Order Code RL30478
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federally Supported Water Supply and
Wastewater Treatment Programs
Updated March 31, 2006
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressFederally Supported Water Supply and
Wastewater Treatment Programs
Updated April 18, 2007
Betsy A. Cody, Claudia Copeland, Mary Tiemann,
Nicole T. Carter, and Jeffrey A. Zinn
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater
Wastewater Treatment Programs
Summary
Although the federal government has played a significant role in developing
water quality regulations and standards for municipal and industrial (M&I) water use,
it historically has provided a relatively small percentage of the funding for
construction of water supply and treatment facilities for M&I uses. Yet, several
programs exist to assist communities with development of water supply and
treatment projects, and it appears that Congress is more frequently being asked to
authorize direct financial and technical assistance for developing or treating water
supplies for M&I use.
This report provides background information on the types of water supply and
wastewater treatment projects traditionally funded by the federal government and the
several existing programs to assist communities with water supply and wastewater
recycling and treatment. These projects and programs are found primarily within the
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce, Department of
Defense (DOD), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The focus of some programs has been enlarged over the years. The Department
of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation was established to implement the
Reclamation Act of 1902, which authorized the construction of water works to
provide water for irrigation in arid western states. Congress subsequently authorized
other uses of project water, including M&I use. Even so, the emphasis of the
Bureau’s operations was to provide water for irrigation. Similarly, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense) constructed large reservoirs primarily
for flood control, but was authorized in 1958 to allocate water for M&I purposes.
Over the past 30-plus years, Congress has authorized and refined several programs
to assist local communities in addressing other water supply and wastewater
problems. These programs serve generally different purposes and have different
financing mechanisms; however, there is some overlap.
Federal funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies
greatly. For example, Congress appropriated $838 million for FY2006in FY2007 for grants to
states under EPA’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program for drinking water
facilities and $887 million1.08 billion for EPA’s SRF program for wastewater facilities; funds
appropriated for the USDA’s rural water and waste disposal grant and loan programs
are $527427 million for FY2006FY2007; HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds (used partly but not exclusively for water and wastewater projects) are $3.71
billion for FY2006FY2007. In contrast, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title 16
reclamation/recycling program program
received a total of $25.610.9 million for FY2006FY2007.
For each of the projects and programs discussed, this report describes project
or program purposes, financing mechanisms, eligibility requirements, recent funding,
and the Administration’s FY2007FY2008 budget request. The report will be updated.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Traditional Multi-purpose and Rural Water Supply Projects . . . . . . . . 6
Title 16 Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works Program) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Water Supply Act Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Rural Utilities Service (Water and Waste Disposal Programs) . . . . . . . . . . 12
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Small Watershed Program) . . . . 1516
Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1920
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1920
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2223
Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2425
Community Development Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2425
Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Economic Development Administration (Public Works and
Development Facilities Program) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
List of Tables
Table 1. Federal Water Supply Program/Project Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federally Supported Water Supply and
Wastewater Treatment Programs
Introduction
Although the federal government has played a significant role in developing
water quality regulations and standards for municipal and industrial (M&I) water use,
it historically has provided a relatively small percentage of the funding for
construction of water supply and treatment facilities for M&I uses. Yet, several
programs exist to assist communities with development of water supply and
treatment projects, and it appears that Congress is being asked more frequently to
authorize direct financial and technical assistance for developing or treating water
supplies for M&I use. Recent proposals include “rural water supply projects” to be
built and funded by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior
(hereafter referred to as the Bureau), water recycling projects built and partially
funded by the Bureau, and programs for water supply and wastewater treatment
projects to be largely funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Interest
also has been growing in expanding the size and scope of the State Revolving Fund
loan programs under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, as well
as support for individual wastewater and drinking water projects through
congressionally earmarked grants in appropriations legislation.
This report provides background information on the types of water supply and
wastewater treatment projects traditionally funded by the federal government and the
several existing programs to assist communities with water supply and wastewater
treatment. Projects developed by the Bureau and the Corps typically require direct,
individual project authorizations from Congress. In contrast, projects funded by
other agencies are funded through standing program authorizations. These programs
are found primarily within the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of
Commerce, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The key practical difference is that with
the individual project authorizations there is no predictable assistance, or even
guarantee of funding after a project is authorized, because funding must be secured
each year in the congressional appropriations process. The programs, on the other
hand, have set program criteria, are generally funded from year to year, and provide
a process under which project sponsors compete for funding.
For each of the projects and programs discussed, this report describes purposes,
financing mechanisms, eligibility requirements, and recent funding. The report does
not address special projects and programs aimed specifically at assisting Indian
CRS-2
Tribes, Alaskan Native Villages, and Colonias,1 or other regional programs such as
those associated with the Appalachian Region or U.S. Territories.
Background
The federal government has built hundreds of water projects over the years,
primarily dams and reservoirs for irrigation development and flood control, with
M&I use as an incidental, self-financed, project purpose. Most of the nation’s public
municipal water systems have been built by local communities under prevailing state
water laws.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) was established to implement the
Reclamation Act of 1902, which authorized the construction of water works to
provide water for irrigation in arid western states. Congress subsequently authorized
other uses of project water, including M&I use. Even so, the emphasis of the
Bureau’s operations was to provide water for irrigation. This emphasis is evidenced
in part in the different payment mechanisms that evolved to finance projects
(described below). Similarly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) constructed
large reservoirs primarily for flood control, but was authorized in 1958 (Water
Supply Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 320; 43 USC § 390b) to allocate water for M&I
purposes. In this act, Congress emphasized the primacy of non-federal interests:
It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the primary
responsibilities of the States and local interests in developing water supplies for
domestic, municipal, industrial, and other purposes and that the Federal
Government should participate and cooperate with States and local interests in
developing such water supplies in connection with the construction,
maintenance, and operation of Federal navigation, flood control, irrigation, or
multiple purpose projects. (43 USC § 390(b))
Over the past 30-plus years, Congress has authorized and refined several
programs to assist local communities in addressing other water supply and
wastewater problems. The agencies that administer these programs differ in scope
and mission. For example, the primary responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers are
to maintain inland navigation and provide for flood control, while EPA’s mission
relates to protecting public health and safeguarding the national environment.
Others, such as HUD and the Department of Commerce, focus on community and
economic development. Likewise, the specific programs discussed in this report —
while all address water supply and wastewater treatment — differ in important
respects. Some are national in scope (those of USDA, EPA, and the Department of
Commerce, for example), while others are regionally focused (the Bureau’s programs
and projects). Some focus primarily on urban areas (HUD), others on rural areas
(USDA), and others do not distinguish based on community size (EPA, the Bureau,
the Corps). In addition, these programs serve generally different purposes and have
1
Colonias typically are rural, unincorporated communities or housing developments near
the U.S.-Mexico border that lack some or all basic infrastructure, including plumbing and
public water and sewer.
CRS-3
different financing mechanisms (some provide grants, others authorize loans);
however, there is some overlap. For example, the rural water and waste disposal
program of the USDA typically authorizes “water delivery” assistance to improve
community water systems and water quality, while EPA’s drinking water
infrastructure program is driven primarily by “end of the pipe” water quality
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Similarly, while the Clean
Water Act sets performance standards for discharges of municipally treated sewage,
it also provides financial assistance to municipalities for constructing and improving
treatment facilities in order to comply with the law.
Federal funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies
greatly. For example, for FY2006,2FY2007, Congress appropriated $837.5 million for grants
to states under EPA’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program for drinking water
facilities and $887 million1.083 billion for EPA’s SRF program for wastewater treatment
facilities; funds appropriated for the USDA’s rural water and waste disposal grant
and loancore rural utilities programs total $527 427
million for FY2006FY2007; HUD Community Development
Block Grant funds (used partly
but not exclusively for water and wastewater projects)
are $3.71 billion for FY2006. FY2007.
In contrast, the Bureau’s Title 16 reclamation/recycling
program received
approximately $25.610.9 million for FY2006FY2007 — funding for the entire
agency wasis $1.02 1
billion for FY2006FY2007. Collectively, congressional funding for these
programs in recent
years has been somewhat eroded by overall competition among
the many programs
that are supported by discretionary spending, despite the
continuing pressure from
stakeholders and others for increased funding.
It is also important to note that state and local contributions are a significant
source of total funds available to local communities for drinking water and
wastewater improvements. For example, from FY1991 through FY2000, states
contributed about $10.1 billion to match $18 billion in EPA capitalization grants for
drinking water and wastewater SRFs and made about $13.5 billion available for these
activities under state-sponsored grant and loan programs and by selling general
obligation and revenue bonds.32
The following table summarizes financial and other key elements of the projects
and program activities discussed in this report.
2
FY2006 appropriations for programs and projects described in this report were provided
in several appropriations acts. All were affected by a provision of the FY2006 Department
of Defense Appropriations Act (Section 3801 of Division B, Title III, of P.L. 109-148)
which mandated a 1% across-the-board rescission for discretionary accounts in any FY2006
appropriations (except for discretionary authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs),
to be applied proportionately to each discretionary account and each item of budget
authority, and within each program, project, and activity in the law. In addition, EPA
programs were further reduced by a separate across-the-board rescission of 0.476% in P.L.
109-54. Throughout this report, discussion of FY2006 funding reflects the required
reduction(s) from the congressionally specified levels. For example, the appropriated
amount for drinking water SRF capitalization grants was $850 million, but was reduced to
$837.5 million by the required rescissions.
3
2
U.S. General Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office), Water
Infrastructure: Information on Federal and State Financial Assistance, November 2001,
GAO-02-134, p. 18. Hereafter, GAO Water Infrastructure.
CRS-4
Table 1. Federal Water Supply Program/Project Financing
Agency and
Projects or
Program
Project/
Program
Purposes
Type of
Financial
Assistance
Federal/
Non-Federal
Cost Share
Average
Amount of
Assistance
USDOI Bureau Multi-purpose De facto loan 0%/100%, with Not applicable
interest for
of Reclamation projects,
M&I uses**
which may
include M&I*
USDOI Bureau Wastewater
of Reclamation reclamation
(Title 16 of
and reuse*
P.L. 102-575)
De facto grant
(see
discussion on
pages 6-9)
Up to
25%/75%;
dollar limits
may apply
USDOI Bureau Non-Indian
of Reclamation “rural water
supply”*
De facto grant
(see
discussion on
pages 6-9),
plus loan
$1.2 million
(FY2006
approps.)
FY2006FY2007
Funding
Not readily
available
(Total agency
approps. are
$1.021025 billion)
FY2007FY2008
Funding
Request
(Total agency
approps.
request is
$972 million)
$25.6 million958.4
million)
$10.9 million
(FY2007
spending plan)
$10.1 million
$10.911.5 million
Average of
(FY2006FY2007
64%/26%
approps.spending plan)
(range from
15% repayment
to 80% —
some grants)
$69.780.4 million
$68.7 million55.0 million
0%/100%, with Not applicable
interest**
Not readily
available
(Total agency
approps. are
$5.43 billion, not
including
supplementals)
Not readily
available
USDOI Bureau Wastewater
of Reclamation reclamation
(Title 16 of
and reuse*
P.L. 102-575)
De facto grant
(see
discussion on
pages 6-9)
Up to
25%/75%;
dollar limits
may apply
USDOI Bureau Non-Indian
of Reclamation “rural water
supply”*
De facto grant
(see
discussion on
pages 6-9),
plus loan
$1.1 million
(FY2007
spending plan)
US Army
Corps of
Engineers
(general)
Multi-purpose Loans
water projects,
which may
include M&I*
0%/100%, with Not applicable
interest**
US Army
Corps of
Engineers
(multiple
sections of
WRDAs and
annual Energy
and Water
Development
Approps. acts)
“Environmental
infrastructure”*
Technical/
planning and
design
services
75%/25%
Authorizations Not readilyNone
range from $0.5 available
million to $25
million
None
U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
(multiple
sections of
WRDAs and
annual Energy
and Water
Development
Approps. acts)
“Environmental
infrastructure”*
Design and
construction
grants
75%/25%
Authorizations Not readily$94.2 million
range from $0.2 available
million to $180
million
None
USDA Rural
Utilities
Service, Water
and Waste
Disposal
Program
Municipal
water supply
and waste
disposal
Loans and
grants
0%/100% for
loans
Grants:
$619,000
Direct loans:
$1,064,000.064 million
(FY2005)
$511 million
Up to
75%/25% for
grants
$527427 million
(Total agency
approps.
request is
$4.79 billion)
$499 million
CRS-5
Agency and
Projects or
Program
Project/
Program
Purposes
Type of
Financial
Assistance
Federal/
Non-Federal
Cost Share
Average
Amount of
Assistance
FY2006
Funding
FY2007
Funding
Request
$650,000
$405.5 million
total ($105.5
million,
ongoing
programs; $300
million,
emergency
work)
$15FY2008
Funding
Request
$31.3 million
total, all for
rehabilitation
projects
$886.8 million
$687.6
million
$837.5 million
$841.5
million
$3.7 billion
$2.975
billion
USDA Small
Watershed
Program
Multiple
activities, but
generally must
include flood
control
measures
Project grants 0%/100%
and technical
advisory
Varies
services
according to
purpose of
improvement
activity
EPA, Clean
Water State
Revolving
Fund (SRF)
Loan Program
Municipal
wastewater
treatment,
nonpoint
pollution
management,
National
Estuary
Program
implementation
Grants to
states to
capitalize
loan funds5.8 million
total, all for
rehabilitation
projects
80%/20% for
grants to states
to capitalize
SRFs
Average
capitalization
grant to state:
$1915.8 million
(FY2005)
FY2006)
$1.08 billion
$687.6
million
SRF loans to
local project
sponsors
0%/100%
(Project loans
are repaid
100% to states)
Average
assistance
provided from
SRF: $3.352.77
million
(FY2005FY2006)
Public water
supply:
projects
needed to
meet federal
drinking water
standards and
to address
serious health
risks
Grants to
states to
capitalize
loan funds
80%/20% for
grants to states
to capitalize
SRFs
Average
capitalization
grant to state:
$1615.7 million
(FY2005)
FY2006)
$837.5 million
$842.2
million
SRF loans to
local project
sponsors
0%/100%
(Project loans
are repaid
100%)
Multi-purpose
community
development
projects,
which may
include water
and waste
disposal
Grants, 70%
of which are
reserved for
urban areas
100%/0%
$3.7 billion
$2.775
billion
Multiple
activities, but
generally must
include flood
control
measures
Project grants 0%/100%
and technical
advisory
Varies
services
according to
purpose of
improvement
activity
EPA, Clean
EPA, Drinking
Water State
Revolving
Fund (SRF)
Loan Program
HUD,
Community
Development
Block Grant
Program
Average
assistance
provided from
SRF: $2.77
million
(FY2005)
Not readily
available
Average grant
$158.8 million Zero
Multi-purpose Project grants Generally
50%/50%;
$1,313,432
economic
however, may (FY2003Municipal
wastewater
treatment,
nonpoint
pollution
management,
National
Estuary
Program
implementation
Grants to
states to
capitalize
loan funds
HUD,
Community
Development
Block Grant
Program
FY2007
Funding
$650,000
USDA Small
Watershed
Program
EPA, Drinking
Water State
Revolving
Fund (SRF)
Loan Program
Average
Amount of
Assistance
Average
assistance
provided from
SRF: $2.72
million
(FY2006)
Not readily
available
$158.8 million None
Average grant
Multi-purpose Project grants Generally
$1.27 million
50%/50%;
economic
however, may (FY2005)
development
range to
projects,
80%/20% for
which include
non-Indian
non-rural, nonprojects
residential
water and
sewer
* These projects generally must be authorized by Congress prior to construction.
** Although the ultimate federal cost-share may be 0%, unless otherwise stated, the federal government may provide
100% of initial construction costs allocated to M&I use, to be repaid over the life of the loan or repayment contract
(typically 40-50 years).
EDA, Public
Works and
Development
Facilities
Program
CRS-6
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation was established to implement the Reclamation Act
of 1902, which authorized the construction of water works to provide water for
irrigation in arid western states. The Bureau generally manages numerous municipal
and industrial water supply facilities as part of larger, multi-purpose reclamation
projects serving irrigation, flood control, power supply, and recreation purposes.
Overall, these facilities serve approximately 31 million people, delivering a total of
approximately 28.5 million acre -feet of water (an acre -foot is enough to cover one
acre of land one foot deep, or 325,851 gallons). Bureau-funded municipal and
industrial water deliveries total approximately 2.8 million acre -feet and have more
than doubled since 1970. The Bureau is authorized to construct projects only in the
17 western states, unless otherwise directed by Congress.
Bureau M&I water deliveries are generally incidental to larger project purposes.
However, since 1980, Congress has specificallyindividually authorized construction of 10 nonIndian several
“rural water supply” projects and 32more than 30 reclamation wastewater and
reuse/recycling projects (an additionalone recycling project has been undertaken pursuant
to general authorities, for a total of 33 recycling projects authorized to
general authorities). The recycling
projects, discussed below, are known as Title 16
projects because they were first
authorized in 1992 under Title 16 of P.L. 102-575.
Title 16, the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Studies and Facilities Act,
also authorized the Bureau
to undertake specific and general feasibility studies for
reclamation wastewater and
reuse projects and to research, construct, and operate
demonstration projects.
Historically, the Bureau constructed projects with federal funds, then established
a repayment schedule based on the amount of total construction costs allocated to
specific project purposes. Bureau project authorizations typically require 100%
repayment, with interest, for M&I water supply facilities; however, on some
occasions Congress has authorized other reimbursement terms. For example, for the
non-Indian portion of some Bureau “rural water supply” projects, Congress has
authorized 15%-25% repayment levels (85% and 75% federal cost-share,
respectively) and in at least one case (the Perkins County Rural Water Supply
System), a grant of 75% of total project costs. The federal share of costs for Title 16
projects is generally much lower, as it is limited to a maximum of 25% of total
project costs or, for projects authorized since 1996, a maximum of $20 million. In
most cases, the federal share for Title 16 projects is non-reimbursable, resulting in
a de facto grant to local project sponsors.
Traditional Multi-purpose and Rural Water Supply Projects. Unlike
many other programs described in this report, the Bureau undertakes projects largely
at the explicit direction of Congress. Local project sponsors may approach the
Bureau or the Congress with proposals for project construction and funding;
however, a project must be authorized by Congress before construction may begin.
Because there is no “program” per se, there are no clear and concise eligibility or
program criteria. An exceptionTwo exceptions to this generality isare (1) the statutory authority for the
the Title 16 projects (Title 16 of P.L. 102-575; see discussion below), which outlines
CRS-7
items to be considered during
CRS-7
development of feasibility studies. Yet, , and (2) new
statutory authority for creation of a rural water supply program (P.L. 109-451).3 Yet,
even for these projects, Congress must
authorize construction before it is to begin.
Project Purposes. Individual authorization statutes establish project
purposes. Generally, M&I projects are part of larger, multi-purpose projects such as
those built for irrigation water supply, flood control, and hydro power. This is not
necessarily so for rural water supply projects, although nearly half of the rural water
supply projects authorized to date are somehow connected to previously authorized
irrigation facilities under the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (PSMBP), or
otherwise related to water service anticipated but not received under earlier PSMBP
authorizations.
Financing Mechanism. Projects are financed and constructed up front by
the federal government, and costs for M&I portions of such projects are generally
repaid 100%, with interest, via “repayment contracts.” Congress generally has
authorized more favorable repayment terms for several “rural water supply” projects.
The federal cost-share for these projects has averaged 64%, but ranges from 15% to
80% for non-Indian rural water supply projects.
Eligibility Requirements. Generally, local governments and organizations
such as irrigation, water, or conservation districts, may approach the Bureau and /or
Congress for project support. All construction project funding must be appropriated
by Congress. As noted earlier, the Bureau only works on projects located in the 17
western states (32 Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. §391 et seq.), unless specifically authorized.
Funding. Funding information for the M&I portions of multi-purpose projects
is not readily available. The total FY2007 appropriations request for the Bureau is
$971.6 million. Appropriations for FY2006 arewere $1.021 billion, including
underfinancing and the across-the-board rescission of 1% contained in P.L. 109-148.
Funding for FY2007 as identified in the agency’s FY2007 spending plan is $1.025
billion. The total FY2008 appropriations request for the Bureau is $958.4 million.
Funding for rural water supply projects in FY2006 iswas $69.7 million. The
FY2007
allotment is $80.4 million. The Administration has requested $68.755.0 million for FY2007these
projects for FY2008. The average amount of
project assistance appropriated by Congress in FY2006 was $10.9 assistance for rural water supply
projects in FY2007 is $11.5 million.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. The Bureau carries out its water
supply activities in 17 western states as authorized by the Reclamation Act of 1902,
as amended (32 Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. §391 et seq.).
Title 16 Projects. Title 16 of P.L. 102-575 directs the Secretary of the
Interior to develop a program to “investigate and identify” opportunities to reclaim
and reuse wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface water. The original
Act authorized construction of 5 reclamation wastewater projects and 6 wastewater
3
Although a new Department of the Interior rural water supply program has been
authorized in P.L. 109-451, the program is in early stages of implementation. The new law
requires the Bureau to develop and publish implementation criteria, which the agency is
currently in the process of doing.
CRS-8
and groundwater recycling/reclamation studies. The act was amended in 1996 (P.L.
104-266) to authorize another 18 construction projects and an additional study, and
has been amended several times since, resulting in a total of 33 projects authorized
for construction. Water reclaimed via Title 16 projects may be used for M&I water
supply (non-potable and indirect potable purposes only), irrigation supply,
groundwater recharge, fish and wildlife enhancement, or outdoor recreation.
Project Purposes. The general purpose of Title 16 projects is to provide
supplemental water supplies by recycling/reusing agricultural drainage water,
CRS-8
wastewater, brackish surface and groundwater, and other sources of contaminated
water. Projects may be permanent or for demonstration purposes.
Financing Mechanism. Partial grants. Project construction costs are shared
by the federal government and a local project sponsor or sponsors. The federal share
is generally limited to a maximum of 25% of total project costs and in most cases the
federal share is non-reimbursable, resulting in a de facto grant to the local project
sponsor(s). In 1996, Congress limited the federal share of individual projects to $20
million in 1996 dollars (P.L. 104-266). The federal share of feasibility studies is
limited to 50% of the total, except in cases of “financial hardship”;;” however, the
federal share must be reimbursed. The Secretary may also accept in-kind services
that are determined to positively contribute to the study.
Eligibility Requirements. The Bureau carries out its water supply activities
in 17 western states as authorized by the Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended (32
Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. §391). Hence, the water reclamation and wastewater recycling
program is limited to projects and studies in the 17 western states, unless otherwise
specifically authorized by Congress.4 Authorized recipients of program assistance
include “legally organized non-federal entities,” such as” (e.g., irrigation districts, water
districts, and municipalities). Construction funding is generally limited to projects
where (1) an appraisal investigation and feasibility study have been completed and
approved by the Secretary; (2) the Secretary has determined the project sponsor is
capable of funding the non-federal share of project costs; and (3) the local sponsor
has entered into a cost-share agreement with the Bureau.
The Bureau notes in its FY2007 budget justifications document, as it did in
FY2006 and in previousbudget justification document for FY2008, as it has for
several years, that it will mainly focus on projects that have been
supported in the
President’s budget requests in prior years. The justifications
document also notes, as it has for several years, that the Bureau will focus on projects
that areFY2008 justification document also
notes that the agency is working to improve the Title 16 program, including drafting
“internal Directives and Standards for Reclamation-wide use to increase the
consistency and effectiveness of the program.” In years past, the Bureau noted that
it would focus on projects that were “(1) economically justified and environmentally
acceptable in a watershed
context, (2) not eligible for funding under another Federal
program, and (3) directly
address Administration priorities for the Reclamation
program such as providing
instream flows for federally endangered or threatened
species, meeting the needs of
Native American communities, and meeting international commitments.” Unlike
4
For example, P.L. 106-566 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct general
planning and research activities in the State of Hawaii, and P.L. 109-70 authorizes
construction of three projects in Hawaii.
CRS-9
international commitments.” Unlike other water supply or wastewater treatment
programs administered by the EPA,
USDA, or HUD (discussed below), the Bureau’s
Title 16 projects are statutorily authorized projects.
While the Bureau has the
authority to undertake general appraisal investigations and
feasibility studies, it
generally has interpreted the Title 16 language as requiring
specific congressional
authorization for the construction of new projects.
Funding. The Administration’s FY2007 request for the Title 16 program is
$10.1 million. The total program appropriation for FY2006 is approximately $25.6
million. Prior year program funding ranged from a low of $23.0 million for FY2005
to a high of $47.2 million for FY1998During the 108th and 109th Congresses, several oversight hearings were held on
the Title 16 program; however, no legislation updating the overall program
authorization has been enacted since the 1996 amendments.
Funding. The total appropriation for the Title 16 program in FY2006 was
approximately $25.9 million. Funding for FY2007, as identified in the agency’s
spending plan, is anticipated to total $10.9. The Administration’s FY2008 request
is $10.1 million. Prior year program funding ranged from a high of $47.2 million in
FY1998 to a low of $23.0 million in FY2005. Projects authorized prior to the 1996
amendments ranged in size from $152 million ($38 million for the Bureau’s share),
4
For example, P.L. 106-566 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct general
planning and research activities in the State of Hawaii, and P.L. 109-70 authorizes
construction of 3 projects in Hawaii..
CRS-9
to $690 million ($172 million for the Bureau’s share). Post-1996 projectsproject
authorizations have been
much smaller in size, ranging from $10 million ($2 million
for the Bureau’s share)
to $280 million ($20 million for the Bureau’s share). The
Senate Committee on
Appropriations, in report language accompanying FY1998
Energy and Water
Development Appropriations, noted its concern about the potential
costs of this
program, stating that local sponsors who proceed on their own prior to
a federal
commitment to the project “do so at their own risk” (S.Rept. 105-44). The
committee also noted its support of the Bureau’s efforts to develop criteria to
prioritize the authorized projects currently awaiting funding.
Funding for the projects has been somewhat controversial recently. The
Administration’s requestallocation of $10.19 million for FY2007 is 60% less than was
enacted for
FY2006 and 56% less than was enacted for FY2005. According to the
Office of
Management and Budget, in years past the funding has been scaled back
because the
“program serves a function that is a local responsibility.”
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. The statutory authority for the
reclamation wastewater and reuse program is the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, Title 16 of P.L. 102-575, as amended (43
U.S.C. 390h et. seq.); the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of
1996 (P.L. 104-266); the Oregon Public Land Transfer and Protection Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-321); the 1999 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 106-53, Section
595); the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554, Division B,
section 106); a bill amending the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study
and Facilities Act (P.L. 107-344); the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2003
(P.L. 108-7, Division D, section 211); the Emergency Wartime Supplementals Act
of 2003 (P.L. 108-11); the Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act
of 2003 (P.L. 108-233); a bill amending the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (P.L. 108-316); and the Hawaii Water
Resources Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-70). The Bureau published program guidelines in
December 1998; formal regulations have not been promulgated. For information, see
[http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/writing/guidelines/] or [http://12.46.245.173/pls
/ p o r t a l 3 0 / S Y S T E M . P R O G R A M _ T E X T _ R P T . S H O W ? p _ a r g_ n a m e s
=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=15.504]. For legislative information on the Title 16
program, see CRS Issue Brief IB10019, Western Water Resource Issues, by Betsy
Cody and Pervaze Sheikh, updated regularly. For more information on the Title
CRS-10
16 program, see CRS Report RL33707, The Title XVI Water Reuse Program:
Implementation and Legislative Issues, by Betsy A. Cody and Nicole T. Carter.
[This section prepared by Betsy A. Cody, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division (707-7229).]
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works Program)
Under its civil works program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps,
Department of Defense) operates water resources projects throughout the country to
meet the agency’s navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental missions.
In many cases, this infrastructure provides multi-purpose benefits, including benefits
CRS-10
for fish and wildlife, recreation, and municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply.
More than 112 Corps reservoirs store 9.3 million acre-feet of M&I water. The Corps
has been given only limited authority for M&I water supply. M&I water supplied
from Corps reservoirs generally is incidental to the infrastructure’s primary purposes.
The provision of M&I water is subject to availability, and the associated costs are
100% a local, nonfederal responsibility.
The Water Supply Act of 1958 (Title 3 of P.L. 85-500) authorized the Corps to
recommend economically justified M&I water supply storage space in new or
existing reservoirs. Although it is possible to retrofit previously constructed projects
to supply M&I users, the planning for such needs is not an explicit Corps
responsibility. In its policy manual (Engineer Publication 1165-2-1), the agency
states that it “recognizes a significant but declining federal interest in the long range
management of water supplies and assigns the financial burden of supply to users.”
Environmental Infrastructure. Although federal policy generally remains
that community water supply is largely a local responsibility, communities,
particularly rural and small communities, increasingly have come to Congress for
assistance with water infrastructure. Since 1992, Congress has authorized the Corps
to assist local communities with municipal water supply and treatment needs not
necessarily associated with other Corps projects; these authorizations have been
either for a project in a specific location, or for a program for a defined geographic
area. At the Corps, these projects for municipal water supply and wastewater
(including treatment, and distribution/collection facilities) or surface water resource
protection and development are called “environmental infrastructure.” The Corps’
involvement in these projects varies according to the specifics of the authorization.
Sometimes the Corps is responsible for performing the work; under other
authorizations, the Corps uses appropriated funds to reimburse nonfederal sponsors
for their work.
Before 1992, the Corps generally was not involved with environmental
infrastructure projects; since 1992, congressional authorization has resulted in the
Corps contributing to or being authorized to contribute to more than 220
environmental infrastructure projects. Appropriations, however, have not kept pace
CRS-11
with authorizations; only a subset of authorized Corps environmental infrastructure
projects have received appropriations. The Clinton and Bush Administrations
generally left environmental infrastructure projects out of their Corps budget
requests. The Bush Administration’s FY2007 request continued this trend by seeking
no funds for studies or construction of environmental infrastructure projects. Since
1992, Congress has added funds to numerous environmental infrastructure projects
during its consideration of the President’s request. For example, the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act of FY2006 (P.L. 109-103) included more
than $120 million in appropriations for environmental infrastructure projects.
A Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) is the typical legislative vehicle
for Corps authorizations. Beginning with Section 219 of the WRDA 1992 (P.L.
102-580), Congress has authorized the Corps to assist local interests with technical
planning and design assistance for environmental infrastructure projects. Beginning
with §313 of WRDA 1992, Congress also has authorized design and construction
assistance for environmental infrastructure. WRDA 1996 (P.L. 104-303) and WRDA
CRS-11
1999 (P.L. 106-53) authorized new environmental infrastructure projects, and raised
the funding ceilings and availability of direct grants for many of the projects
previously authorized. Although neither the 107th Congress nor the 108th Congress
enacted a WRDA, these Congresses authorized Corps environmental infrastructure
activities in appropriations legislation. Similarly, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act of FY2006 passed by the 109th Congress included
authorization of appropriations for environmental infrastructure projects.
As with the rural water supply and Title 16 projects of the Bureau, the future
implementation of authorized local infrastructure projects has the potential to create
a new, and perhaps competing, mission to the Corps’ traditional navigation, flood
control and aquatic ecosystem restoration missions. Because the environmental
infrastructure authorizations are generally specific to a geographic region, are funded
individually through congressional appropriations, and are not part of a national
Corps program per se, there are no clear and/or consistent project or program criteria.
Water Supply Act Projects. The following discussion describes projects
carried out
under the Water Supply Act of 1958.
Project Purposes. To allow use of multi-purpose Corps reservoirs to
allocate “excess” supplies of stored water to local governments or organizations for
municipal and industrial use.
Financing Mechanism. Projects are financed up front by the federal
government, and costs for M&I project purposes are repaid 100%, with interest, via
long-term (typically 30-50 year) repayment contracts.
Eligibility Requirements. The Water Supply Act, as amended in 1986,
requires that (1) water supply benefits and costs be equitably allocated among
multiple purposes; (2) repayment by state or local interests be agreed to before
construction; (3) the water supply allocation for anticipated demand at any project not
exceed 30% of the total estimated cost; (4) repayment shall be either during
construction (without interest), or over 30 years (with adjustable interest rates); and
(5) users reimburse the Corps annually for all operation and maintenance or
CRS-12
replacement costs. Those required conditions reflect changes adopted in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, which reaffirmed a 100% non-federal cost
share for water supply projects with the up front agreement; limited assistance for
“future” storage to 30%; reduced the repayment period from 50 to 30 years; and
added the yearly operation and maintenance reimbursement.
Occasional exceptions — albeit increasingly frequent — to the Corps’ general
authority have been enacted by the Congress to provide individual instances of relief
in hardship circumstances and to target federal financial or technical assistance to
demonstration projects defined by environmental restoration or water conservation
objectives. Otherwise, the Corps’ general direct involvement in providing water
supplies is limited to emergency/disaster relief, including drought conditions. (Some
short-term sales of “surplus” storage, as well as seasonal water storage (conservation)
can be made adjunct to normal project operating procedures.)
CRS-12
Funding. The Corps’ general water supply contribution is considered to be
totally self-supported, based on repayments, and is not published in budget
documents.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. Water Supply Act of 1958 (Title III
of P.L. 85-500, as amended, 72 Stat. 320; 43 U.S.C. § 390b). For information on the
Corps’ civil works program, see [http://www.usace.army.mil/public.html#Civil].
[This section prepared by Nicole T. Carter, Analyst in Environmental Policy,
Resources, Science and Industry Division (707-0854).]
Department of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service (Water and Waste Disposal Programs)
The USDA administers grant and loan programs for water and wastewater
projects, with eligibility limited to communities of 10,000 or less. USDA prefers
making loans to finance water and waste disposal projects; grants are made only
when necessary to reduce average annual charges to a reasonable level for the area.
These programs are administered at the national level by the Rural Utilities
Service (RUS) at USDA. RUS allocates program funds to the Rural Economic and
Community Development (RECD) state offices through an allocation formula based
on rural population, poverty, and unemployment. District RECD offices actually
administer the programs locally. In recent years, approximately 65% of loan funds
and 57% of grant funds have been obligated to water projects; the remainder have
been obligated to waste disposal projects.
There is heavy demand for water and waste disposal funds. In January 2000,
RUS had a backlog of approximately $3.3 billion in grant and loan applications for
CRS-13
its water and waste disposal assistance programs.5 In addition to this, EPA’s 2001
drinking water infrastructure needs survey showed over $31 billion needed by small
water systems serving 3,300 or fewer people over the next 20 years to install,
upgrade, or replace infrastructure to ensure safe drinking water. The 2000 EPA
wastewater needs survey reported that small communities with a population under
10,000 need to spend $16 billion for their wastewater facilities to be in compliance
withmeet water quality
objectives of the Clean Water Act.
Program Purpose. The purpose of these programs is to provide basic human
amenities, alleviate health hazards, and promote the orderly growth of the nation’s
rural areas by meeting the need for new and improved rural water and waste disposal
5
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001 Budget: Explanatory Notes for the Committee on
Appropriations, vol. 2, pp. 22-22, 22-23. The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) authorized
USDA to use $360 million in Commodity Credit Corporation monies for a one-time
reduction in the backlog of qualified, pending grant and loan applications for water systems
and waste disposal systems.
CRS-13
facilities. Funds may be used for installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of
rural water facilities, including costs of distribution lines and well-pumping facilities.
Financing Mechanism. USDA provides grants and loans for water and
waste disposal projects. There is no statutory distribution formula. Funds are
allocated to states based upon rural population, number of households in poverty, and
unemployment. There are no matching requirements for states.
Water and Waste Disposal Loans. The Rural Development Act of 1972
authorized establishment of the Rural Development Insurance Fund under the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Among other activities, this fund
is used for loans (direct and guaranteed) to develop storage, treatment, purification,
or distribution of water or collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in low-income
rural areas. Loans are repayable in not more than 40 years or the useful life of the
facilities, whichever is less. USDA makes either direct loans to applicants or
guarantees up to 90% of loans made by third-party lenders such as banks and savings
and loan associations.
Loan interest rates are based on the community’s economic and health
environment and are designated poverty, market, or intermediate. Poverty interest
rate loans are made in areas where the median household income (MHI) falls below
the higher of 80% of the statewide nonurban MHI, or the poverty level, and the project
project is needed to meet health or sanitary standards. The market rate is adjusted quarterly
quarterly and is set using the average of a specified 11-bond index. It applies to loans to
to applicants where the MHI of the service area exceeds the statewide nonurban MHI.
The intermediate rate applies to loans that do not meet the criteria for the poverty rate
and which do not have to pay the market rate. As of January 2006, all three2007, applicable interest
rates are 4.5%.6were: poverty, 4.5%; intermediate, 4.25%, and market, 4.125%.6 Interest rates
on guaranteed loans are negotiated between the borrower and the lender.
5
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001 Budget: Explanatory Notes for the Committee on
Appropriations, vol. 2, pp. 22-22, 22-23. The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) authorized
USDA to use $360 million in Commodity Credit Corporation monies for a one-time
reduction in the backlog of qualified, pending grant and loan applications for water systems
and waste disposal systems.
6
For current interest rates, see [http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/int-rate.htm].
CRS-14
Water and Waste Disposal Grants. Grants for the development costs of
water supply and waste disposal projects in rural areas also are authorized under the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Only communities with poverty and
intermediate rate incomes qualify for USDA grants. An eligible project must serve
a rural area whichthat is not likely to decline in population below thatthe level for which the
project was designed and constructed so that adequate capacity will or can be made
available to serve the reasonably foreseeable growth needs of the area.
Grant funds may be available for up to 75% of the development cost of a project
and should only be used to reduce user costs to a reasonable level. Grants are only
made after a determination of the maximum amount of loan that a community can
afford and still have reasonable user rates. Grants, which typically provide 35%-45%
of project costs, may be used to supplement other may be used to supplement other
funds borrowed or furnished by
applicants for project costs, and may be combined
with loans when the applicant is
able to repay part, but not all, of the project costs. Priority is given to projects
serving populations of less than 5,500.
Emergency and Imminent Community Water Assistance Grants. RUS
also is authorized to help rural residents where a significant decline in quantity or
quality of drinking water exists or is imminent and funds are needed to obtain
adequate quantities of water that meet standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act or
the Clean Water Act. Grants, ranging from $10,000 to a maximum of $500,000, are
6
For current interest rates, see [http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/int-rate.htm].
CRS-14
provided for projects to serve a rural area with a population of 10,000 or less that has
a median household income not in excess of the statewide nonmetropolitan median
household income. Grants for repairs, partial replacement, or significant
maintenance of an established system cannot exceed $150,000. Communities use the
funds for new systems, waterline extensions, construction of water sources and
treatment facilities, and repairs or renovation of existing systems and may be made
for 100% of project cost. Applicants compete on a national basis for available
funding. The 2002 farm bill (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L.
107-171) authorized $35 million per year through FY2007 for this program and made
funding for it mandatory through reservation of 3% to 5% of appropriated water and
waste disposal grant funds. Amounts provided through this program have been quite
variable over time. In FY2002, emergency grants totaling $2.96 million were made
by RUS to projects in six states; in FY2003, $16.6 million was distributed for 63
projects in 24 states; in FY2004, $15.2 million was distributed for 64 projects in 21
states; and in FY2005, $10FY2006, $6.7 million was distributed to projects in 14 states.
Eligibility Requirements. Eligible entities are municipalities, counties, and
other political subdivisions of a state; associations, cooperatives,7 and organizations
operated on a not-for-profit basis; Indian tribes on federal and state reservations; and
other federally recognized tribes. USDA’s loan and grant programs are limited to
community service areas (including areas in cities or towns) with population of
10,000 or less. To be eligible for assistance, communities must have been denied
credit through normal commercial channels. Also, communities must be below
7
Rural electric cooperatives are private entities that build and manage rural utility systems.
The 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) authorized rural coops to expand from their traditional
electricity and telephone services. An estimated 80 to 90 rural electric coops (less than 10%
of the total number of coops nationwide) currently are involved in some aspect of drinking
water or wastewater management, with the majority dealing with drinking water
management.
CRS-15
certain income levels. Loans and grants are made for projects needed to meet health
or sanitary standards, including Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
standards and requirements. Section 6012 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171)
authorized $10 million per year through FY2007 for USDA to make grants to private
nonprofit organizations for the purpose of providing loans to eligible individuals for
construction, refurbishing, and servicing of individually owned household water well
systems. Loans are limited to $8,000 per water well system. Section 6002 of P.L.
107-171 authorized $30 million annually through FY2007 in grants to nonprofit
organizations to capitalize revolving loans for water and waste disposal facilities.
Funding. From FY1991 to FY2000, USDA provided about $12.5 billion
under its rural water and waste disposal loan and grant programs.8 Prior to enactment
of the 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127), these grants and loans, as well as other USDA
rural development assistance, were authorized as separate programs. In P.L. 104127, Congress consolidated 14 existing rural development grant and loan programs
into three categories
for better coordination and greater local involvement. This
program is called the
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). The three components are the
7
Rural electric cooperatives are private entities that build and manage rural utility systems.
The 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) authorized rural coops to expand from their traditional
electricity and telephone services. An estimated 80 to 90 rural electric coops (less than 10%
of the total number of coops nationwide) currently are involved in some aspect of drinking
water or wastewater management, with the majority dealing with drinking water
management.
8
GAO Water Infrastructure, pp. 10-11.
CRS-15
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). The three
components are the Rural Utilities Service, Rural Community Facilities, and Rural
Business and
Cooperative Development programs.9
Beginning with USDA’s FY1996 appropriation (P.L. 104-37), Congress
consolidated the water and waste disposal grant and loan appropriations in a single
Rural Community Assistance Program. Funds appropriated for available through appropriations for
water and waste
disposal grants and loans in RCAP for FY2005 and FY2006 were, FY2006 and FY2007were,
respectively, $548
527 million and $527 million (not counting separate supplemental appropriations for
disaster assistance in both years). For FY2007427 million. For FY2008, the President’s budget
requests $511
499 million in appropriations for these programs, including a $92 million reduction for
grants from the FY2006 level and a $96 million increase for direct loans. According
. According to the budget
justification, the budget proposal for water and waste disposal grants
and loans will support
$1.4 billion in program activity (compared with $1.57 billion
under the FY2006 funding level), providing 557,000 rural households with new or
improved service facilities, counting both appropriations and repaid loan monies
still available, because of flexibility in RCAP to transfer funding among
programs.
Also, with the relatively low interest rate on loans, more rural
communities are able
to afford to repay loans, so that the overall program should be
able to operate at a
higher loan-to-grant ratio and thus a lower federal subsidy.10
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. Statutory authority for the water and
waste disposal loan and grant programs is the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended, Section 306, 7 U.S.C. 1926. Regulations for these In addition to the
traditional grants and loans in FY2007, USDA also has available $13.7 million for
emergency and imminent community water assistance grants, $990,000 for grants to
provide loans for individually-owned water well systems, and $495,000 to capitalize
revolving loans for water and waste disposal systems. The FY2008 budget requests
no funds for these assistance activities.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. Statutory authority for the water and
waste disposal loan and grant programs is the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended, Section 306, 7 U.S.C. 1926. Regulations for these
8
GAO Water Infrastructure, pp. 10-11.
9
RCAP is designed to give RECD state offices flexibility in targeting financial assistance
to community and regional needs. Thus, within the three components of RCAP, up to 25%
of funds can be transferred between programs within any state, as long as transfers do not
result in changes in the national funding stream of more than 10%.
10
U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Budget Summary 2008 — Explanatory Notes,
Rural Development. p. 24-9.
CRS-16
programs are codified at 7 CFR Parts 1778-1780. For additional information on RUS
water and environmental programs, see [http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/index.htm].
For program information and contacts, see [http://12.46.245.173/pls
/portal30/
SYSTEM.PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p_arg_names
=prog_nbr&p_arg_values
=10.760].
[This section prepared by Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and
Environmental Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division (707-7227).]
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(Small Watershed Program)
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations Program (often referred to as the Small Watershed Program)
authorizes activities under four closely-related authorities that are administered by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Two of these authorities,
known as P.L. 566 and P.L. 534, authorize NRCS to provides technical and financial
assistance to state and local organizations to plan and install measures to prevent
erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage and to conserve, develop, and utilize land
9
RCAP is designed to give RECD state offices flexibility in targeting financial assistance
to community and regional needs. Thus, within the three components of RCAP, up to 25%
of funds can be transferred between programs within any state, as long as transfers do not
result in changes in the national funding stream of more than 10%.
10
U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Budget Summary 2007 — Explanatory Notes,
Rural Development. p. 23-31.
CRS-16
and water resources. The other authorities are an emergency program11 and a newer
rehabilitation authority, enacted in 2000, that is discussed at the end of this section.
This set of activities is often referred to as the Small Watershed Program
because the vast majority of the projects have been built under the authority of P.L.
566, the Watershed Prevention and Flood Protection Act of 1954. This act
encourages smaller projects which are authorized by the Chief of the NRCS. Larger
projects must be approved by Congress. The Senate and House Agriculture
Committees must approve projects that need an estimated federal contribution of
more than $5 million for construction or include a storage structure with a capacity
in excess of 2,500 acre feet; and if the storage structure has a capacity in excess of
4,000 acre feet, approval is also required from the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Under P.L. 566, 1,750756 projects had been authorized through FY2005FY2006. Of that
total, 9891006 have been completed, while 534365 others are active. Also, 156157 were
subsequently deauthorized, 30187 are inactive, and 41 have reached the end of their
project life. The number of projects continues to grow, but slowly. In FY2004, 5
new projects were authorized for funding. These 5 projects had a total federal cost
of almost $15 million and local cost of almost $8 million. In FY2005, 1 new project
was authorized, in Nebraska. At the same time, the backlog of authorized projects
that await funding is substantial, and is estimated to be $1.85 billion curently.
Most all of the P.L. 566 projects (1,458 of 1,750is no longer growing; no new projects were
added in FY2006, and only one had been added in FY2005 and five in FY2004. At
the same time, the backlog of authorized projects that await funding is substantial,
11
The Emergency Watershed Protection Program component is used to restore the natural
functions of a watershed after a natural disaster has occurred, and to minimize the risks to
property and life posed by floods by purchasing easements on flood plains. Appropriations
vary widely from year to year, and activity levels can vary widely both from year to year and
place to place. Spending is usually authorized in emergency supplemental legislation. In
FY2005, for example, $300 million was authorized to respond to damage caused by
hurricanes in calendar year 2005. As of early 2007, the Senate had passed legislation that
would provide a smaller amount of funding for FY2007 (S. 965).
CRS-17
and is estimated to be $1.43 billion currently.12 The funding backlog estimate
decreased by $400 million from the preceding year, probably because the number of
inactive projects increased from 30 to 187 during the same time period.
Most all of the P.L. 566 projects (1,463 of 1,756) are designed to provide flood
control benefits. About half the projects provide multiple benefits. Other benefits
include drainage (313 projects), public recreation (308), erosion (297), water quality (224)
(225), public water supply (222), fish and wildlife (151), and water conservation (42).
(43). Among the overall benefits that NRCS identifies are 27,800 domestic water supplies
supplies and almost 48 million people. An NRCS representative indicated thatAccording to NRCS, municipal
water supply
was more popular in earlier years, and that project sponsors have not
been proposing this
as a purpose as frequently in recent years.
Each P.L. 566 project is initiated by a local project sponsor. Project sponsors
provide assistance in preparing plans and installing whatever measures are needed
to implement those plans. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in
USDA works with the project sponsor to develop the plan, provides the necessary
technical assistance, and may assist in all aspects of planning and construction.
Either NRCS or the local organization may administer construction contracts.
The 11 projects that were specifically authorized under P.L. 534 are each much
larger and more expensive then P.L. 566 projects. These projects, which encompass
a total of more than 37.9 million acres, an area slightly larger than Iowa, are divided
11
The Emergency Watershed Protection Program component is used to restore the natural
functions of a watershed after a natural disaster has occurred, and to minimize the risks to
property and life posed by floods by purchasing easements on flood plains. Appropriations
vary widely from year to year, and activity levels can vary widely both from year to year and
place to place. Spending is usually authorized in emergency supplemental legislation. In
FY2006, for example, $300 million has been authorized to respond to damage caused by
hurricanes in calendar year 2005.
CRS-17
into almost 37.9 million acres, an area slightly larger than Iowa, are divided into
component projects in sub watersheds. NRCS reports that 397 work plans for
sub watersheds subwatersheds encompassing almost 30 million acres have been completed. With
the the
exception of the two smallest projects, the estimated federal costs for each of
these these
projects ranges from more than $40 million to more than $330 million. Three
of the
projects have been completed, and work on the remainder continues in one or
more sub more
sub-watersheds.
Both laws have similar objectives and are implemented following similar
procedures. Both programs fund land treatment, and nonstructural and structural
facilities for flood prevention, erosion reduction, agricultural water management,
public recreation development, fish and wildlife habitat development, and municipal
or industrial water supplies. Structural measures can include dams, levees, canals,
pumping plants, and the like. Local sponsors agree to operate and maintain
completed projects. USDA estimates that benefits to the country totaled almost $1.5
more than
$1.5 billion in FY2004FY2006. Municipal water supplies was grouped within non-agricultural
nonagricultural benefits, which totaled almost $547 million.546 million. Among the social and
community beneficiaries it identifies are 27,800 domestic water supplies.
As a part of its lending responsibilities, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at
USDA (see discussion above) can make loans to local organizations to finance the
local share of the cost of installing, repairing, or improving facilities, purchasing sites
and rights-of-way, and related costs for projects authorized under both laws. Loans
are limited to $10 million. No loan can be made before a plan of work has been
12
Three states account for almost half the backlog — Texas ($295 million), Oklahoma
($233 million), and Mississippi ($179 million).
CRS-18
agreed to by NRCS and the local organization. Loans must be repaid within 50 years.
More than 100As of 2007, 70 borrowers are currently holding loans with a total value approaching
$29 million. exceeding $18 million.
Congress did not appropriate funds in FY2006 appropriations to provide new loans.
Available data do not show how many loans or what value of loans
have been applied
to water supply purposes.
Some of the oldest projects that have exceeded their design life (the design life
is 50 years, and dams were constructed starting in 1948) need rehabilitation work to
continue to protect public health and safety by reducing any possibility of dam
failure, and to meet changing resource needs. In 20042006 alone, 448623 dams reached the
conclusion of their design life. That number will continue to grow each year, and by
2015 will total more than 3,8004,300. In response to that concern, Congress passed a new
rehabilitation program in sectionSection 313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse
Improvement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-472) as an amendment to the 1954 law. It
authorized appropriations of $5 million in FY2001, increasing each year to $35
million in FY2005, to make structural improvements to meet safety and performance
standards and extend the life of the project. It required the federal government to pay
65% of the total rehabilitation costs but no more than 100% of the actual construction
cost, and prohibited spending for operations and maintenance. Rehabilitation
projects also provide an opportunity to modify projects to provide additional benefits,
including municipal water supplies.
Congress has appropriated almost $115more than $128 million since FY2000, and these funds
funds have been allocated in 40 states. The largest recipients have been Oklahoma ($19.7
million) and Texas ($16.9 million). By September 30, 2005, 47 damsamong 23 states. By September 30, 2006, 135
rehabilitation projects had been funded, and 51 dams in 11 states had been
completely rehabilitated. In addition, rehabilitation had been authorized for 82 dams
in 13108
dams in 16 states, and planning continues on the rehabilitation of an additional 67 31
dams.
Furthermore, 230121 assessments were completed during FY2005FY2006 alone. NRCS
calculated the benefits of the 4751 completed projects to includetotal over $2.55.0 million in
CRS-18
reduced monetary losses, and identified more than 8285,000 individuals and more than
2,8003,700 homes and businesses and 227257 farms and ranches that benefit in some way
from the projects.
In 2002, Congress amended this program in sectionSection 2505 of the 2002 farm bill
(P.L. 107-171) to provide higher and increasing levels of discretionary funding
through FY2007, and also mandatory funding for the first time. TheUnder the
legislation, the mandatory
funding level would gradually rise to $65 rose from $45 million in FY2003 to $65
million in FY2007 then drop(dropping to $0 in
FY2008 FY2008), while the discretionary funding level would also gradually rise to $85
also rose from $45 million in FY2003 to $85 million in FY2007.
Program Purpose. The purpose of the programs is to provide technical and
financial assistance to states and local organizations to plan for, install, and
rehabilitate watershed projects. Project purposes may include watershed protection,
flood prevention and control, water quality improvements, soil erosion reduction,
rural municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement,
and water conservation. Almost all projects address flood prevention and control.
Financing Mechanism. Partial project grants, plus provision of technical
advisory services. Financing for water projects under the small watershed program
varies depending on project purposes. The federal government pays all costs related
CRS-19
to construction for flood control purposes only. Costs for non-agricultural water
supply must be repaid by local organizations; however, up to 50% of costs for land,
easements, and rights-of-way allocated to public fish and wildlife and recreational
developments may be paid with program funds. Additionally, sponsors may apply
for USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Water and Waste Program loans to finance
the local share of project costs. Participating state and local organizations pay all
operating and maintenance costs.
Eligibility Requirements. State agencies and qualified local organizations
can apply to participate in this program and sponsor or cosponsor an application.
Qualified organizations include soil and water conservation districts; municipalities;
counties; watershed, flood-control, conservancy, drainage, irrigation, or other special
purpose districts; Indian tribal organizations, irrigation and reservoir companies,
water users associations, or similar organizations not operated for profit. Other
organizations can endorse project applications. To be eligible for funding, a
proposed project must meet several criteria, including: (1) havehaving an approved
watershed plan, (2) havehaving environmental, economic, and social benefits that exceed
project costs; and (3) havehaving no critical environmental issues.
There are no population or community income-level limits on applications for
the Small Watershed Program; however, all projects must have flood control as one
of their purposes and must be located within small watersheds (250,000 acres or
less).
Funding. The budget request for FY2007FY2008 includes: $0 million $0 for the P.L. 566
projects, a decline of $64.4 million from the FY2006 appropriation; $0 for the P.L.
534 projects, which were funded at $9.9 million in FY2006; and $15.3 million for the
rehabilitation program, a reduction of $15.9 million from the $31.2 million provided
in FY2006. As in previous years, the FY2006 appropriations included numerous
CRS-19
earmarks in the conference report; NRCS identifies 90 earmarks with a total cost of
more than $65 million. Limits placed on Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations funding included no more than $30 million for technical assistance, and
no more than $1 million to carry out activities related to the Endangered Species Act.
Historically, overall watershed funding has varied a great deal from year to year.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, annual appropriations averaged around $160
million. Much of this variation is the result of appropriations for the emergency
component, which varies widely from year to year. Some consider the overall
watershed program to be a public works effort which supports local employment and
economic development, while others consider it to be a “pork barrel” program which
provides support to projects that are frequently of limited merit. In most years
recently, the Administration (regardless of which party controls the White House) has
requested significant funding reductions which Congress has rejected, although
FY2006 was the first time (and FY2007 is the second time), at least in many years,
that an Administration had called for no funding. Past history strongly suggests that
Congress will again reject this request for FY2007the same as in the continuing resolution guiding funding for FY2007 (P.L.
110-5); $0 for the P.L. 534 projects, which also were unfunded in the FY2007
continuing resolution; and $5.8 million for the rehabilitation program, $25.5 million
less than the $31.3 million provided in the FY2007 continuing resolution. In
previous years, the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations appropriations had
included numerous instances of congressionally designated funds for specified
projects; sometimes the total value of these designated grants approached the total
appropriation. Also in previous years, limits had been placed on how funding could
be spent by limiting the amount available for technical assistance, and for carrying
out activities related to the Endangered Species Act. However, FY2007 was the first
time that Congress provided no funding for specific projects. In most years recently,
the Administration (regardless of which party controls the White House) has
requested significant funding reductions which Congress has rejected, although
FY2006 was the first time, at least in many years, that the Administration had called
for no funding (it did so again in FY2007 and FY2008, as noted above). In previous
years, Congress had always responded by appropriating funds, usually in amounts
that were similar to the preceding year. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, for
example, annual appropriations averaged around $160 million, although the
President’s budget requests were often for lower amounts.
Historically, overall watershed funding ultimately has varied a great deal from
year to year. Much of this variation is the result of appropriations for the emergency
component, which is enacted in emergency supplemental appropriations and varies
widely from year to year. Some consider the overall watershed program to be a
public works effort that supports local employment and economic development,
CRS-20
while others consider it to be a “pork barrel” program that provides support to
projects that are frequently of limited merit.
Statutory and Regulatory Authorities. The Flood Control Act of 1944,
P.L. 78-534, as amended, 58 Stat. 907 (33 U.S.C. 701b-1); Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act of 1954, P.L. 83-566, as amended, 68 Stat. 666 (16 U.S.C.
1001-1006). Regulations are codified at 7 CFR Part 622. For information, see
[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/watershed/index.html] or
[http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p
_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=10.904].
[This section prepared by Jeffrey Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Resources, Science and Industry Division (707-7257).]
Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
The Clean Water Act prescribes performance levels to be attained by municipal
sewage treatment plants in order to prevent the discharge of harmful wastes into
surface waters. The act also provides financial assistance, so that communities can
construct treatment facilities in compliance with the law, which has the overall
objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the nation’s waters.
In historic terms, funding under the Clean Water Act has been the largest federal
program for wastewater treatment assistance. Since 1973, Congress has appropriated
more than $7577 billion in program grants. Funds are distributed to states under a
statutory allocation formula and are used to assist qualified projects on a priority list
that is determined by individual states. These funds are used to assist states and
localities in meeting wastewater infrastructure needs most recently estimated by EPA
and states at $181 billion nationally for all categories of projects eligible for federal
assistance under the law.
CRS-20
In 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act (P.L. 100-4) and initiated a new
program of federal capitalization grants to support State Water Pollution Control
Revolving Funds (SRFs). Prior to 1989 (when the SRF program became effective),
states used their allotments to make grants to cities and other eligible recipients.
Since 1989, federal funds (grants of appropriated funds) have been used to capitalize
state loan programs, or SRFs, with states providing matching funds equal to 20% of
the federal funds to capitalize the SRF. All 50 states, plus Puerto Rico, participate
in the clean water SRF program. Over the long term, the loan programs are intended
to be sustained through repayment of loans to states, thus creating a continuing
source of assistance for other communities. Rural and non-rural communities
compete for funding; rural areas and other small communities have no special
priority, nor are states required to reserve any specific percentage for projects in rural
areas. Nevertheless, rural areas are not shut out of the program. EPA data indicate
CRS-21
that since 1989, nationally, 63% of all loans and other assistance (comprising 23%
of total funds loanedall assistance) have gone to assist communities with 10,000 people or fewer.
Program Purpose. The clean water SRF program is intended to provide
assistance in constructing publicly owned municipal wastewater treatment plants,
implementing nonpoint pollution management programs, and developing and
implementing management plans under the National Estuary Program.
Financing Mechanism. Clean water SRFs may provide seven general types
of financial assistance: making loans; buying or refinancing existing local debt
obligations; guaranteeing or purchasing insurance for local debt obligations;
guaranteeing SRF debt obligations (i.e., to be used as security for leveraging the
assets in the SRF); providing loan guarantees for sub-state revolving funds; earning
interest on fund accounts; and supporting reasonable costs of administering the SRF.
States may not provide grants from an SRF. Loans are made at or below market
interest rates, including zero interest loans, as determined by the state in negotiation
with the applicant. All principal and interest payments on loans must be credited
directly to the SRF.
Eligibility Requirements. Eligible loan recipients are any municipality,
intermunicipal, interstate, or state agency.
Projects or activities eligible for funding are, initially, those needed for
constructing or upgrading publicly owned municipal wastewater treatment plans. As
defined in Clean Water Act section 212, devices and systems used in the storage,
treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage are eligible. These
include construction or upgrading of secondary or advanced treatment plants;
construction of new collector sewers, interceptor sewers or storm sewers; and
projects to correct existing problems of sewer system rehabilitation,
infiltration/inflow of sewer lines, and combined sewer overflows. Operation and
maintenance is not an eligible activity. All funds in the clean water SRF resulting
from federal capitalization grants are first to be used to assure maintenance of
progress toward compliance with enforceable deadlines, goals, and requirements of
the act, including municipal compliance. Following compliance with the “first use”
requirement, funds may be used to implement nonpoint source management
programs and estuary activities in approved State Nonpoint Management Programs
and estuarine Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, respectively.
CRS-21
Since the clean water SRF programs wereprogram was established in 1989, $2.064 billion has been
used to assist 6,1457,350 nonpoint management projects; none has gone to estuary
management plan activities.
Hardship Grants Program for Rural Communities. EPA also
administers a small grant program to help small, disadvantaged rural communities
with fewer than 3,000 people address their wastewater treatment needs. A
community can qualify for hardship assistance if it meets certain criteria: it lacks
access to centralized wastewater treatment or collection systems or needs
improvements to on-site treatment systems; a proposed project will improve public
health or reduce environmental risk; the community’s per capita income is less than
80% of the national average; and its unemployment rate exceeds the national average
by 1 percentage point or more. The hardship grants program is intended to
CRS-22
complement the clean water SRF program, because states assist eligible rural
communities by supplementing an SRF loan with hardship grant assistance. States
have flexibility in how they manage the hardship grants program and are responsible
for selecting projects. For example, in addition to construction projects, states may
use hardship assistance to provide training, technical assistance, and education
programs on the operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment systems. The
program began with a $50 million appropriation in FY1996 (P.L. 104-134), and
funds remain available until expended. Through June 30, 2005, $52 million in EPA
rural hardship grants had been awarded to 112 projects nationwide. Nearly threequarters of the communities that have received rural hardship grants have used the
funds in combination with SRF loan assistance.
“Wet Weather” Projects. In 2000, Congress authorized separate Clean
Water Act grant funding for projects to address overflows from municipal combined
sewer systems and from municipal separate sanitary sewers. Overflows from these
portions of municipal sewerage systems can occur especially during rainfall or other
wet weather events and can result in discharges of untreated sewage into local
waterways. This program, contained in the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-554, Division B, section 112), authorized $750 million per year in
FY2002 and FY2003. The funds would only be available for appropriation if
Congress also appropriated at least $1.35 billion in each of the years for the clean
water SRF program. Under the program, grants to a municipality or municipal entity
could be used for planning, design, and construction of treatment works to intercept,
transport, control, or treat municipal combined and separate sewer overflows.
However, no funds were appropriated for this program either in FY2002 or FY2003;
thus, wet weather projects continue to compete with other water infrastructure
projects for available Clean Water Act funds. In the 109th Congress, legislation to
reauthorize this grant program has been approved by a House committee (H.R. 624).
Funding. Since the first congressional
Funding. Since the first appropriations for the clean water SRF
program in
FY1989, Congress has provided $24.425.5 billion in grants to capitalize
SRFs. Through
June 20052006, federal funds, together with state matching contributions
and repaid loans,
have been used for $52.758 billion in SRF assistance to support
16,752 18,611 SRF loans and
debt refinance activity. Most recently, Congress appropriated
$886.8 million for FY2006 (P.L. 109-54), $204 million less than in FY2005. For
FY2007, the $1.08 billion for
FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), $196 million more than in FY2006. For FY2008, the
President’s budget requests $687.6 million for the clean water SRF
CRS-22
program, 22% less than was appropriated for FY2006 and 37 program, 36.5%
less than for FY2007 and 22% less than the FY2005
FY2006 funding level.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. Statutory authority for the clean
water SRF program is the Clean Water Act, as amended, Sections 601-607, 33
U.S.C. 1381-1387. Regulations are codified at 40 CFR §35.3100. For additional
information, see [http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm]or
[http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.PROGRAM_TEXT
_RPT.SHOW?p_arg_namesPROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p_
arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=66.458].
[This section prepared by Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and
Environmental Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division (707-7227).]
CRS-23
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires public water systems to comply
with federal drinking water regulations promulgated by EPA. Through these
regulations, EPA has set standards to control the levels of approximately 90
contaminants in drinking water, and more regulations are under development. To
help communities meet these federal mandates, Congress amended the SDWA in
1996 to establish a drinking water state revolving fund (DWSRF) loan program. The
program is patterned closely after the clean water SRF, and authorizes EPA to make
grants to states to capitalize drinking water state revolving loan funds. States use their
DWSRFs to provide assistance to public water systems for drinking water projects.
States must match 20% of the federal capitalization grant and develop annual
intended use plans that indicate how allotted funds will be used (including a project
priority list). The law generally directs states to give funding priority to projects that
(1) address the most serous health risks; (2) are needed to ensure compliance with
SDWA regulations; and (3) assist systems most in need on a per household basis,
according to state affordability criteria. Additionally, states must make available at
least 15% of their annual allotment to public water systems that serve 10,000 or
fewer persons (to the extent the funds can be obligated to eligible projects). In
FY2005FY2006, roughly 7172% of DWSRF assistance agreements and 37% of funds went to
such systems.
Capitalization grants are allotted among the states according to the results of the
most recent quadrennial survey of the capital improvements needs of eligible water
systems. Needs surveys are prepared by EPA and the states, and the most recent
survey (2003) estimated that public water systems need to invest a minimum of
$276.8 billion over the next 20-years to ensure the provision of safe drinking water
and and
compliance with federal standards.
Program Purpose. This state-administered program provides assistance for
infrastructure projects and other expenditures that facilitate compliance with federal
drinking water regulations or that promote public health protection or source water
protection.
Financing Mechanism. States may use the DWSRF to make low- or
zero-interest loans to public water systems, and loan recipients generally must repay
CRS-23
the entire loan plus any interest. DWSRFs may also be used to buy or refinance local
debt obligations, to guarantee or purchase insurance for a local obligation, as a source
of revenue or security for payment of principal and interest on state revenue or
general obligation bonds if the proceeds of the sale of the bonds are deposited into
the DWSRF, and to earn interest on DWSRF accounts. States also may use up to
30% of their annual DWSRF grant to provide additional subsidies (e.g., principal
forgiveness and negative interest rate loans) to help economically disadvantaged
communities of any size. (A disadvantaged community is one in which the service
area of a public water system meets affordability criteria established by the state.)
Eligibility Requirements. Drinking water systems that are eligible to receive
DWSRF assistance include community water systems, whether publicly or privately
CRS-24
owned, and not-for-profit noncommunity water systems. Federally- owned systems
are not eligible to receive assistance from this program.
Projects eligible for DWSRF assistance include (1) capital investments to
upgrade or replace infrastructure in order to continue providing the public with safe
drinking water; (2) projects needed to address violations of SDWA regulations; and
(3) projects to replace aging infrastructure (e.g., source water improvement projects
and treatment facilities, storage facilities, transmission and distribution pipes, and
consolidation with other systems). Assistance may also be available for land
acquisition, project design and planning, and for a range of security measures,
including vulnerability assessments and infrastructure improvements.
Projects and activities not eligible for funding include projects primarily
intended to serve future growth or to provide fire protection, construction of dams or
reservoirs (except reservoirs for finished (treated) water), monitoring, and operation
and maintenance. Ineligible systems include those that lack the financial, technical
or managerial capacity to maintain SDWA compliance and systems in significant
noncompliance with any SDWA regulation (unless the project is likely to ensure
compliance).
Funding. The act authorized appropriations for DWSRF capitalization grants
at a level of $599 million for FY1994 and $1 billion annually for FY1995 through
FY2003, for a total appropriations authority of $9.6 billion. Since the program was
first funded in FY1997, Congress has appropriated approximately $8.69.47 billion,
including $843 million for FY2005, and $837.5 million for FY2006each of FY2006 and
FY2007. The President
has requested $841.5842.2 million for FY2007FY2008.
Through June 20052006, EPA had awarded more than $6.56 billion in capitalization
grants, that$7.33 billion in capitalization grants,
which, when combined with the 20% state match, bond proceeds, interest
payments payments
and other funds, amounted to $11.1412.83 billion in DWSRF funds available for
providing providing
loans and other assistance. Total assistance provided by the program,
through June
30, 20052006, reached $9.4511.03 billion. The states had made 4,196 loans,
supporting 4,378entered into 4,768 assistance
agreements and supported 4,985 projects.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. The statutory authority for the
DWSRF program is the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L.
104-182, Section 1452, 42 U.S.C. 300j-12). EPA promulgated an interim final rule
for the program on August 7, 2000 (65 FR 48285), and adopted it as final on January
CRS-24
12, 2001 (66 FR 2823). Regulations are codified at 40 CFR §35.3500. The regulation
and DWSRF programDWSRF
program information, regulations, facts and figures are available at
[http://www.epa.gov/
safewater/dwsrf.html]. For more programfurther information and contacts, see
[http://12.46.
245.173/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p_arg_names=
p_
arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=66.468].
[This section prepared by Mary E. Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy,
Resources, Science and Industry Division (707-5937).]
CRS-25
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Development Block Grants
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers
assistance primarily under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program. CDBG funds are used by localities for a broad range of activities intended
to result in decent housing in a suitable living environment. Water and waste
disposal needs compete with many other public activities for this assistance,
including historic preservation, energy conservation, housing construction, leadbased paint abatement, urban renewal projects, recreation facilities, home ownership
assistance, and others. Program policy requires that at least 70% of funds must
benefit low- and moderate-income persons. The use of CDBG funds is intended to
reflect a balance between local flexibility and national targeting to low- and
moderate-income persons. Currently, funds go to grantees in 1,001 metropolitan
cities, 166 urban counties, and 49 states, plus Puerto Rico.
After subtracting amounts specified in appropriations acts for special-purpose
activities, 70% of CDBG funds are allocated by formula to approximately 1,100
entitlement communities nationwide, defined as central cities of metropolitan areas,
metropolitan cities with populations of 50,000 or more, and statutorily defined urban
counties (the entitlement program). These funds are not available for projects in rural
communities. The remaining 30% of CDBG funds is allocated by formula to the
states for distribution to nonentitlement, smaller communities (the state program) for
use in areas that are not part of a metropolitan city or urban county, and these funds
may be available for rural community water projects. The 70/30 split and allocation
formulas are provided for in law. According to data from HUD, in recent years
(2001-20052006), water and sewer improvement projects accounted for 9-10% of all
CDBG funds nationally.1213 From FY1991 through FY2000, HUD provided over $4
billion in block grants, plus $39.9 million for projects specified in appropriations
laws, for drinking water and wastewater projects.13
12
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Use of CDBG Funds by All
Grantees.” See,[http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/budget/disburse
mentreports/disbursements_all.xls].
13
GAO Water Infrastructure, pp. 11-13.
CRS-2514
Program Purpose. The primary goal of this program is the development of
viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and
expanding economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income persons.
Financing Mechanism. In the CDBG program for smaller communities,
grants are distributed out of state allocations to units of general local government
which implement approved activities. States may retain a percentage of funds to
cover the costs of administering the program and providing technical assistance to
local governments and nonprofit organizations.
13
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Use of CDBG Funds by All
Grantees.” See [http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/budget/disburse
mentreports/disbursements_all.xls].
14
GAO Water Infrastructure, pp. 11-13.
CRS-26
Eligibility Requirements. Eligibility is determined by the entity which
actually makes grants awards, not by federal law or regulations. Under the state
program which assists smaller communities, states develop their own programs and
funding priorities and have considerable latitude to define community eligibility and
criteria, within general criteria in law and regulations. State grantees must ensure
that each activity meets one of the program’s three national objectives: benefitting
low- and moderate-income persons (the primary objective), aid in the prevention or
elimination of slums or blight, or assisting other community development needs that
present a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community.
Funding. For FY2006FY2007 (P.L. 109-115110-5), Congress provided $3.71 billion for
CDBG funds ($400 million less than in FY2005the same as in FY2006), of which approximately $1.11
billion is
available for smaller communities under the state non-entitlement program.
For FY2007 For
FY2008, the President’s budget requests $2.975775 billion for the CDBG program.
The The
budget proposes to reform the program to more effectively contribute to local
community and economic progress. Legislation will be transmitted in 20062007 that will
propose formula changes to (which have remained essentially the same since 1978) to
direct more of the program’s base funding to
communities that cannot meet their own
needs. The legislation also will seek to
provide bonus funds for communities that demonstrate the greatest progress in
expanding ownership and opportunity for their residents
target and leverage funds to the most distressed areas.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. Statutory authority for the CDBG
program is Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). Regulations are codified at 24 CFR Part 570. Regulations
covering the CDBG state program are codified at 24 CFR Part 570, Subpart I
(§570.480).
For more program information on CDBG entitlements grants, see [http:
//www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/entitlement/index.cfm]
c
fm] or [http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal 30/ S YS TEM.PROGRAM_TEXT
_RPT.portal30/SYSTEM.PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.
SHOW?p_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=14.218]. For information on
the the
CDBG state program, see [http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd
/communitydevelopment/
programs/stateadmin/index.cfm] or [http://12.46.245.173
/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.
PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p
_arg_namesp_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=14.228].
[This section prepared by Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and
Environmental Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division. For additional
CDBG program information, contact Eugene Boyd, Government and Finance
Division (707-8689).]
CRS-26
Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
(Public Works and Development Facilities Program)
The Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce,
is authorized to provide development assistance to areas experiencing substantial
CRS-27
economic distress. Economic development grants for community water and sewer
projects are available through the Public Works and Development Facilities Program.
Under this federally administered program, public works grants are made to
eligible applicants to build or expand facilities needed to attract new industry,
encourage business expansion, and generate or retain long-term jobs in the private
sector. Economic development grants may be used for a wide range of purposes, but
frequently have a sewer or water supply element. Types of projects funded include
industrial parks, and water and wastewater facilities primarily serving industry and
commerce. According to GAO, from FY1991 through FY2000, EDA provided $1.1
billion in grants to local communities for drinking water and wastewater projects.1415
Federal law requires that units of government retain ownership of EDA-funded
projects. Because EDA grants must directly encourage employment generation, these
grants generally are not available for rural residential sewer and water supply
development.
Program Purpose. The purpose of the program is to promote long-term
economic development and assist in the construction of public works and
development facilities needed to initiate and support the creation or retention of
permanent jobs in the private sector in areas experiencing substantial economic
distress.
Financing Mechanism. EDA provides grants directly to approved
applicants. Grants generally may not exceed 50% of project costs, although severely
depressed areas may receive supplementary grants, bringing the total federal share
up to 80% of costs. Projects located within designated Economic Development
Districts may receive an additional 10% bonus grant for public works projects, and
certain Indian tribes may receive 100% grants. On average, EDA grants fund 50%
of project costs. Credit may be given toward the non-federal share for in-kind
contributions, including contributions of space, equipment, and services. No
minimum or maximum project amount is specified in law.
Eligibility Requirements. Public works grants may be made to states, cities,
counties, an institution of higher education or a consortium of such institutions, and
other political subdivisions, Indian Tribes, the Federated States of Micronesia, the
Marshall Islands, Commonwealths and Territories of the United States, and private
or public not-for-profit organizations acting in cooperation with officials of a
political subdivision of a state or Indian Tribe.
14
GAO Water Infrastructure, pp. 13-14.
CRS-27
Qualified projects must fill a pressing need of the area and: (1) be intended to
improve the opportunities for the successful establishment of businesses, (2) assist
in the creation of additional long-term employment, and (3) benefit long-term
unemployed or underemployed persons and low-income families. Projects must also
fulfill a pressing need and be consistent with the comprehensive economic
development plan for the area, and have an adequate share of local funds. In addition,
eligible projects must be located in areas that meet at least one of the following
15
GAO Water Infrastructure, pp. 13-14.
CRS-28
criteria: low per-capita income, unemployment above the national average, or an
actual or anticipated abrupt rise in unemployment.
Funding. For FY2006FY2007, Congress appropriated $158.8 provided appropriations totaling $158.8
million for EDA’s
Public Works and Development Facilities grant program (P.L. 109-108), $6.8 million
less than in FY2005. For FY2007
110-5), the same as in FY2006. For FY2008, the President’s budget requests no separate
separate funding for EDA public works and economic development programs.
Instead, the
budget proposes to establish a Regional Development Account in EDA, continuing
continuing activities of the public works program and three other EDA programs,
which the
Administration says have overlapping goals. The budget requests $257.6 130
million for
this new account, compared with $211 million in total for the a $258 million current baseline for the
four individual EDA
programs in FY2006 programs. The goal of the Regional Development Account is
to assist
distressed communities and regions in building regional capacity and to be
more flexible in providing assistance. In the future, EDA
grants will encourage
cross-jurisdictional planning and long-term strategy
development, focusing on
regional programs, rather than projects that are limited by
discrete political boundaries. This new account would be part of implementing a
larger federal economic development framework called Strengthening America’s
Communities Initiative (SACI) that the Administration proposed in the FY2006
budget request, but that Congress did not specifically endorse discrete programmatic
limitations. The Administration made a similar request as part of the FY2007
budget, but Congress did not endorse the proposed change.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority. The statutory authority for the Public
Works and Development Facilities Program is the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965, as amended, P.L. 89-136 (42 U.S.C. 3131, 3132, 3135,
3171), and Title II, P.L. 105-393 (42 U.S.C. 3211). Regulations are codified at 13
CFR Chapter III, Part 302, 305, 316, and 317. For more program information, see:
[http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.
PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?
p_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=11.300].
[This section prepared by Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and
Environmental Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division. For additional
EDA program information, contact Bruce MulockEugene Boyd, Government and Finance Division
(707-7775crsphpgw
(7-8689).]