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; the remainder was provided by the local government constructing the project. In 1987, the Congress began to phase out that program and authorized the creation of state revolving funds (SRF), 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. (App. I provides additional information on funding sources for the nine SRFs.) 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 of requirement includes those requirements 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 of requirement applies various provisions that applied 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 requirements 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 the Environmental Protection Agency (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. 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. As figure 1 shows, 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. As figure 2 shows, 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 their percentage by 2 to 9 percentage points. Finally, one state’s percentage stayed the same, and another state’s percentage 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. (App. II provides details on the amount and percentage of funds lent, by state.) Officials in eight of the nine states cited one or more factors at the federal level as affecting the amounts and percentages 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 the 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 such 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 cost of labor for 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 the costs of projects. 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). Moreover, 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 the 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. Also 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 these $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 these funds. Likewise, in Arizona, the state’s 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. We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for its review and comment. On December 11, 1996, we met with EPA officials, including the Chief of the State Revolving Fund Branch in the Office of Wastewater Management, who noted that the report was generally accurate and well researched. In addition to suggesting clarifications in certain places, which we have incorporated where appropriate, EPA asked that we make it clear that the prevailing-wage requirement expired at the end of September 1994 and that any continued application would result from the states’ decisions to retain the requirement. We have added language in the report to clarify this point. Subsequent to our meeting, EPA provided us with written comments on this report, which are reproduced in appendix IV. We used a questionnaire and follow-up discussions to collect information on SRF activities and finances from program officials from the nine states. We selected these states to provide diversity in terms of SRF program size and complexity and other factors, such as geography. However, the conditions in these states are not necessarily representative of the conditions in all 51 SRFs. 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. Appendix III provides additional information on how we calculated the states’ percentages of funds lent. We conducted our review from March through December 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce this report’s contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of the report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of the report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Administrator of EPA. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 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. The amount of funds lent increased overall in every state from 1995 to 1996, as shown in the table below. In addition, the percentage of funds lent generally stayed the same or increased during that period. (App. III explains the basis for GAO’s calculation of the percentage of funds lent by state.) Amount of funds lent (thousands of dollars) 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, both as of the end of the year. We defined the total funds available as including the following six components: federal SRF grants, state matching funds, funds obtained through leveraging, transfers of unused funds from the Construction Grants Program, loan repayments, and investment earnings. We obtained information on loans made and funds available from each state through a questionnaire and follow-up contacts. In addition, we compared the states’ data on the amount of federal SRF grants with the data we obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Our methodology was based on the approach used by the Ohio Water Development Authority in conducting annual SRF surveys during 1992 through 1995. In addition, we discussed our methodology with officials from EPA, the Ohio authority, and the nine states, who generally agreed with our approach. However, state officials raised two concerns about this methodology. First, a Missouri official suggested that loan repayments should not be counted as part of available funds because they do not represent “new” money; rather, repayments represent a recouping of funds previously lent. He said that including repayments would result in double counting and thus overstate the amount of funds the states had available. We chose to include repayments because of the revolving nature of the state funds. Just as any loans made from repayments would be included in the total of funds lent, any repayments need to be included in funds available to provide a complete and consistent accounting of the funds available. If the repayments were excluded from the total amounts of funds available to lend, Missouri’s percentage would be 91 percent; according to our methodology, Missouri’s percentage was 80 percent. Second, an Arizona official contended that we should not have counted the state’s full federal grants as being available to lend. The state did not accept its full federal grants for 2 years. According to his calculation, if the percentage of funds lent were based on the amount that Arizona actually received (rather than the amount it could have received), the state’s percentage of funds lent would have been 99 percent in 1995, rather than 55 percent. In our calculations, we used the full amount of federal grants that were available to the state because the state’s decisions resulted in Arizona’s not accepting its full federal grants. Richard P. Johnson, Attorney-Adviser 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: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed selected states' use of their revolving funds, focusing on the: (1) amount of funds lent and the percentage of available funds lent, as of the end of each state's fiscal year (FY) 1996; and (2) factors at the federal and state levels that constrained the amount and percentage of funds lent. GAO found that: (1) the nine states GAO surveyed increased the total amount of funds they lent from $3.3 billion in 1995 to $4.0 billion in 1996; (2) six states achieved an increase of between 15 and 29 percent, and the other three states achieved an increase of 30 percent or more; (3) seven of the nine states increased the percentage of available funds they lent, and of these seven, three states increased this proportion by 17 percentage points or more; (4) the percentage of funds lent as of the end of 1996 varied substantially among the nine states; (5) 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; (6) 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; (7) officials in seven states said that other federal requirements, such as a prevailing-wage provision, discouraged some communities from seeking loans; (8) in two states, officials said that the decisions made by the state programs constrained lending; (9) program managers in one state decided to finance certain wastewater projects from state funds rather than from the revolving fund, thereby limiting both the amount and the percentage of funds lent from the revolving fund; and (10) in the other state, efforts to publicize the program to local officials were not effective in the early years of the program.