In 1972, the Congress established the Construction Grants Program to provide grants to help local governments construct wastewater treatment facilities. These federal grants provided most of the funding for these projects, with the remainder provided by the local government constructing the project. In 1987, the Congress began to phase out that program and authorized the creation of SRFs, which provide loans to local governments and others. The states are required to match SRF capitalization grants at a rate of at least one state dollar for every five federal dollars. The states have the option of increasing the amount of SRF funds available to lend by issuing bonds guaranteed by the money in the SRFs. According to a national survey, as of June 30, 1995 (the latest data available), the states collectively had $18.9 billion in their SRF accounts; over one-half of this amount (approximately $11 billion) was provided by federal capitalization grants. (The appendix provides additional information on the nine states’ sources and uses of funds.) For the most part, the Congress gave the states flexibility to develop SRF loan assistance programs that meet their particular needs. However, the states must ensure that the projects funded with loans issued up to the amount of the federal capitalization grants meet two types of federal requirements. The first type includes those contained in the various statutes that apply generally to federal grant programs. These requirements—also called “cross-cutting” authorities—promote national policy goals, such as equal employment opportunity and participation by minority-owned businesses. The second type applies various provisions applicable to the Construction Grants Program (known as title II requirements because that program was authorized by title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972). These include compliance with the federal prevailing-wage requirement. The title II requirements apply only to those projects wholly or partially built before fiscal year 1995 with funds made directly available by federal capitalization grants. The transfer of federal funds to SRFs begins when the Congress appropriates funds annually to EPA. EPA then allots capitalization grants to the individual states, generally according to percentages specified in the Clean Water Act. To receive its allotment, a state has up to 2 years to apply for its capitalization grant. In order to apply, a state must, among other things, propose a list of potential projects to solve water quality problems and receive public comments on that list. After completing the list and receiving its capitalization grant, a state generally has 2 years to receive payments of the grant amount (via increases in its letter of credit). After each such increase, a state has up to 1 year to enter into binding commitments to fund specific projects. Next, a binding commitment is typically converted into a loan agreement. We collected detailed information on the use of revolving funds by nine states with SRF programs—Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. We selected these states because they provide diversity in terms of the size and complexity of their SRF programs and other factors, such as geographic location. However, the conditions in these states are not necessarily representative of the conditions in all 51 SRFs. We used a questionnaire and follow-up discussions to collect information on SRF activities and finances from program officials from the nine states. We also interviewed EPA headquarters and regional officials who are responsible for the SRF program. We did not attempt to independently verify the information collected from EPA or the states. The data cited in this statement are as of the end of the applicable state’s fiscal year or the federal fiscal year, as appropriate. In seven of the nine states, the state fiscal year ends on June 30; in Texas, it ends on August 31; and in Florida, it ends on September 30, which is also the end of the federal fiscal year. The overall amount of funds lent by the nine states increased between 1995 and 1996, from $3.3 billion to $4.0 billion. The amount lent by each state also increased. During the same time period, seven states increased their percentage of funds lent, and two states maintained or decreased their percentage of funds lent. All nine states increased the amount of funds they lent between 1995 and 1996. Six states increased their amount by 15 to 29 percent. For example, Pennsylvania increased the amount lent by 17 percent, from $267 million to $311 million. The other three states increased their amount of funds lent by 30 percent or more. The largest change—95 percent—was in Arizona, which increased from $50 million to $99 million. Seven of the nine states increased their percentage of funds lent between 1995 and 1996. Three states increased their percentage by 17 percentage points or more. Four other states increased theirs by 2 to 9 percentage points. Finally, one state’s percentage stayed the same, and another state’s declined by 2 percentage points. Among the nine states, the percentage of funds lent at the end of 1996 ranged from 60 to 99 percent. Specifically, five states lent 80 percent or more of their available funds, another three states lent 70 to 79 percent, and the final state lent 60 percent. Officials in eight of the nine states cited one or more factors at the federal level as affecting the amount and percentage of funds they lent. In seven states, officials said that uncertainty about the reauthorization of the SRF program discouraged some potential borrowers. Also, in seven states, officials cited a concern about compliance with federal requirements, including possible increases in project costs because of a federal prevailing-wage requirement. Finally, in three states, officials identified other reasons, such as federal restrictions on the use of SRF funds. Officials in seven of the nine states said that the lack of reauthorization of the Clean Water Act limited their success in lending funds. Among other things, the lack of reauthorization made it difficult to assure the communities applying for loans that SRF funds would be available to finance their projects and created uncertainty among communities about the terms of their loans. Officials from the seven states generally agreed that the amount and timing of federal funding became more uncertain after the SRF program’s authorization expired at the end of September 1994. These officials said that, prior to 1994, they used the amounts in the authorizing legislation to help determine how much money they would have to lend each year. According to these officials, these amounts also helped reassure the communities that federal funding would be available for projects. These officials said that the uncertainty created by the lack of reauthorization made it difficult for states to schedule projects and assure the communities applying for loans that construction money would be available when needed. In addition, Pennsylvania officials said that the lack of reauthorization caused some communities to delay accepting SRF loans because they hoped for more favorable loan terms after the act was reauthorized. Specifically, the Congress has considered a proposal to extend the maximum term for an SRF loan, in certain cases, from 20 years to as much as 40 years and to provide lower interest rates. The state officials said that the communities were interested in both longer repayment periods and lower interest rates. According to a Pennsylvania official, several communities in the state had a loan approved by the state but had not formally accepted the loan. In three cases, local officials told us that they were delaying further action pending the act’s reauthorization; the total dollar value of the loans was about $15 million. The Pennsylvania official told us that small, low-income communities in particular would benefit from the proposal to lengthen the repayment period. For example, in March 1995 Pennsylvania approved a $3 million loan for Burrell Township, which has approximately 3,000 people. However, as of October 1996, the community had not accepted the loan on the chance that a reauthorized act would provide for a longer loan term and thus lower annual repayments. Officials in seven of the nine states said that compliance with the federal requirements made financing projects with SRF funds less attractive and, in some cases, caused communities to turn down SRF loans. In particular, five states raised concerns that a federal prevailing-wage requirement could make SRF-financed projects more expensive to construct than projects constructed with other funds. While the title II requirements—which include the federal prevailing-wage requirement—ceased to apply to new projects after October 1, 1994, state officials said they were concerned that these requirements would be reinstated in the reauthorization act. For example, an Arizona official said that the prevailing-wage requirement could inflate a project’s costs from 5 to 25 percent. A Louisiana official said that the community of East Baton Rouge Parish withdrew its 1990 SRF loan application for a project to serve about 120,000 people when it discovered that the prevailing-wage requirement would increase the labor cost of the project by more than $1.1 million—31 percent. Louisiana officials said that before the prevailing-wage requirement expired, the state had experienced difficulties in making loans largely because local officials perceived the requirement as increasing project costs. The officials said that Louisiana’s lending rate increased in part because the wage requirement expired. The state’s lending rate was 44 percent at the end of 1994, before the requirement expired; 62 percent at the end of 1995; and 79 percent at the end of 1996. EPA officials said they were aware that many states had a concern about the prevailing-wage requirement. They noted, however, that the requirement expired at the end of September 1994 and that the continued application of the requirement would be a state’s management decision. They also noted that, even before the requirement expired, it applied only to projects funded with federal capitalization grants (as opposed to projects funded solely with state matching or borrowed funds, for example). Also, they noted that some states have chosen to continue requiring projects to comply with the requirement, even though they are no longer required to do so; however, they said, both Arizona and Louisiana no longer apply the requirement to projects they fund. Officials from three states identified other factors at the federal level that constrained lending. These included the awarding of federal funds directly for selected communities and federal restrictions on the use of SRF funds. Maryland and Pennsylvania officials said that the earmarking of federal funds—not from the SRF program—for specific communities raised the expectation in other communities that if they waited long enough, they might also receive funds directly. This expectation reduced these communities’ incentive to apply for an SRF loan. For example, a Maryland official said that state SRF lending was limited by a congressional decision to provide federal funds directly for a project in Baltimore, which SRF officials had expected to finance. He said that the City of Baltimore turned down the SRF loan because it received $80 million in federal grant funds for the project in 1993 and 1994. The state official said that it took time to find other communities to borrow the money that was originally set aside for the Baltimore project. The state increased its percentage of funds lent from 61 percent at the end of 1995 to 70 percent at the end of 1996. Officials from Missouri said that certain federal restrictions on the use of SRF funds limit the amount of loans they can make. For example, a state official cited restrictions on financing the costs of acquiring land. Under the Clean Water Act, SRF loans cannot be made to purchase land unless the land itself is an integral part of the waste treatment processes. Thus, wetlands used to filter wastewater as part of the treatment process are an eligible expense under the act. However, other lands, such as the land upon which a treatment plant would be built, are not eligible. According to the official, because purchasing land for a wastewater treatment facility represents a large portion of the facility’s cost but is ineligible for SRF financing, some communities are discouraged from seeking SRF loans. In Pennsylvania and Arizona, the amount of funds lent was limited by decisions on how to manage the loan fund. These decisions related to how to use SRF funds in Pennsylvania and how to publicize the program in Arizona. Pennsylvania established a state-funded program, independent of the SRF, in March 1988 to help communities finance wastewater and other projects. In the early years of the SRF program, Pennsylvania officials decided to finance about $248 million in wastewater projects with these state funds rather than wait for SRF funding to become available, according to state officials. According to these officials, the state decided to fund these projects as soon as possible with state funds to reduce public health risks. For example, about $30 million was awarded to the City of Johnstown to upgrade an existing treatment plant and thereby prevent raw sewage overflows and inadequately treated wastewater from being discharged into surface waters. According to a state official, Pennsylvania’s percentage of funds lent would have been higher if the state had chosen to fund the $248 million in projects with SRF funds. In that case, he said, Pennsylvania’s total amount of funds lent through the end of 1996 would have been $558 million, instead of $310 million, and the state would have lent all available funds, instead of 60 percent of those funds. Likewise, in Arizona, state decisions limited the amount of funds lent. According to a state official, efforts to inform local government officials about the SRF program and interest them in participating were not effective in the program’s early years. This difficulty was compounded by restrictive provisions of state law that further limited the amount of SRF funds lent.The state official said that the outreach effort was refocused in 1995. He also noted that the approval of changes in state laws in 1995 and 1996 helped create a more positive atmosphere for outreach, even before the changes took effect. Arizona’s percentage of funds lent was 55 percent at the end of 1995 and 81 percent at the end of 1996. Under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program, the states use funds from six primary sources to make loans for wastewater treatment and related projects. These are: state matching funds, borrowed funds, unused funds from the Construction Grants Program, repayments of loans, and earnings on invested funds. All nine states received federal grants and provided state matching funds. These two sources generally accounted for most of the money in the nine states’ revolving funds. Four of the nine states borrowed money for their revolving funds. Five states transferred unused funds from the old Construction Grants Program. All nine states received some loan repayments. Finally, eight states had investment earnings on loan repayments. Table I.1 shows the amount and sources of funding for the nine states we reviewed through each state’s fiscal year 1996. To determine the percentage of funds lent by each state as of the end of 1995 and 1996, we divided the total amount of funds lent by the total funds available to lend, as defined above, both as of the end of the year. This method was based on the approach used by the Ohio Water Development Authority in conducting annual SRF surveys during 1992 through 1995. Table I.2 shows the amount and percentage of funds lent for the nine states for each state’s fiscal year 1995 and 1996. Amount of funds lent (thousands of dollars) The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: GAO discussed selected states' experience with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, focusing on: (1) the amount of funds lent and the percentage of available funds lent, as of the end of each state's fiscal year 1996; and (2) information on factors at the federal and state levels that constrained the amount and percentage of funds lent. GAO noted that: (1) the nine states increased the total amount of funds they lent from $3.3 billion in 1995 to $4.0 billion in 1996; (2) all nine states increased the amount they lent by 15 percent or more, and three states achieved increases of 30 percent or more; (3) in addition, seven of the nine states increased the percentage of available funds they lent; (4) of these seven, three states increased this proportion by 17 percentage points or more; (5) nevertheless, the percentage of funds lent as of the end of 1996 varied substantially among the nine states; (6) specifically, five states had lent 80 percent or more of their available funds, three states had lent between 70 and 79 percent, and one state had lent 60 percent; (7) in eight of the nine states, officials identified the expiration of the authorizing legislation, as well as federal requirements, as affecting the amount and percentage of funds lent; (8) for example, officials in seven states said the legislation's expiration created uncertainty about the loan conditions that might apply in the future and caused some communities to postpone seeking or accepting loans; (9) also, officials in seven states said that other federal requirements, such as a prevailing-wage provision, discouraged some communities from seeking loans; and (10) finally, in two states, officials said that state program decisions constrained lending.