and has also implemented a series of mentoring programs.

• The Nebraska Rural Water Association provided technical assistance through a minimum of 20 on-site visits

to systems per month.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to develop and implement a capacity development program and to

modify its operator certification program.

• Assistance from the Environmental Finance Center at Boise State University was sought to develop the

capacity development program. The Environmental Finance Center helped facilitate stakeholder meetings

and developed the findings report describing the stakeholder views on the various required aspects of capacity

development. From these findings, the state developed its capacity development strategy for existing systems

that is currently being implemented.

• Set-aside funds also provided for stakeholder meetings to gather input on the state’s new operator certification rules. The operator certification program is currently being implemented.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a wellhead

protection program.

• The state hired additional staff to delineate wellhead protection areas, update state maps, ensure public

awareness, and aid local water suppliers in developing local protection actions.

• The state also developed a land acquisition program to control land use and manage agricultural operations

to minimize impacts on well fields.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.99 million (20.9%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2 million (22.3%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Nebraska
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Support the state goal of ensuring that all Nevada public water systems provide their customers with water

that is safe and pleasant to drink all of the time.

• Develop and effectively manage a self-sustaining program to facilitate compliance by all public water systems

with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on the state’s prevailing taxable or taxexempt bond rates, with adjustments to address the financial

status of the applicant. Weighted average interest rates for

the program have been about 3.6% over the last two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

principal forgiveness as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: acute

health problems, chronic health problems, refinancing of

debt, and deteriorated, substandard, or inadequate conditions.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $592 million, $180 million of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $131.5 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in May 1998.

• The first loan was executed in September 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 7 loans,

ranging from $50,752 to $12.3 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 57% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 75% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) received a $12.3 million loan to assist in an ongoing $2.1

billion capital improvement program, which includes the construction of a second raw water intake on Lake

Mead and several water treatment facilities. SNWA is a wholesale water supplier that provides water to retail

water systems serving over 1.3 million total customers throughout southern Nevada.

• Indian Hills General Improvement District (IHGID) received a $643,500 loan to replace inadequate storage

and upgrade and replace portions of its water system distribution and transmission system.

Lead Agency:

Department of Human Resources

Nevada

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $34.9 million

State Contributions $7 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $35.5 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 7, $31.8 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 4, $4.1 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 3, 43%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems, and

developing source water and wellhead

protection programs.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to enter into contracts with two

assistance providers, the Nevada Rural

Water Association (NVRWA), which

provided a “circuit rider” approach to

technical assistance, and the Rural

Community Assistance Corporation

(RCAC), which provided a “targeted”

approach focused on specific water

systems.

• Approximately 50 water systems

received assistance in the preparation of

environmental documents; the

development of operating manuals,

emergency plans, consumer confidence reports and other operating documents; and the development of

wellhead and source water protection programs.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to continue the development of an information management system

for its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. The state hired an expert to manage this effort and

provide training to the database administrator.

• The state is also working with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to develop a statewide inventory of shallow (Class V) underground injection wells which can negatively impact underground

sources of drinking water.

• With the help of third party contractors, the state is implementing both its capacity development strategy

and operator certification training.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to provide assistance to water systems in developing and enhancing

their technical, managerial, and financial capabilities. Three editions of a quarterly newsletter were published

containing training information, seminar and class schedules, and other information useful to water system

operators.

• The state also used funds to begin to organize a “Water Fair” where workshops and training will be provided

to owners, operators, and customers of public water systems.

• Approximately 50 community wellhead protection programs have received assistance through a contract with

NDEP and the state has also entered into a contract to gather field data so that staff can perform assessments

of source waters for public water systems.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $7.25 million (20.8%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $2.77 million (38.3%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Nevada
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Ensure that all New Hampshire communities will have water that is safe to drink all of the time.

• Develop and effectively manage a self-sustaining program to facilitate compliance by all public drinking

water systems with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on the established market rate (as

published in the 11 GO Bond Index) and the loan repayment

period. Weighted average interest rates for the program have

ranged from 3.5 to 4.0% over the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

principal forgiveness.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: violations of

national drinking water standards, quantity deficiencies or

insufficient storage, treatment or design deficiencies,

affordability, and additional factors such as consolidation, source

water protection, water conservation, backflow prevention, and

emergency plans.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $452 million, $349 million of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $13.7 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997 (set-asides) and July 1998 (projects).

• The first loan was executed in September 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 37 loans,

ranging from $28,170 to $4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 68% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 92% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• A $153,356 loan to the Bristol Water Works, serving approximately 2,800, was combined with grant

funding from the Community Development Block Grant program for a project that installed a new well and

associated piping. The use of alternative technology—horizontal directional drilling to install a water main

under the Fowler River—allowed the water system to avoid negative environmental impacts to the river and

adjacent wetlands.

• After funding major improvements to its water system in 1997 using private financing, the Tilton and

Northfield Aqueduct Company found that cement-tin water mains (dating from the late 1800’s) located

throughout the distribution system could not withstand increased water pressures resulting from system

improvements. Using a $1.4 million disadvantaged loan, the system replaced the pipe and has seen a drastic

reduction in water main breaks.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Services

New Hampshire

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.10%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $43.9 million

Grants Received $36.1 million

State Contributions $8 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $39.3 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 37, $30.2 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 25, $16.6 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 12, 33%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems, and

promoting source water and wellhead

protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide technical assistance to over

100 small systems through contracts

with the Northeast Rural Water

Association (NERWA), the Rural

Community Assistance Program

(RCAP), and the North Country

Council.

• A circuit rider from NERWA provided

on-site assistance to systems with

compliance problems.

• RCAP identified needs and deficiencies

of small systems, prepared income

surveys, and provided information on

funding sources.

• The North Country Council provided on-site technical assistance in preparing applications for the DWSRF

and other funding sources.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to implement its source water protection program.

• The state completed an inventory of land uses in source water protection areas and conducted extensive

outreach to municipalities using maps that showed all water resources in each municipality as well as

potential threats to those resources.

• The state also trained local officials on source water protection inspections and developed rules to address

ground water withdrawal and ground water protection.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, develop a land acquisition

program, and implement a source and wellhead protection program.

• Using it own staff, and through grants to localities, the state has conducted assessments and is compiling a

detailed database of water sources.

• The state entered into a contract with the U.S. Geological Survey to determine travel time of contaminant

spills in large water supply rivers in the state.

• A loan program was established for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination. Applications received by the state identify a demand for

more than $1.5 million in projects. A contract with the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire’s

Forests provides technical assistance to water systems in prioritizing projects for land acquisition and

facilitating purchases.

• The state entered into a contract with the New Hampshire Association of Conservation to provide grants for

agricultural improvements in source water areas. The state also provides grants for wellhead protection

projects.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.18 million (22.7%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.51 million (42.9%)

All figures in millions of dollars

New Hampshire
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Achieve and maintain drinking water quality and eliminate Safe Drinking Water Act violations to ensure

public health.

• Make the DWSRF program a self-sustaining loan program.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also

issues bonds to increase the amount available for funding

projects.

• Interest rates are based on one half of the state’s prevailing

revenue bond rate. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 2.3% to 2.7% over the last three

years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories:

compliance and public health, drinking water infrastructure

planning, state development/redevelopment planning, and

affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $3.5 billion, $859 million of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $612 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 39 loans,

ranging from $287,500 to $18.5 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 23% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 11% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Mount Holly Water Company of Burlington County received a $12.3 million loan for the construction

of four wells, a treatment plant, a storage tank, and water mains.

• Waldwick Borough received a $1.65 million loan for the construction of a finished water storage tank.

• The North Jersey District Water System received a $2.4 million loan to remove filter media, demolish

vitrified clay tiles, and remove rusted reinforced steel within its treatment plant and to construct three

booster stations with feed systems for sodium hypochlorite.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Protection

Cooperating Agency:

Environmental Infrastructure Trust

New Jersey

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.23%, 2.44%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $101.4 million

Grants Received $82.4 million

State Contributions $12.7 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $57.8 million

Total Funds Available $170.3 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 39, $124.7 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 9, $11.5 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 9, 16%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, providing technical assistance

to small systems, and promoting source

water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide outreach and support for

small systems through a series of

contracts. New Jersey Water Association (NJWA) conducted site visits and

training courses for small systems across

the state. NJWA will also develop and

maintain a website which will provide

further technical assistance and

outreach services to small systems.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to develop a source water protection

program and to implement its capacity development and operator certification programs.

• The state tracked cases of noncompliance and worked to improve systems through compliance inspections,

identification of inadequacies, and legislation as part of its capacity development program.

• The state also developed a reduced-cost training program for water system operators with Rutgers University.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments.

• Approximately 2,500 community wells have been mapped using GPS. The state has collected sufficient data

to delineate a source water protection area for over 90% of these wells.

• In addition, over 2,800 non-community wells have been mapped using GPS. The state has entered into a

contract with NJWA and the County Environmental Health Act Agencies to complete the work. The U.S.

Geological Survey has also been contracted to develop susceptibility models for surface water and ground

water.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.97 million (10.9%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $6.94 million (77.3%)

All figures in millions of dollars

New Jersey
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Provide technical, financial, and managerial assistance to public water systems.

• Ensure that the needs of all water systems are addressed, particularly small systems serving fewer than 10,000

people.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are 3% for the first $2 million of the project

amount, and leveraged with state funds for any amount over

$2 million. Weighted average interest rates for the program

have ranged from 2.0% to 2.6% over the last two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

0% interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: protection

of public health, compliance assurance, environmental criteria,

capacity development criteria, and affordability criteria.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $1.03 billion, $562 million of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for

more than $141 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in April 1998.

• The first loan was executed in December 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 5 loans,

ranging from $12,654 to $1.2 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 60% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 67% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300.

Project Examples

• The City of Santa Fe received approximately $1.2 million in DWSRF assistance to bring two exploratory

wells on-line as back-up water supplies during drought conditions.

• The City of Tucumcari received approximately $479,000 in DWSRF assistance to replace existing water lines

on two major streets that service the community.

Lead Agency:

Finance Authority

Cooperating Agency:

Environment Department New Mexico

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.02%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.9 million

Grants Received $27.3 million

State Contributions $7 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $26.5 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 5, $3.9 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 3, $0.7 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 3, 60%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on providing technical assistance

to small systems, promoting source

water protection, and developing

system capacity.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to enter into two contracts with

assistance providers to help 15 to 20

small systems a year that are deficient

in capacity (primarily those on the

DWSRF priority list).

• Specialized technical assistance was also

provided to systems such as the Tajique

system, which received help from field

personnel in locating and eliminating

bacteriological contamination in the

water system, and the City of

Alamogordo, which received assistance

in developing plans for the installation

of a new pilot project treatment facility.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used a portion of the funds from this set-aside to help administer its Public Water System

Supervision (PWSS) program.

• The state developed a Statewide Drinking Water Assessment planning process to identify and provide

information on the needs of the state’s public water systems through sanitary surveys and other sources of

information.

• Funds were also used to support the state’s operator certification program, which includes utility operator

courses, certificate examinations, and the surveillance of systems to assure compliance with operator

certification requirements.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state filled four positions in the source water assessment and protection program with funds from this

set-aside. Staff worked to develop new protocols and documents to help implement the program.

• Funds were also used to support the state’s capacity development program. Activities included the development of a set of capacity assessment tools and the creation of a program to assist existing water systems in

obtaining the desired level of capacity.

• The state also developed a program to assist small and disadvantaged communities in preparing engineering

reports, plans, and specifications so that they are ready to apply for assistance from the DWSRF and other

funding sources for infrastructure improvements.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $8.48 million (31%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $4.22 million (49.8%)

All figures in millions of dollars

New Mexico
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Protect and enhance New York’s public drinking water supplies.

• Assist public water systems in improving drinking water quality, quantity, and dependability.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also

issues bonds to increase the amount available for funding

projects.

• Interest rates are based on the terms of the bonds issued for

the program. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 2.7% to 3.1% over the last

three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30

year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: MCL/

treatment technique violations, other sanitary code

violations, system reliability/dependability issues,

government needs, and financial needs.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $13.1 billion, $2.4 billion

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $4.6 billion in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in February 1998.

• The first loan was executed in March 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 207 loans,

ranging from $71,311 to $158.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 80% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 78% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• In conjunction with a $1.4 million state assistance grant from the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, the

DWSRF provided a $668,268 loan at a 0% interest rate to the Town of LeRay to extend the town’s

distribution service to homes that had previously received their water from unsafe private wells, as well as to

an area that was previously supplied by an abandoned private water system.

• The City of Newburgh, population 27,000, received a $4.3 million loan to rehabilitate its drinking water

system that dates from the early 1900’s. The project will ensure that disinfection residuals are maintained.

It also will improve water pressure and flow, minimize turbidity, and control corrosion, thereby reducing lead

and copper levels in the system.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health

Cooperating Agency:

Environmental Facilities Corporation

New York

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 4.71%, 6.33%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $249.8 million

Grants Received $249.8 million

State Contributions $120 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $419.4 million

Total Funds Available $862.7 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 207, $722.3 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 166, $312.6 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 141, 68%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, providing assistance to small

systems, and training water system

operators.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state provided outreach and

support for small systems through a

series of contracts and a Small Water

Systems Program. Hundreds of systems

have received assistance through the

programs financed by this set-aside.

• Small systems have benefited from an

innovative Small Water System Program

that includes meetings with local

officials and water system operators and

assistance in self-evaluation, consolidation with other systems, and the

funding application process.

• Funds were also used to support the state’s Comprehensive Performance Evaluation program, which resulted

in 20 detailed assessments of water filtration plants in one year. As part of this program, on-site MCL,

performance, and other compliance criteria were checked and advice was given on how to achieve and

maintain compliance.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to develop and implement its capacity development and operator

certification programs.

• The state prioritized water systems in terms of need, identified institutional, regulatory, financial, tax, and

legal factors which impair capacity within the state, and held workshops and meetings to solicit public

comment on its plans.

• Funds were also used to fill a full-time position in the operator certification program, address the training

needs of approximately 1,700 additional operators requiring certification, and develop a training module to

upgrade the skills of operators already certified.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water

protection program.

• The state intends to map all of the 14,000 raw water sources in the state, delineate boundaries for their

assessment areas, identify point and non-point contaminants within those boundaries, and inform the public

about potential risks in each area.

• The state entered into an agreement with the Department of Environmental Conservation to compile

existing state databases relevant to source water protection.

• The state assisted EPA in a contract to conduct a source water assessment pilot study in the Upper

Susquehanna River Basin with the goal of implementing an integrated watershed management plan. The

study was initiated by the Upper Susquehanna River Coalition and the Water Resources Institute of Cornell

University. Source water assessments were completed in four study areas and a workshop was held on the

results of the source water protection efforts.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $27.22 million (10.9%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $15.54 million (57.1%)

All figures in millions of dollars

New York
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Support the state’s goal of assuring safe drinking water for state residents and visitors served by public water

systems.

• Increase the percentage of the population served by safe water systems.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• The interest rate is based on the lesser of 4% or one half of

The Bond Buyer 20-Year Bond Index. Weighted average

interest rates for the program have been about 2.6% over

the last three years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: public

health and compliance, consolidation, reliability,

affordability, and source protection and management.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2.4 billion, $1.4 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for

more than $272 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in March 1998 (set-asides) and August 1998 (projects).

• The first loan was executed in January 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 38 loans,

ranging from $200,400 to $3 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 74% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 57% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Seven Devils, with a population of 470, received a $475,000 loan from the DWSRF for

waterline replacement.

• Albertson Water and Sewer, serving a population of 965, received a $543,490 loan to extend its service to a

series of homes that had previously been served by contaminated wells.

• The Town of Andrews, with a population of 4,400, receive a $200,400 loan to install clearwell baffling to

meet CT requirements and install an altitude valve in order to reactivate an elevated storage tank.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environment and

Natural Resources

North Carolina

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.67%, 1.81%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $100.5 million

Grants Received $72.5 million

State Contributions $14.5 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $74.6 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 38, $48.4 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 28, $23.9 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 18, 47%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, providing technical assistance

to small systems, and promoting source

water and wellhead protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide technical assistance to small

systems. Environmental technicians

from the state regional offices and a

circuit rider from the North Carolina

Rural Water Association (NCRWA)

provided technical assistance to over

2,000 systems in the areas of compliance and treatment, operation and

maintenance, and management

techniques such as rate studies and

long-range financial plans for infrastructure improvements.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program and

implement its operator certification and capacity development programs. The state hired 8 field and

administrative employees to ensure adequate implementation of the drinking water program.

• The state entered into a contract with the North Carolina Waterworks Operator Association to provide for a

registrar position to coordinate operator training activities.

• The state developed guidance documents and rules for its capacity development strategy and held day-long

capacity development workshops with assistance from the North Carolina American Water Works Association

and NCRWA.

• The state also used funds to support a transient noncommunity water system program to maintain an

updated inventory and oversee regulation of these systems.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water

and wellhead protection program.

• The state mapped locations of water sources and contract programmers have been hired to help automate the

assessment process. The state is also in the process of conducting delineations and assessments of ground

water sources.

• To address the fact that more than half of the state’s population relies on ground water, the state used funds

to increase public knowledge of the benefits of wellhead protection. One-day seminars on wellhead

protection were conducted across the state and NCRWA provided training to local community leaders on the

importance of wellhead protection and the methods available for use within wellhead protection plans. The

state also entered into a contract with NCRWA to provide two ground water technicians to assist and guide

communities through the process for developing and implementing wellhead protection plans.

• The state provided incentives to get wellhead protection plans approved by awarding priority points to

DWSRF applicants with approved plans.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $14.88 million (20.5%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $6.5 million (43.7%)

All figures in millions of dollars

North Carolina
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Assist public water systems in improving drinking water quality, quantity, and dependability by providing

reduced interest rate, long-term financial assistance for infrastructure improvements.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also has

issued bonds to increase the amount available for funding

projects.

• The state presently offers two different interest rates depending on whether a system qualifies for tax-exempt financing.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have been

about 2.5% over the last three years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers nine categories: water

quality, water quantity, affordability, consolidation and

regionalization, infrastructure adequacy, project financial

considerations, operator safety, prevention initiatives, and

water conservation.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $486 million, $293 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $258.8 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in August 1998.

• The first loan was executed in March 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 20 loans,

ranging from $44,004 to $13.2 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 80% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 88% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Grand Forks received two loans through the DWSRF to address Safe Drinking Water Act compliance issues

and damage incurred by major flooding along the Red River in 1997. The first loan ($13.2 million) will be

used to build a clearwell, pump station, and transmission to satisfy the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The

second loan ($10.0 million) will be used to construct new raw water intake facilities.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health

Cooperating Agency:

Municipal Bond Bank

North Dakota

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $34.9 million

State Contributions $2.5 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds $11.5 million

Total Funds Available $45.4 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 20, $40.8 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 16, $12.5 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 13, 65%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on helping small systems and

promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide capacity development and

source water protection assistance to

targeted water systems through technical assistance contracts with the Midwest Assistance Program (MAP) and the

North Dakota Rural Water Systems

Association (NDRWSA).

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state did not reserve any funds

from this set-aside.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to conduct source water delineations, contaminant source inventories, and susceptibility analyses for all of its

water systems.

• The state also entered into a contract with MAP to complete contaminant source inventories for ground

water systems that use surface water.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $3.19 million (9.2%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.39 million (43.5%)

All figures in millions of dollars

North Dakota
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Maximize below-market rate loans to eligible public water systems to fund improvements to ensure

compliance with federal and state drinking water laws and regulations.

• Encourage the consolidation and/or regionalization of small water systems to allow them to take advantage of

the economies of scale available to larger systems.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on the term of loan, size of service

area, and the affordability needs of the service area.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have ranged

from 3.9% to 4.2% over the last three years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers six categories: human

health risks, compliance with federal and state Safe Drinking

Water Act requirements, affordability, population or service

area, regionalization/ consolidation, and effective management.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $4.7 billion, of which $1.7 billion

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $527 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 48 loans,

ranging from $7,270 to $21.2 million to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 58% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 64% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Ottawa County received a $21.2 million loan for the consolidation and replacement of seven public surface

water treatment plants and more than 115 privately-owned ground water systems that had significant

problems with contamination. The new Ottawa County Regional Water System consists of a 6 million

gallon per day surface water treatment plant and two new 500,000 gallon elevated storage tanks that provide

water to approximately 23,000 people.

• Several public and noncommunity water systems in Geauga County consistently demonstrated difficulty in

meeting Ohio EPA guidelines. With the help of three different project loans totaling $1.4 million, Geauga

County was able to install a 300,000 gallon storage tower to aid in the replacement of eight non-community

water systems and consolidate and eliminate seven public water systems.

Lead Agency:

Environmental Protection Agency

Cooperating Agency:

Water Development Authority Ohio

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.43%, 3.20%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $139.6 million

Grants Received $114.6 million

State Contributions $28.2 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $132.3 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 48, $120.5 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 28, $12.5 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 34, 71%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its set-asides

on helping small systems and promoting

source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

for technical assistance teams to provide

operational, financial, and managerial

support to small systems. More than

2,600 systems received assistance through

the program.

• Operational technical support included

providing professional on-site assistance

to systems to maintain system compliance and capacity and training water

system personnel and boards on

maintenance, operation, and managerial

matters. Contact is maintained with

system operators who have been assisted.

• Financial and managerial support

included providing assistance in

preparing loan applications, determining ability to pay, and assisting in finding the most cost-effective

method to address problems.

• The state also used funds to offer workshops around the state to enhance system operators’ skills and

maintain certification levels by offering continuing education credits.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state did not reserve any funds under this set-aside.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water

and wellhead protection program.

• The state has developed an extensive source water assessment and protection program through a series of

contracts with the U.S. Geological Survey, Woolpert Consultants, and Ohio Department of Natural

Resources Division of Water. This program involves conducting resource characterizations, delineations of

source water protection areas, and inventories and susceptibility analyses for ground water and surface water

sources. For ground water systems, assessment work was initiated and completed in five pilot counties. For

surface water systems, assessment work was initiated and largely completed at one pilot system.

• The state also entered into a contract with the Great Lakes Rural Community Assistance Program to pilot a

regional source water assessment program designed for areas underlain by karst geology.

• The state also worked with water systems on their wellhead protection programs. Approximately 50

delineations and more than 50 separate elements of management plans were reviewed in the last two years.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $14.32 million (12.5%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $5.31 million (37.1%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Ohio
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• To install or upgrade treatment that improves the capability of public water systems to comply with primary

or secondary drinking water standards.

• To rehabilitate or replace contaminated drinking water sources.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state’s market

interest rates. Weighted annual average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 2.8% to 4.0% over the last three

years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers nine categories:

violations of primary standards, quantity deficiencies, design

deficiencies, vulnerability to potential pollution, violations of

secondary standards, consolidation, compliance orders,

source water protection, and affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2.3 billion, $1.3 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $67 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997 (set-asides) and January 1998 (projects).

• The first loan was executed in August 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 10 loans,

ranging from $575,675 to $8.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 70% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 43% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Trihalomethanes (THMs) are byproducts of the process used to disinfect drinking water. They form when

disinfectants react with natural organic and inorganic matter in source water and the distribution system.

The Stillwater Utilities Authority received an $8.5 million loan which allowed it to upgrade its water

treatment plant and to install new treatment options aimed at correcting THM violations.

• High nitrate levels in ground water is a common problem for many small towns in the western part of the

state. The Mangum Utility Authority received a $2.1 million loan to drill new water wells in an area having

lower nitrate levels and to upgrade their distribution system to alleviate pressure problems.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Quality

Cooperating Agency:

Water Resources Board Oklahoma

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.40%, 1.44%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $60.8 million

Grants Received $49.6 million

State Contributions $12.2 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $52 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 10, $31.5 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 7, $17.7 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 3, 30%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on providing technical assistance

to small systems and promoting source

water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to assist small systems in preparing

applications for DWSRF project loans

and in developing needed operational

controls.

• The state also provided technical

assistance to systems through a contract

with the Oklahoma Rural Water

Association. More than 125 water

systems have received assistance through

this program. The small systems

benefited from assistance on how to

improve compliance with drinking

water standards, quality of service to

customers, and water system management. The systems also received evaluations of raw water quality and of filtration and disinfection practices.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state primarily used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)

program with an emphasis on providing technical assistance and conducting other non-enforcement

activities.

• The state has increased tracking of volatile organic chemicals, nitrate violations, and disinfectant byproducts

and completed a statewide update of its surface water intake database. Funds have also been used to train

local water system operators on how to prepare consumer confidence reports.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state reserved funds from this set-aside to support its program for the delineation of watershed protection areas for surface water sources of drinking water. Over the next several years, all surface water areas will

be delineated and maps produced of the water source, surrounding drainage, and nearby land use. A similar

delineation project is underway for wellhead protection areas for ground water sources.

• The state has also begun to conduct an inventory of sources of contamination of water supplies. In some

cases, local contingency plans have also been developed.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $11.04 million (22.2%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $5.95 million (53.9%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Oklahoma
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Support the goal of ensuring Oregon’s water supplies provide safe water to drink by helping to finance

needed water system improvements.

• Increase water system compliance with state and federal drinking water requirements through technical

assistance, capacity development, and assessment of source water.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a discount of state and municipal

bond rates. Weighted average interest rates for the program

have ranged from 2.3% to 3.3% over the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30

year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: risk to

human health, compliance, community affordability, cost

effectiveness, and innovation.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2.7 billion, $929 million of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for

more than $62 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in June 1998.

• The first loan was executed in July 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 28 loans, ranging

from $36,165 to $4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 96% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 89% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Talent’s drinking water sources were once described as “the worst in Oregon” due in part to a

serious cryptosporidiosis outbreak in 1992. With a $2 million loan that included disadvantaged assistance, the

city was able to begin purchasing treated water from the Medford Water Commission.

• Mitchell received a $36,165 loan to make improvements to its drinking water system. The system had

experienced violations of maximum contaminant levels for Coliform bacteria due to inadequate treatment.

An upgrade of the chlorination system provided a consistent disinfection system to eliminate violations and

more effectively protect customers.

Lead Agency:

Department of Human Services

Cooperating Agency:

Economic and Community Developement

Department Oregon

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.51%, 1.45%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $63.6 million

Grants Received $63.6 million

State Contributions $5.9 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $60.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 28, $29.4 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 27, $25.4 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 2, 7%
Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on providing technical assistance

to small systems, promoting source

water protection, and expanding

oversight of public water systems by

using County Health Departments as

partners.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide technical assistance to

community ground water and surface

water systems through a series of

contracts.

• Resolution Plans were prepared for

systems throughout the state. These

plans identify any current deficiency

with the water system’s infrastructure or

operation, outline detailed plans for

resolving deficiencies, and complete a

cost estimate for the solutions.

• Water system operator training programs were developed and over 300 hours of on-site technical assistance to

small systems was provided.

• The state also provided engineering service grants aimed at small systems. These grants fund the cost of

preparing an engineering report (up to $10,000), which then are used to determine if the system is eligible

for DWSRF loans or other sources of funding.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program

through contracts with County Health Departments, which help public water suppliers with water quality

problems, reporting, sanitary surveys, and regulatory consultation.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water

protection and capacity development program.

• The Department of Environmental Quality intends to provide early technical assistance at the community

level as part of the state’s source water assessment process and to encourage community involvement in areas

where land-use planning issues involve ground water resources or high priority contamination sources. The

state plans to increase community awareness through meetings, education programs, and public forums.

• The state developed a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements to protect

vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination.

• The state also established a three-phase capacity development plan that includes the assessment of loan

applicants, a capacity implementation program for new public water systems, and a capacity development

program for existing public water systems.

Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $10.27 million (16.1%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $4.09 million (39.8%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Oregon
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Ensure that all public drinking water systems in Pennsylvania achieve compliance with drinking water

standards.

• Protect and enhance the quality of life of present and future Pennsylvanians by providing safe and adequate

supplies of potable water.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a comparison of the unemployment rate of the county in which the project will take place

with the statewide average unemployment rate. Weighted

annual average interest rates for the program have been about

2.0% over the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers six categories: benefits to

public health, improvement in the ability to comply,

affordability, environmental and social impacts, improvement

in adequacy and efficiency, and benefits to public safety.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $5.0 billion, $2.3 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $201 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in May 1997 (projects) and July 1998 (set-asides).

• The first loan was executed in May 1997. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 97 loans, ranging

from $69,791 to $8.6 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 76% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 68% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Blacklick Valley received a $1.3 million disadvantaged assistance loan with a 1% interest rate and 26 year

repayment period to construct a waterline to supply residents of two communities with water from an

existing drinking water system. The project eliminated the use of two reservoirs and numerous private

drinking water wells contaminated with Giardia and Coliform bacteria.

• The Sandy Run Water Association received a $85,587 loan to construct a 10,000 gallon storage tank and

chlorination facilities to eliminate contamination from surface-water runoff into the existing facilities that had

required residents to boil water for five years.

Lead Agency:

Infrastructure Investment Authority

(Pennvest)

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Environmental Protection Pennsylvania

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 4.24%, 3.15%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $148.1 million

Grants Received $148.1 million

State Contributions $29.6 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $140.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 97, $149 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 74, $99.6 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 30, 31%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $45.9 million (31%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $12.48 million (27.2%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on capacity development,

promoting source water protection, and

facilitating partnerships between

drinking water systems.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to hire four addition full-time staff for

its capability enhancement program.

• The state entered into a contract with

the Pennsylvania Rural Water Association (PRWA) for circuit riders to

provide leak detection and water

conservation training for small, rural

water systems. A complete water audit

is done for each system identifying the

location of any leaks, how much is

being lost, and cost savings to the

system if leaks are fixed.

• The state also contracted with the

Northeast Rural Community Assistance Program to help water suppliers address their financial and

managerial problems.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to implement its source water protection and operator certification

programs.

• The state added 15 additional full-time staff to provide technical assistance to localities in the development

of source water protection programs, increase public awareness, and provide geographic information support.

Several local communities and water suppliers received grants to implement local watershed protection

programs involving land use planning, zoning ordinances, and incentives for landowners.

• The state entered into a contract to enhance its capability to develop and deliver quality classroom and webbased training for operators.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement its capability

enhancement program.

• The Environmental Resource Research Institute at Penn State University was contracted to conduct source

water assessments of ground water sources for all water systems in the state serving less than 3,300 customers.

The state also entered into a contract to conduct surface water source assessments in watersheds with areas

greater than 100 square miles.

• The state also established a grant program to assist communities in implementing local wellhead protection

programs aimed at addressing actual or potential causes of contamination in their ground water.

• The state hired 9 additional full-time staff to coordinate and facilitate water system participation in the

national Partnership for Safe Water Program.

Pennsylvania
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Assist public water systems in improving drinking water quality and dependability.

• Consolidate and/or eliminate existing non-viable public water systems.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on economic and financial analysis

conducted by the Infrastructure Finance Authority.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have been

about 2.0% over the last year.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers six categories: compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), public

health risk, reliability and dependability, governmental

needs, special priorities, and affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2 billion, $451 million of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $97.3 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in September 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 2 loans for

7 projects, ranging from $585,000 to $18 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• A total of $5.8 million went to 3 projects for small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.

Project Examples

• The water system serving the Carite and Guyama Wards in Guayama were in noncompliance with the

SDWA and inadequate for the area’s demand. The system received a $2.9 million loan to build two new

distribution tanks with pumping stations and new distribution lines to ensure adequate supply and

compliance.

• The Municipality of Rio Grande’s El Yunque Filter Plant was overloaded and thus in noncompliance with

the turbidity standard. An $18 million loan was agreed to by the DWSRF to update and improve the filter

plant to correct the problem.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health

Cooperating Agencies:

Infrastructure Finance Authority

Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico

Environmental Quality Board Puerto Rico

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.44%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $55.8 million

Grants Received $44.6 million

State Contributions $8.9 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $49.4 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 2, $36.7 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 0, $5.8 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 0, 0%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $4.16 million (9.3%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $0.69 million (16.7%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on providing technical assistance

to small systems and supporting its

drinking water program.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide assistance to 234 community

water systems in preparing consumer

confidence reports by developing

guidance, providing assessment, and

working with systems to make their

reports more accessible to the public.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to support its Public Water Supply

Supervision (PWSS) program and

implement its capacity development

and operator certification programs.

• The state developed guidance and provided orientation to help systems comply with the SDWA when

preparing consumer confidence reports.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct its source water assessment program.

• The state has worked to develop a plan of action, assemble all existing information, and begin implementation. Public outreach efforts are also underway to encourage self-implementation by systems through

orientation, guidance, incentives, and enforcement.

Puerto Rico
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Maintain the fiscal integrity of the DWSRF and comply with generally accepted governmental accounting

principles to assure continuance of loan funds for future generations.

• Coordinate DWSRF activities with other state and federal activities relating to public drinking water.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a baseline of three-quarters of the

market interest rate. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 2.8% to 3.1% over the last two

years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: acute

health risks, chronic health risks, compliance with the Safe

Drinking Water Act, infrastructure needs, and affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $565 million, $63 million of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for

more than $279 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in December 1997 (set-asides) and June 1998 (projects).

• The first loan was executed in June 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 4 loans, ranging

from $10,000 to $5 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 50% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 50% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Shady Acres Nursing Home, a private corporation in West Kingston, provides services to 77 patients. The

state provided a loan of $10,000 for well reactivation and storage enhancement.

• The City of Providence received a $5 million loan to fund three rehabilitation projects including aqueduct

rehabilitation, reservoir rehabilitation, and clearwell and effluent yard rehabilitation.

Lead Agency:

Clean Water Finance Agency

Cooperating Agency:

Department of Health

Department of Environmental Management Rhode Island

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $27.1 million

State Contributions $5.4 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $29.6 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 4, $10.2 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 2, $0.2 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 5, 56%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $4.3 million (15.8%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.27 million (29.4%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program and helping small systems.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to enter into contracts with the New

England Water Works Association and

Maine Rural Water to provide assistance

to small systems in system operations

training and consumer confidence

report preparation.

• The state also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Rhode

Island Water Resources Board to

provide matching funds.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to support additional staff in its drinking water program.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside primarily to conduct source water assessments.

• The state entered into a contract with U.S. Geological Survey to determine the vulnerability of wells by

category of contamination.

• The state intends to conduct delineations and inventories of all of its water systems.

Rhode Island
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Maintain the fiscal integrity of the fund to ensure continued growth of funding in perpetuity.

• Enhance the viability of public water systems through continued implementation of the state’s capacity

development authority.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a baseline approximately 33%

below the Bond-Buyer 25 Index. Weighted average interest

rates for the program have been about 3.5% over the last three

years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: public

health risks- acute and chronic, exceedance or expected

exceedance of primary drinking water standards, noncompliance with a secondary maximum contaminant level(s),

and compliance with the State Safe Drinking Water Act and

the State Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $808 million, $385 million of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $70 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in June 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 9 loans, ranging

from $344,882 to $6 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 11% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 100% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• BJ WSA Chelsea received a $5.8 million loan to expand its water treatment plant to reduce Hilton Head

ground water withdrawal rates.

• SJWD Water District received a $4.1 million loan to replace lines and close open loops to improve flow and

water system pressure. A pump station and treatment plant upgrade were also planned.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health and Environmental Control

Cooperating Agency:

Budget and Control Board

South Carolina

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.18%, 1.08%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $47.3 million

Grants Received $38.9 million

State Contributions $7.8 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $45.1 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 9, $26 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 1, $0.3 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 3, 33%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $3.49 million (9%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.54 million (44.2%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on providing technical assistance

to small systems and promoting

wellhead protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to enter into a contract to provide

assistance to systems via telephone, email, standard mail, and field visits.

• Encouraging, and in some cases,

requiring water systems to develop a

“business plan” is a major component of

the state’s capacity development plan.

The state has used technical assistance

to help small systems complete selfassessments and develop standard

operating procedures and detailed

business plans.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state did not reserve any funds under this set-aside through fiscal year 2001. During fiscal year 2002,

the state intends to use funds under this set-aside for capacity development and source water protection.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a wellhead

protection program.

• The state contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey to delineate source water protection areas for 83 surface

water intakes used by public water systems.

• The state also developed an extensive wellhead protection program that includes the delineation of wellhead

protection areas. The state has completed delineations of wellhead protection areas for all existing water

systems.

• The state entered into a contract to complete an inventory of potential contaminant sources within each

delineated source water protection area. The contractor has completed inventories for 22% of the delineated

source water protection areas.

• The state intends to create a geographical information system (GIS) database of all ground water and surface

water delineations.

South Carolina
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Ensure that the state’s drinking water systems remain safe and affordable.

• Protect public health and promote the economic well-being of the citizens of the state.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on the current market rates, rates

secured on state issued matching funds, and current demand

for DWSRF funds. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 2.4% to 3.6% over the last three

years. Interest rates have been lowered to 3.5% starting in

fiscal year 2002.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers eleven categories:

primary drinking water contaminants, affordability,

consolidation and regionalization, secondary drinking water

contaminants, total coliform, rehabilitation, inadequate

supply, wellhead/source water protection, replacement of

transmission lines, storage, and population.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $436 million, $277 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $53.4 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in January 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 28 loans,

ranging from $142,000 to $7 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 86% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 71% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Kingbrook Rural Water System received a loan of $475,000 to connect the town of Carthage to the rural

water system. Carthage is a rural community with a population of 187 and a median household income

(MHI) at 53% of the statewide MHI. The loan was used to rehabilitate the town’s water distribution system

and install the mainline. Because of Carthage’s MHI, the loan was provided at 0% interest rate with a 30

year repayment term.

• The City of Mobridge is located along the Missouri River in northern South Dakota. The Missouri River

supplies the city’s 3,574 residents with drinking water, but the 50-year-old water treatment plant was in

need of renovation. The plant had inadequate backwash facilities, sedimentation capability, and control

equipment. The city received two loans totaling $1.32 million to upgrade its water treatment facility.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources

South Dakota

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $42.7 million

State Contributions $7.1 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $48.9 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 28, $31.6 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 24, $15 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 15, 56%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $3.33 million (7.8%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $1.08 million (32.5%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems, and

promoting water source protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to assist in bringing non-complying

small systems into compliance, improve

operations of small water systems, and

facilitate small systems’ access to the

DWSRF program.

• The state contracted with five planning

districts and the South Dakota

Association of Rural Water Systems to

provide technical assistance.

• To encourage more proactive planning

within small communities, the state is

proposing to use funds to initiate a

planning grants program, which will

reimburse 80% of the cost of an

engineering study.

State Program Management (SPM)

• A contract was awarded to South Dakota Association of Rural Water Systems to provide supplemental

training to assist operators that are having difficulty becoming certified.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used other funds to hold nine local community meetings and conferences across the state to present

information on source water protection. The meetings included members of the South Dakota Engineering

Society, the Black Hills Council of Local Governments, the South Dakota Association of Rural Water

Systems, the Butte County Commission, the Fall River County Conservation District, and the Edgemont

Chamber of Commerce.

• The state used other funds to complete preliminary source water delineations for approximately 374 systems

and 898 sources. A database has been developed to store information collected from the source water

assessments.

South Dakota
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Maintain a self-sustaining revolving loan program to provide low-cost financial assistance for projects to

assure affordable drinking water that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

• Protect and enhance the water quality in Tennessee by ensuring the technical integrity of funded projects.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on The Bond Buyer’s 20-Year Bond

Index and then multiplied by the entities Ability To Pay

Index (ATPI). This ATPI uses a broad definition of fiscal

capacity that includes per capita income, per capita property

tax base, and per capita sales and is intended to measure fiscal

capacity in terms of the available resources for paying taxes or

paying for services. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 1.9% to 2.5% over the last three

years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

principal forgiveness as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers seven categories: water

quality problems, source/capacity issues, water storage,

leakage problems, pressure problems, replacement/rehabilitation projects, and water line extensions.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey identified a total need of $1.4 billion, $828 million

of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $83 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in March 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 25 loans,

ranging from $71,300 to $7.5 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 76% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 42% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Troy received a $805,000 loan with a 2.58% interest rate to install two new wells, convert

existing abandoned structures to clearwells, and renovate existing equipment and the water treatment plant

building. The new wells replaced older wells that produced water with unacceptable high iron levels. The

project provided safe and reliable drinking water to approximately 1,050 citizens of the town and the

surrounding community.

• The City of Crossville, with approximately 8,600 residents, received a $7.5 million loan with a 1.77%

interest rate to build a new 3.5 million gallon per day treatment plant. The existing plant was constructed

in 1937 and has outlived its useful life. The deteriorated conditions at the plant have made further

rehabilitation and expansion impractical and water rationing is expected in the short-term if the new water

plant is not built.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environment and

Conservation

Tennessee

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.02%, 1.34%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $53.2 million

Grants Received $53.2 million

State Contributions $10.6 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $53.8 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 25, $28.3 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 19, $21.8 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 10, 40%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $11.45 million (21.5%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $5.35 million (46.7%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused its use of setasides on helping small systems,

supporting its drinking water program,

and promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide technical assistance to small

systems through a contract with the

Fleming Training Center (which is a

part of the Division of Community

Assistance).

• More than 500 small system water

treatment plant operators have received

hands-on assistance with technical

problems. Numerous operations classes

have also been offered to help small

systems improve their operations by

increasing their technical, managerial,

and financial abilities. Over 1,250

student days of instruction have been

provided per year.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state has used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program

and enhance its capacity development and operator certification programs.

• As part of its PWSS program, the state has made a special effort to ensure a high consumer confidence report

compliance rate by conducting outreach activities to inform water system operators about the importance of

these reports. Funds have also been used to support the enforcement of federal drinking water regulations

such as the Disinfection Byproducts Rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

• The University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Association of Utility Districts have been contracted to help

develop and implement the state’s capacity development program to ensure that all loan applicants meet a

base-line standard with respect to capacity.

• The state also used funds to track and enforce compliance with the operator certification program.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and assist in wellhead protection program elements.

• The state conducted delineations and assessments of surface water sources with the assistance of the Tennessee

Association of Utility Districts. A total of 51 of the 180 surface source water assessments have been

completed.

• The state also performed additional wellhead protection work with the help of the Tennessee Valley

Authority and the U.S. Geological Survey. Activities within this program have included underground

discharge contamination source inventories and hydro-geological runoff investigations. In addition, the

Ground Water Institute (GWI) has completed more than 80 community wellhead digitizations. The GWI is

also performing susceptibility analyses for public water systems under the source water assessment program.

Tennessee
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Improve and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the state’s drinking water by

developing a financial and technical program capable of funding all projects annually that pose the most

serious risk to public health and meet compliance with the

Safe Drinking Water Act.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a discount on the state’s market

interest rates, combined with the adjusted median

household income of the area receiving assistance.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have ranged

from 1.9% to 3.8% over the last two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms and

principal forgiveness.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: health

and compliance factors, physical deficiency factors,

consolidation, and population.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $13 billion, $4.3 billion of which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $600.3 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in May 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 24 loans, ranging

from $930,000 to $9.4 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 54% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 customers, 54% of which went

to systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Sweetwater received a $7.3 million loan in combination with a $3.5 million loan from the Texas

Water Development Fund to construct a new treatment plant. The new treatment plant will correct

secondary contaminant levels for sulphates and improve the disinfection process.

• The City of Brady received a $9.4 million loan to construct a surface water treatment plant and a storage

tank to correct radiochem violations in their ground water source. Since the city qualified as a disadvantaged

community, 35% of the loan was forgiven and the remaining loan amount was offered at a 0% interest rate

and a 30 year loan term.

Lead Agency:

Water Development Board

Cooperating Agencies:

Natural Resources Conservation Commission

Texas

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 5.59%, 7.58%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $298.7 million

Grants Received $239.6 million

State Contributions $30 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $237.6 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 24, $163.5 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 13, $36 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 0, 0%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $35.4 million (14.8%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $17.7 million (50%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on program support, promoting

source water protection, and capacity

development.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state did not reserve any funds

from this set-aside.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to help administer its Public Water

System Supervision (PWSS) program.

As part of this program, an integrated

data applications package was developed

to give the PWSS program the capacity

to satisfy the data and tracking needs of

both the state and EPA.

• A contractor was hired to collect water

samples of chemical quality from public

water system entry points. TNRCC

staff conducted treatment plant inspections and sanitary surveys.

• Funds were also used to develop a capacity development strategy. TNRCC prioritized water systems for

financial, managerial, and technical assessments and assistance. Since 1998, TNRCC has made over 950

referrals to a contractor for system assessments and 980 referrals for assistance. In addition, 113 water

systems have been assessed for potential consolidation.

• Additional funds were used to implement an operator certification program. A contractor was hired to

determine the knowledge, skills, and abilities of operators of surface water systems that serve more than 14

million people in the state. The certification exams for these operators were also revised.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• In addition to using funds to conduct required source water assessments, the state used funds from this setaside to conduct two source water protection projects. For these two projects, contractors were hired to

evaluate source water assessment and protection reports and make on-site visits with the aim of providing the

systems technical assistance in how to direct source water protection efforts.

• The state implemented a financial, managerial, and technical review process along with a business plan

review process to assure the abilities of new water systems and new utility owners to be viable and maintain

compliance.

• The state also developed a loan program for systems to implement best management practices to protect their

drinking water sources. The types of projects eligible for funding include: land acquisition, implementation

of land use ordinances, hazardous waste collection programs, and public outreach activities.

Texas
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Help public water supplies achieve and maintain compliance with federal and state drinking water standards

and help historical significant noncompliers (SNCs) achieve compliance.

• Build a permanent, self-sustaining state revolving fund for financing drinking water projects.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on the state’s bond market interest

rate, which is calculated weekly using George K. Baum &

Company’s 20-year A bond municipal bond yields report.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have been

about 0% for the last 2 years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: water

source quality and quantity, treatment, storage, and

distribution.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $504 million, $287 million of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $72 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in February 1998.

• The first loan was executed in November 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 8 loans,

ranging from $230,000 to $3.4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 63% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 80% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• In Manila, a publicly-owned community water system received a $750,000 loan for waterlines and other

system upgrades.

• In Wendover, a publicly-owned community water system received a $3.4 million loan for treatment, storage,

and distribution of water from a spring source that was identified as being under the direct influence of

surface water.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Quality

Utah

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1%, 1%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $34.9 million

State Contributions $7 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $35.3 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 8, $20.4 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 5, $9.3 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 2, 25%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $6.98 million (20%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $4.16 million (59.6%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems, and

promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to enter into a contract with the Rural

Water Association for a circuit rider to

provide technical assistance to rural

drinking water systems. In addition,

targeted systems receive tri-annual

financial and management audits.

• In one year, over 900 systems received

assistance to resolve operational

problems and address compliance

issues.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program and implement its source water protection,

capacity development, and operator certification programs.

• The state used funds to continue to perform core functions of the PWSS program such as sanitary surveys,

plan reviews, and ground water source protection. The state also awarded $75,000 in grants to 12 local

health departments to conduct sanitary surveys.

• The state entered into a contract to consolidate its drinking water data into one user-friendly database.

• The state hired a full-time employee to develop and implement a source water protection program for surface

water sources.

• The state issued 24 contracts aimed at implementing regional planning for small systems on a county-wide

basis. As part of the regional planning process, recommendations were made to small systems to regionalize

operations or to consolidate with neighboring systems.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement a source water

protection program.

• The state intends to conduct source water assessments for transient noncommunity systems with ground

water sources.

• The state established a program to partially reimburse (up to $2,500) small water systems serving fewer than

3,300 for costs incurred in preparing source water protection plans. Reimbursement was provided for 34

small water systems for 100 drinking water sources.

Utah
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Provide a self-sustaining funding program that will assist public water systems in ensuring that the public

has safe drinking water.

• Maintain the fiscal integrity of the fund and comply with generally accepted government accounting

standards to assure continuance of loan funds for future generations.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a determination by the State

Treasurer and Secretary of the Department. Weighted

average interest rates for the program have ranged from 2.0%

to 2.4% over the last two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

principal forgiveness (via negative interest rates) and 30 year

loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: water

quality deficiencies, system facility improvements, system

reliability criteria, population, and affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $307 million, $293 million of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $25 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997.

• The first loan was executed in December 1997. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 60 loans,

ranging from $13,518 to $2.6 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 100% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 95% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• Starksboro Village water system, which serves 80 people, received a loan of $14,657 for a new spring box.

The old, poorly constructed spring box was suspected of allowing surface water infiltration into the existing

spring source. Residents of the village are pleased with the resulting water quality improvement.

• The ground water well serving as the source for the 85 residents of the Hillside Manor Mobile Home Park

was under the influence of a small stream. A $330,000 loan with a -3% interest rate and 30 year repayment

period funded the consolidation of the system with the nearby Lazy Brook Mobile Home Park as well as a

new water storage tank, pumping station, and distribution mains. The water system operator indicated that

the use of DWSRF funds was the only way the project could be completed.

Lead Agency:

Department of Environmental Conservation

Cooperating Agency:

Municipal Bond Bank

Economic Development Authority Vermont

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.0%, 1.0%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $34.9 million

State Contributions $6.6 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $35.5 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 60, $25.3 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 60, $25.3 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 28, 43%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $6.71 million (19.2%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.05 million (45.5%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems, and

promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide a grant to the Northeast

Rural Water Association and support a

project development specialist in the

Drinking Water Program to provide

technical assistance to small systems.

• Over 350 water systems received

assistance with applying for DWSRF

loans and other funding sources,

meeting historic preservation requirements, on-site management assistance,

water audits and leak detection, and

consumer confidence reporting.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to support 3 additional full-time staff in its Drinking Water

Program. The employees work on capacity development, adoption and implementation of new regulations,

and consumer confidence reports. One employee works to approve source protection plans and help water

systems with assessments and delineations.

• The state provided a grant to the Northeast Rural Water Association to conduct annual operator training

courses. In one year, approximately 36 training courses were held and attended by over 500 water system

operators.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and implement its capacity

development strategy and source water protection program.

• The state established a program to provide loans to municipally owned systems for the purchase of land or

conservation easements to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination. The state has made

a total of $200,000 in loans to 3 systems. One loan, to the Town of Bradford, purchased a tract of farmland

within Zone I of the system’s source protection area. The purchase was a high priority because the Town’s

source protection plan identified high risk land use activity on the property.

• As part of its capacity development strategy, the state also established a program to provide loans to small

municipalities to prepare feasibility studies. Approximately 18 loans have been executed. In addition, the

state entered into contracts with firms to complete facility improvement plans for 79 small water systems

serving less than 500 people. These plans include a site visit, replacement schedule, cost estimates, and an

evaluation of consolidation options.

Vermont
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Help assure that Virginians will be the healthiest people in the nation with regards to drinking water.

• Promote consolidation and regionalization of water supplies through programmatic and construction

assistance.

• Assist and encourage waterworks owners to develop strategies to develop and maintain the capacity to provide

safe drinking water for the long-term.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on, at most, the municipal AA

revenue bond rate minus 1%. Weighted annual average

interest rates for the program have ranged from 1.2% to

3.0% over the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as principal forgiveness and 30

year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers three categories: health

and compliance criteria, affordability criteria, and additional

factors such as regionalization and coordinated funding.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2 billion, $796 million of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $21.4 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1997 (projects) and March 1998 (set-asides).

• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 39 loans,

ranging from $250,000 to $2.9 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 97% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 84% of which went to

systems serving less than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Town of Luray’s water source, a ground water well, was found to be under the influence of surface water

and thus susceptible to contamination. The town received an $860,000 loan for the construction of a new

treatment plant and waterlines to correct this problem.

• Before the Dickenson County-Road Branch waterline extension project was completed in December 2000,

residents used drinking water wells that were contaminated with bacteria, sulfur, and iron. For many years,

residents hauled potable water to their homes, a hardship to those who were elderly or disabled. The

extension has made a safe, affordable, and reliable water supply available to 41 families and has improved

their quality of life.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health

Cooperating Agencies:

Virginia Resources Authority

Virginia

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.34%, 1.95%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $88.2 million

Grants Received $87.5 million

State Contributions $7.5 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $81.1 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 39, $51.7 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 38, $50.4 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 20, 51%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $14.15 million (16.2%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $5.78 million (40.8%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on helping small systems,

developing system capacity, and

promoting source water protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to complement a state-wide program of

technical assistance for all systems

through a contracting with the Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State

University. The program offered free

seminars to small system owners,

managers, and operators on topics such

as comprehensive business plans,

bookkeeping, and recordkeeping.

• The state also awarded 26 planning and

design grants, aimed primarily at

helping develop preliminary engineering reports, design plans, and carry out

water quality and quantity testing.

• The state entered into three contracts to: provide assistance to systems which were significant non-compliers;

provide hands-on assistance to more than 200 systems with such matters as pressure storage, chemical

application in water treatment, and sampling methods; and work with 129 water systems to develop and

implement source water protection programs.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and operator

certification programs.

• Funds were used to make improvements to the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services, which performs

the vast majority of the analysis required by the drinking water program. Improvements in both technology

and training greatly improved the quality and response time of the lab’s work.

• Funds were also used to create a comprehensive operator certification training program, including scholarships for distance learning available to operators across the state.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement a capacity

development strategy.

• The state continued to provide hands-on assistance to existing systems in developing comprehensive business

plans through a contract with the Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project, Inc.

• The state also developed a loan program for systems to purchase land and conservation easements and to

implement measures to protect vulnerable drinking water sources from contamination.

Virginia
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Provide loans and technical assistance to community and nonprofit, noncommunity water systems to

facilitate effective planning, design, financing, and infrastructure improvements aimed at increasing public

health protection and compliance with primary drinking water regulations.

• Provide assistance to communities in strengthening their local capacity.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program. The state also has

an innovative financing approach to reach privately owned

utilities.

• Interest rates are based on the income level of the water

system’s customers. Weighted average interest rates for the

program have ranged from 2.7% to 3.0% over the last three

years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: public

health, compliance, regionalization, restructuring, and per

household need.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $3.9 billion, $1.5 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for more than $75 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in July 1997 (set-asides) and May 1998 (projects).

• The first loan was executed in December 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 91 loans,

ranging from $58,000 to $4 million, to publicly-owned and privately-owned systems.

• 81% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 89% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The Cities of White Salmon and Bingen (Klickitat County) received a $4 million loan to switch from surface

water to ground water sources, improvements that are significant public health priorities for those communities. These improvements allowed these cities to end a boil water order that had been in effect for over a year.

• Camp Zanika Lache (the North Central Washington Council of Camp Fire) received unfiltered water directly

from a small creek. The camp was subject to an “agreed” order with the state to bring its water back into

compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The camp received $85,000 to partially finance a

$93,000 project to bring a new well online and make improvements associated with the new well.

Lead Agency:

Department of Health

Cooperating Agencies:

Public Works Board

Department of Community, Trade, and Washington Economic Development

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 2.48%, 2.69%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $112.3 million

Grants Received $97.8 million

State Contributions $18.3 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $88.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 91, $61.7 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 74, $43.1 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 10, 11%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $30.65 million (31.3%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $13.37 million (43.6%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on supporting its drinking water

program, helping small systems, and

promoting source water and wellhead

protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide technical assistance to small

systems in the areas of source water and

wellhead protection.

• The state entered into a contract with

the Evergreen Rural Water Association

to send a circuit rider around the state

to help systems develop wellhead

protection plans.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to support its Public Water System

Supervision (PWSS) program and to

enhance its operator certification and capacity development programs.

• Funds were used to support increased local health training, a noncommunity water systems project, increased

coliform monitoring, the consumer confidence report program, improved data management, and increased

enforcement of Safe Drinking Water Act regulations.

• Funds were also used to assist small, rural communities with developing their system capacity to achieve and

maintain compliance with drinking water regulations.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments, enhance the capacity of

systems, and implement a source water protection program.

• The state used funds to assist systems in water system improvement planning, loan application processes, and

other aspects of system development as part of the state’s capacity development strategy.

• Funds were also used to enhance the state’s technical investigations program via sanitary surveys and special

purpose investigations.

Washington
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Provide West Virginia with the infrastructure replacements and upgrades necessary to achieve a goal of

upgrading water quality for public water customers and providing water to private customers whose water is

not in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on a 2% rate and adjusted as needed

to address affordability. Weighted annual average interest

rates for the program have ranged from 0.3% to 1.4% over

the last two years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates as well as 30 year loan terms.

• The state’s priority system considers three categories: public

health, regulatory compliance, and affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $983 million, $779 million of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for

more than $263 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in November 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 13 loans,

ranging from $305,000 to $7.6 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 54% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 71% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• In cooperation with the Appalachian Regional Commission and the West Virginia Development Office, the

DWSRF program provided a $1.79 million disadvantaged assistance loan to the City of Gary to make

improvements to its existing water treatment plant and to install new water mains. The project will ensure

the delivery of safe drinking water to approximately 674 customers and will allow the city to sell water to the

City of Anawalt and the McDowell County Public Service District, which serves customers in unincorporated areas.

• TheTown of Marlinton, population 1,375, received a $705,400 disadvantaged assistance loan for a project

that included the takeover of operations of the Campbelltown water system that was under an EPA Administrative Order. The Campbelltown system had been under continual boil water advisories for no disinfection

and no monitoring.

Lead Agency:

Bureau for Public Health

Cooperating Agencies:

Water Development Authority

West Virginia

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $27.1 million

State Contributions $5.4 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $28.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 13, $22 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 7, $7.2 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 8, 62%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $5.1 million (18.8%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.85 million (75.5%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on capacity development,

promoting source water protection, and

providing technical assistance to small

systems.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to establish a Training and Technical

Assistance program through a contract

with the West Virginia Rural Water

Association (WVRWA). The program

provides technical, financial, and

managerial training to small water

systems throughout the state.

• A Capacity Development Conference

was organized for small systems that

highlighted all of the aspects of the

state’s capacity development program.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to support its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), operator

certification, and capacity development programs and to make enhancements to its data management system.

• Funding has allowed the PWSS program to provide on-site technical assistance for any system that requests

it. Funds have also been used to provide increased training opportunities for operators, including regulatory

updates and hands-on applications.

• Funds supporting the state’s capacity development program have been used to target the technical, financial,

and managerial needs of small systems and help them address those needs through assistance programs and

partnerships with state agencies and professional and trade organizations.

• Hardware and software improvements were made to the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS),

which will make information more readily accessible and user-friendly.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state reserved funds from this set-aside to delineate and assess source water protection areas and to

implement a wellhead protection program.

• Many systems are in the preliminary stage of implementing programs to protect ground water that is used as

a source of drinking water. The state has used funds to expand existing programs for those systems involved

in the wellhead protection program.

• The state is in the process of developing a source water assessment report for every public water supply.

Reports will include a map showing the source water protection area and the locations of source water

intakes; a list of significant contamination sources; and a brief narrative describing the state’s findings.

West Virginia
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• Maintain a program for ensuring that all public water systems are operated properly.

• Manage the fund to protect its long-term integrity and maintain it in perpetuity.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are based on 55% of the state’s market rate.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have ranged

from 2.4% to 2.9% over the last three years.

• The state has a disadvantaged assistance program that offers

lower interest rates.

• The state’s priority system considers five categories: acute

public health risks, chronic public health risks, secondary

contaminants and system compliance, system capacity, and

affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $2.7 billion, $1.2 billion of which

was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for

more than $167 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in December 1998. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 15 loans,

ranging from $229,742 to $19.4 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 60% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 67% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Oshkosh had a 100-year-old water system that was vulnerable to microbial contaminants. To

alleviate this threat, a new water treatment plant was built with DWSRF loans totaling $25.6 million to

ensure a safe water supply for the city’s 55,000 residents.

• The Village of Matton, a disadvantaged community with a population of 431, was served by a system that

experienced violations of maximum contaminant levels for nitrate. A water main extension, new well, and

new telemetry system were constructed with a DWSRF loan of $230,000 to bring the system back into

compliance.

Lead Agency:

Department of Natural Resources

Cooperating Agencies:

Department of Administration

Wisconsin

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 3.31%, 1.34%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $81.9 million

Grants Received $71.5 million

State Contributions $14.3 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $98.9 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 15, $72.8 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 9, $12.5 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 14, 93%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $10.4 million (14.6%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $3.77 million (36.2%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on providing technical assistance

to small systems and promoting source

water and wellhead protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to provide technical assistance to small

systems in operator education and

certification, non-compliance tracking,

and communication between local

systems.

• Non-municipal systems benefited from

the development of one-on-one

assistance programs. These programs,

provided by the Wisconsin Rural Water

Association, involved training on

consumer confidence reports, operator

certification, and capacity development.

• The University of Wisconsin also

provided education and training

sessions statewide on new water system regulations.

• The American Water Works Association was contracted to create a statewide coalition of small systems as a

means of sharing information that promotes compliance.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to implement its capacity development and operator certification

programs.

• The state used funds to extend existing programs that support the capacity of systems. Efforts focused on

educating system operators about capacity development and on working to eliminate statewide factors that

diminish capacity.

• The state also revised its operator certification training program and held public meetings on operator

certification.

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside to conduct source water assessments and to implement programs for

source water and wellhead protection.

• The state’s source water assessment activities included hydrogeologic flow modeling for 15 counties;

contaminant source inventorying; the creation of maps of system sources, delineation areas, and possible

contaminant sources; and the implementation of the Great Lakes Surface Assessment Water Protocol.

• The state’s entered into a contract with the U.S. Geological Survey to delineate wellhead protection areas for

public water systems. The state also produced a public education video entitled “An Ounce of Prevention”

which promotes the need for wellhead protection and describes how to prepare a wellhead protection plan.

Wisconsin
Primary Goals of DWSRF Program

• To build and maintain a permanent, self-sustaining state revolving fund program that will serve as a costeffective and convenient source of financing for drinking water projects in the state.

Structure of Loan Program

• The state operates a direct loan program.

• Interest rates are set in the enabling legislation at 4.0%.

Weighted average interest rates for the program have been

about 4.0% over the last three years.

• The state has not developed a disadvantaged assistance

program.

• The state’s priority system considers four categories: public

health issues, compliance issues, system deficiencies, and

affordability.

Project Needs and Demand

• The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

identified a total need of $433 million, $277 million of

which was for small systems.

• The most recent Intended Use Plan identified a demand for

more than $148 million in projects.

Funding for Projects

• The state received its first grant in September 1998.

• The first loan was executed in March 1999. Through June 30, 2001, the state had executed 12 loans,

ranging from $111,500 to $9.6 million, to publicly-owned systems.

• 58% of the loans executed went to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, 57% of which went to

systems serving fewer than 3,300 people.

Project Examples

• The City of Torrington received a $435,000 loan to install an additional reverse osmosis unit. This unit will

help to ensure that the city provides safe water to its 5,651 residents.

• The City of Evanston received a $9.6 million loan to expand their water treatment plant. The new plant will

serve approximately 12,000 people.

Lead Agency:

State Loan Investment Board

Cooperating Agencies:

Department of Environmental Quality Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments

Program at a Glance (through June 30, 2001)

Allotment Percent (FY97, FY98-01) 1.00%, 1.00%

Funds Appropriated (FY97-FY01) $42.7 million

Grants Received $42.7 million

State Contributions $8.5 million

Net Leveraged Bond Proceeds NA

Total Funds Available $49.2 million

Total Loans Executed (#, $) 12, $29.2 million

Loans to Small Systems (#, $) 7, $7.8 million

Projects Completed (#, %) 3, 25%
Set-asides reserved (% of grant awards) $3.12 million (7.3%)

Set-asides expended (% of reserved) $0.46 million (14.7%)

All figures in millions of dollars

Structure of Set-aside Program

• The state has focused use of its setasides on promoting source water

protection.

Small System Technical Assistance (SSTA)

• The state has reserved funds to pay for

training small system operators on

water system operations, management,

and finance.

State Program Management (SPM)

• The state did not reserve any funds

under this set-aside.

Local Assistance and Other State

Programs (LA)

• The state used funds from this set-aside

to develop and implement a source

water assessment and protection

(SWAP) program.

• The state entered into contracts to

determine the Global Positioning System location of drinking water sources and to perform well information

research, completing the preliminary work necessary prior to delineation. Approximately 300 ground water

sources have been delineated.

• Funds were also used to conduct outreach activities to encourage public water systems to participate in the

SWAP.

Wyoming
This page intentionally left blank
Drinking Water NIMS Reports

Appendix B
Appendix B contains selected summary reports from the DWSRF National Information Management

System (DWNIMS). The reports reflect cumulative data from the inception of the program through

June 30, 2001 (state fiscal year 2001). Each report shows the national total and a state by state

accounting of the data. The quality of the data is assessed through two primary review mechanisms.

First, a data quality report that checks for data entry and logical errors is generated automatically for

each data submission by states. Second, the data files are reviewed by EPA Headquarters and Regional

staff to identify potential reporting errors. Comments are provided to states who are asked to verify and

correct errors or omissions.

The full suite of DWNIMS reports, which include annual and cumulative summary reports for the

national program, reports sorted by EPA region, data element definitions and formulas, and state agency

contact information are posted on the DWSRF website at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html.

The website is updated annually in late November to reflect data collected through June 30 of each year.

The reports listed on the following page are included in the appendix. The data in the reports reflect

the state fiscal year 2001 data set frozen on January 11, 2002.

Appendix B: DWNIMS Reports
Fund Activities

B-1 DWSRF Investment

B-2 DWSRF State Contributions

B-3 DWSRF Funds Available for Projects (Net Sources)

B-4 Comparison of DWSRF Funds Available for Projects and Assistance Provided to Projects

B-5 Comparison of DWSRF Funds Available for Projects and Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which

Have Leveraged

B-6 Comparison of DWSRF Funds Available for Projects and Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which

Have Not Leveraged

B-7 Comparison of the DWSRF Program Milestones and Funds Available for Projects

B-8 Comparison of the National DWSRF Program Milestones and Assistance Provided to Projects

B-9 DWSRF Assistance Agreement and Project Starts

B-10 DWSRF Assistance for Refinancing Local Debt Obligations

B-11 Interest Rates for DWSRF Assistance

B-12 Fees Charged on DWSRF Assistance

B-13 DWSRF System Project Assistance by Category (e.g., treatment, source, storage)

B-14 DWSRF Assistance Provided by Selected Category (e.g., disadvantaged, private)

B-15 DWSRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities

B-16 DWSRF Assistance by Community Size Category

B-17 Annual U.S. DWSRF Population Served

B-18 DWSRF Coordinated Funding

Set-Aside Activities

B-19 DWSRF Net Set-Asides Awarded

B-20 DWSRF Set-Aside Expenses

B-21 DWSRF Administrative Expense Set-Aside

B-22 DWSRF Set-Aside for Small System Technical Assistance

B-23 DWSRF Set-Aside for Program Management

B-24 DWSRF Set-Aside for Local Assistance and Other State Programs (1452(k) Activities)

National Summary

B-25 DWSRF Program Information - National Summary

List of DWNIMS Reports
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B-1: Drinking Water SRF Investment, by State

State

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants

State 

Contributions

Net Transfers 

with CWSRF

Leveraged 

Bonds1 Total

Debt Service 

Reserve

(Millions of Dollars)

3,648.4 U.S. Total 773.4 147.2 1,484.7 6,053.7 434.4 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Alabama 48.4 9.1 12.9 62.0 132.4 14.3 

Alaska 49.4 9.9 0.0 0.0 59.3 0.0 

Arizona 47.6 9.5 0.0 7.9 65.0 2.5 

Arkansas 44.3 9.0 0.0 0.0 53.3 0.0 

California 317.6 63.5 0.0 0.0 381.1 0.0 

Colorado 57.3 11.6 8.0 121.3 198.2 35.3 

Connecticut 43.8 8.8 0.0 29.6 82.1 16.3 

Delaware 27.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 

Florida 132.5 28.0 0.0 0.0 160.5 0.0 

Georgia 57.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 65.2 0.0 

Hawaii 34.9 7.6 0.0 0.0 42.5 0.0 

Idaho 36.5 7.3 0.0 0.0 43.8 0.0 

Illinois 143.2 27.9 5.4 0.0 176.6 0.0 

Indiana 62.0 12.6 0.0 70.0 144.7 0.0 

Iowa 52.1 10.4 0.0 24.5 87.0 13.9 

Kansas 56.4 11.3 0.0 123.9 191.6 54.2 

Kentucky 46.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 56.0 0.0 

Louisiana 40.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 47.1 0.0 

Maine 35.0 7.0 0.0 4.7 46.7 0.0 

Maryland 37.9 8.0 10.6 0.0 56.5 0.0 

Massachusetts 124.6 24.9 0.0 160.9 310.4 62.6 

Michigan 145.6 30.6 0.0 151.1 327.3 70.2 

Minnesota 79.3 18.5 0.0 21.1 118.9 1.8 

Mississippi 42.4 15.0 0.0 0.0 57.4 0.0 

1 Includes amounts used to fund debt service reserves

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-1: Drinking Water SRF Investment, by State

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants

State 

Contributions

Net Transfers 

with CWSRF

Leveraged 

Bonds 1 Total

Debt Service 

Reserve

(Millions of Dollars)

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State

Missouri 41.5 12.5 0.0 68.2 122.1 12.2 

Montana 45.0 9.2 8.8 0.0 63.0 0.0 

Nebraska 43.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 52.6 0.0 

Nevada 34.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.0 

New Hampshire 36.1 8.0 0.0 0.0 44.1 0.0 

New Jersey 82.4 12.7 20.9 59.7 175.7 1.9 

New Mexico 27.3 7.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 

New York 249.8 120.0 66.2 568.1 1,004.1 148.7 

North Carolina 72.5 14.5 0.0 0.0 86.9 0.0 

North Dakota 34.9 2.5 0.0 11.8 49.2 0.4 

Ohio 114.6 28.2 0.0 0.0 142.8 0.0 

Oklahoma 49.6 12.2 0.0 0.0 61.8 0.0 

Oregon 63.6 5.9 0.0 0.0 69.5 0.0 

Pennsylvania 148.1 29.6 0.0 0.0 177.7 0.0 

Puerto Rico 44.6 8.9 0.0 0.0 53.6 0.0 

Rhode Island 27.1 5.4 0.0 0.0 32.6 0.0 

South Carolina 38.9 7.8 0.0 0.0 46.7 0.0 

South Dakota 42.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 

Tennessee 53.2 10.6 0.0 0.0 63.9 0.0 

Texas 239.6 30.0 0.0 0.0 269.6 0.0 

Utah 34.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.0 

Vermont 34.9 6.6 0.0 0.0 41.5 0.0 

Virginia 87.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 95.0 0.0 

Washington 97.8 18.3 0.0 0.0 116.1 0.0 

West Virginia 27.1 5.4 0.0 0.0 32.6 0.0 

Wisconsin 71.5 14.3 14.3 0.0 100.1 0.0 

Wyoming 42.7 8.5 0.0 0.0 51.2 0.0 

1 Includes amounts used to fund debt service reserves

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-2: Drinking Water SRF State Contributions, by State

State

Total State

Contributions

Cash or 

Appropriations

Bonds Retired

Outside

DWSRF Fund

Bonds Retired

From 

DWSRF Fund

Pre-existing

Loans

Othe

Sourc

(Millions of Dollars)

U.S. Total 773.4 546.4 113.7 111.2 0.0 2.

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Alabama 9.1 0.0 9.1 0.0 00.0

Alaska 9.9 9.3 0.6 0.0 00.0

Arizona 9.5 9.5 0.0 0.0 00.0

Arkansas 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 00.0

California 63.5 63.5 0.0 0.0 00.0

Colorado 11.6 11.6 0.0 0.0 00.0

Connecticut 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 08.8

Delaware 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 00.0

Florida 28.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 00.0

Georgia 8.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 00.0

Hawaii 7.6 7.6 0.0 0.0 00.0

Idaho 7.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 00.0

Illinois 27.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 027.9

Indiana 12.6 0.0 12.6 0.0 00.0

Iowa 10.4 0.0 10.4 0.0 00.0

Kansas 11.3 0.0 11.3 0.0 00.0

Kentucky 9.4 9.4 0.0 0.0 00.0

Louisiana 6.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 00.0

Maine 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 07.0

Maryland 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 00.0

Massachusetts 24.9 24.9 0.0 0.0 00.0

Michigan 30.6 30.6 0.0 0.0 00.0

Minnesota 18.5 8.0 0.0 0.0 010.4

Mississippi 15.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 00.0

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 dwmatc
Appendix B-2: Drinking Water SRF State Contributions, by State 

State 

Total State

Contributions

Cash or 

Appropriations

Bonds Retired

Outside

DWSRF Fund

Bonds Retired

From 

DWSRF Fund

Pre-existing

Loans

Othe

Sourc

(Millions of Dollars)

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Missouri 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 00.0

Montana 9.2 0.0 9.2 0.0 00.0

Nebraska 9.7 2.3 7.3 0.0 00.0

Nevada 7.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 00.0

New Hampshire 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 00.0

New Jersey 12.7 12.7 0.0 0.0 00.0

New Mexico 7.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 00.0

New York 120.0 120.0 0.0 0.0 00.0

North Carolina 14.5 9.2 0.0 0.0 05.3

North Dakota 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 00.0

Ohio 28.2 13.2 15.0 0.0 00.0

Oklahoma 12.2 5.6 0.0 0.0 24.5

Oregon 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 05.9

Pennsylvania 29.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 029.6

Puerto Rico 8.9 8.9 0.0 0.0 00.0

Rhode Island 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 00.0

South Carolina 7.8 7.8 0.0 0.0 00.0

South Dakota 7.1 1.4 5.7 0.0 00.0

Tennessee 10.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 00.0

Texas 30.0 9.6 20.4 0.0 00.0

Utah 7.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 00.0

Vermont 6.6 6.6 0.0 0.0 00.0

Virginia 7.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 00.0

Washington 18.3 18.3 0.0 0.0 00.0

West Virginia 5.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 00.0

Wisconsin 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 014.3

Wyoming 8.5 8.5 0.0 0.0 00.0

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 dwmatc
Appendix B-3: Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects, Net Sources, by State 

State 

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants

State 

Contributions

Net Transfers with 

CWSRF

Less Net 

Reserved for 

Set-Asides

Net Leveraged 

Bonds1

Net Loan 

Principle 

Repayments2

(Millions of Dollars)

3,648.4 U.S. Total 773.4 147.2 -575.8 1,050.3 57.1 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Net Inter

Earning

120.5

Alabama 48.4 9.1 12.9 -6.7 47.6 0.4 4.5

Alaska 49.4 9.9 0.0 -5.1 0.0 6.1 1.3

Arizona 47.6 9.5 0.0 -8.0 5.3 0.7 2.0

Arkansas 44.3 9.0 0.0 -12.4 0.0 0.0 0.7

California 317.6 63.5 0.0 -30.8 0.0 0.2 0.1

Colorado 57.3 11.6 8.0 -9.4 86.0 4.5 3.5

Connecticut 43.8 8.8 0.0 -13.6 13.3 0.3 0.0

Delaware 27.1 2.5 0.0 -7.6 0.0 0.0 0.1

Florida 132.5 28.0 0.0 -16.3 0.0 0.3 2.8

Georgia 57.0 8.2 0.0 -13.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

Hawaii 34.9 7.6 0.0 -7.5 0.0 0.3 0.8

Idaho 36.5 7.3 0.0 -7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Illinois 143.2 27.9 5.4 -9.6 0.0 2.0 2.3

Indiana 62.0 12.6 0.0 -6.2 70.0 0.7 3.1

Iowa 52.1 10.4 0.0 -4.8 10.6 0.8 1.4

Kansas 56.4 11.3 0.0 -7.2 69.6 0.9 6.4

Kentucky 46.6 9.4 0.0 -8.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

Louisiana 40.8 6.3 0.0 -9.5 0.0 0.1 1.1

Maine 35.0 7.0 0.0 -8.6 4.6 1.1 0.6

Maryland 37.9 8.0 10.6 -8.7 0.0 0.8 3.4

Massachusetts 124.6 24.9 0.0 -18.8 98.3 0.0 13.7

Michigan 145.6 30.6 0.0 -20.6 80.9 4.9 4.4

Minnesota 79.3 18.5 0.0 -9.2 19.3 0.7 3.4

Mississippi 42.4 15.0 0.0 -4.8 0.0 1.2 3.9

1 Net leveraged bonds is the amount of leveraged bond proceeds available to fund projects, less debt service reserves.

2 Net loan principal repayments is the amount of loan principal repayments that remin in the DWSRF after payment of principal on leveraged bonds.

Net interest earnings is the amount of interest earnings from loans and investments that remain in the DWSRF after payment of interest expense on all bonds(leveraged and 

state match bonds.

3

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-3: Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects, Net Sources, by State 

State

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants

State 

Contributions

Net Transfers with 

CWSRF

Less Net 

Reserved for 

Set-Asides

Net Leveraged 

Bonds1

Net Loan 

Principle 

Repayments2

(Millions of Dollars)

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Net Inter

Earning

Missouri 41.5 12.5 0.0 -8.8 56.0 0.0 0.0

Montana 45.0 9.2 8.8 -5.3 0.0 1.9 1.0

Nebraska 43.0 9.7 0.0 -9.0 0.0 1.1 0.4

Nevada 34.9 7.0 0.0 -7.2 0.0 0.4 0.5

New Hampshire 36.1 8.0 0.0 -8.2 0.0 3.2 0.1

New Jersey 82.4 12.7 20.9 -9.0 57.8 1.3 4.2

New Mexico 27.3 7.0 0.0 -8.5 0.0 0.0 0.5

New York 249.8 120.0 66.2 -27.2 419.4 6.7 27.8

North Carolina 72.5 14.5 0.0 -14.9 0.0 0.6 1.9

North Dakota 34.9 2.5 0.0 -3.2 11.5 -0.6 0.4

Ohio 114.6 28.2 0.0 -14.3 0.0 1.1 2.8

Oklahoma 49.6 12.2 0.0 -11.0 0.0 0.4 0.9

Oregon 63.6 5.9 0.0 -10.3 0.0 0.0 0.9

Pennsylvania 148.1 29.6 0.0 -45.9 0.0 4.1 4.4

Puerto Rico 44.6 8.9 0.0 -4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rhode Island 27.1 5.4 0.0 -4.3 0.0 0.9 0.4

South Carolina 38.9 7.8 0.0 -3.5 0.0 0.8 1.1

South Dakota 42.7 7.1 0.0 -3.3 0.0 1.2 1.3

Tennessee 53.2 10.6 0.0 -11.4 0.0 0.1 1.3

Texas 239.6 30.0 0.0 -35.4 0.0 0.7 2.6

Utah 34.9 7.0 0.0 -7.0 0.0 0.1 0.3

Vermont 34.9 6.6 0.0 -6.7 0.0 0.4 0.3

Virginia 87.5 7.5 0.0 -14.1 0.0 0.1 0.1

Washington 97.8 18.3 0.0 -30.7 0.0 0.5 2.3

West Virginia 27.1 5.4 0.0 -5.1 0.0 0.1 0.7

Wisconsin 71.5 14.3 14.3 -10.4 0.0 5.6 3.5

Wyoming 42.7 8.5 0.0 -3.1 0.0 0.4 0.7

1 Net leveraged bonds is the amount of leveraged bond proceeds available to fund projects, less debt service reserves.

2 Net loan principal repayments is the amount of loan principal repayments that remin in the DWSRF after payment of principal on leveraged bonds.

Net interest earnings is the amount of interest earnings from loans and investments that remain in the DWSRF after payment of interest expense on all bonds(leveraged and 

state match bonds.

3

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-4: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects 

and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects, by State

State 

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants1

SRF Funds 

Available

 for Projects

SRF Assistance 

Provided to 

Projects

Number of 

SRF Assistance 

Agreements

SRF Assistance 

as a Percent 

of Federal 

Capitalization Grants

3,072.6 U.S. Total 5,221.0 3,764.3 1,776 123% 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Millions of Dollars

Alabama 41.7 116.3 89.0 52 213 

Alaska 44.3 61.6 55.0 34 124 

Arizona 39.7 57.2 102.3 54 258 

Arkansas 31.9 41.6 10.5 3 33 

California 286.8 350.6 98.5 21 34 

Colorado 48.0 161.5 137.0 26 286 

Connecticut 30.2 52.6 31.3 15 104 

Delaware 19.5 22.2 7.4 8 38 

Florida 116.2 147.2 143.9 44 124 

Georgia 44.0 52.4 37.0 28 84 

Hawaii 27.4 36.1 7.8 1 29 

Idaho 29.1 36.4 18.2 7 63 

Illinois 133.7 171.2 132.8 82 99 

Indiana 55.8 142.2 126.8 44 227 

Iowa 47.3 70.5 32.3 30 68 

Kansas 49.2 137.4 121.0 62 246 

Kentucky 38.6 48.3 15.8 11 41 

Louisiana 31.3 38.8 16.6 6 53 

Maine 26.4 39.8 29.8 38 113 

Maryland 29.2 52.0 37.7 22 129 

Massachusetts 105.8 242.8 161.0 35 152 

Michigan 125.1 245.8 144.1 57 115 

Minnesota 70.0 112.0 106.9 71 153 

Mississippi 37.7 57.8 37.5 61 100 

1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-4: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects 

and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects, by State

State 

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants1

SRF Funds 

Available

 for Projects

SRF Assistance 

Provided to 

Projects

Number of 

SRF Assistance 

Agreements

SRF Assistance 

as a Percent 

of Federal 

Capitalization Grants

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Millions of Dollars

Missouri 32.6 101.1 64.1 17 196 

Montana 39.6 60.5 43.2 32 109 

Nebraska 34.0 45.2 44.8 49 132 

Nevada 27.7 35.5 31.8 7 115 

New Hampshire 27.9 39.3 30.2 37 108 

New Jersey 73.4 170.3 124.7 39 170 

New Mexico 18.9 26.5 3.9 5 21 

New York 222.6 862.7 722.3 207 324 

North Carolina 57.6 74.6 48.4 38 84 

North Dakota 31.7 45.4 40.8 20 129 

Ohio 100.3 132.3 120.5 48 120 

Oklahoma 38.6 52.0 31.5 10 82 

Oregon 53.4 60.2 29.4 28 55 

Pennsylvania 102.2 140.2 149.0 97 146 

Puerto Rico 40.5 49.4 36.7 2 91 

Rhode Island 22.8 29.6 10.2 4 45 

South Carolina 35.4 45.1 26.0 9 74 

South Dakota 39.4 48.9 31.6 28 80 

Tennessee 41.8 53.8 28.3 25 68 

Texas 204.2 237.6 163.5 24 80 

Utah 27.9 35.3 20.4 8 73 

Vermont 28.2 35.5 25.3 60 90 

Virginia 73.4 81.1 51.7 39 70 

Washington 67.1 88.2 61.7 91 92 

West Virginia 22.0 28.2 22.0 13 100 

Wisconsin 61.1 98.9 72.8 15 119 

Wyoming 39.6 49.2 29.2 12 74 

1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-5: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects 

and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which Have Leveraged

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants1

SRF Funds 

Available for 

Projects

SRF Assistance 

Provided to 

Projects

SRF Assistance 

as a Percent 

of Federal 

Capitalization Grants

SRF Assistance 

as a Percent 

of SRF Funds 

Available

Millions of Dollars

SRF Fun

Available W

Leveragi

(Millions of D

2,557.6 2,033.4 203% 80% 999.5 1,507.Total

Alabama 116.3 89.0 213% 77% 41.7 68.

Arizona 57.2 102.3 258% 179% 39.7 51.

Colorado 161.5 137.0 286% 85% 48.0 75.

Connecticut 52.6 31.3 104% 60% 30.2 39.

Indiana 142.2 126.8 227% 89% 55.8 72.

Iowa 70.5 32.3 68% 46% 47.3 59.

Kansas 137.4 121.0 246% 88% 49.2 67.

Maine 39.8 29.8 113% 75% 26.4 35.

Massachusetts 242.8 161.0 152% 66% 105.8 144.

Michigan 245.8 144.1 115% 59% 125.1 165.

Minnesota 112.0 106.9 153% 95% 70.0 92.

Missouri 101.1 64.1 196% 63% 32.6 45.

New Jersey 170.3 124.7 170% 73% 73.4 112.

New York 862.7 722.3 324% 84% 222.6 443.

North Dakota 45.4 40.8 129% 90% 31.7 33.

1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides

1/11/02 Page 1 of 1 
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B-6: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects 

and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which Have Not Leveraged

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants1

SRF Funds 

Available for 

Projects

SRF Assistance 

Provided to 

Projects

SRF Assistance 

as a Percent 

of Federal 

Capitalization Grants

SRF Assista

as a Perce

of SRF Fun

Availabl

Millions of Dollars

2,663.4 1,730.8 83% 65% 2,073.0 Total

Alaska 61.6 55.0 124% 89% 44.3

Arkansas 41.6 10.5 33% 25% 31.9

California 350.6 98.5 34% 28% 286.8

Delaware 22.2 7.4 38% 33% 19.5

Florida 147.2 143.9 124% 98% 116.2

Georgia 52.4 37.0 84% 71% 44.0

Hawaii 36.1 7.8 29% 22% 27.4

Idaho 36.4 18.2 63% 50% 29.1

Illinois 171.2 132.8 99% 78% 133.7

Kentucky 48.3 15.8 41% 33% 38.6

Louisiana 38.8 16.6 53% 43% 31.3

Maryland 52.0 37.7 129% 72% 29.2

Mississippi 57.8 37.5 100% 65% 37.7

Montana 60.5 43.2 109% 71% 39.6

Nebraska 45.2 44.8 132% 99% 34.0

Nevada 35.5 31.8 115% 90% 27.7

New Hampshire 39.3 30.2 108% 77% 27.9

New Mexico 26.5 3.9 21% 15% 18.9

North Carolina 74.6 48.4 84% 65% 57.6

Ohio 132.3 120.5 120% 91% 100.3

Oklahoma 52.0 31.5 82% 61% 38.6

Oregon 60.2 29.4 55% 49% 53.4

Pennsylvania 140.2 149.0 146% 106% 102.2

Puerto Rico 49.4 36.7 91% 74% 40.5

Rhode Island 29.6 10.2 45% 34% 22.8

South Carolina 45.1 26.0 74% 58% 35.4

South Dakota 48.9 31.6 80% 65% 39.4

1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 dwfan
Appendix B-6: Comparison of Drinking Water SRF Funds Available for Projects 

and SRF Assistance Provided to Projects for States Which Have Not Leveraged

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants1

SRF Funds 

Available for 

Projects

SRF Assistance 

Provided to 

Projects

SRF Assistance 

as a Percent 

of Federal 

Capitalization Grants

SRF Assista

as a Perce

of SRF Fun

Availabl

Millions of Dollars

Tennessee 53.8 28.3 68% 53% 41.8

Texas 237.6 163.5 80% 69% 204.2

Utah 35.3 20.4 73% 58% 27.9

Vermont 35.5 25.3 90% 71% 28.2

Virginia 81.1 51.7 70% 64% 73.4

Washington 88.2 61.7 92% 70% 67.1

West Virginia 28.2 22.0 100% 78% 22.0

Wisconsin 98.9 72.8 119% 74% 61.1

Wyoming 49.2 29.2 74% 59% 39.6

1 Federal capitalization grants adjusted for the net amount awarded for set-asides

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 dwfan
Appendix B-7: Comparison of the Drinking Water SRF Program Milestones and SRF Funds Available for Pr

State

SRF Funds 

Available

 For Projects

SRF 

Assistance

 Provided

SRF Project 

Starts

SRF 

Loan Principal

Repayments

SRF 

Assistance 

Provided

SRF Project 

Disbursements

5,221.0 U.S. Total 3,247.3 2,195.5 103.7 72% 42% 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

SRF Project 

Disbursements

SRF Project 

Completed

SRF Project 

Starts

Millions of Dollars As a Percent of SRF Funds Avai

3,764.3 1,405.2 62% 

Alabama 89.0 85.6 43.2 1.8 77 51 116.3 59.4 74

Alaska 55.0 55.0 14.2 6.1 89 49 61.6 30.4 89

Arizona 102.3 89.6 35.9 0.9 179 69 57.2 39.7 157

Arkansas 10.5 10.5 2.5 0.0 25 15 41.6 6.3 25

California 98.5 98.5 45.7 0.2 28 16 350.6 56.4 28

Colorado 137.0 137.0 61.9 9.2 85 24 161.5 38.9 85

Connecticut 31.3 31.3 5.2 0.3 60 36 52.6 19.0 60

Delaware 7.4 1.6 0.4 0.0 33 2 22.2 0.5 7

Florida 143.9 132.3 2.0 0.3 98 46 147.2 67.2 90

Georgia 37.0 37.0 5.0 0.1 71 35 52.4 18.3 71

Hawaii 7.8 7.8 7.8 0.3 22 22 36.1 7.8 22

Idaho 18.2 10.2 0.0 0.0 50 19 36.4 7.1 28

Illinois 132.8 119.5 37.0 2.0 78 48 171.2 81.8 70

Indiana 126.8 126.8 14.2 1.1 89 40 142.2 57.0 89

Iowa 32.3 32.3 12.0 0.8 46 30 70.5 21.2 46

Kansas 121.0 84.2 37.7 2.8 88 48 137.4 65.7 61

Kentucky 15.8 12.5 0.0 0.0 33 13 48.3 6.4 26

Louisiana 16.6 16.6 0.0 0.1 43 26 38.8 10.0 43

Maine 29.8 29.0 24.2 1.4 75 60 39.8 24.1 73

Maryland 37.7 37.7 17.9 0.8 72 43 52.0 22.4 72

Massachusetts 161.0 146.9 73.3 3.2 66 47 242.8 114.8 61

Michigan 144.1 144.1 76.4 4.9 59 47 245.8 114.6 59

Minnesota 106.9 106.9 77.7 1.6 95 79 112.0 88.6 95

Mississippi 37.5 34.9 23.9 1.2 65 52 57.8 30.1 60

* Less than 0.5%

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-7: Comparison of the Drinking Water SRF Program Milestones and SRF Funds Available for P

State 

SRF Funds 

Available

 For Projects

SRF 

Assistance

 Provided

SRF Project 

Starts

SRF 

Loan Principal

Repayments

SRF 

Assistance 

Provided

SRF Project 

Disbursements

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

SRF Project 

Disbursements

SRF Project 

Completed

SRF Project 

Starts

Millions of Dollars

As a Percent of SRF Funds A

Missouri 64.1 64.1 5.4 1.4 63 13 101.1 12.7 63

Montana 43.2 43.2 17.2 1.9 71 53 60.5 31.8 71

Nebraska 44.8 44.8 6.5 1.1 99 62 45.2 28.0 99

Nevada 31.8 31.8 22.4 0.4 90 70 35.5 25.0 90

New Hampshire 30.2 27.1 5.6 3.2 77 35 39.3 13.7 69

New Jersey 124.7 71.5 23.8 2.0 73 23 170.3 38.5 42

New Mexico 3.9 1.9 1.4 0.0 15 1 26.5 0.2 7

New York 722.3 501.1 401.8 37.6 84 66 862.7 567.2 58

North Carolina 48.4 48.4 13.5 0.6 65 55 74.6 41.3 65

North Dakota 40.8 14.0 9.1 0.1 90 20 45.4 9.2 31

Ohio 120.5 120.5 70.9 1.1 91 47 132.3 61.7 91

Oklahoma 31.5 25.1 1.8 0.4 61 44 52.0 23.1 48

Oregon 29.4 11.0 1.0 0.0 49 15 60.2 9.3 18

Pennsylvania 149.0 149.0 32.8 4.1 106 58 140.2 81.8 106

Puerto Rico 36.7 28.8 0.0 0.0 74 * 49.4 0.0 58

Rhode Island 10.2 10.2 5.2 0.9 34 25 29.6 7.4 34

South Carolina 26.0 26.0 9.6 0.8 58 50 45.1 22.4 58

South Dakota 31.6 30.0 19.7 1.2 65 41 48.9 20.0 61

Tennessee 28.3 17.1 3.8 0.1 53 12 53.8 6.3 32

Texas 163.5 163.5 0.0 0.7 69 16 237.6 37.8 69

Utah 20.4 20.4 1.0 0.1 58 15 35.3 5.5 58

Vermont 25.3 24.1 15.9 0.4 71 52 35.5 18.4 68

Virginia 51.7 51.7 26.3 0.1 64 45 81.1 36.8 64

Washington 61.7 27.8 7.0 0.5 70 24 88.2 21.4 32

West Virginia 22.0 22.0 9.7 0.1 78 48 28.2 13.7 78

Wisconsin 72.8 72.8 70.5 5.6 74 70 98.9 69.4 74

Wyoming 29.2 11.5 5.0 0.4 59 11 49.2 5.3 23

* Less than 0.5%

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-8: Comparison of the National Drinking Water SRF Program Milestones and SRF Assistance Provided t

State 

SRF Funds 

Available 

For Projects

SRF 

Assistance 

Provided

SRF Project 

Starts

SRF Project 

Disbursements

SRF 

Project 

Completions

SRF Project 

Starts

SRF Loan 

Principal 

Repayments

SRF Project 

Disbursements

S

C

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Millions of Dollars As a Percent of SRF Assistance 

5,221.0 U.S. Total 3,247.3 2,195.5 103.7 86% 3,764.3 1,405.2 58%

Alabama 116.3 85.6 43.2 1.8 67 89.0 59.4 96

Alaska 61.6 55.0 14.2 6.1 55 55.0 30.4 100

Arizona 57.2 89.6 35.9 0.9 39 102.3 39.7 88

Arkansas 41.6 10.5 2.5 0.0 60 10.5 6.3 100

California 350.6 98.5 45.7 0.2 57 98.5 56.4 100

Colorado 161.5 137.0 61.9 9.2 28 137.0 38.9 100

Connecticut 52.6 31.3 5.2 0.3 61 31.3 19.0 100

Delaware 22.2 1.6 0.4 0.0 7 7.4 0.5 22

Florida 147.2 132.3 2.0 0.3 47 143.9 67.2 92

Georgia 52.4 37.0 5.0 0.1 49 37.0 18.3 100

Hawaii 36.1 7.8 7.8 0.3 100 7.8 7.8 100

Idaho 36.4 10.2 0.0 0.0 39 18.2 7.1 56

Illinois 171.2 119.5 37.0 2.0 62 132.8 81.8 90

Indiana 142.2 126.8 14.2 1.1 45 126.8 57.0 100

Iowa 70.5 32.3 12.0 0.8 66 32.3 21.2 100

Kansas 137.4 84.2 37.7 2.8 54 121.0 65.7 70

Kentucky 48.3 12.5 0.0 0.0 41 15.8 6.4 79

Louisiana 38.8 16.6 0.0 0.1 60 16.6 10.0 100

Maine 39.8 29.0 24.2 1.4 81 29.8 24.1 97

Maryland 52.0 37.7 17.9 0.8 59 37.7 22.4 100

Massachusetts 242.8 146.9 73.3 3.2 71 161.0 114.8 91

Michigan 245.8 144.1 76.4 4.9 80 144.1 114.6 100

Minnesota 112.0 106.9 77.7 1.6 83 106.9 88.6 100

Mississippi 57.8 34.9 23.9 1.2 80 37.5 30.1 93

* Less than 0.5%

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-8: Comparison of the National Drinking Water SRF Program Milestones and SRF Assistance Provided 

State 

SRF Funds 

Available 

For Projects

SRF 

Assistance 

Provided

SRF Project 

Starts

SRF Project 

Disbursements

SRF 

Project 

Completions

SRF Project 

Starts

SRF Loan 

Principal 

Repayments

SRF Project 

Disbursements

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Millions of Dollars As a Percent of SRF Assistance 

Missouri 101.1 64.1 5.4 1.4 20 64.1 12.7 100

Montana 60.5 43.2 17.2 1.9 74 43.2 31.8 100

Nebraska 45.2 44.8 6.5 1.1 62 44.8 28.0 100

Nevada 35.5 31.8 22.4 0.4 79 31.8 25.0 100

New Hampshire 39.3 27.1 5.6 3.2 45 30.2 13.7 90

New Jersey 170.3 71.5 23.8 2.0 31 124.7 38.5 57

New Mexico 26.5 1.9 1.4 0.0 5 3.9 0.2 48

New York 862.7 501.1 401.8 37.6 79 722.3 567.2 69

North Carolina 74.6 48.4 13.5 0.6 85 48.4 41.3 100

North Dakota 45.4 14.0 9.1 0.1 22 40.8 9.2 34

Ohio 132.3 120.5 70.9 1.1 51 120.5 61.7 100

Oklahoma 52.0 25.1 1.8 0.4 73 31.5 23.1 80

Oregon 60.2 11.0 1.0 0.0 32 29.4 9.3 37

Pennsylvania 140.2 149.0 32.8 4.1 55 149.0 81.8 100

Puerto Rico 49.4 28.8 0.0 0.0 * 36.7 0.0 78

Rhode Island 29.6 10.2 5.2 0.9 72 10.2 7.4 100

South Carolina 45.1 26.0 9.6 0.8 86 26.0 22.4 100

South Dakota 48.9 30.0 19.7 1.2 63 31.6 20.0 95

Tennessee 53.8 17.1 3.8 0.1 22 28.3 6.3 60

Texas 237.6 163.5 0.0 0.7 23 163.5 37.8 100

Utah 35.3 20.4 1.0 0.1 27 20.4 5.5 100

Vermont 35.5 24.1 15.9 0.4 73 25.3 18.4 95

Virginia 81.1 51.7 26.3 0.1 71 51.7 36.8 100

Washington 88.2 27.8 7.0 0.5 35 61.7 21.4 45

West Virginia 28.2 22.0 9.7 0.1 62 22.0 13.7 100

Wisconsin 98.9 72.8 70.5 5.6 95 72.8 69.4 100

Wyoming 49.2 11.5 5.0 0.4 18 29.2 5.3 39

* Less than 0.5%

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-9: Drinking Water SRF Assistance Agreement and Project Starts, by S

Total Starts Completions Total Completions State 

Number of Assistance Agreements Number of Projects

1,776 U.S. Total 1,572 810 1,846 838 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Alabama 52 43 32 52 32 

Alaska 34 34 11 34 11 

Arizona 54 46 28 54 28 

Arkansas 3 3 1 3 1 

California 21 21 8 21 8 

Colorado 26 26 12 26 12 

Connecticut 15 15 5 15 5 

Delaware 8 4 1 8 1 

Florida 44 24 5 44 5 

Georgia 28 27 10 27 10 

Hawaii 1 1 1 1 1 

Idaho 7 6 0 7 0 

Illinois 82 81 39 82 39 

Indiana 44 44 9 44 9 

Iowa 30 30 12 30 12 

Kansas 62 44 19 62 19 

Kentucky 11 9 0 11 0 

Louisiana 6 6 0 4 0 

Maine 38 35 28 57 44 

Maryland 22 22 12 22 12 

Massachusetts 35 34 21 35 21 

Michigan 57 57 36 57 36 

Minnesota 71 71 51 94 66 

Mississippi 61 60 40 61 40 

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Total Starts Completions Total Completions State

Number of Assistance Agreements Number of Projects

Appendix B-9: Drinking Water SRF Assistance Agreement and Project Starts, by Sta

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Missouri 17 17 3 17 3 

Montana 32 32 22 32 22 

Nebraska 49 49 15 49 15 

Nevada 7 7 3 7 3 

New Hampshire 37 36 12 36 12 

New Jersey 39 17 9 58 9 

New Mexico 5 4 3 5 3 

New York 207 186 141 207 141 

North Carolina 38 38 18 38 18 

North Dakota 20 17 13 20 13 

Ohio 48 48 34 48 34 

Oklahoma 10 8 3 10 3 

Oregon 28 9 2 28 2 

Pennsylvania 97 97 30 96 30 

Puerto Rico 2 1 0 7 0 

Rhode Island 4 4 3 9 5 

South Carolina 9 9 3 9 3 

South Dakota 28 23 16 27 15 

Tennessee 25 16 10 25 10 

Texas 24 24 0 24 0 

Utah 8 8 2 8 2 

Vermont 60 47 32 65 28 

Virginia 39 39 20 39 20 

Washington 91 57 10 91 10 

West Virginia 13 13 8 13 8 

Wisconsin 15 15 14 15 14 

Wyoming 12 8 3 12 3 

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
3,764.3 U.S. Total 450.3 392.6 10.4% 106 6.0% 

Appendix B-10: Drinking Water SRF Assistance for Refinancing Local Debt Obligations, by Stat

Total SRF 

Assistance

Refinancing 

Short-Term 

Debt

Total 

Refin

Total SRF 

Assistance 

Agreements

Total 

Refin

Total 

Refinancing

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State 

Total 

Refinancing

Refinancing 

Long-Term 

Debt

Amount of SRF Assistance

 (Millions of Dollars)

Refin 

ST 

Debt

Refin 

LT 

Debt

Refin 

ST 

Debt

Refin 

LT 

Debt

SRF Refinancing as

 a Percent of SRF 

Assistance Provided

Numbe

Agreeme

SRF A

Number of SRF 

Assistance Agreements

57.7 12.0% 1.5% 1,776 24 82 

Alabama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52 0 89.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Alaska 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0 

55.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Arizona 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 54 1 

102.3 0.4 0.4 0 1 1.9 

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

California 40.8 0.0 41.4 0.0 21 3 98.5 40.8 41.4 0 3 14.3 

Colorado 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 0 137.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Connecticut 1.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 15 1 31.3 1.1 3.5 0 1 6.7 

Delaware 4.7 4.3 63.0 58.0 8 3 7.4 0.4 5.0 2 1 37.5 

Florida 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44 0 143.9 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Georgia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0 37.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Hawaii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Illinois 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 82 0 132.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Indiana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44 0 126.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Iowa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 0 32.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62 0 121.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Kentucky 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Maine 6.3 6.3 21.0 21.0 38 7 29.8 0.0 0.0 7 0 18.4 

Maryland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0 

37.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Massachusetts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0 

161.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Michigan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57 0 144.1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Minnesota 7.4 7.4 6.9 6.9 71 4 106.9 0.0 0.0 4 0 5.6 

Mississippi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61 0 37.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-10: Drinking Water SRF Assistance for Refinancing Local Debt Obligations, by S

Total SRF 

Assistance

Refinancing 

Short-Term 

Debt

Total 

Refin

Total SRF 

Assistance 

Agreements

Total 

Refin

Total 

Refinancing

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State

Total 

Refinancing

Refinancing 

Long-Term 

Debt

Amount of SRF Assistance

 (Millions of Dollars)

Refin 

ST 

Debt

Refin 

LT 

Debt

Refin 

ST 

Debt

Refin 

LT 

Debt

SRF Refinancing as

 a Percent of SRF 

Assistance Provided

Numbe

Agreemen

SRF A

Number of SRF 

Assistance Agreements

Missouri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0 64.1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Montana 2.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 32 6 

43.2 2.0 4.7 0 6 18.8 

Nebraska 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49 0 

44.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Nevada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0 31.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

New Hampshire 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37 0 30.2 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

New Jersey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0 124.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

New York 336.2 0.0 46.5 0.0 207 60 722.3 336.2 46.5 0 60 29.0 

North Carolina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38 0 48.4 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

North Dakota 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 20 4 40.8 0.6 1.6 0 4 20.0 

Ohio 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48 0 120.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0 31.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Oregon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0 29.4 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97 0 149.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Puerto Rico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 36.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0 

26.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

South Dakota 5.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 28 2 31.6 5.0 16.0 0 2 7.1 

Tennessee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0 28.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Texas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0 

163.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Utah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0 

20.4 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Vermont 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60 0 25.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Virginia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 0 51.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Washington 2.5 0.0 4.1 0.0 91 3 61.7 2.5 4.1 0 3 3.3 

West Virginia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 

Wisconsin 42.7 39.1 58.7 53.7 15 8 

72.8 3.6 4.9 7 1 53.3 

Wyoming 0.6 0.6 2.0 2.0 12 4 

29.2 0.0 0.0 4 0 33.3 

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-11: Interest Rates for Drinking Water SRF Assistance, by State1

State 1997 1998 1999 1997 2000 1998 1999 

Fiscal Year Ending June 30

Weighted Average Interest Rate State Market Interes

National DWSRF Average2 4.5% 3.2% 2.8% 5.7% 5.1% 2.9% 5.2%

(Percent)

2001 

2.4% 

Alabama - 3.8 3.8 - 5.3 - - 3.9 

Alaska - 3.6 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.8 - 2.5 

Arizona - 2.6 2.8 8.0 8.0 3.4 - 3.0 

Arkansas - - 3.5 -  - - - 3.5 

California - - 2.3 -  - - - 1.5 

Colorado - 3.8 4.5 5.2 4.7 4.1 - 4.1 

Connecticut - 2.6 2.7 - 5.2 - - 2.7 

Delaware - - 3.0 -  - - - 3.7 

Florida - 3.0 3.3 - 5.1 - - 3.4 

Georgia - 1.7 1.5 4.2 4.7 3.9 - 1.5 

Hawaii - - 4.8 -  - - - 1.6 

Idaho - 4.0 4.0 - 4.0 - - 2.0 

Illinois - 2.6 2.5 5.8 5.2 2.9 - 2.9 

Indiana - 3.1 3.0 - 3.4 - - 3.0 

Iowa - - 3.5 -  - - - 3.7 

Kansas - 3.7 4.1 5.2 5.1 3.8 - 3.9 

Kentucky - - 3.8 -  - - - 2.1 

Louisiana - - 3.5 -  - - - 3.5 

Maine - 1.6 1.1 4.8 5.5 1.6 - 0.4 

Maryland - 3.0 3.0 - 5.8 - - 1.8 

Massachusetts - - - -  - - - - 

Michigan - 2.5 2.5 5.2 5.2 2.5 - 2.5 

Minnesota - 3.0 3.0 - 4.8 - - 3.5 

Mississippi 4.5 3.3 3.4 - 5.2 4.2 - 3.0 

1 Based on dollar amount of SRF assistance provided to projects.

2

Note: A dash (-) indicates that no new loan or other assistance agreements were entered into during that fiscal year.

National DWSRF Average for the Market Interest Rate is based on Bond Buyer index for 20 year general obligation (GO) bonds with a rating equivalent to

Moody's Aa and Standard and Poor's AA-minus. Data is the average of the reported weekly Bond Buyer 20-bond GO index for each fiscal year ending June 30.

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-11: Interest Rates for Drinking Water SRF Assistance, by State1

State 

1997 1998 1999 1997 2000 1998 1999 

Weighted Average Interest Rate State Market Interes

Fiscal Year Ending June 30

(Percent)

2001 

Missouri - 4.5 3.5 - 4.4 - - 3.2 

Montana - 2.3 2.3 - 4.5 - - 2.3 

Nebraska - 0.3 3.2 - 4.0 - - 3.2 

Nevada - - 3.6 -  - - - 3.6 

New Hampshire - 3.5 4.0 - 4.8 - - 3.5 

New Jersey - 2.3 2.7 - 4.7 - - 2.6 

New Mexico - - 2.6 -  - - - 2.0 

New York - 3.1 2.7 4.9 4.7 3.2 - 3.0 

North Carolina - 2.6 2.6 - 5.1 - - 2.6 

North Dakota - 2.5 2.5 - 5.0 - - 2.5 

Ohio - 4.3 4.2 - 5.1 - - 3.9 

Oklahoma - 2.8 4.0 - 4.6 - - 2.9 

Oregon - 2.3 2.5 - 5.1 - - 3.3 

Pennsylvania - 2.0 2.0 5.0 4.8 1.4 - 2.1 

Puerto Rico - - 2.0 - 6.6 - - 2.0 

Rhode Island - 6.0 3.1 - 7.3 - - 2.8 

South Carolina - 3.6 3.5 5.9 5.4 4.0 - 3.5 

South Dakota - 3.6 2.4 5.1 5.4 3.9 5.4 3.5 

Tennessee - 2.5 1.9 5.5 5.2 3.1 - 2.1 

Texas - - 3.8 -  - - - 1.9 

Utah - - - -  - - - - 

Vermont - 0.2 2.0 4.8 5.0 - - 2.4 

Virginia - 3.0 1.3 5.0 5.0 - - 1.2 

Washington - 2.7 3.0 - 4.8 - - 2.7 

West Virginia - - 0.3 - - - - 1.4 

Wisconsin - 2.5 2.9 - 5.4 - - 2.4 

Wyoming - 4.0 4.0 - 4.0 - - 4.0 

1 Based on dollar amount of SRF assistance provided to projects.

2

Note: A dash (-) indicates that no new loan or other assistance agreements were entered into during that fiscal year.

National DWSRF Average for the Market Interest Rate is based on Bond Buyer index for 20 year general obligation (GO) bonds with a rating equivalent to

Moody's Aa and Standard and Poor's AA-minus. Data is the average of the reported weekly Bond Buyer 20-bond GO index for each fiscal year ending June 30.

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-12: Fees Charged on Drinking Water SRF Assistance, by State 

State 

Total Fee

Income

Interest

Earnings

from Account

Total

Expenses

from Fees

State 

Match

Administer

the Fund

Fees Charged on DWSRF Assistance

Fees 

Included

in Loans

Administer

the Fund

Other

Eligible

Purposes

Expenses Paid from Fee Accounts

(Millions of Dollars) (Millions of Dollars)

Fees not

Included

in Loans

Expenses 

Percent of Total 

U.S. Total $7.94 $0.90 $8.12 $0.11 $20.98 $12.14 $8.01 $0.00 38.2% 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Total

Expenses

38.7%

Alabama 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.08 44.7 44.7

Alaska 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Arizona 0.00 0.75 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.0 0.0

Arkansas 0.32 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.0 0.0

California 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Colorado 0.00 2.07 0.04 1.29 0.00 0.00 2.11 1.29 61.1 61.1

Connecticut 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Delaware 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.0 0.0

Florida 0.52 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.0 0.0

Georgia 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.0 0.0

Hawaii 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.0 0.0

Idaho 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Illinois 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Indiana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Iowa 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.0 0.0

Kansas 0.79 0.00 0.01 0.56 0.00 0.10 0.80 0.66 69.5 82.5

Kentucky 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Louisiana 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.0 0.0

Maine 0.18 0.08 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.23 84.6 84.6

Maryland 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.0 0.0

Massachusetts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Michigan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Minnesota 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.0 0.0

Mississippi 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.76 40.7 40.7

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-12: Fees Charged on Drinking Water SRF Assistance, by State 

State 

Total Fee

Income

Interest

Earnings

from Account

Total

Expenses

from Fees

State 

Match

Administer

the Fund

Fees Charged on DWSRF Assistance

Fees 

Included

in Loans

Administer

the Fund

Other

Eligible

Purposes

Expenses Paid from Fee Accounts

(Millions of Dollars) (Millions of Dollars)

Fees not

Included

in Loans

Expenses a

Percent of Total F

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Total

Expenses

Missouri 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.0 0.0

Montana 0.68 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.0 0.0

Nebraska 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.0 0.0

Nevada 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

New Hampshire 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.0

New Jersey 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

New Mexico 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

New York 2.71 2.77 0.25 3.53 0.00 0.00 5.73 3.53 61.6 61.6

North Carolina 0.00 0.91 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.0 0.0

North Dakota 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.0

Ohio 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.0 5.2

Oklahoma 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 51.7 51.7

Oregon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Pennsylvania 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Puerto Rico 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Rhode Island 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.0 0.0

South Carolina 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.10 25.0 25.0

South Dakota 0.36 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.0 0.0

Tennessee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Texas 3.10 0.00 0.12 1.42 0.00 0.00 3.22 1.42 44.0 44.0

Utah 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.0 0.0

Vermont 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Virginia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Washington 0.62 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.0 0.0

West Virginia 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0

Wisconsin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 

Wyoming 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.0

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
 Appendix B-13: Drinking Water SRF System Project Assistance by Category, by State

State Total

Planning and 

Design Only Treatment

Transmission and 

Distribution Source

 Purchase of 

Systems Storage Restructuring

La

Acqu

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001 

Construction

(Millions of Dollars)

$3,764.3 U.S. Total $20.5 $1,184.4 $199.1 $355.3 $59.5 $12.$24.0 $1,611.8 

Alabama 0.0 38.8 6.5 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 89.0

Alaska 0.3 6.5 0.5 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.4 55.0

Arizona 4.0 47.1 4.9 6.3 1.1 11.1 2.6 24.0 102.3

Arkansas 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 2.9 10.5

California 0.1 59.9 5.1 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 98.5

Colorado 0.0 116.1 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 137.0

Connecticut 0.0 3.9 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 31.3

Delaware 0.0 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 7.4

Florida 2.2 68.0 12.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 56.0 143.9

Georgia 0.0 8.0 9.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 37.0

Hawaii 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8

Idaho 0.0 8.7 0.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 18.2

Illinois 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 132.8

Indiana 0.0 46.6 20.7 14.0 0.9 11.3 0.1 25.6 126.8

Iowa 0.0 18.3 2.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 32.3

Kansas 0.0 43.2 3.4 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.1 121.0

Kentucky 0.3 12.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 15.8

Louisiana 0.0 3.6 2.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.3 16.6

Maine 0.0 7.8 9.3 8.3 0.0 1.2 0.1 3.0 29.8

Maryland 0.0 21.9 1.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 37.7

Massachusetts 0.0 121.6 5.9 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.7 161.0

Michigan 0.0 51.3 13.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.1 144.1

Minnesota 0.0 63.5 8.7 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 15.8 106.9

Mississippi 0.4 7.8 5.5 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 37.5

Page 1 of 4 1/11/02 
 Appendix B-13: Drinking Water SRF System Project Assistance by Category, by State

State Total

Planning and 

Design Only Treatment

Transmission and 

Distribution Source

 Purchase of 

Systems Storage Restructuring

La

Acqu

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001 

Construction

(Millions of Dollars)

Missouri 0.0 42.4 3.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 64.1

Montana 2.2 23.4 2.2 1.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 9.9 43.2

Nebraska 0.0 15.6 2.8 11.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 14.0 44.8

Nevada 0.0 27.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 31.8

New Hampshire 3.2 7.5 5.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 30.2

New Jersey 0.0 56.8 2.2 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.3 124.7

New Mexico 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.9

New York 0.0 237.6 24.6 58.4 48.6 0.0 3.2 298.7 722.3

North Carolina 0.0 18.2 2.9 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 48.4

North Dakota 0.0 5.8 10.2 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 40.8

Ohio 4.8 65.8 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 120.5

Oklahoma 0.0 17.2 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 31.5

Oregon 0.4 16.1 0.6 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 29.4

Pennsylvania 0.0 10.8 5.2 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 149.0

Puerto Rico 0.0 28.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 36.7

Rhode Island 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 10.2

South Carolina 0.0 11.2 0.8 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 26.0

South Dakota 0.0 10.7 0.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 16.2 31.6

Tennessee 0.3 18.5 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 28.3

Texas 0.0 89.2 4.5 8.6 3.9 0.3 1.2 54.9 163.5

Utah 0.0 10.0 0.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.4 20.4

Vermont 1.9 5.6 1.2 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 14.0 25.3

Virginia 0.5 4.3 0.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 41.4 51.7

Washington 0.0 12.7 11.4 3.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 14.7 61.7

West Virginia 0.0 10.9 1.0 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 22.0

Wisconsin 0.0 64.1 2.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 72.8

Wyoming 0.0 28.3 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 29.2

Page 2 of 4 1/11/02 
 Appendix B-13: Drinking Water SRF System Project Assistance by Category, by State

State Total

Planning and 

Design Only Treatment

Transmission and 

Distribution Source

 Purchase of 

Systems Storage Restructuring

La

Acqu

Amount of SRF Assistance by Category as a Percent of Total DWSRF Assistance

Construction

U.S. Total 100.0% 0.5% 42.8% 31.5% 5.3% 9.4% 1.6% 0.6% 0

Alabama 100.0 0.0 43.6 27.1 7.3 21.9 0.0 0.0 0

Alaska 100.0 * 11.8 69.9 0.9 17.0 0.0 0.0 0

Arizona 100.0 3.9 46.0 23.5 4.8 6.2 1.1 10.9 2

Arkansas 100.0 0.0 36.3 27.4 0.0 24.6 5.8 0.0 5

California 100.0 * 60.9 26.4 5.2 6.0 0.0 0.0 0

Colorado 100.0 0.0 84.7 14.6 * 0.6 0.0 0.0 0

Connecticut 100.0 0.0 12.4 61.3 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.0 0

Delaware 100.0 0.0 12.5 72.7 2.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 0

Florida 100.0 1.5 47.2 38.9 8.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 

Georgia 100.0 0.0 21.7 45.1 24.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 0

Hawaii 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Idaho 100.0 0.0 47.8 30.7 2.3 19.1 0.0 0.0 0

Illinois 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Indiana 100.0 0.0 36.8 20.2 16.3 11.1 0.7 8.9 

Iowa 100.0 0.0 56.7 21.1 7.6 14.6 0.0 0.0 

Kansas 100.0 0.0 35.7 38.9 2.8 18.5 0.0 0.0 0

Kentucky 100.0 1.7 76.5 17.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0

Louisiana 100.0 0.0 21.7 43.9 16.9 7.5 0.0 0.0 1

Maine 100.0 * 26.3 10.1 31.1 28.0 0.0 4.1 

Maryland 100.0 0.0 58.0 33.9 3.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 0

Massachusetts 100.0 0.0 75.5 14.7 3.7 6.1 0.0 0.0 0

Michigan 100.0 0.0 35.6 48.7 9.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0

Minnesota 100.0 0.0 59.4 14.8 8.1 17.5 0.0 0.0 

Mississippi 100.0 1.2 20.8 43.5 14.6 19.5 0.0 0.0 0

* Less than 0.5%

Page 3 of 4 1/11/02 
 Appendix B-13: Drinking Water SRF System Project Assistance by Category, by State

State Total

Planning and 

Design Only Treatment

Transmission and 

Distribution Source

 Purchase of 

Systems Storage Restructuring

La

Acqu

Amount of SRF Assistance by Category as a Percent of Total DWSRF Assistance

Construction

Missouri 100.0 0.0 66.1 21.2 5.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 0

Montana 100.0 5.0 54.1 22.9 5.0 4.2 8.8 0.0 0

Nebraska 100.0 0.0 34.9 31.3 6.2 26.6 0.8 0.0 

Nevada 100.0 0.0 87.2 12.2 * * 0.0 0.0 0

New Hampshire 100.0 10.6 24.9 35.3 18.3 10.9 0.0 0.0 0

New Jersey 100.0 0.0 45.6 42.7 1.8 9.9 0.0 0.0 0

New Mexico 100.0 0.0 0.0 28.7 42.9 28.4 0.0 0.0 0

New York 100.0 0.0 32.9 41.4 3.4 8.1 6.7 0.0 

North Carolina 100.0 0.0 37.6 46.2 6.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0

North Dakota 100.0 0.0 14.2 22.6 25.0 38.2 0.0 0.0 0

Ohio 100.0 4.0 54.6 20.4 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0

Oklahoma 100.0 0.0 54.4 26.0 9.9 9.7 0.0 0.0 

Oregon 100.0 1.3 54.9 24.2 2.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 0

Pennsylvania 100.0 0.0 7.3 34.5 3.5 9.4 0.0 0.0 0

Puerto Rico 100.0 0.0 76.4 14.8 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 0

Rhode Island 100.0 0.0 58.1 31.4 * 1.5 0.0 0.0 0

South Carolina 100.0 0.0 42.9 40.8 3.1 13.2 0.0 0.0 0

South Dakota 100.0 0.0 34.0 51.3 1.8 12.8 0.0 0.0 

Tennessee 100.0 1.1 65.4 28.3 * 4.5 0.0 0.0 0

Texas 100.0 0.0 54.5 33.5 2.8 5.3 2.4 * 0

Utah 100.0 0.0 48.9 31.2 3.1 15.4 0.0 0.0 1

Vermont 100.0 7.3 22.3 55.4 4.7 9.8 * 0.0 

Virginia 100.0 1.1 8.3 80.1 0.6 7.3 0.0 0.0 2

Washington 100.0 0.0 20.6 23.9 18.5 5.3 0.0 0.0 3

West Virginia 100.0 0.0 49.4 32.5 4.4 11.1 1.0 0.0 

Wisconsin 100.0 0.0 88.1 6.0 3.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0

Wyoming 100.0 0.0 96.7 1.4 * 1.7 0.0 0.0 0

* Less than 0.5%

Page 4 of 4 1/11/02 
$3,764.3 U.S. Total $618.9 $134.3 $84.6 $458.7 16.4% 3.6% 37.4%

Appendix B-14: Drinking Water SRF Assistance Provided by Selected Category, by State

State 

Total 

Assistance 

Provided

Disadvantaged 

Communites

System 

Compliance

Private 

Systems

Creation of 

New Systems

 Disadvantaged 

Communities

Consolidation

 of Systems

System 

Compliance

Private 

Systems

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

(Millions of Dollars) 

$1,408.3 

As a Percent of Total Ass

Alabama 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 89.0 

Alaska 7.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 14.2 6.8 0.0 0.0 55.0 

Arizona 4.5 73.3 1.1 3.4 4.4 71.7 14.4 14.8 102.3 

Arkansas 10.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 

California 38.4 98.5 0.0 8.1 39.0 100.0 0.5 0.5 98.5 

Colorado 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 137.0 

Connecticut 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 14.6 5.5 1.7 31.3 

Delaware 0.4 3.1 4.3 0.0 5.4 42.0 58.5 4.3 7.4 

Florida 18.9 17.5 2.3 0.0 13.1 12.1 11.3 16.2 143.9 

Georgia 19.2 7.9 0.0 4.6 52.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 37.0 

Hawaii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 

Idaho 0.0 9.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 49.6 2.2 0.4 18.2 

Illinois 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 132.8 

Indiana 93.1 10.4 0.0 27.6 73.5 8.2 1.2 1.5 126.8 

Iowa 0.0 15.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 49.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 

Kansas 0.0 4.9 3.8 2.1 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 121.0 

Kentucky 7.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 44.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 15.8 

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 

Maine 12.2 18.8 0.0 1.2 41.1 63.1 13.6 4.0 29.8 

Maryland 17.2 12.7 0.0 0.0 45.8 33.7 0.3 0.1 37.7 

Massachusetts 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 161.0 

Michigan 4.1 21.0 0.0 22.3 2.9 14.6 0.0 0.0 144.1 

Minnesota 5.5 40.0 2.3 7.1 5.2 37.5 0.0 0.0 106.9 

Mississippi 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-14: Drinking Water SRF Assistance Provided by Selected Category, by State

State

Total 

Assistance 

Provided

Disadvantaged 

Communites

System 

Compliance

Private 

Systems

Creation of 

New Systems

 Disadvantaged 

Communities

Consolidation

 of Systems

System 

Compliance

Private 

Systems

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

(Millions of Dollars) 

As a Percent of Total Ass

Missouri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.1 

Montana 15.8 20.8 0.0 0.0 36.6 48.2 0.0 0.0 43.2 

Nebraska 44.4 2.2 0.0 1.8 99.2 4.9 0.0 0.0 44.8 

Nevada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 31.8 

New Hampshire 14.5 7.2 0.0 0.0 48.1 24.0 20.7 6.2 30.2 

New Jersey 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 18.1 22.6 124.7 

New Mexico 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 

New York 79.5 446.0 67.4 210.0 11.0 61.7 0.0 0.0 722.3 

North Carolina 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 48.4 

North Dakota 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 40.8 

Ohio 0.0 59.5 0.0 6.5 0.0 49.4 0.4 0.4 120.5 

Oklahoma 0.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 31.5 

Oregon 13.0 26.9 0.0 0.1 44.1 91.4 1.5 0.4 29.4 

Pennsylvania 24.3 82.6 1.3 36.2 16.3 55.4 30.6 45.6 149.0 

Puerto Rico 0.0 36.7 0.0 36.7 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 36.7 

Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 

South Carolina 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 

South Dakota 2.2 0.0 0.8 0.5 7.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 31.6 

Tennessee 0.0 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.8 0.0 0.0 28.3 

Texas 62.8 149.4 0.0 42.9 38.4 91.4 0.0 0.0 163.5 

Utah 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.5 0.0 1.1 0.2 20.4 

Vermont 12.2 2.4 0.0 0.9 48.2 9.5 8.1 2.1 25.3 

Virginia 42.5 51.0 1.4 33.1 82.2 98.7 0.0 0.0 51.7 

Washington 29.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 47.1 23.4 19.2 11.8 61.7 

West Virginia 10.4 15.6 0.0 4.6 47.4 71.1 0.0 0.0 22.0 

Wisconsin 8.1 23.5 0.0 0.0 11.1 32.3 0.0 0.0 72.8 

Wyoming 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.6 0.0 0.0 29.2 

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-15: Drinking Water SRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities, by State

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State 

Total

SRF

Assistance

Disadvantaged 

Communities1

Assistance 

with Principal

Forgiveness

Assistance

with > 20 yr

Repayment

Disadvantaged 

Communities

Total 

SRF 

Assistance

As

with 

Fo

Number of SRF AgreAmount of SRF Assistance in Millions of Dollars

Millions of

Dollars

Amount of Principal Forgiven

As a

Percent of

Grant Awards

3,764.3 U.S. Total 618.9 213.7 218.4 1,776 455 

93.2 2.6%

Alabama 0.0 0.0 52 0 0.0 89.0 0.0 0.0

Alaska 7.8 0.0 34 10 7.8 55.0 7.8 15.8

Arizona 4.5 0.0 54 2 0.0 102.3 0.0 0.0

Arkansas 10.5 10.5 3 3 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0

California 38.4 0.0 21 6 10.7 98.5 3.0 0.9

Colorado 0.0 0.0 26 0 0.0 137.0 0.0 0.0

Connecticut 0.0 0.0 15 0 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0

Delaware 0.4 0.4 8 1 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0

Florida 18.9 1.5 44 20 18.9 143.9 17.4 13.1

Georgia 19.2 0.0 28 22 18.8 37.0 7.7 13.4

Hawaii 0.0 0.0 1 0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0

Idaho 0.0 0.0 7 0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0

Illinois 0.0 0.0 82 0 0.0 132.8 0.0 0.0

Indiana 93.1 0.0 44 28 0.0 126.8 0.0 0.0

Iowa 0.0 0.0 30 0 0.0 32.3 0.0 0.0

Kansas 0.0 0.0 62 0 0.0 121.0 0.0 0.0

Kentucky 7.0 0.0 11 6 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 6 0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0

Maine 12.2 12.2 38 21 11.5 29.8 7.0 19.9

Maryland 17.2 9.4 22 6 6.2 37.7 1.4 3.6

Massachusetts 0.0 0.0 35 0 0.0 161.0 0.0 0.0

Michigan 4.1 4.1 57 3 4.1 144.1 0.1 0.0

Minnesota 5.5 0.0 71 5 5.5 106.9 2.2 2.8

Mississippi 0.0 0.0 61 0 0.0 37.5 0.0 0.0

Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities includes all types of assistance provided to systems identified as disadvantaged by the State, 

including principal forgiven, > 20 yr repayments and lower interest rates. 

1

Page 1 of 4 1/11/02
Appendix B-15: Drinking Water SRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities, by State

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State 

Total

SRF

Assistance

Disadvantaged 

Communities1

Assistance 

with Principal

Forgiveness

Assistance

with > 20 yr

Repayment

Disadvantaged 

Communities

Total 

SRF 

Assistance

As

with 

Fo

Number of SRF AgreAmount of SRF Assistance in Millions of Dollars

Millions of

Dollars

Amount of Principal Forgiven

As a

Percent of

Grant Awards

Missouri 0.0 0.0 17 0 0.0 64.1 0.0 0.0

Montana 15.8 13.2 32 13 0.0 43.2 0.0 0.0

Nebraska 44.4 3.1 49 48 16.5 44.8 4.3 10.0

Nevada 0.0 0.0 7 0 0.0 31.8 0.0 0.0

New Hampshire 14.5 0.0 37 18 9.6 30.2 0.3 0.9

New Jersey 0.0 0.0 39 0 0.0 124.7 0.0 0.0

New Mexico 2.7 0.0 5 4 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0

New York 79.5 40.6 207 82 18.6 722.3 13.3 5.3

North Carolina 0.0 0.0 38 0 0.0 48.4 0.0 0.0

North Dakota 0.0 0.0 20 0 0.0 40.8 0.0 0.0

Ohio 0.0 0.0 48 0 0.0 120.5 0.0 0.0

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 31.5 0.0 0.0

Oregon 13.0 12.7 28 12 0.8 29.4 0.3 0.4

Pennsylvania 24.3 11.7 97 24 0.0 149.0 0.0 0.0

Puerto Rico 0.0 0.0 2 0 0.0 36.7 0.0 0.0

Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 4 0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0

South Carolina 6.0 6.0 9 1 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0

South Dakota 2.2 1.9 28 5 0.0 31.6 0.0 0.0

Tennessee 0.0 0.0 25 0 0.0 28.3 0.0 0.0

Texas 62.8 27.8 24 8 36.2 163.5 7.3 3.0

Utah 12.3 0.0 8 6 9.3 20.4 1.9 5.5

Vermont 12.2 12.2 60 25 12.2 25.3 4.0 11.5

Virginia 42.5 38.6 39 32 27.0 51.7 15.4 17.6

Washington 29.0 2.1 91 30 0.0 61.7 0.0 0.0

West Virginia 10.4 10.4 13 8 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0

Wisconsin 8.1 0.0 15 6 0.0 72.8 0.0 0.0

Wyoming 0.0 0.0 12 0 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0

Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities includes all types of assistance provided to systems identified as disadvantaged by the State, 

including principal forgiven, > 20 yr repayments and lower interest rates. 

1

Page 2 of 4 1/11/02
Appendix B-15: Drinking Water SRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities, by State

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State 

Total

SRF

Assistance

Disadvantaged 

Communities1

Assistance 

with Principal

Forgiveness

Assistance

with > 20 yr

Repayment

Disadvantaged 

Communities

Total 

SRF 

Assistance

As

with 

Fo

Percent of Total SRF AgPercent of Total SRF Assistance

As a Percent of 

Total SRF 

Assistance

Amount of Principal Forgiven

As a

Percent of

Grant Awards

100.0% 16.4% 5.7% 5.8% 100% 26% U.S. Total 2.5% Not Applicable

Alabama 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Alaska 100.0 14.2 14.2 0.0 100 29 14.2 - 

Arizona 100.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 100 4 0.0 - 

Arkansas 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100 100 0.0 - 

California 100.0 39.0 10.8 0.0 100 29 3.0 - 

Colorado 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Connecticut 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Delaware 100.0 5.4 0.0 5.4 100 13 0.0 - 

Florida 100.0 13.1 13.1 1.1 100 45 12.1 - 

Georgia 100.0 52.0 50.8 0.0 100 79 20.7 - 

Hawaii 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Idaho 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Illinois 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Indiana 100.0 73.5 0.0 0.0 100 64 0.0 - 

Iowa 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Kansas 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Kentucky 100.0 44.6 0.0 0.0 100 55 0.0 - 

Louisiana 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Maine 100.0 41.1 38.7 41.1 100 55 23.3 - 

Maryland 100.0 45.8 16.4 25.0 100 27 3.6 - 

Massachusetts 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Michigan 100.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 100 5 * - 

Minnesota 100.0 5.2 5.2 0.0 100 7 2.1 - 

Mississippi 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

1 Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities includes all types of assistance provided to systems identified as disadvantaged by the 

State, including principal forgiven, > 20 yr repayments and lower interest rates. 

Page 3 of 4 1/11/02
Appendix B-15: Drinking Water SRF Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities, by State

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State 

Total

SRF

Assistance

Disadvantaged 

Communities1

Assistance 

with Principal

Forgiveness

Assistance

with > 20 yr

Repayment

Disadvantaged 

Communities

Total 

SRF 

Assistance

As

with 

Fo

Percent of Total SRF AgPercent of Total SRF Assistance

As a Percent of 

Total SRF 

Assistance

Amount of Principal Forgiven

As a

Percent of

Grant Awards

Missouri 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Montana 100.0 36.6 0.0 30.5 100 41 0.0 - 

Nebraska 100.0 99.2 36.8 6.9 100 98 9.6 - 

Nevada 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

New Hampshire 100.0 48.1 31.7 0.0 100 49 1.1 - 

New Jersey 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

New Mexico 100.0 68.9 0.0 0.0 100 80 0.0 - 

New York 100.0 11.0 2.6 5.6 100 40 1.8 - 

North Carolina 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

North Dakota 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Ohio 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Oklahoma 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Oregon 100.0 44.1 2.6 43.2 100 43 0.9 - 

Pennsylvania 100.0 16.3 0.0 7.8 100 25 0.0 - 

Puerto Rico 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Rhode Island 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

South Carolina 100.0 23.0 0.0 23.0 100 11 0.0 - 

South Dakota 100.0 7.0 0.0 6.1 100 18 0.0 - 

Tennessee 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

Texas 100.0 38.4 22.2 17.0 100 33 4.5 - 

Utah 100.0 60.5 45.8 0.0 100 75 9.4 - 

Vermont 100.0 48.2 48.2 48.1 100 42 15.9 - 

Virginia 100.0 82.2 52.2 74.7 100 82 29.7 - 

Washington 100.0 47.1 0.0 3.3 100 33 0.0 - 

West Virginia 100.0 47.4 0.0 47.4 100 62 0.0 - 

Wisconsin 100.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 100 40 0.0 - 

Wyoming 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0 0.0 - 

1 Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities includes all types of assistance provided to systems identified as disadvantaged by the 

State, including principal forgiven, > 20 yr repayments and lower interest rates. 

Page 4 of 4 1/11/02
Appendix B-16: Drinking Water SRF Assistance by Community Size Category, by State 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State Total

Population 

3,301 to 

10,000

Population 

10,001 to 

100,000 Total

Population 

501 to 

3,300

Amount of SRF Assistance

Population 

Less than 

501

Population 

501 to 

3,300

Population 

100,001 

and Above

Population 

Less than 

501

Population 

3,301 to 

10,000

Number of SRF Assistance A

Millions of Dollars

Population 

Less than 

10,001

Popul

Less 

10,0

$128.5 U.S. Total $700.5 $697.6 $741.6 311 654 373 $1,496.1 $3,764.3 1,776 $1,526.6 1,3

Alabama 89.0 12.8 1 16 6.2 59.7 52 10.3 0.0 16 29.2 

Alaska 55.0 14.1 1 8 0.4 2.0 34 8.1 30.4 13 22.6 

Arizona 102.3 18.1 14 21 1.6 42.8 54 11.8 27.9 11 31.6 

Arkansas 10.5 0.0 0 2 0.0 4.0 3 6.5 0.0 0 6.5 

California 98.5 0.0 6 4 2.7 40.7 21 9.4 45.8 0 12.0 

Colorado 137.0 5.9 5 7 2.0 72.9 26 8.9 47.3 3 16.9 

Connecticut 31.3 3.5 4 3 1.6 15.4 15 2.4 8.5 2 7.4 

Delaware 7.4 0.0 1 7 0.0 0.0 8 7.4 0.0 0 7.4 

Florida 143.9 10.8 10 16 2.3 49.7 44 22.1 58.9 8 35.3 

Georgia 37.0 7.6 7 10 2.1 7.4 28 7.2 12.7 5 16.9 

Hawaii 7.8 0.0 0 0 0.0 7.8 1 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 

Idaho 18.2 1.8 3 2 1.7 6.4 7 8.3 0.0 1 11.8 

Illinois 132.8 30.9 0 34 0.0 79.7 82 18.3 3.8 25 49.3 

Indiana 126.8 23.1 5 22 1.8 56.9 44 30.6 14.5 8 55.5 

Iowa 32.3 16.2 5 17 1.8 2.7 30 11.6 0.0 6 29.6 

Kansas 121.0 31.9 11 28 6.7 37.8 62 37.4 7.2 14 76.0 

Kentucky 15.8 2.1 0 1 0.0 13.6 11 0.0 0.0 6 2.2 

Louisiana 16.6 7.6 0 0 0.0 9.0 6 0.0 0.0 5 7.6 

Maine 29.8 4.1 11 21 3.8 5.3 38 16.6 0.0 4 24.5 

Maryland 37.7 1.8 4 6 0.4 20.4 22 12.1 2.9 2 14.3 

Massachusetts 161.0 25.5 2 2 0.6 104.1 35 5.6 25.2 9 31.7 

Michigan 144.1 49.9 1 15 0.4 61.8 57 16.8 15.3 22 67.0 

Minnesota 106.9 42.2 8 43 2.5 10.0 71 35.6 16.5 18 80.4 

Mississippi 37.5 10.4 0 27 0.0 14.8 61 12.3 0.0 17 22.7 

Page 1 of 4 1/11/02 
Appendix B-16: Drinking Water SRF Assistance by Community Size Category, by State 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State Total

Population 

3,301 to 

10,000

Population 

10,001 to 

100,000 Total

Population 

501 to 

3,300

Amount of SRF Assistance

Population 

Less than 

501

Population 

501 to 

3,300

Population 

100,001 

and Above

Population 

Less than 

501

Population 

3,301 to 

10,000

Number of SRF Assistance A

Millions of Dollars

Population 

Less than 

10,001

Popul

Less 

10,0

Missouri 64.1 23.3 0 6 0.0 33.5 17 7.3 0.0 7 30.6 

Montana 43.2 20.0 8 11 3.4 12.8 32 7.0 0.0 9 30.4 

Nebraska 44.8 12.8 15 23 5.4 9.2 49 17.4 0.0 7 35.6 

Nevada 31.8 3.3 2 1 0.8 0.0 7 0.1 27.8 1 4.1 

New Hampshire 30.2 4.6 6 17 2.8 13.6 37 9.2 0.0 2 16.6 

New Jersey 124.7 11.1 0 1 0.0 89.4 39 0.4 23.8 8 11.5 

New Mexico 3.9 0.5 2 0 0.2 1.2 5 0.0 2.0 1 0.7 

New York 722.3 135.3 47 82 32.2 162.8 207 145.0 246.9 37 312.6 

North Carolina 48.4 7.9 2 14 0.7 21.8 38 15.4 2.7 12 23.9 

North Dakota 40.8 3.5 3 11 1.1 28.4 20 7.9 0.0 2 12.5 

Ohio 120.5 6.1 5 13 0.9 90.5 48 5.5 17.5 10 12.5 

Oklahoma 31.5 11.7 0 3 0.0 13.9 10 5.9 0.0 4 17.7 

Oregon 29.4 5.9 5 19 2.2 4.0 28 17.4 0.0 3 25.4 

Pennsylvania 149.0 37.1 14 36 3.7 30.4 97 58.8 19.1 24 99.6 

Puerto Rico 36.7 2.9 0 0 0.0 6.2 2 3.0 24.6 0 5.8 

Rhode Island 10.2 0.2 1 0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 10.0 1 0.2 

South Carolina 26.0 0.0 0 1 0.0 25.7 9 0.3 0.0 0 0.3 

South Dakota 31.6 9.2 7 10 2.2 6.8 28 3.6 9.8 7 15.0 

Tennessee 28.3 18.5 0 8 0.0 6.5 25 3.3 0.0 11 21.8 

Texas 163.5 26.6 2 5 0.5 112.4 24 8.9 15.2 6 36.0 

Utah 20.4 3.0 2 2 1.0 5.1 8 5.4 6.0 1 9.3 

Vermont 25.3 0.8 29 28 5.5 0.0 60 19.0 0.0 3 25.3 

Virginia 51.7 11.3 19 13 12.6 1.3 39 26.4 0.0 6 50.4 

Washington 61.7 7.4 37 29 13.0 18.5 91 22.7 0.0 8 43.1 

West Virginia 22.0 2.2 0 5 0.0 14.8 13 4.9 0.0 2 7.2 

Wisconsin 72.8 5.0 3 3 1.3 40.9 15 6.2 19.4 3 12.5 

Wyoming 29.2 7.2 3 1 0.3 21.4 12 0.2 0.0 3 7.8 

Page 2 of 4 1/11/02 
Appendix B-16: Drinking Water SRF Assistance by Community Size Category, by State 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State Total

Population 

3,301 to 

10,000

Population 

10,001 to 

100,000 Total

Population 

501 to 

3,300

Population 

Less than 

501

Population 

501 to 

3,300

Population 

100,001 

and Above

Population 

Less than 

501

Population 

3,301 to 

10,000

Percent of Total SRF Assistance 

Percent of Total SRF Assistance

Population 

Less than 

10,001

Popul

Less 

10,0

U.S. Total 100% 3% 19% 19% 40% 20% 100% 18% 37% 21% 41% 7

Alabama 100 7 12 14 67 0 100 2 31 31 33 

Alaska 100 1 15 26 4 55 100 3 24 38 41 

Arizona 100 2 12 18 42 27 100 26 39 20 31 

Arkansas 100 0 62 0 38 0 100 0 67 0 62 

California 100 3 10 0 41 46 100 29 19 0 12 

Colorado 100 1 7 4 53 35 100 19 27 12 12 

Connecticut 100 5 8 11 49 27 100 27 20 13 24 

Delaware 100 * 100 0 0 0 100 13 88 0 100 1

Florida 100 2 15 8 35 41 100 23 36 18 25 

Georgia 100 6 19 21 20 34 100 25 36 18 46 

Hawaii 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 

Idaho 100 10 46 10 35 0 100 43 29 14 65 

Illinois 100 0 14 23 60 3 100 0 41 30 37 

Indiana 100 1 24 18 45 11 100 11 50 18 44 

Iowa 100 6 36 50 8 0 100 17 57 20 92 

Kansas 100 6 31 26 31 6 100 18 45 23 63 

Kentucky 100 0 * 13 86 0 100 0 9 55 14 

Louisiana 100 0 0 46 54 0 100 0 0 83 46 

Maine 100 13 56 14 18 0 100 29 55 11 82 

Maryland 100 1 32 5 54 8 100 18 27 9 38 

Massachusetts 100 * 3 16 65 16 100 6 6 26 20 

Michigan 100 * 12 35 43 11 100 2 26 39 47 

Minnesota 100 2 33 40 9 15 100 11 61 25 75 

Mississippi 100 0 33 28 40 0 100 0 44 28 60 

* Less than 0.5%

Page 3 of 4 1/11/02 
Appendix B-16: Drinking Water SRF Assistance by Community Size Category, by State 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State Total

Population 

3,301 to 

10,000

Population 

10,001 to 

100,000 Total

Population 

501 to 

3,300

Population 

Less than 

501

Population 

501 to 

3,300

Population 

100,001 

and Above

Population 

Less than 

501

Population 

3,301 to 

10,000

Percent of Total SRF Assistance 

Percent of Total SRF Assistance

Population 

Less than 

10,001

Popul

Less 

10,0

Missouri 100 0 11 36 52 0 100 0 35 41 48 

Montana 100 8 16 46 30 0 100 25 34 28 70 

Nebraska 100 12 39 28 20 0 100 31 47 14 80 

Nevada 100 2 * 10 0 87 100 29 14 14 13 

New Hampshire 100 9 30 15 45 0 100 16 46 5 55 

New Jersey 100 0 * 9 72 19 100 0 3 21 9 

New Mexico 100 5 0 12 31 52 100 40 0 20 17 

New York 100 4 20 19 23 34 100 23 40 18 43 

North Carolina 100 1 32 16 45 6 100 5 37 32 49 

North Dakota 100 3 19 9 69 0 100 15 55 10 31 

Ohio 100 1 5 5 75 15 100 10 27 21 10 

Oklahoma 100 0 19 37 44 0 100 0 30 40 56 

Oregon 100 7 59 20 14 0 100 18 68 11 86 

Pennsylvania 100 2 39 25 20 13 100 14 37 25 67 

Puerto Rico 100 0 8 8 17 67 100 0 0 0 16 

Rhode Island 100 * 0 2 0 98 100 25 0 25 2 

South Carolina 100 0 1 0 99 0 100 0 11 0 1 

South Dakota 100 7 11 29 22 31 100 25 36 25 48 

Tennessee 100 0 12 65 23 0 100 0 32 44 77 

Texas 100 * 5 16 69 9 100 8 21 25 22 

Utah 100 5 26 15 25 29 100 25 25 13 46 

Vermont 100 22 75 3 0 0 100 48 47 5 100 1

Virginia 100 24 51 22 3 0 100 49 33 15 97 

Washington 100 21 37 12 30 0 100 41 32 9 70 

West Virginia 100 0 22 10 67 0 100 0 38 15 33 

Wisconsin 100 2 8 7 56 27 100 20 20 20 17 

Wyoming 100 1 1 25 73 0 100 25 8 25 27 

* Less than 0.5%

Page 4 of 4 1/11/02 
Appendix B-17: Annual U.S. Drinking Water SRF Population Served

Total

Community 

Systems

Non-Community 

Systems

Disadvantaged 

Communities

Community 

Systems

Non-Community 

Systems

Population Served As a Percent of Total Po

System 

Compliance

Di

C

Fiscal Year 

Ending 

June 30

65,330,607 Total All Years 65,306,523 24,084 2,278,926 100.0% * 26,675,832 

1997 96,879 96,879 0 0 100.0% 0.0% 0 

1998 9,669,799 9,660,384 9,415 61,863 99.9% 0.1% 7,653,801 

1999 16,794,896 16,787,922 6,974 441,519 100.0% * 1,182,350 

2000 20,753,311 20,745,666 7,645 1,047,872 100.0% * 10,001,577 

2001 18,015,722 18,015,672 50 727,672 100.0% * 7,838,104 

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 1 of 1 
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B-18: Drinking Water SRF Coordinated Funding, by State 

Total

Coordinated

Funding

DWSRF

Portion

DWSRF Portion

as a Percent of

Total Coordinated

Funding

Total DWSRF

Agreements

Receiving 

Coordinated

Funding State 

Millions of Dollars Number of Agreements

$679.7 U.S. Total $366.3 54% 1,776 267 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Alabama 1.2 0.8 1 52 65 

Alaska 81.4 38.6 22 34 47 

Arizona 8.8 4.2 2 54 48 

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 0 3 - 

California 0.0 0.0 0 21 - 

Colorado 0.0 0.0 0 26 - 

Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0 15 - 

Delaware 2.4 1.2 2 8 51 

Florida 7.5 3.8 3 44 51 

Georgia 0.0 0.0 0 28 - 

Hawaii 0.0 0.0 0 1 - 

Idaho 1.4 0.6 2 7 45 

Illinois 0.0 0.0 0 82 - 

Indiana 34.7 21.4 16 44 62 

Iowa 1.0 0.9 1 30 87 

Kansas 0.0 0.0 0 62 - 

Kentucky 0.0 0.0 0 11 - 

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0 6 - 

Maine 21.3 11.0 18 38 52 

Maryland 13.7 8.3 6 22 60 

Massachusetts 0.0 0.0 0 35 - 

Michigan 4.4 2.1 1 57 48 

Minnesota 33.3 25.4 14 71 76 

Mississippi 0.0 0.0 0 61 - 

* Less than 0.5%.

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-18: Drinking Water SRF Coordinated Funding, by State 

Total

Coordinated

Funding

DWSRF

Portion

DWSRF Portion

as a Percent of

Total Coordinated

Funding

Total DWSRF

Agreements

Receiving 

Coordinated

Funding State 

Millions of Dollars Number of Agreements

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Missouri 0.0 0.0 0 17 - 

Montana 33.2 14.2 14 32 43 

Nebraska 7.4 3.7 7 49 50 

Nevada 0.0 0.0 0 7 - 

New Hampshire 12.0 7.9 10 37 65 

New Jersey 0.0 0.0 0 39 - 

New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0 5 - 

New York 89.2 81.0 37 207 91 

North Carolina 31.3 12.6 10 38 40 

North Dakota 0.0 0.0 0 20 - 

Ohio 0.0 0.0 0 48 - 

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 0 10 - 

Oregon 34.9 15.2 11 28 44 

Pennsylvania 65.3 40.8 37 97 63 

Puerto Rico 0.0 0.0 0 2 - 

Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 0 4 - 

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 0 9 - 

South Dakota 38.7 17.8 16 28 46 

Tennessee 24.4 1.6 5 25 6 

Texas 0.0 0.0 0 24 - 

Utah 14.9 11.9 6 8 80 

Vermont 3.0 0.9 3 60 28 

Virginia 17.3 12.8 9 39 74 

Washington 11.8 1.8 1 91 15 

West Virginia 78.3 21.9 11 13 28 

Wisconsin 6.7 3.8 2 15 57 

Wyoming 0.0 0.0 0 12 - 

* Less than 0.5%.

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-19: Drinking Water SRF Net Set-Asides Awarded, by State 

3,648.41 U.S. Total575.84 54.18 239.63 135.39 146.64

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants

Total Net

Set-Asides

Awarded1 Administrative1

Small 

Systems

Technical

Assistance1

State 

Program

Management1

Local

Assistance

and 1452(k)

Activities1

Millions of Dollars 

Total Net

Set-Asides

Awarded Administrative

S

T

A

As a Percent of Federa

15.8% 3.7% 

Alabama 6.69 1.94 1.19 2.89 0.67 48.38 13.8% 4.0% 

Alaska 5.07 1.98 0.00 2.74 0.36 49.38 10.3% 4.0% 

Arizona 7.99 1.90 0.93 4.37 0.78 47.65 16.8% 4.0% 

Arkansas 12.42 1.77 3.33 6.65 0.67 44.35 28.0% 4.0% 

California 30.76 9.34 0.93 15.81 4.67 317.60 9.7% 2.9% 

Colorado 9.36 1.87 1.01 5.61 0.86 57.33 16.3% 3.3% 

Connecticut 13.56 1.75 4.38 6.56 0.88 43.75 31.0% 4.0% 

Delaware 7.60 1.09 2.04 3.93 0.54 27.14 28.0% 4.0% 

Florida 16.27 5.30 5.39 2.93 2.65 132.48 12.3% 4.0% 

Georgia 12.99 2.28 5.70 3.87 1.14 57.02 22.8% 4.0% 

Hawaii 7.53 1.40 3.49 1.95 0.70 34.90 21.6% 4.0% 

Idaho 7.40 1.46 1.25 4.18 0.52 36.50 20.3% 4.0% 

Illinois 9.58 5.73 0.00 3.85 0.00 143.24 6.7% 4.0% 

Indiana 6.23 1.79 1.42 2.31 0.70 62.01 10.0% 2.9% 

Iowa 4.81 2.08 0.00 1.69 1.04 52.12 9.2% 4.0% 

Kansas 7.20 2.26 2.40 1.41 1.13 56.44 12.8% 4.0% 

Kentucky 8.04 1.86 2.48 3.01 0.68 46.60 17.3% 4.0% 

Louisiana 9.54 1.63 4.08 3.06 0.77 40.80 23.4% 4.0% 

Maine 8.56 1.39 2.72 3.76 0.69 35.00 24.5% 4.0% 

Maryland 8.74 1.60 2.51 3.98 0.64 37.89 23.1% 4.2% 

Massachusetts 18.83 3.95 7.88 4.98 2.01 124.64 15.1% 3.2% 

Michigan 20.56 5.92 3.55 9.94 1.16 145.62 14.1% 4.1% 

Minnesota 9.25 3.17 0.41 4.71 0.95 79.28 11.7% 4.0% 

Mississippi 4.76 1.70 0.57 1.65 0.85 42.43 11.2% 4.0% 

1 Set-aside amounts awarded net of any transfers of set-aside amounts into/(out of) the set-aside category.

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-19: Drinking Water SRF Net Set-Asides Awarded, by State 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

State

Federal 

Capitalization 

Grants

Total Net

Set-Asides

Awarded1 Administrative1

Small 

Systems

Technical

Assistance1

State 

Program

Management1

Local

Assistance

and 1452(k)

Activities1

Millions of Dollars

Total Net

Set-Asides

Awarded Administrative

S

T

A

As a Percent of Fede

Missouri 8.82 1.66 4.15 2.19 0.83 41.47 21.3% 4.0% 

Montana 5.34 1.80 1.48 1.48 0.59 44.96 11.9% 4.0% 

Nebraska 8.99 1.72 1.48 4.94 0.86 42.96 20.9% 4.0% 

Nevada 7.25 1.40 2.70 2.49 0.67 34.90 20.8% 4.0% 

New Hampshire 8.18 0.84 1.21 5.41 0.72 36.10 22.7% 2.3% 

New Jersey 8.97 3.29 2.28 2.79 0.60 82.37 10.9% 4.0% 

New Mexico 8.48 1.09 2.73 4.10 0.55 27.34 31.0% 4.0% 

New York 27.22 9.99 6.31 5.92 5.00 249.83 10.9% 4.0% 

North Carolina 14.88 2.90 3.88 6.65 1.45 72.45 20.5% 4.0% 

North Dakota 3.19 1.40 0.00 1.26 0.54 34.90 9.2% 4.0% 

Ohio 14.32 4.58 0.00 7.88 1.85 114.62 12.5% 4.0% 

Oklahoma 11.04 1.86 2.41 5.84 0.93 49.64 22.2% 3.7% 

Oregon 10.27 2.41 1.82 4.77 1.27 63.63 16.1% 3.8% 

Pennsylvania 45.90 5.92 14.81 22.21 2.96 148.07 31.0% 4.0% 

Puerto Rico 4.16 1.79 0.23 1.26 0.89 44.64 9.3% 4.0% 

Rhode Island 4.30 1.09 1.18 1.63 0.40 27.14 15.8% 4.0% 

South Carolina 3.49 1.56 0.00 1.48 0.45 38.88 9.0% 4.0% 

South Dakota 3.33 1.71 0.02 1.31 0.30 42.69 7.8% 4.0% 

Tennessee 11.45 2.13 5.32 2.93 1.06 53.22 21.5% 4.0% 

Texas 35.40 4.97 16.39 14.04 0.00 239.62 14.8% 2.1% 

Utah 6.98 1.40 2.88 2.00 0.70 34.90 20.0% 4.0% 

Vermont 6.71 1.40 1.29 3.32 0.70 34.90 19.2% 4.0% 

Virginia 14.15 3.50 1.18 7.84 1.63 87.51 16.2% 4.0% 

Washington 30.65 4.49 11.23 12.68 2.25 97.80 31.3% 4.6% 

West Virginia 5.10 0.79 1.96 1.83 0.53 27.14 18.8% 2.9% 

Wisconsin 10.40 2.86 2.04 4.27 1.23 71.50 14.6% 4.0% 

Wyoming 3.12 1.71 0.00 1.26 0.16 42.69 7.3% 4.0% 

1 Set-aside amounts awarded net of any transfers of set-aside amounts into/(out of) the set-aside category.

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-20: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside Expenses, by State 

State 

Small 

Systems 

Technical 

Assistance

State

Program

Management

Small

Systems

Technical

Assistance

Total

Local 

Assistance 

and 1452(k) 

Activities Administrative

Sta

Prog

Manag

(Millions of Dollars)

Administrative

As a Percent of Net Amount Awarded for 

U.S. Total 75.33 24.26 67.79 55.6% 244.62 77.24 44.8% 46

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Total

42.5%

Set-Aside Expenses

Alabama 2.47 0.60 0.30 0.96 0.61 31.3 44.5 5137.0

Alaska 2.25 1.02 0.13 1.10 0.00 51.7 35.9 44.4

Arizona 3.98 1.44 0.40 1.92 0.22 75.5 50.9 2349.8

Arkansas 3.21 0.64 0.03 1.35 1.20 36.2 4.0 3525.9

California 9.27 5.31 2.12 1.61 0.23 56.8 45.4 2430.1

Colorado 1.55 0.94 0.12 0.49 0.00 50.1 14.3 016.6

Connecticut 3.73 1.15 0.47 0.81 1.30 65.4 54.1 2927.5

Delaware 2.95 0.71 0.32 0.84 1.08 65.7 58.5 5338.8

Florida 7.19 3.16 1.30 1.10 1.63 59.7 48.9 3044.2

Georgia 5.79 0.60 0.62 1.60 2.97 26.3 54.6 5244.6

Hawaii 1.95 0.52 0.00 0.49 0.94 37.6 0.4 2625.9

Idaho 4.40 0.90 0.36 2.30 0.84 62.0 70.0 6759.5

Illinois 4.71 2.81 0.00 1.90 0.00 49.0 - 49.2

Indiana 0.46 0.25 0.00 0.21 0.00 14.0 0.0 07.4

Iowa 1.63 0.21 0.53 0.88 0.00 10.2 51.1 33.9

Kansas 1.25 0.78 0.36 0.10 0.00 34.5 32.2 017.3

Kentucky 1.96 1.12 0.00 0.84 0.00 59.9 0.0 024.3

Louisiana 2.62 0.93 0.27 0.32 1.10 56.9 35.3 2727.5

Maine 5.02 0.97 0.47 2.14 1.45 69.6 67.1 5358.6

Maryland 4.89 1.45 0.53 1.21 1.69 90.9 82.1 6755.9

Massachusetts 9.95 2.87 0.93 2.30 3.84 72.6 46.6 4852.8

Michigan 13.76 3.19 0.49 8.10 1.98 53.9 42.4 5566.9

Minnesota 6.75 2.71 0.53 3.32 0.18 85.4 55.9 4373.0

Mississippi 2.69 1.62 0.51 0.56 0.00 95.7 59.8 056.5

* Less than 0.05%

1 Set-aside amounts awarded net of any transfers of set-aside amounts into/(out of) the set-aside category.

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-20: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside Expenses, by State

State 

Small 

Systems 

Technical 

Assistance

State

Program

Management

Small

Systems

Technical

Assistance

Total

Local 

Assistance 

and 1452(k) 

Activities Administrative

Sta

Prog

Manag

(Millions of Dollars)

Administrative

As a Percent of Net Amount Awarded for 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Total

Set-Aside Expenses

Missouri 4.89 1.05 0.54 0.95 2.35 63.5 65.1 5655.5

Montana 2.53 1.28 0.29 0.37 0.60 71.0 48.7 4047.3

Nebraska 2.00 0.98 0.22 0.41 0.40 56.8 25.5 2722.3

Nevada 2.77 0.86 0.34 0.68 0.89 61.4 51.0 3238.3

New Hampshire 3.51 0.58 0.64 1.44 0.86 68.9 88.0 7042.9

New Jersey 6.94 3.29 0.12 1.79 1.73 100.0 20.6 7577.3

New Mexico 4.22 0.61 0.63 1.12 1.85 56.1 115.7 6749.8

New York 15.54 7.78 1.91 3.63 2.23 77.8 38.3 3557.1

North Carolina 6.50 1.18 1.07 2.09 2.17 40.7 73.9 5543.7

North Dakota 1.39 0.93 0.32 0.13 0.00 66.9 59.5 43.5

Ohio 5.31 1.65 0.87 2.80 0.00 35.9 47.0 37.1

Oklahoma 5.95 1.21 0.58 2.96 1.20 65.0 62.3 4953.9

Oregon 4.09 1.58 0.24 1.80 0.47 65.4 18.7 2539.8

Pennsylvania 12.48 3.27 1.15 4.32 3.74 55.2 38.9 2527.2

Puerto Rico 0.69 0.34 0.11 0.20 0.05 19.0 12.4 2116.7

Rhode Island 1.27 0.18 0.06 0.45 0.57 16.3 15.6 4829.4

South Carolina 1.54 0.90 0.16 0.48 0.00 57.8 36.5 44.2

South Dakota 1.08 0.95 0.13 0.00 0.00 55.4 44.1 2132.5

Tennessee 5.35 1.01 0.44 1.20 2.70 47.4 41.4 5046.7

Texas 17.70 2.35 0.00 2.29 13.06 47.4 - 7950.0

Utah 4.16 0.67 0.42 1.14 1.93 48.1 60.8 6659.6

Vermont 3.05 1.12 0.44 1.09 0.40 80.5 62.8 3145.5

Virginia 5.78 1.45 0.48 2.91 0.94 41.5 29.3 7940.8

Washington 13.37 2.43 1.30 3.47 6.17 54.0 57.8 5543.6

West Virginia 3.85 0.45 0.53 0.90 1.98 56.8 99.6 10175.5

Wisconsin 3.77 0.98 0.46 2.08 0.25 34.3 37.3 1236.2

Wyoming 0.46 0.36 0.00 0.10 0.00 21.0 0.0 14.7

* Less than 0.05%

1 Set-aside amounts awarded net of any transfers of set-aside amounts into/(out of) the set-aside category.

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
State 

Net Amount 

Awarded

DWSRF 

Administrative 

Expenses

Technical 

Assistance

Total 

Expenses

Remaining 

Amount

Expenses 

a Percent 

Net Amou

Awarde

Millions of Dollars

$135.39 U.S. Total $74.50 $0.84 $75.33 $60.05 55.6%

Appendix B-21: Drinking Water SRF Administrative Expense Set-Aside, by State

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Alabama 1.94 0.60 1.33 0.60 0.00 31.3

Alaska 1.98 1.02 0.95 1.02 0.00 51.7

Arizona 1.90 1.44 0.47 1.44 0.00 75.5

Arkansas 1.77 0.64 1.13 0.64 0.00 36.2

California 9.34 5.31 4.03 5.31 0.00 56.8

Colorado 1.87 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.00 50.1

Connecticut 1.75 1.15 0.60 1.15 0.00 65.4

Delaware 1.09 0.71 0.37 0.71 0.00 65.7

Florida 5.30 3.16 2.13 3.16 0.00 59.7

Georgia 2.28 0.60 1.68 0.60 0.00 26.3

Hawaii 1.40 0.52 0.87 0.52 0.00 37.6

Idaho 1.46 0.90 0.56 0.90 0.00 62.0

Illinois 5.73 2.81 2.92 2.81 0.00 49.0

Indiana 1.79 0.23 1.54 0.25 0.02 14.0

Iowa 2.08 0.21 1.87 0.21 0.00 10.2

Kansas 2.26 0.78 1.48 0.78 0.00 34.5

Kentucky 1.86 1.12 0.75 1.12 0.00 59.9

Louisiana 1.63 0.93 0.70 0.93 0.00 56.9

Maine 1.39 0.97 0.42 0.97 0.00 69.6

Maryland 1.60 1.45 0.15 1.45 0.00 90.9

Massachusetts 3.95 2.87 1.08 2.87 0.00 72.6

Michigan 5.92 3.19 2.73 3.19 0.00 53.9

Minnesota 3.17 2.71 0.46 2.71 0.00 85.4

Mississippi 1.70 1.62 0.07 1.62 0.00 95.7

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 saad
State 

Net Amount 

Awarded

DWSRF 

Administrative 

Expenses

Technical 

Assistance

Total 

Expenses

Remaining 

Amount

Expenses 

a Percent 

Net Amou

Awarde

Millions of Dollars

Appendix B-21: Drinking Water SRF Administrative Expense Set-Aside, by State

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Missouri 1.66 1.05 0.61 1.05 0.00 63.5

Montana 1.80 1.28 0.52 1.28 0.00 71.0

Nebraska 1.72 0.98 0.74 0.98 0.00 56.8

Nevada 1.40 0.86 0.54 0.86 0.00 61.4

New Hampshire 0.84 0.58 0.26 0.58 0.00 68.9

New Jersey 3.29 3.29 0.00 3.29 0.00 100.0

New Mexico 1.09 0.51 0.48 0.61 0.10 56.1

New York 9.99 7.78 2.22 7.78 0.00 77.8

North Carolina 2.90 1.18 1.72 1.18 0.00 40.7

North Dakota 1.40 0.93 0.46 0.93 0.00 66.9

Ohio 4.58 1.65 2.94 1.65 0.00 35.9

Oklahoma 1.86 1.21 0.65 1.21 0.00 65.0

Oregon 2.41 1.34 0.84 1.58 0.24 65.4

Pennsylvania 5.92 3.27 2.66 3.27 0.00 55.2

Puerto Rico 1.79 0.34 1.45 0.34 0.00 19.0

Rhode Island 1.09 0.18 0.91 0.18 0.00 16.3

South Carolina 1.56 0.90 0.66 0.90 0.00 57.8

South Dakota 1.71 0.95 0.76 0.95 0.00 55.4

Tennessee 2.13 1.01 1.12 1.01 0.00 47.4

Texas 4.97 2.35 2.61 2.35 0.00 47.4

Utah 1.40 0.67 0.72 0.67 0.00 48.1

Vermont 1.40 1.12 0.27 1.12 0.00 80.5

Virginia 3.50 0.98 2.05 1.45 0.47 41.5

Washington 4.49 2.43 2.07 2.43 0.00 54.0

West Virginia 0.79 0.45 0.34 0.45 0.00 56.8

Wisconsin 2.86 0.98 1.88 0.98 0.00 34.3

Wyoming 1.71 0.36 1.35 0.36 0.00 21.0

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 saad
Appendix B-22: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Small System Technical Assistance, by Stat

State 

Net Amount 

Awarded Expenses

Remaining

Amount

Number 

of Systems

Receiving

Assistance

Expenses as

a Percent of

Net Amount

Awarded

Millions of Dollars

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

54.18 U.S. Total 24.26 29.92 55,574 44.8%

Alabama 0.67 0.30 0.37 236 44.5

Alaska 0.36 0.13 0.23 63 35.9

Arizona 0.78 0.40 0.38 1,613 50.9

Arkansas 0.67 0.03 0.64 30 4.0

California 4.67 2.12 2.55 3,340 45.4

Colorado 0.86 0.12 1.02 1,715 14.3

Connecticut 0.88 0.47 0.40 644 54.1

Delaware 0.54 0.32 0.23 221 58.5

Florida 2.65 1.30 1.35 6,710 48.9

Georgia 1.14 0.62 0.52 1,301 54.6

Hawaii 0.70 0.00 0.70 0 * 

Idaho 0.52 0.36 0.22 2,474 70.0

Illinois 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 - 

Indiana 0.70 0.00 0.70 0 0.0

Iowa 1.04 0.53 0.51 1,555 51.1

Kansas 1.13 0.36 0.77 502 32.2

Kentucky 0.68 0.00 0.68 0 0.0

Louisiana 0.77 0.27 0.50 1,559 35.3

Maine 0.69 0.47 0.23 2,329 67.1

Maryland 0.64 0.53 0.12 1,240 82.1

Massachusetts 2.01 0.93 1.07 3,187 46.6

Michigan 1.16 0.49 2.47 829 42.4

Minnesota 0.95 0.53 0.42 2,342 55.9

Mississippi 0.85 0.51 0.34 1,844 59.8

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 sasstst
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Appendix B-22: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Small System Technical Assistance, by State 

State

Net Amount 

Awarded Expenses

Remaining

Amount

Number 

of Systems

Receiving

Assistance

Expenses as

a Percent of

Net Amount

Awarded

Millions of Dollars

Missouri 0.83 0.54 0.29 28 65.1

Montana 0.59 0.29 0.30 290 48.7

Nebraska 0.86 0.22 0.64 205 25.5

Nevada 0.67 0.34 0.36 155 51.0

New Hampshire 0.72 0.64 0.09 607 88.0

New Jersey 0.60 0.12 0.48 164 20.6

New Mexico 0.55 0.63 -0.09 886 115.7

New York 5.00 1.91 3.08 565 38.3

North Carolina 1.45 1.07 0.38 10,854 73.9

North Dakota 0.54 0.32 0.22 380 59.5

Ohio 1.85 0.87 0.98 219 47.0

Oklahoma 0.93 0.58 0.41 1,900 62.3

Oregon 1.27 0.24 1.03 127 18.7

Pennsylvania 2.96 1.15 1.81 0 38.9

Puerto Rico 0.89 0.11 0.78 292 12.4

Rhode Island 0.40 0.06 0.34 210 15.6

South Carolina 0.45 0.16 0.29 31 36.5

South Dakota 0.30 0.13 0.17 250 44.1

Tennessee 1.06 0.44 0.62 881 41.4

Texas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 - 

Utah 0.70 0.42 0.27 1,996 60.8

Vermont 0.70 0.44 0.26 515 62.8

Virginia 1.63 0.48 1.15 666 29.3

Washington 2.25 1.30 0.95 0 57.8

West Virginia 0.53 0.53 0.00 619 99.6

Wisconsin 1.23 0.46 0.77 0 37.3

Wyoming 0.16 0.00 0.16 0 0.0

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 sasstst
Appendix B-23: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Program Management, by State

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Ne t 

Amount

Awarde d

PWSS

Administration

SWP

Technical

Assistance

O pe rator

Ce rtification

Programs

Capacity 

Development

Total 

Expenses

Remaining

Amount

Millions of Dollars

State 

E

a 

N

146.64 42.74 78.86 U.S. Total 12.17 7.26 5.61 67.79 

Alabama 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.61 0.05 1.19 0.58 

Alaska 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Arizona 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.93 0.71 

Arkansas 1.20 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 3.33 2.13 

California 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.93 0.71 

Colorado 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 

Connecticut 1.30 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 4.38 3.07 

Delaware 0.46 0.30 0.07 1.08 0.26 2.04 0.96 

Florida 1.03 0.60 0.00 1.63 0.00 5.39 3.76 

Georgia 0.53 1.53 0.87 2.97 0.04 5.70 2.73 

Hawaii 0.70 0.02 0.00 0.94 0.22 3.49 2.55 

Idaho 0.48 0.00 0.35 0.84 0.00 1.25 0.41 

Illinois 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Indiana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42 1.42 

Iowa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Kansas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.40 2.40 

Kentucky 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.48 2.48 

Louisiana 1.10 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 4.08 2.98 

Maine 0.79 0.43 0.14 1.45 0.09 2.72 1.27 

Maryland 1.69 0.00 0.00 1.69 0.00 2.51 0.82 

Massachusetts 1.32 1.22 0.14 3.84 1.16 7.88 4.04 

Michigan 0.00 0.65 0.70 1.98 0.63 3.55 1.57 

Minnesota 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.41 0.23 

Mississippi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 

* Less than 0.05%

2/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-23: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Program Management, by State

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Ne t 

Amount

Awarde d

PWSS

Administration

SWP

Technical

Assistance

O pe rator

Ce rtification

Programs

Capacity 

Development

Total 

Expenses

Remaining

Amount

Millions of Dollars

State 

E

a 

N

Missouri 2.35 0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 4.15 1.80 

Montana 0.24 0.19 0.12 0.60 0.04 1.48 0.88 

Nebraska 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.48 1.08 

Nevada 0.36 0.45 0.08 0.89 0.00 2.70 1.81 

New Hampshire 0.10 0.76 0.00 0.86 0.00 1.21 0.35 

New Jersey 0.00 0.71 0.26 1.73 0.76 2.28 0.55 

New Mexico 1.16 0.00 0.68 1.85 0.00 2.73 0.89 

New York 0.00 0.00 0.45 2.23 1.78 6.31 4.09 

North Carolina 1.68 0.15 0.19 2.17 0.14 3.88 1.71 

North Dakota 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Ohio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Oklahoma 1.20 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 2.41 1.21 

Oregon 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 1.82 1.35 

Pennsylvania 0.00 3.19 0.55 3.74 0.00 14.81 11.07 

Puerto Rico 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.23 0.18 

Rhode Island 0.48 0.00 0.02 0.57 0.07 1.18 0.61 

South Carolina 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

South Dakota 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 

Tennessee 2.70 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.00 5.32 2.62 

Texas 10.89 1.13 0.03 13.06 1.02 16.39 3.32 

Utah 1.62 0.13 0.11 1.93 0.06 2.88 0.96 

Vermont 0.19 0.07 0.07 0.40 0.08 1.29 0.89 

Virginia 0.65 0.11 0.08 0.94 0.10 1.18 0.24 

Washington 6.17 0.00 0.00 6.17 0.00 11.23 5.06 

West Virginia 1.32 0.00 0.33 1.98 0.32 1.96 -0.02 

Wisconsin 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.25 0.07 2.04 1.79 

Wyoming 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

* Less than 0.05%

2/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Appendix B-24: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Local Assistance and Other State Programs (1452(k) 

State

Net 

Amount 

Awarded

Wellhead 

Protection

Total

Expenses/

Commitments

# of Systems 

Receiving 

Assistance

for SWP

# 

Rec

fo

B

Millions of Dollars

Loans for

SWP Land

Acquisition

Loans for

Incentive-Based

SWP Measures

Technical or

Financial 

Assistance

Remaining

Amount

Number of

Acres of Land

Acquired

for SWP

SWP Area 

Delineation/

Assessment

1.86 U.S. Total 14.91 11.27 8 239.63 0.00 77.24 162.39 1,400 49.20 

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Alabama 2.89 0.31 0.96 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 0 0.65 

Alaska 2.74 0.06 1.10 0 

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 0 1.04 

Arizona 4.37 0.54 1.92 0 

0.00 0.00 0.11 2.45 0 1.27 

Arkansas 6.65 0.50 1.35 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.31 0 0.84 

California 15.81 0.00 1.61 0 

0.00 0.00 0.00 14.20 0 1.61 

Colorado 5.61 0.04 0.49 0 0.00 0.00 0.08 5.11 0 0.36 

Connecticut 6.56 0.50 0.81 0 0.00 0.00 0.12 5.75 0 0.19 

Delaware 3.93 0.46 0.84 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 0 0.38 

Florida 2.93 0.00 1.10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 0 1.10 

Georgia 3.87 0.12 1.60 0 0.00 0.00 1.09 2.27 0 0.39 

Hawaii 1.95 0.00 0.49 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.46 0 0.49 

Idaho 4.18 0.26 2.30 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.88 0 1.99 

Illinois 3.85 0.00 1.90 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.95 0 1.90 

Indiana 2.31 0.00 0.21 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 0 0.21 

Iowa 1.69 0.00 0.88 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0 0.88 

Kansas 1.41 0.00 0.10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 0 0.10 

Kentucky 3.01 0.43 0.84 1 0.36 0.00 0.00 2.17 180 0.06 

Louisiana 3.06 0.00 0.32 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.74 0 0.32 

Maine 3.76 0.36 2.14 4 1.30 0.00 0.08 1.62 1,169 0.39 

Maryland 3.98 0.48 1.21 0 

0.00 0.00 0.32 2.77 0 0.42 

Massachusetts 4.98 0.97 2.30 0 

0.00 0.00 0.44 2.68 0 0.90 

Michigan 9.94 3.30 8.10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0 4.80 

Minnesota 4.71 2.11 3.32 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0 1.21 

Mississippi 1.65 0.00 0.56 0 

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 0 0.56 

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 1 of 2 
Appendix B-24: Drinking Water SRF Set-Aside for Local Assistance and Other State Programs (1452(k) A

State 

Net 

Amount 

Awarded

Wellhead 

Protection

Total

Expenses/

Commitments

# of Systems 

Receiving 

Assistance

for SWP

# 

Rec

fo

B

Millions of Dollars

Loans for

SWP Land

Acquisition

Loans for

Incentive-Based

SWP Measures

Technical or

Financial 

Assistance

Remaining

Amount

Number of

Acres of Land

Acquired

for SWP

SWP Area 

Delineation/

Assessment

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2001

Missouri 2.19 0.00 0.95 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 0 0.95 

Montana 1.48 0.00 0.37 0 

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 0 0.37 

Nebraska 4.94 0.00 0.41 0 

0.00 0.00 0.00 4.53 0 0.41 

Nevada 2.49 0.33 0.68 0 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.80 0 0.25 

New Hampshire 5.41 0.35 1.44 0 

0.00 0.00 0.00 3.97 0 1.09 

New Jersey 2.79 0.00 1.79 0 

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 1.79 

New Mexico 4.10 0.30 1.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.30 2.98 0 0.53 

New York 5.92 0.00 3.63 0 0.00 0.00 1.78 2.29 0 1.85 

North Carolina 6.65 1.22 2.09 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.56 0 0.87 

North Dakota 1.26 0.00 0.13 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 0 0.13 

Ohio 7.88 0.04 2.80 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.09 0 2.76 

Oklahoma 5.84 0.88 2.96 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.88 0 2.08 

Oregon 4.77 0.52 1.80 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.96 0 1.28 

Pennsylvania 22.21 0.22 4.32 0 0.00 0.00 2.91 17.89 0 1.19 

Puerto Rico 1.26 0.00 0.20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 0 0.20 

Rhode Island 1.63 0.00 0.45 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.18 0 0.45 

South Carolina 1.48 0.00 0.48 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 0.48 

South Dakota 1.31 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 0 0.00 

Tennessee 2.93 0.13 1.20 0 0.00 0.00 0.26 1.73 0 0.81 

Texas 14.04 0.00 2.29 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.76 0 2.29 

Utah 2.00 0.00 1.14 0 

0.00 0.00 0.84 0.86 0 0.30 

Vermont 3.32 0.00 1.09 3 0.20 0.00 0.70 2.24 51 0.19 

Virginia 7.84 0.00 2.91 0 0.00 0.00 1.46 4.94 0 1.45 

Washington 12.68 0.00 3.47 0 0.00 0.00 0.65 9.21 0 2.82 

West Virginia 1.83 0.44 0.90 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0 0.46 

Wisconsin 4.27 0.05 2.08 0 

0.00 0.00 0.00 2.19 0 2.03 

Wyoming 1.26 0.00 0.10 0 

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 0 0.10 

* Less than 0.05%

1/11/02 Page 2 of 2 
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

Federal and State Investment For Federal Fiscal Year Ending September 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Data Entered by EPA

Federal Grants (Dollars)

1 Date of Last Award in the Year - - - - -

2 Total Annual Federal Grants $358,688,795 $1,212,086,566 $768,100,787 $825,466,036 $774,452,276 

3 *Cumulative Federal Grants $358,688,795 $1,570,775,361 $2,338,876,148 $3,164,342,184 $3,938,794,460 

Transfer of Federal Funds Between DWSRF and CWSRF

4 Amount of Federal Funds Transferred into DWSRF Fund $0 $0 $0 $12,059,287 $0 

5 Amount of Federal Funds Transferred out of DWSRF Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

6 *Net Transfer into/(out of) DWSRF $0 $0 $0 $12,059,287 $0 

7 *Cumulative Net Transfer into/(out of) DWSRF $0 $0 $0 $12,059,287 $12,059,287 

Quarterly Outlays (Dollars)

8 First Quarter Outlays $0 $2,326,772 $63,960,220 $135,259,176 $169,739,653 

9 Second Quarter Outlays $0 $7,448,804 $81,537,395 $108,396,519 $133,346,768 

10 Third Quarter Outlays $1,091 $25,468,367 $100,390,887 $113,792,136 $185,445,359 

11 Fourth Quarter Outlays $177,364 $56,006,286 $138,862,697 $219,642,717 $250,157,726 

12 *Total Annual Outlays $178,455 $91,250,228 $384,751,198 $577,090,548 $738,689,506 

13 *Cumulative Outlays $178,455 $91,428,683 $476,179,881 $1,053,270,429 $1,791,959,935 

* Calculated values.

Page 1 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

Federal and State Investment For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

DWSRF Fund Investment Summary (Calculated Values)

14 *Annual Capitalization Grants $64,662,611 $716,148,998 $1,058,699,740 $893,957,467 $914,943,044 

15 *Cumulative Capitalization Grants $64,662,611 $780,811,609 $1,839,511,349 $2,733,468,816 $3,648,411,860 

Adjustments to the DWSRF Fund 

16 *Annual Net Transfers with CWSRF into/(out of) the DWSRF Fund (from line 43) $0 $0 $8,171,526 $87,417,113 $51,600,786 

17 *Annual Amount (Awarded) for Set-Asides (from line 111) ($10,121,078) ($139,360,464) ($179,138,276) ($128,381,058) ($136,024,494)

18 *Annual Amount of Transfers into DWSRF Fund from Set-Asides (from line 113) $0 $0 $840,495 $11,727,306 $4,615,179 

19 *Annual Net Federal Contributions Adjusted for Transfers and Set-Asides $54,541,533 $576,788,534 $888,573,485 $864,720,828 $835,134,515 

20 *Cumulative Net Federal Contributions Adjusted for Transfers and Set-Asides $54,541,533 $631,330,067 $1,519,903,552 $2,384,624,380 $3,219,758,895 

21 *Annual State Contributions $30,019,548 $165,642,118 $201,851,537 $175,482,504 $200,399,565 

22 *Cumulative State Contributions $30,019,548 $195,661,666 $397,513,203 $572,995,707 $773,395,272 

23 *Annual Net Investments for the DWSRF Fund $84,561,081 $742,430,652 $1,090,425,022 $1,040,203,332 $1,035,534,080 

24 *Cumulative Net Investments for the DWSRF Fund $84,561,081 $826,991,733 $1,917,416,755 $2,957,620,087 $3,993,154,167 

25 *State Contributions as a % of Grants - Annual 46% 23% 19% 20% 22%

26 *State Contributions as a % of Grants - Cumulative 46% 25% 22% 21% 21%

Outlays (Dollars)

27 *Annual $178,455 $35,421,307 $301,894,787 $496,310,527 $708,174,497 

28 *Cumulative $178,455 $35,599,761 $337,494,548 $833,805,076 $1,541,979,573 

State Match Contributions Deposited (Dollars)

29 Cash or Appropriations $19,365,448 $132,112,578 $140,507,967 $116,072,121 $138,299,594 

30 Bonds Retired Outside the DWSRF Fund $10,654,100 $25,048,780 $27,089,080 $28,265,776 $22,596,580 

31 Bonds Retired from the DWSRF Fund $0 $8,480,760 $34,254,490 $31,115,447 $37,360,191 

32 Pre-existing Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

33 Other Sources $0 $0 $0 $29,160 $2,143,200 

34 *Total Annual Match Contributions $30,019,548 $165,642,118 $201,851,537 $175,482,504 $200,399,565 

35 *Cumulative Match Contributions $30,019,548 $195,661,666 $397,513,203 $572,995,707 $773,395,272 

Additional Match for State Program Management Activities (Dollars)

36 Credit for 1993 Funding Used $638,810 $7,011,667 $8,087,721 $9,980,369 $11,715,442 

37 Cash Contributions Deposited $0 $3,060,526 $4,735,967 $3,841,661 $4,828,931 

38 Contributions as In-Kind Services $4,150,439 $11,933,451 $14,053,940 $18,230,743 $25,132,942 

39 *Total Annual Additional Contribution $4,789,249 $22,005,644 $26,877,628 $32,052,773 $41,677,315 

40 *Cumulative Additional Contribution $4,789,249 $26,794,893 $53,672,521 $85,725,294 $127,402,609 

Net Transfer of Funds with CWSRF into/(out of) the DWSRF Fund

41 *Annual Net Transfer of Federal Funds with CWSRF into/(out of) the DWSRF Fund $0 $0 $0 $12,059,287 $0 

42 $0 $0 $8,171,526 $75,357,826 $51,600,786 

43 *Total Annual Net Amount Transferred $0 $0 $8,171,526 $87,417,113 $51,600,786 

44 *Cumulative Total Net Amount Transferred $0 $0 $8,171,526 $95,588,639 $147,189,425 

* Calculated values.

Annual Net Transfer of Non-Federal Funds with CWSRF into/(out of) the DWSRF Fund

Page 2 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

Set-Asides For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Administrative Expenses (Dollars)

45 Amount Awarded for Inclusion in Workplans $3,161,828 $30,762,370 $36,894,378 $34,164,915 $30,531,637 

46 *Annual Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded 4.9% 4.3% 3.5% 3.8% 3.3%

47 Amount Transferred to/(from) Administrative Expenses $0 $0 ($1,290) ($126,951) ($6)

48 *Annual Amount Awarded and Transferred $3,161,828 $30,762,370 $36,893,088 $34,037,964 $30,531,631 

49 *Cumulative Amount Awarded, Including Transfers $3,161,828 $33,924,198 $70,817,286 $104,855,250 $135,386,881 

50 Annual Expenses - DWSRF Administration $327,240 $7,738,469 $20,784,220 $22,658,686 $22,988,196 

51 Annual Expenses - Technical Assistance $0 $0 $42,313 $348,139 $446,906 

52 *Total Annual Administrative Expenses $327,240 $7,738,469 $20,826,533 $23,006,825 $23,435,102 

53 *Cumulative Administrative Expenses $327,240 $8,065,709 $28,892,243 $51,899,068 $75,334,170 

54 *Remaining Awarded Amount $2,834,588 $25,858,489 $41,925,043 $52,956,182 $60,052,711 

Small Systems Technical Assistance

55 Amount Awarded for Inclusion in Workplans $515,500 $11,465,333 $18,290,214 $12,358,710 $13,785,142 

56 *Annual Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded 0.8% 1.6% 1.7% 1.4% 1.5%

57 Amount Transferred to/(from) Small Systems Technical Assistance $0 $0 $0 ($1,956,977) ($281,532)

58 *Annual Amount Awarded and Transferred $515,500 $11,465,333 $18,290,214 $10,401,733 $13,503,610 

59 *Cumulative Amount Awarded, Including Transfers $515,500 $11,980,833 $30,271,047 $40,672,780 $54,176,390 

60 Annual Expenses - Small System Technical Assistance $0 $671,135 $4,374,029 $9,089,525 $10,123,738 

61 *Cumulative Small Systems Technical Assistance Expenses $0 $671,135 $5,045,165 $14,134,690 $24,258,429 

62 *Remaining Awarded Amount $515,500 $11,309,698 $25,225,882 $26,538,090 $29,917,961 

63 Annual Number of Systems Receiving Assistance 0 1,252 16,068 20,923 17,331

64 *Cumulative Number of Small Systems Receiving Technical Assistance 0 1,252 17,320 38,243 55,574

State Program Management (Dollars)

65 Amount Awarded for Inclusion in Workplans $2,577,500 $21,594,160 $45,996,143 $41,607,723 $40,536,940 

66 *Annual Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded 4.0% 3.0% 4.3% 4.7% 4.4%

67 Amount Transferred to/(from) State Program Management $0 $483,000 $0 ($5,286,983) ($863,562)

68 *Annual Amount Awarded and Transferred $2,577,500 $22,077,160 $45,996,143 $36,320,740 $39,673,378 

69 *Cumulative Amount Awarded, Including Transfers $2,577,500 $24,654,660 $70,650,803 $106,971,543 $146,644,921 

70 Annual Expenses - PWSS Administration $0 $1,599,206 $9,797,246 $15,834,920 $15,513,298 

71 *Cumulative Expenses - PWSS Administration $0 $1,599,206 $11,396,453 $27,231,372 $42,744,670 

72 Annual Expenses - Source Water Protection Technical Assistance $0 $643,531 $2,082,215 $3,821,233 $5,624,004 

73 *Cumulative Expenses - Source Water Protection Technical Assistance $0 $643,531 $2,725,746 $6,546,979 $12,170,984 

74 Annual Expenses - Capacity Development $0 $98,298 $1,118,426 $2,581,511 $3,465,404 

75 *Cumulative Expenses - Capacity Development $0 $98,298 $1,216,724 $3,798,234 $7,263,639 

76 Annual Expenses - Operator Certification Programs $0 $214,682 $988,521 $1,994,015 $2,412,060 

77 *Cumulative Expenses - Operator Certification Programs $0 $214,682 $1,203,203 $3,197,218 $5,609,278 

78 *Total Annual State Program Management Expenses $0 $2,555,717 $13,986,408 $24,231,678 $27,014,767 

79 *Cumulative State Program Management Expenses $0 $2,555,717 $16,542,125 $40,773,804 $67,788,571 

80 *Remaining Awarded Amount $2,577,500 $22,098,943 $54,108,678 $66,197,739 $78,856,350 

* Calculated values.

Page 3 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

Set-Asides For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Local Assistance and Other State Programs (1452(k) Activities)

81 Amount Awarded for Inclusion in Workplans $3,866,250 $75,538,601 $77,957,541 $40,249,710 $51,170,775 

82 *Annual Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded 6.0% 10.5% 7.4% 4.5% 5.6%

83 Amount Transferred to/(from) 1452(k) Activities $0 ($483,000) ($839,205) ($4,356,395) ($3,470,079)

84 *Annual Amount Awarded and Transferred $3,866,250 $75,055,601 $77,118,336 $35,893,315 $47,700,696 

85 *Cumulative Amount Awarded, Including Transfers $3,866,250 $78,921,851 $156,040,187 $191,933,502 $239,634,198 

Loans for Source Water Protection Land Acquisition/Conservation Easements

86 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans $0 $0 $570,000 $1,063,778 $225,000 

87 *Cumulative Dollar Amount of Loans $0 $0 $570,000 $1,633,778 $1,858,778 

88 Annual Number of Systems Receiving Assistance 0 0 2 4 2

89 *Cumulative Number of Systems Receiving Assistance 0 0 2 6 8

90 Annual Number of Acres of Land Acquired for SWP 0 0 435 945 20

91 *Cumulative Number of Acres of Land Acquired for SWP 0 0 435 1,380 1,400

Loans for Incentive-Based Source Water Protection Measures

92 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

93 *Cumulative Dollar Amount of Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

94 Annual Number of Systems Receiving Assistance 0 0 0 0 0

95 *Cumulative Number of Systems Receiving Assistance 0 0 0 0 0

Source Water Protection Area Delineation/Assessment

96 Annual Expenses - SWP Area Delineation/Assessment $0 $1,059,365 $9,649,854 $16,129,598 $22,357,142 

97 *Cumulative Expenses - SWP Area Delineation/Assessment $0 $1,059,365 $10,709,219 $26,838,817 $49,195,959 

Wellhead Protection Programs

98 Annual Expenses - Wellhead Protection Programs $0 $232,903 $2,586,812 $5,016,673 $6,977,293 

99 Annual Dollar Amount of Wellhead Protection Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 

100 Annual Number of Wellhead Protection Loans 0 0 0 0 1

101 *Cumulative Expenses/Loans - Wellhead Protection Programs $0 $232,903 $2,819,716 $7,836,389 $14,913,681 

Technical or Financial Assistance to PWSs for Capacity Development

102 Annual Expenses - Technical or Financial Assistance to PWSs $0 $451,322 $2,186,107 $3,321,338 $4,762,826 

103 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans under the Capacity Development Strategy $0 $0 $226,450 $197,227 $127,980 

104 Annual Number of Loans under the Capacity Development Strategy 0 0 7 6 3

105 *Cumulative Expenses/Loans - Technical or Financial Assistance to PWSs $0 $451,322 $2,863,879 $6,382,445 $11,273,250 

106 Annual Number of Systems Receiving Assistance 0 734 1,096 1,200 2,581

107 *Cumulative Number of Systems Receiving Assistance 0 734 1,830 3,030 5,611

108 *Total Annual 1452(k) Activity Dollars $0 $1,743,590 $15,219,224 $25,728,615 $34,550,241 

109 *Cumulative 1452(k) Activity Dollars $0 $1,743,590 $16,962,813 $42,691,429 $77,241,669 

110 *Remaining Awarded Amount $3,866,250 $77,178,261 $139,077,374 $149,242,073 $162,392,529 

Set-Aside Summary

111 *Annual Total Awarded Amount for Set-Asides $10,121,078 $139,360,464 $179,138,276 $128,381,058 $136,024,494 

112 *Cumulative Total Awarded Amount for Set-Asides $10,121,078 $149,481,542 $328,619,818 $457,000,876 $593,025,370 

113 *Annual Net Transfers from Awarded Amounts to DWSRF Fund $0 $0 $840,495 $11,727,306 $4,615,179 

114 *Cumulative Net Transfers from Awarded Amounts to DWSRF Fund $0 $0 $840,495 $12,567,801 $17,182,980 

115 *Annual Net Total Amount Awarded for Set-Asides $10,121,078 $139,360,464 $178,297,781 $116,653,752 $131,409,315 

116 *Cumulative Net Total Amount Awarded for Set-Asides $10,121,078 $149,481,542 $327,779,323 $444,433,075 $575,842,390 

117 *Cumulative Net Total Amount Awarded as a % of Grants Awarded 15.7% 19.1% 17.8% 16.3% 15.8%

118 *Total Annual Set-Aside Activity Dollars Expended/Committed $327,240 $12,708,912 $54,406,194 $82,056,644 $95,123,848 

119 *Cumulative Set-Aside Activity Dollars Expended/Committed $327,240 $13,036,152 $67,442,346 $149,498,990 $244,622,839 

120 *Cumulative Remaining Awarded Amount for Set-Asides $9,793,838 $136,445,390 $260,336,977 $294,934,085 $331,219,551 

* Calculated values.

Page 4 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

DWSRF Fund Assistance For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Binding Commitments

121 Annual Dollar Amount $19,700,619 $324,139,770 $1,051,353,200 $1,341,780,773 $1,303,288,113 

122 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $19,700,619 $343,840,389 $1,395,193,589 $2,736,974,362 $4,040,262,475 

123 Annual Number of Binding Commitments 10 165 494 624 619

124 *Cumulative Number of Binding Commitments 10 175 669 1,293 1,912

Type of DWSRF Assistance Provided (Dollars)

125 Executed Loan Commitments $887,366 $255,743,357 $679,728,762 $1,186,172,996 $1,191,460,756 

126 Refinance Short-term Debt $0 $3,555,530 $34,198,700 $9,642,143 $10,259,434 

127 Refinance Long-term Debt $0 $78,730,152 $192,069,901 $8,501,260 $113,337,544 

128 Guarantee or Purchase Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

129 *Total Annual Assistance $887,366 $338,029,039 $905,997,363 $1,204,316,399 $1,315,057,734 

130 *Cumulative Assistance $887,366 $338,916,405 $1,244,913,768 $2,449,230,167 $3,764,287,900 

Type of DWSRF Assistance Provided 

(Number of Assistance Agreements)

131 Executed Loan Commitments 1 133 411 551 574

132 Refinance Short-term Debt 0 2 11 5 6

133 Refinance Long-term Debt 0 36 15 12 19

134 Guarantee or Purchase Insurance 0 0 0 0 0

135 *Total Annual Number of Agreements 1 171 437 568 599

136 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 1 172 609 1,177 1,776

Assistance by Population Size (Dollars)

137 Less than 501 $0 $14,937,598 $20,668,245 $39,553,454 $53,336,148 

138 501 to 3,300 $0 $95,380,716 $165,095,806 $200,990,232 $238,993,010 

139 3,301 to 10,000 $887,366 $82,999,703 $152,973,352 $199,694,118 $261,040,289 

140 10,001 to 100,000 $0 $97,261,240 $265,888,483 $570,252,640 $562,699,176 

141 100,001 and Above $0 $47,449,782 $301,371,477 $193,825,955 $198,989,111 

142 *Total Annual Assistance $887,366 $338,029,039 $905,997,363 $1,204,316,399 $1,315,057,734 

143 *Cumulative Assistance $887,366 $338,916,405 $1,244,913,768 $2,449,230,167 $3,764,287,901 

Assistance by Population Size

(Number of Assistance Agreements)

144 Less than 501 0 30 70 103 108

145 501 to 3,300 0 62 177 199 216

146 3,301 to 10,000 1 45 93 111 123

147 10,001 to 100,000 0 28 81 126 118

148 100,001 and Above 0 6 16 29 34

149 *Total Annual Number of Agreements 1 171 437 568 599

150 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 1 172 609 1,177 1,776

* Calculated values.

Page 5 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

DWSRF Fund Assistance For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Drinking Water System Project Assistance

(Dollars in each category) Section moves to page 5 of printout

151 Planning and Design Only $0 $745,869 $6,812,094 $4,104,081 $8,853,536 

Construction

152 Treatment $0 $146,992,583 $359,092,837 $552,347,172 $553,378,470 

153 Transmission & Distribution $173,127 $84,398,367 $342,249,431 $307,597,899 $450,011,422 

154 Source $0 $16,795,191 $40,108,508 $73,934,688 $68,309,117 

155 Storage $714,239 $35,767,382 $59,176,439 $138,992,100 $120,653,257 

156 Purchase of Systems $0 $9,208,306 $879,194 $18,519,198 $30,881,166 

157 Restructuring $0 $2,066,852 $1,004,648 $20,549,643 $338,652 

158 Land Acquisition $0 $319,080 $1,054,938 $4,477,481 $6,326,821 

159 Other $0 $41,735,409 $95,619,273 $83,794,135 $76,305,292 

160 *Total Annual Dollar Amount $887,366 $338,029,039 $905,997,363 $1,204,316,399 $1,315,057,734 

161 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $887,366 $338,916,405 $1,244,913,768 $2,449,230,167 $3,764,287,900 

Drinking Water System Project Assistance

(Number in each category)**

162 Planning and Design Only 0 14 35 34 35

Construction

163 Treatment 0 62 144 208 199

164 Transmission & Distribution 1 74 201 283 355

165 Source 0 33 93 113 127

166 Storage 1 47 109 180 189

167 Purchase of Systems 0 3 2 6 7

168 Restructuring 0 7 6 5 1

169 Land Acquisition 0 10 30 37 61

170 Other 0 81 136 155 144

171 *Total Annual Number 2 331 756 1,021 1,118

172 *Cumulative Number 2 333 1,089 2,110 3,228

* Calculated values.

** Assistance Agreements may be counted in more than

 one category when they fund more than one category.

Page 6 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

DWSRF Fund Assistance For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number of Projects Funded

173 Annual Number of Projects Receiving Assistance 1 173 457 601 614

174 *Cumulative Number of Projects 1 174 631 1,232 1,846

DWSRF Project Starts 

175 Annual Dollar Amount $0 $281,949,839 $705,903,569 $1,020,212,533 $1,239,222,778 

176 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $281,949,839 $987,853,408 $2,008,065,941 $3,247,288,719 

177 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements 0 133 387 526 526

178 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 133 520 1,046 1,572

DWSRF Project Completions

179 Annual Dollar Amount $0 $122,543,791 $228,262,142 $529,621,206 $524,757,341 

180 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $122,543,791 $350,805,933 $880,427,139 $1,405,184,480 

181 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements 0 57 134 295 324

182 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 57 191 486 810

183 Number of Projects Completed 0 59 137 310 332

184 *Cumulative Number of Projects Completed 0 59 196 506 838

Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities 

185 Annual Dollar Amount of Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities $0 $23,206,278 $86,874,073 $226,629,809 $282,160,073 

186 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $23,206,278 $110,080,351 $336,710,160 $618,870,233 

187 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements 0 20 104 170 161

188 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 20 124 294 455

Assistance with Principal Forgiveness

189 Annual Dollar Amount of Assistance with Principal Forgiveness $0 $8,432,084 $31,968,690 $50,059,242 $123,246,562 

190 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $8,432,084 $40,400,774 $90,460,016 $213,706,578 

191 Annual Dollar Amount of Principal Forgiven $0 $8,272,175 $12,042,395 $23,482,962 $49,363,114 

192 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $8,272,175 $20,314,570 $43,797,532 $93,160,646 

193 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements with Principal Forgiveness 0 12 52 55 68

194 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 12 64 119 187

Assistance with Greater than 20-Year Repayment

195 Annual Dollar Amount of Assistance with > 20-Year Repayment $0 $6,176,084 $32,366,187 $59,567,534 $120,269,709 

196 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $6,176,084 $38,542,271 $98,109,805 $218,379,514 

197 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements with > 20-Year Repayment 0 4 38 50 83

198 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 4 42 92 175

Population Served in Disadvantaged Communities Receiving Assistance

199 Population Served 0 61,863 441,519 1,047,872 727,672

200 *Cumulative Population Served 0 61,863 503,382 1,551,254 2,278,926

* Calculated values.

Page 7 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

DWSRF Fund Assistance - Specific Project Information For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Assistance for System Compliance

201 Annual Dollar Amount $0 $160,689,881 $213,881,468 $432,399,124 $601,377,815 

202 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $160,689,881 $374,571,349 $806,970,473 $1,408,348,288 

203 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements 0 73 140 184 229

204 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 73 213 397 626

205 Annual Population Served 0 7,653,801 1,182,350 10,001,577 7,838,104

206 *Cumulative Population Served 0 7,653,801 8,836,151 18,837,728 26,675,832

Assistance to Private Systems

207 Annual Dollar Amount $0 $14,016,143 $32,058,761 $35,953,800 $52,287,554 

208 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $14,016,143 $46,074,904 $82,028,704 $134,316,258 

209 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements 0 14 36 48 62

210 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 14 50 98 160

Assistance to Systems by Type

211 Annual Number of Community Systems 1 159 392 548 566

212 *Cumulative Number of Community Systems 1 160 552 1,100 1,666

213 Annual Number of non-Community Systems 0 6 11 5 2

214 *Cumulative Number of non-Community Systems 0 6 17 22 24

215 Annual Population Served by Community Systems 96,879 9,660,384 16,787,922 20,745,666 18,015,672

216 *Cumulative Population Served by Community Systems 96,879 9,757,263 26,545,185 47,290,851 65,306,523

217 Annual Population Served by non-Community Systems 0 9,415 6,974 7,645 50

218 *Cumulative Population Served by non-Community Systems 0 9,415 16,389 24,034 24,084

Assistance for the Creation of New Systems

219 Annual Dollar Amount $0 $8,829,228 $18,508,800 $34,700,120 $22,572,918 

220 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $8,829,228 $27,338,028 $62,038,148 $84,611,066 

221 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements 0 3 10 18 15

222 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 3 13 31 46

Assistance for the Consolidation of Systems

223 Annual Dollar Amount $0 $61,051,181 $54,462,481 $168,330,580 $174,885,223 

224 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $61,051,181 $115,513,662 $283,844,242 $458,729,465 

225 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements 0 19 28 53 57

226 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 19 47 100 157

227 Annual Number of Systems Eliminated 0 33 66 148 78

228 *Cumulative Number of Systems Eliminated 0 33 99 247 325

Assistance to Indian Tribes

229 Annual Dollar Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 

230 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 

231 Annual Number of Assistance Agreements 0 0 0 0 1

232 *Cumulative Number of Agreements 0 0 0 0 1

* Calculated values.

Page 8 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

Fund Information For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Leveraged Bonds (Excludes State Match)

233 Gross Leveraged Bonds Issued - Annual $0 $215,835,729 $510,690,797 $367,068,156 $425,921,105 

234 Net Leveraged Bonds Issued - Annual $0 $211,404,827 $494,477,838 $359,804,808 $419,000,796 

235 $0 $3,327,803 $9,364,339 $7,880,655 $8,854,339 

236 Leveraged Bond Principal Repaid - Annual $0 $600,000 $5,190,000 $11,777,484 $29,037,176 

Debt Service Reserve for Leveraged Bonds

237 *Annual Change $0 $31,836,939 $108,588,547 $148,570,737 $145,388,553 

238 Balance at End of Reporting Period $0 $31,836,939 $140,425,486 $288,996,223 $434,384,776 

239 Net Change in Gross Bonds Resulting from Refunding - Annual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

240 DWSRF Funds Used for Refunding (Excludes Bonds) - Annual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

241 *Gross Leveraged Bonds Issued - Cumulative $0 $215,835,729 $726,526,526 $1,093,594,682 $1,519,515,787 

242 *Net Leveraged Bonds Issued - Cumulative $0 $211,404,827 $705,882,665 $1,065,687,473 $1,484,688,270 

243 *Cost of Leveraged Bond Issuance - Cumulative $0 $3,327,803 $12,692,142 $20,572,797 $29,427,136 

244 *Leveraged Bond Principal Repaid - Cumulative $0 $600,000 $5,790,000 $17,567,484 $46,604,660 

245 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

246 *DWSRF Funds Used for Refunding (Excludes Bonds) - Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

247 *Leveraged Bonds Outstanding - Balance at End of Reporting Period $0 $215,235,729 $720,736,526 $1,076,027,198 $1,472,911,127 

State Match Bonds to be Repaid by DWSRF Fund

248 *Match Bonds Issued - Annual $0 $8,480,760 $34,254,490 $31,115,447 $37,360,191 

249 Match Bond Principal Repaid - Annual $0 $0 $0 $111,169 $1,384,490 

250 *Match Bonds Issued - Cumulative $0 $8,480,760 $42,735,250 $73,850,697 $111,210,888 

251 *Match Bond Principal Repaid - Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $111,169 $1,495,659 

252 *Match Bonds Outstanding - Balance at End of Reporting Period $0 $8,480,760 $42,735,250 $73,739,528 $109,715,229 

Interest Paid on Leveraged and Match Bonds

253 $0 $2,114,554 $26,684,555 $40,954,305 $58,134,109 

254 Interest Paid from Capitalized Interest Account - Annual $0 $455,000 $900,040 $3,571,740 $2,495,553 

Interest Paid from DWSRF Funds, Excluding

Capitalized Interest Account Funds

255 *Annual Dollar Amount $0 $1,659,554 $25,784,515 $37,382,565 $55,638,556 

256 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $0 $1,659,554 $27,444,069 $64,826,634 $120,465,190 

*Calculated Values

Cost of Leveraged Bond Issuance - Annual

*Net Change in Gross Bonds Resulting from Refunding - Cumulative

Interest Paid from Capitalized Interest Account and Other DWSRF Funds - Annual

Page 9 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

Fund Information For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

DWSRF Project Assistance Disbursed

257 Annual DWSRF Fund Disbursements (Excludes 1452(k) Loans) $0 $66,904,096 $544,781,378 $661,917,741 $921,863,182 

258 *Cumulative DWSRF Fund Disbursements $0 $66,904,096 $611,685,474 $1,273,603,215 $2,195,466,397 

259 Annual 1452(k) Loan Disbursements $0 $0 $589,960 $797,079 $335,705 

260 *Cumulative 1452(k) Loan Disbursements $0 $0 $589,960 $1,387,039 $1,722,744 

DWSRF Loans - All Loans Except 1452(k) Loans

Maintained in a Separate Account

261 Number of Projects Initiating Principal Repayments 0 11 106 268 471

262 *Cumulative Number of Projects Initiating Principal Repayments 0 11 117 385 856

263 Principal Repayments - Annual $0 $635,883 $11,984,454 $23,453,720 $67,592,865 

264 Interest Payments - Annual $0 $1,475,038 $23,462,424 $32,927,438 $54,081,589 

265 *Principal and Interest - Annual $0 $2,110,921 $35,446,878 $56,381,158 $121,674,454 

266 *Principal Repayments - Cumulative $0 $635,883 $12,620,337 $36,074,057 $103,666,923 

267 *Interest Payments - Cumulative $0 $1,475,038 $24,937,462 $57,864,900 $111,946,488 

268 *Principal and Interest - Cumulative $0 $2,110,921 $37,557,799 $93,938,957 $215,613,411 

269 Weighted Average Interest Rate on DWSRF Executed Loan Commitments 4.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.9% 2.5%

270 State Market Interest Rate 0- 0- 0- 0- -

DWSRF 1452(k) Loans - Separately Maintained 1452(k) Loans Only

271 Principal Repayments - Annual $0 $0 $0 $64,365 $159,863

272 Interest Payments - Annual $0 $0 $7,467 $23,418 $21,031

273 *Principal and Interest - Annual $0 $0 $7,467 $87,783 $180,894

274 *Principal Repayments - Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $64,365 $224,228

275 *Interest Payments - Cumulative $0 $0 $7,467 $30,885 $51,916

276 *Principal and Interest - Cumulative $0 $0 $7,467 $95,250 $276,144

277 Weighted Average Interest Rate on 1452(k) Loans - - 1.9% 1.3% 1.5%

Interest Earnings on Investments

278 Annual Interest Earnings on Investments in DWSRF Fund (Except 1452(k) Funds) $0 $4,105,528 $22,700,437 $41,133,821 $62,568,146

279 *Cumulative Interest Earnings on Investments in DWSRF Fund $0 $4,105,528 $26,805,965 $67,939,787 $130,507,932

280 Annual Interest Earnings on 1452(k) Loan Account Investments $0 $0 $2,156 $6,351 $13,053

281 *Cumulative Interest Earnings on 1452(k) Loan Account Investments $0 $0 $2,156 $8,507 $21,560

Fees Charged on DWSRF Assistance

282 Annual Income from Fees Included in Loans $0 $745,275 $919,504 $4,486,663 $5,991,640

283 Annual Income from Fees not Included in Loans $0 $187,223 $1,756,925 $2,730,276 $3,268,884

284 Annual Interest Earnings from Fee Account $0 $1,676 $46,431 $217,013 $632,364

285 *Total Annual Income from Fees $0 $934,174 $2,722,860 $7,433,952 $9,892,888

286 *Cumulative Income from Fees $0 $934,174 $3,657,034 $11,090,986 $20,983,874

Expenses Paid from DWSRF Fee Accounts

287 Annual Expenses Paid from Fee Account to Administer DWSRF Fund $0 $248,248 $1,752,370 $2,461,688 $3,548,048

288 *Cumulative Expenses Paid to Administer DWSRF Fund $0 $248,248 $2,000,618 $4,462,306 $8,010,354

289 Annual Amount Paid from Fee Account for State Match $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

290 *Cumulative Amount Paid from Fee Account for State Match $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

291 Annual Expenses Paid from Fee Account for Other Eligible DWSRF Purposes $0 $0 $17,652 $39,123 $52,078

292 *Cumulative Expenses Paid for Other Eligible DWSRF Purposes $0 $0 $17,652 $56,775 $108,853

DWSRF Administrative Expenses Paid from Funds Other than DWSRF or Fees

293 Annual Other State Funded Administrative Expenses $35,941 $189,154 $262,543 $113,970 $411,476 

294 *Cumulative Other State Funded Administrative Expenses $35,941 $225,096 $487,638 $601,608 $1,013,084 

* Calculated values.

Page 10 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

Other Drinking Water Programs (Separate from DWSRF) For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Coordinated DWSRF Funding with Other State or Federal Funding Sources

295 Amount of Coordinated Funding $0 $93,316,736 $211,137,683 $187,934,726 $187,297,565 

296 $0 $93,316,736 $304,454,419 $492,389,145 $679,686,710 

297 Number of DWSRF Assistance Agreements Receiving Coordinated Funding 0 36 101 66 64

298

0 36 137 203 267

299 DWSRF Portion of Coordinated Funding $0 $60,885,490 $131,341,939 $82,385,088 $91,642,719 

300 *Cumulative DWSRF Portion of Coordinated Funding $0 $60,885,490 $192,227,429 $274,612,517 $366,255,236 

State Funded Drinking Water Loan Programs 

(Separate from DWSRF - Similar Eligibilities)

301 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans $126,826,303 $92,934,385 $139,670,365 $160,185,848 $193,500,541 

302 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $126,826,303 $219,760,688 $359,431,053 $519,616,901 $713,117,442 

303 Annual Number of Loans 72 119 137 125 165

304 *Cumulative Number of Loans 72 191 328 453 618

State Funded Drinking Water Grant Programs

(Separate from DWSRF - Similar Eligibilities)

305 Annual Dollar Amount of Grants $23,318,861 $29,868,198 $75,546,409 $70,772,707 $61,794,485 

306 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $23,318,861 $53,187,059 $128,733,468 $199,506,175 $261,300,660 

307 Annual Number of Grants 77 105 170 139 145

308 *Cumulative Number of Grants 77 182 352 491 636

Total State Funded Drinking Water Programs

(Separate from DWSRF - Similar Eligibilities)

309 *Dollar Amount of Loans and Grants - Annual $150,145,164 $122,802,583 $215,216,774 $230,958,555 $255,295,026

310 *Dollar Amount of Loans and Grants - Cumulative $150,145,164 $272,947,747 $488,164,521 $719,123,076 $974,418,102

311 *Number of Loans and Grants - Annual 149 224 307 264 310

312 *Number of Loans and Grants - Cumulative 149 373 680 944 1,254

State Funded Drinking Water Loan Programs 

(Separate from DWSRF - Dissimilar Eligibilities)

313 Annual Dollar Amount of Loans $57,919,693 $92,497,444 $79,188,666 $79,772,034 $33,129,359 

314 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $57,919,693 $150,417,137 $229,605,803 $309,377,837 $342,507,196 

315 Annual Number of Loans 33 28 49 13 16

316 *Cumulative Number of Loans 33 61 110 123 139

State Funded Drinking Water Grant Programs

(Separate from DWSRF - Dissimilar Eligibilities)

317 Annual Dollar Amount of Grants $6,089,502 $29,669,402 $107,084,593 $74,577,208 $51,389,219 

318 *Cumulative Dollar Amount $6,089,502 $35,758,904 $142,843,497 $217,420,705 $268,809,924 

319 Annual Number of Grants 8 25 71 66 83

320 *Cumulative Number of Grants 8 33 104 170 253

Total State Funded Drinking Water Programs

(Separate from DWSRF - Dissimilar Eligibilities)

321 *Dollar Amount of Loans and Grants - Annual $64,009,195 $122,166,846 $186,273,259 $154,349,242 $84,518,578

322 *Dollar Amount of Loans and Grants - Cumulative $64,009,195 $186,176,041 $372,449,300 $526,798,542 $611,317,120

323 *Number of Loans and Grants - Annual 41 53 120 79 99

324 *Number of Loans and Grants - Cumulative 41 94 214 293 392

* Calculated values.

*Cumulative Amount of Coordinated Funding

*Cumulative Number of DWSRF Assistance Agreements Receiving Coordinated 

Funding

Page 11 of 12 1/10/02
Drinking Water SRF Program Information

National Summary

Fund Analysis For the Reporting Year Ending June 30 of:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

DWSRF Funds Available for Projects

376 *Annual (New Funds) $84,561,081 $925,955,435 $1,503,487,114 $1,299,681,164 $1,407,328,702 

377 *Cumulative $84,561,081 $1,010,516,516 $2,514,003,630 $3,813,684,794 $5,221,013,496 

DWSRF Assistance as a % of Funds Available

378 *Annual 1% 37% 60% 93% 93%

379 *Cumulative 1% 34% 50% 64% 72%

Outlays as a % of Capitalization Grants

380 *Annual 0% 5% 28% 48% 68%

381 *Cumulative 0% 4% 18% 28% 39%

Disbursements as a % of Funds Available

382 *Annual 0% 7% 36% 51% 66%

383 *Cumulative 0% 7% 24% 33% 42%

Project Starts as a % of Funds Available

384 *Annual 0% 30% 47% 78% 88%

385 *Cumulative 0% 28% 39% 53% 62%

Project Completions as a % of Funds Available

386 *Annual 0% 13% 15% 41% 37%

387 *Cumulative 0% 12% 14% 23% 27%

Loan Principal Repayments as a % of Funds Available

388 *Annual 0% 0% 1% 2% 5%

389 *Cumulative 0% 0% 1% 1% 2%

Disbursements as a % of DWSRF Assistance

390 *Annual 0% 20% 60% 55% 70%

391 *Cumulative 0% 20% 49% 52% 58%

Project Starts as a % of DWSRF Assistance

392 *Annual 0% 83% 78% 85% 94%

393 *Cumulative 0% 83% 79% 82% 86%

Project Completions as a % of DWSRF Assistance

394 *Annual 0% 36% 25% 44% 40%

395 *Cumulative 0% 36% 28% 36% 37%

Loan Principal Repayments as a % of DWSRF Assistance

396 *Annual 0% 0% 1% 2% 5%

397 *Cumulative 0% 0% 1% 1% 3%

Project Completions as a % of Project Starts

398 *Annual - 43% 32% 52% 42%

399 *Cumulative - 43% 36% 44% 43%

* Calculated values.

Page 12 of 12 1/10/02
References

Appendix C
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Part 35, Subpart L. “Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.”

DWSRF National Information Management System. Data collected through June 2001. Available at

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html.

US EPA. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. EPA 816-R-02-

020. September 2002.

US EPA. 2001. Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 9. pp.

2823-2825. January 12, 2001.

US EPA. 2001. Drinking Water Infrastructure State Needs Survey; Second Report To Congress. EPA

816-R-01-004. February 2001.

US EPA. 2000. Implementation of Transfers in the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving

Fund Programs; Report To Congress. EPA 816-R-00-021. October 2000.

US EPA. 2000. Drinking Water State Revolving Funds; Interim Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol.

65, No. 152, pp. 48285-48312. August 7, 2000.

US EPA. 2000. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program; Case Studies in Implementation

III. Disadvantaged Communities. EPA 816-R-00-005. August 2000.

US EPA. 2000. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program; Case Studies in Implementation

II. Capacity Assessment. EPA 816-R-00-004. July 2000.

US EPA. 2000. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program; Case Studies in Implementation I.

Public Participation. EPA 816-R-00-001. April 2000.

US EPA. 1999. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program Policy Announcement:

Eligibility of Reimbursement of Incurred Costs for Approved Projects. Federal Register. Vol. 64,

No. 7, pp. 1802-1804. January 12, 1999.

US EPA. 1999. Prioritizing Drinking Water Needs: A compilation of State priority systems for the

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program. EPA 816-R-99-001. January 1999.

US EPA. 1998. Final Guidelines for Implementation of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

Program. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No 214, pp. 59844-59868. November 5, 1998.

US EPA. 1998. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program Policy Announcement:

Eligibility of Using DWSRF Funds to Create a New Public Water System. Federal Register. Vol.

63, No. 212, pp. 59299-59300. November 3, 1998.

US EPA. 1998. Information for States on Developing Affordability Criteria for Drinking Water. EPA

816-R-98-002. February 1998.
US EPA. 1997. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program Guidelines. EPA 816-R-97-005.

February 1997.

US EPA. 1997. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey; First Report to Congress. EPA

812-R-97-001. January 1997.

US GAO. 2002. Drinking Water: Key Aspects of EPA’s Revolving Fund Program Need to Be

Strengthened. GAO-02-135. January 2002.

US GAO. 2000. Drinking Water: Spending Constraints Could Affect States’ Ability to Implement

Increasing Program Requirements. GAO/RCED-00-199. August 2000.
Office of Water (4606M)

www.epa.gov/safewater

the DWSRF program

Visit the EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

website at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html to find –

Policy and Guidance Documents ~ Fact Sheets ~

Reports ~ Funding Information ~ EPA & State Contacts ~

Links to State Programs

or

Contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791

Where to go for

more information about

Printed on Recycled Paper EPA-918-R-03-009

May 2003

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Washington, DC 20460