Order Code RL31073
Allocation of Wastewater Treatment Assistance:
Formula and Other Changes
Updated November 17, 2008
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Allocation of Wastewater Treatment Assistance:
Formula and Other Changes
Summary
Congress established the statutory formula governing distribution of financial
aid for municipal wastewater treatment in the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972.
Since then, Congress has modified the formula and incorporated other eligibility
changes five times. Federal funds are provided to states through annual
appropriations according to the statutory formula to assist local governments in
constructing wastewater treatment projects in compliance with federal standards.
The most recent formula change, enacted in 1987, continues to apply to distribution
of federal grants to capitalize state revolving loan funds (SRFs) for similar activities
The current state-by-state allotment is a complex formulation consisting
basically of two elements, state population and “need.” The latter refers to states’
estimates of capital costs for wastewater projects necessary for compliance with the
act. Funding needs surveys have been done since the 1960s and became an element
of distributing CWA funds in 1972. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in consultation with states has prepared 14 clean water needs surveys since then to
provide information to policymakers on the nation’s total funding needs, as well as
needs for certain types of projects.
This report describes the formula and eligibility changes adopted by Congress
since 1972, revealing the interplay and decisionmaking by Congress on factors to
include in the formula. Two types of trends and institutional preferences can be
discerned in these actions. First, there are differences over the use of “need” and
population factors in the allocation formula itself. Over time, the weighting and
preference given to certain factors in the allocation formula have become increasingly
complex and difficult to discern. Second, there is a gradual increase in restrictions
on types of wastewater treatment projects eligible for federal assistance.
Crafting an allotment formula has been one of the most controversial issues
debated during past reauthorizations of the Clean Water Act. The dollars involved
are significant, and considerations of “winner” and “loser” states bear heavily on
discussions of policy choices reflected in alternative formulations. This is likely to
be the case again, when Congress considers legislation to reauthorize the act.
Because the current allocation formula is now more than 20 years old, and because
needs and population have changed, the issue of how to allocate state-by-state
distribution of federal funds is likely to be an important topic in debate over water
infrastructure legislation.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Formula and Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Grants Allocation Before P.L. 92-500 (Pre-1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
P.L. 92-500 and the Formula for 1973-1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The 1973 Needs Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Formula Applicable in 1975 and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1977 Allocation and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Allotment under the Public Works Employment Act
(Talmadge-Nunn Act) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1977 Supplemental Appropriations Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1978-1982 Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Categorical Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1983-1986 Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Categorical Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Current Allotment Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Needs and Population Components of CWA Allocation Formula . . . . . 2

Allocation of
Wastewater Treatment Assistance:
Formula and Other Changes
Introduction
Congress established the statutory formula governing distribution of financial
aid for municipal wastewater treatment in the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972.
Since then, Congress has modified the formula and incorporated other eligibility
changes five times, actions which have been controversial on each occasion. Federal
funds are provided to states through annual appropriations according to the statutory
formula to assist local governments in constructing wastewater treatment projects in
compliance with federal standards. Congress has appropriated more than $75 billion
since 1972. The formula originally applied to the act’s program of grants for
constructing such projects. That grants program was replaced in the law in 1987 by
a new program of federal grants to capitalize state revolving loan funds (SRFs) for
similar activities. The most recent formula change, also enacted in 1987, continues
to apply to federal capitalization grants for clean water SRFs.
The current state-by-state allotment is a complex formulation consisting
basically of two elements, state population and “need.” The latter refers to states’
estimates of capital costs for wastewater projects necessary for compliance with the
act. Funding needs surveys have been done since the 1960s and became an element
for distributing CWA funds in 1972. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
in consultation with states, has prepared 13 clean water needs surveys since then to
provide information to policymakers on the nation’s total funding needs, as well as
needs for certain types of projects. Legislation to fund water infrastructure projects
is on the agenda of the 108th Congress. In part because the allocation formula is 16
years old and needs and population have changed, the issue of state-by-state
distribution of funds is likely to be an important topic when legislation is considered.
This report describes the formula and eligibility changes adopted by Congress
since 1972, revealing the interplay and decisionmaking by Congress on factors to
include in the formula. Two types of trends and institutional preferences can be
discerned in these actions. First, there are differences over the use of need and
population factors in the allocation formula itself. During the 1970s, the Senate
strongly favored reliance on use of population factors in the allocation formula, while
the House strongly advocated a needs-based approach. During the 1980s, the period
when categorical eligibilities were restricted in order to emphasize water quality
benefits, the Senate favored needs as the basis for grants distribution, while the
House position generally was to retain formulas used in prior years, which
incorporate both needs and population elements. When population has been used as
a factor, differences have occurred over whether a current or future year population
estimate is appropriate, but there is no clear trend on this point.

CRS-2
Second, there have been gradual increases in restrictions on types of wastewater
treatment projects eligible for federal assistance. Beginning with a limitation that
denied use of federal funds for stormwater sewer projects in 1977, debate over
categorical eligibility has had two elements. One has been fiscal: a desire to not
fund types of projects with the highest costs and often the most unreliable cost
estimates. The other focus has been environmental: a desire to use federal resources
to assist projects which benefit water quality protection most directly. While some
of these eligibility restrictions presented Congress with rather straightforward
choices, others have been more complex. Some continue to be debated, such as
whether certain types of projects should be fully eligible for federal aid or should be
the responsibility of state and local governments.
Formula and Other Changes
The following table provides a generalized summary of the components of the
allocation formula since 1972. Details discussed below should be consulted, because
a summary table such as this cannot fully reflect factors such as “hold harmless” or
“minimum share” provisions frequently included in the state-by-state distribution
scheme to protect states with small allocations or to minimize potential disruptions
when formula changes were adopted. The term “total needs” refers to funding needs
identified by states for all categories of projects and water quality activities eligible
for assistance. The term “partial needs” refers to a subset of eligible project
categories, primarily construction or upgrades to comply with the act’s minimum
requirement that municipalities achieve secondary treatment of wastewater.
Table 1. Needs and Population Components of
CWA Allocation Formula
Fiscal Year
Total Needs
Partial Needs
Population
Pre-1973


100%
1973-1974
100%


1975-1976
50%b
50%a

Talmadge-Nunn
Act, P.L. 94-369

50%a
50%c
1977
25%b
50%a
25%d
1978-1982
25%b
50%a
25%e
1983-1986
12.5%b
50%f
37.5%e
1987-presentg
?
?
?
a. Project categories I, II, and IVB (see pages 4-5).
b. Excluding separate stormwater sewers.
c. 1990 population.
d. 1975 population.
e. Population year cannot be determined.
f. Backlog needs only, categories I, II, IIIA, and IVB (see page 10).
g. Precise factors included in the formula are unclear; see text for discussion.

CRS-3
Grants Allocation Before P.L. 92-500 (Pre-1973)
Prior to enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments in
1972 (FWPCA, P.L. 92-500), the federal government administered a comparatively
small program of aid for constructing municipal wastewater treatment plants.1
Under the prior program, assistance was allocated to states on the basis of
population. There was no statutory formula. Nor was there a systematic process for
the federal government or states to estimate and report on funding needs for sewage
treatment. Needs surveys had been developed by the Conference of State Sanitary
Engineers, which reported generally (but not rigorously) on estimated construction
costs of municipal waste treatment facilities planned by communities to meet water
quality standards or other standards or enforcement requirements. They lacked both
consistent definitions of objectives and consistent reporting requirements. Moreover,
these surveys tended to be based on needs of larger municipalities, so needs in small
or rural communities were underrepresented.
The first funding needs survey undertaken by the federal government was
published in 1968, in response to a general requirement in the 1966 Clean Water
Restoration Act for an annual report on “the economics of clean water,” but it was
a considerably more modest effort than followed enactment of P.L. 92-500. These
early documents reported state-by-state and national total needs over a given period
of time but did not estimate or report needs for particular categories of waste
treatment projects, such as secondary treatment. Annual surveys were published each
year through 1974; Congress then changed the reporting requirement to biennial.
P.L. 92-500 and the Formula for 1973-1974
In P.L. 92-500 Congress provided the first statutory formula, governing state-by-
state allocations in fiscal years 1973 and 1974. It was entirely needs-based and
contained no categorical limitations. Despite weaknesses of the prior surveys, they
were the only tool available to guide Congress when the decision was made in the
1972 legislation to move away from a population-based distribution of grants. The
1972 survey estimated total needs, from 1972 through 1976, to be $18.1 billion.
Estimated construction costs for the first three years of that period were reported to
be $14.6 billion. The rationale for changing to a needs basis for grants allocation
despite limitations of available needs information was explained in the House Public
Works Committee’s report on the 1972 legislation.2
1 The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-845) started the trickle of federal aid
to municipal wastewater treatment authorities that grew in subsequent years. It authorized
loans for treatment plant construction. With each successive statute in the 1950s and 1960s,
federal assistance to municipal treatment agencies increased. A grant program replaced the
loan program; the amount of authorized funding went up; the percentage of total costs
covered by federal funds was raised; and the types of project costs deemed grant-eligible
were expanded.
2 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. A Legislative History of the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
January 1973. Serial No. 93-1. 93rd Cong., 1st
(continued...)

CRS-4
This needs formula is a sound basis for allotting funds since our experience to
date clearly demonstrates that there is no necessary correlation between the
financial assistance needed for waste treatment works in a given State and its
population.
The Committee is fully aware that at the present time there is no
satisfactory estimate of the total funds required by the States for construction of
publicly owned treatment works... However [the 1972 Needs Survey] report does
provide some measure of the relative needs of the various States and in the
absence of any better measure has been incorporated in the bill for the
determination of the State allotments for the fiscal years 1973 and 1974.
The Senate favored retaining population as the basis for grants allocation, and the
available public records — Committee reports and Senate debates — give no
indication whether an alternative approach, such as one based on needs, was
considered.
The 1972 FWPCA incorporated a statutory formula for distributing grants that
was derived from the 1972 survey for the period 1972 through 1974. It covered
reported needs in the 50 states and territories, with little categorical restriction. Some
limitation was included on use of federal funds for new collector sewers (which
collect and carry wastewater from an individual house or business to a major, or
interceptor, sewer that conveys the wastewater to a treatment facility). In addition,
eligibility for funds was limited to communities in existence when P.L. 92-500 was
enacted and could only be provided if the treatment plant had sufficient existing or
planned capacity to treat sewage collected by such sewers.
Section 205(a) of the FWPCA cross-referenced a table in a House Public Works
and Transportation Committee Print that identified each state’s percentage share
under the legislation.3 The percentages would apply to total grant amounts made
available through annual congressional appropriations. The statute provided that this
distribution formula would apply for two years; in section 516 of the act, EPA was
directed to prepare a new needs survey that would govern distribution in FY1975.
The 1973 Needs Survey. In response to the 1972 statutory directive, EPA
undertook a new method of preparing the needs survey, and the 1973 Needs Survey
was the first effort to report and evaluate needs for categories of waste treatment
projects, as well as state and national totals. This survey reported costs for the
following categories:
I — Secondary treatment required by the 1972 act
II — Treatment more stringent than secondary required by water quality
standards
III — Rehabilitation of sewers to correct infiltration and inflow
2 (...continued)
sess. p. 780.
3 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Estimated
Construction Cost of Sewage Treatment Facilities Planned for the Period Fiscal Years
1972-74.
Committee Print 92-50. 92nd Cong., 2nd sess. Table 3, p. 3.

CRS-5
IV — New collector and interceptor sewers
V — Correction of overflows from combined stormwater and sanitary
sewers (CSOs)
This original categorization was subsequently refined. Category III was
subdivided to include category IIIA — correction of infiltration and inflow in
existing sewers; and category IIIB — replacement or rehabilitation of structurally
deteriorating sewers. Category IV was subdivided to include category IVA — new
collector sewers; and category IVB — new interceptor sewers. Needs surveys have
continued to be based on this same categorical arrangement since the mid-1970s.
However, from an initial estimate of $63 billion in the 1973 survey, the survey
figure for wastewater treatment and collection system projects went to a high of $342
billion in 1974, dropped to $96 billion in 1976, rose to $106 billion in 1978, $120
billion in 1980, declined to $80 billion in 1990, and was assessed at $67 billion in
2000, the thirteenth and most recent survey. Since the 1992 survey, states also have
assessed needs for projects to address nonpoint pollution from sources such as
agriculture, silviculture, and urban runoff. In the 2000 survey, needs for these types
of projects were an additional $14 billion. Over time, inconsistencies and variations
in the surveys have been ascribed to several factors, including the lack of precision
with which needs for some project categories could be assessed and the desire of
state estimators to use the needs survey as a way of keeping their share of the federal
allotment as high as possible.4
Formula Applicable in 1975 and 1976
In December 1973, Congress enacted P.L. 93-243, Waste Treatment Fund
Allocations, providing the section 205(a) allocation formula for FY1975. As
enacted, the formula was based on EPA’s November 1973 Needs Survey, with a
formula that split the difference between total needs and partial needs. The formula
was: one-half of amounts reported in the 1973 Needs Survey for all categories
(secondary treatment, more stringent than secondary, sewer rehabilitation to correct
infiltration and inflow, new collector sewers, new interceptor sewers, and CSO
correction, but not separate stormwater sewers), and one-half of amounts just for
categories including secondary treatment, more stringent than secondary and new
interceptor sewers. The formula also included a hold harmless provision, under
which no state would receive less in construction grant funds than it was allotted
under the previous formula.
Use of the partial needs categories was based on EPA’s recommendation to the
Congress that the allocation formula should only include the costs of providing
treatment works to achieve secondary treatment (the basic national treatment
requirement mandated in the 1972 act), treatment more stringent than secondary as
required by water quality standards, and eligible new interceptor sewers, force mains,
and pumping stations (categories I, II and IVB, respectively). These were the core
categories representing projects to comply with the basic water quality objectives of
4 Water Pollution Control Federation (now, the Water Environment Federation). The Clean
Water Act with Amendments.
1982. p. 14.

CRS-6
the Clean Water Act. EPA’s basis for this recommendation was the Agency’s
assessment that the data for the other categories, as reported by the states, were
limited and considerably less reliable than for these three categories.
In the 1973 survey, EPA reported that total needs nationwide were $60.1 billion
(1973 dollars), but that reported costs probably underestimated actual expenditures
— by half — due to underreporting of CSO needs and failure of states to report all
needs in categories I and II. EPA reported that estimates from only 15 states included
cost surveys of all communities in the state; data from the remaining 35 states
represented all urban areas plus a sample of communities of less than 10,000 persons
located outside urban areas.
The Senate Committee on Public Works found that EPA’s recommendations
would lead to inequities affecting a number of states. In its version of legislation to
establish an allocation formula for 1975 (S. 2812), it recommended distribution based
75% on partial needs and 25% on 1972 population (i.e., the ratio of a state’s 1972
population compared to the population of all states).
The formula recommended by the House, in its version of the legislation (H.R.
11928), was the same as the version finally agreed to: one-half partial needs, and
one-half total needs, based on the 1973 EPA Needs Survey. The House Committee’s
actions were explained by the chairman of the Public Works and Transportation
Committee.5
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed two tables for allocation of the
grant funds to the States. One was based on all of the needs of the States...The
other table was based on only part of the needs...The committee heard testimony
from several States, some of which would receive more funds under one table
and some of which would receive more under the other table. In addition, some
States found that under the needs concept they would receive less than they had
previously when funds were allocated on the basis of population. The primary
reason for this appears to be that these States have not yet accurately identified
their true needs for wastewater treatment facilities.
The committee is very much committed to the allocation of funds on the basis of
need. After much consideration, we determined that the most equitable solution
would be to allocate the funds for the next 2 fiscal years on the basis of 50
percent of each of the two tables, with no State receiving less than its allocation
of 1972. While some States may receive a little less under the committee’s
solution, all States will benefit greatly in the long run.
Although the House-passed bill called for a two-year allocation formula, the enacted
legislation applied only to FY1975. Nevertheless, the formula continued to apply
through FY1976, because Congress did not enact legislation to modify it until 1977.6
5 Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 32, p. 42259.
6 In FY1976, construction grant funds provided to states resulted from the release of $9
billion originally authorized in P.L. 92-500 which the Administration had impounded. The
withheld sums amounted to $3 billion for each of the Fiscal Years 1973, 1974, and 1975.
(continued...)

CRS-7
1977 Allocation and Appropriations
Appropriations in FY1977 were provided under two appropriations acts, the
Public Works Employment Appropriations Act of 1976 and the Fiscal Year 1977
supplemental appropriations act, each using a different allocation formula.
Allotment under the Public Works Employment Act (Talmadge-
Nunn Act). The 1973 allocation legislation, P.L. 93-243, required EPA to prepare
a new, comprehensive needs survey no later than September 3, 1974, and directed
that it include all of the categories included in the 1973 survey, plus costs to treat
separate storm water flows. In response, the next wastewater needs survey (the 1974
survey) was transmitted to Congress in February 1975.7 Based on that survey, EPA
recommended that future formulas focus on needs reported for categories I, II, and
IVB. This recommendation came from the Agency’s conclusion that data and cost
estimates for other categories submitted in prior surveys had been of poor and
inconsistent quality and had resulted in an inequitable allocation formula, as
expressed by EPA Administrator Russell Train.8
There is serious doubt, however, that we will be able to provide accurate
estimates of the total national needs, or of needs for each State, which would
form an equitable basis for allocation of construction grant funds. Even
categories I, II, and IV(b) will be very difficult to refine for purposes of
allocation because of the large variations in approach used by the States in
estimating needs in these categories.
I believe that the fundamental differences in reported cost estimates for the
construction of publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities highlighted by the
last two surveys confirms our concerns about basing the allocation of Federal
funds on “needs,” at least as they are currently reported.
6 (...continued)
In 1975, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision requiring the allotment of these
funds (Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975)), and EPA did so in February 1975.
A portion of the released funds (representing the $3 billion from FY1973 and the $3 billion
from FY1974) was allocated according to the allotment formula specified in P.L. 92-500
that had applied to other funds previously distributed for those years. The remaining $3
billion (representing withheld FY1975 funds) were allocated on the basis of the
requirements of P.L. 93-243, that is, one-half partial needs, one-half total needs. See U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Amendment to Final Construction Grant Regulations.
40 Federal Register 40, February 27, 1975, p. 8349.
7 The 1974 needs survey also reported rough estimates of construction costs for a new
category: costs for treatment and/or control of stormwaters that are not part of combined
stormwater and sanitary sewer systems. This is now category VI. In the 1974 survey, this
category alone was estimated to be $235 billion, but EPA said that this estimate was
unreliable.
8 U.S. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s 1974 Needs Survey. Hearing, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess.,
September 11, 1974. Serial No. 93-H53. p. 15.

CRS-8
Congress adopted EPA’s recommendation to limit the use of “total needs” in
connection with the allotment formula that governed distribution of $700 million in
authorized monies under the Public Works Employment Act of 1976, P.L. 94-369,
but in so doing, it reintroduced a population factor. This act, commonly referred to
as the Talmadge-Nunn Act, authorized funds for a number of public works programs,
including wastewater treatment construction, in order to counter unemployment
conditions in certain regions of the country. Under the statutory language, the
wastewater treatment monies authorized in P.L. 94-369 were to be allocated just to
the 33 states and four territories that had received inequitable allocations as a result
of the prior two needs surveys.9 The action in this legislation is significant, because
it restored population as a factor in the construction grants allocation formula. The
formula in P.L. 94-369 was used to govern the distribution of $480 million in
FY1977 construction grants to the 33 states and 4 territories identified in that act.10
The formula provided under P.L. 94-369 was 50% partial needs, as reported in the
1974 needs survey, and 50% 1990 projected population.
1977 Supplemental Appropriations Allocation. The second portion of
funds provided in Fiscal Year 1977, totaling $1 billion, was governed by the formula
that Congress enacted in the FY1977 supplemental appropriations act, P.L. 95-26.
That legislation directed that construction grants allocation be according to the 25-50-
25 formula contained in the table on page 16 of S.Rept. 95-38,11 which was 25%
total needs from the EPA 1974 needs survey, 50% partial needs from the 1974
survey, and 25% 1975 population. The needs factors used in this formula were the
same as had been in use since FY1975 (derived from the 1974 needs survey), but the
population basis was different — population in 1975, rather than projected 1990
population, as under the formula that applied in 1976 under Talmadge-Nunn.
1978-1982 Allocation
The next Clean Water Act amendments that addressed the allocation formula
were in the 1977 amendments (P.L. 95-217); these amendments provided the
distribution formula for FY1978 through FY1981. The final version of the formula
was based 25% on total needs (excluding costs of treating separate stormwater
flows), 50% on partial needs (categories I, II, and IVB), and 25% on population. The
resulting distribution, on a percentage basis, was summarized in tables included in
a House Public Works and Transportation Committee print; the allocation provided
in table 3 from that report is referenced in section 205(a) of the Clean Water Act, as
9 The States were: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Trust
Territory of the Pacific.
10 P.L. 94-447, Public Works Employment Appropriations Act of 1976.
11 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works, Public Works
Employment Act of 1977, report to accompany S. 427
. 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-38.
36 pp.

CRS-9
amended by P.L. 95-217. (As discussed below, this same formula was subsequently
extended to 1982.)
Documents in the legislative history do not indicate clearly either which year’s
needs survey or which population year were reflected in the final formula. The
formula provided in the House version of the 1977 legislation (H.R. 3199) contained
a ratio similar to the final version and was based on data from EPA’s 1974 needs
survey and 1990 estimated population (the factors also used under the Public Works
Employment Act of 1976).12
The Senate version of the legislation, S. 1952, contained a formula based on
1975 population and needs reported in the 1976 survey for categories I, II, III, IVB,
and V. The committee formula utilized the higher of the two percentages each state
would receive under the two formulas and then reduced the total (which added up to
117.34%) to 100%. In addition, no state would receive less than one-half of one
percent of total funds.
Although the 25-50-25 ratio in the final formula was the same as under the
House bill, the state-by-state percentages were not identical, so it appears that,
although conferees endorsed the basic House approach, they made some changes, as
well. Neither the conference report nor House and Senate debates on the final
legislation provides sufficient explanation to determine which population year (1990
or 1975) or needs survey (1974 or 1976) was used in the final allocation formula.
Categorical Restrictions. Beyond the question of which categories should
be included for purposes of the allocation formula, the 1977 amendments presented
the first explicit restrictions on categories eligible for federal grant assistance. Based
on provisions in the Senate bill (the House version had no similar provisions), the
1977 amendments made one categorical restriction. The legislation prohibited use
of federal funds for projects to control pollutant discharges from separate storm
sewer systems, category VI in the EPA needs survey. The concerns here were fiscal
(the 1974 survey estimated category VI costs at $235 billion, or double all other costs
in total) and environmental. The committee sought to assure that federal funds would
be used for facilities most critical to reducing pollutant discharges, according to the
report on the Senate bill, S. 1952.13
The cost of controlling stormwater is substantial even after consideration of other
options such as land use controls which may be more cost-effective in some
situations. The Federal share for stormwater projects is beyond the reach of the
limitations of the Federal budget. It is, furthermore, a cost for which water
quality benefits have not been sufficiently evaluated, particularly since
stormwater discharges occur on an episodic basis during which water use is
minimal.
12 During debate on H.R. 3199, the House rejected an amendment offered by Congressman
Ottinger which would have struck the population factor from the formula and retained the
prior fundamental reliance on needs.
13 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. A Legislative
History of the Clean Water Act.
95th Cong., 2nd sess., Serial No. 95-14. p. 672.

CRS-10
Senate-proposed restrictions on new collector sewer systems and rehabilitation
of existing collectors were not included in the final 1977 amendments. Like its
proposal concerning stormwater sewers, the committee had contended that the costs
of all such projects were excessive, while the water quality benefits were less
significant than other core projects, such as constructing secondary treatment plants.
1983-1986 Allocation
P.L. 97-117, passed in 1981, contained the formula governing distribution of
construction grant funds from 1982 through 1985. It was subsequently extended
through 1986. These amendments included a number of eligibility restrictions, as
well.
The House bill, H.R. 4503, proposed to extend the existing formula through
FY1982 only. The position of the House Public Works Committee was that it would
address multi-year funding issues in a comprehensive review of the Clean Water Act
in 1982.
In S. 1716, the Senate adopted a new formula based on 1980 population;
backlog needs for categories I, II and IVB, as reported in the 1980 needs survey; plus
a minimum state share and “hold harmless” provisions to protect states in order to
alleviate disruption of state programs, by minimizing potential loss of funds under
a new formula. Backlog needs, used for the first time in connection with this
legislation, were defined as facility requirements to meet the needs of the 1980
population — rather than 20 years’ future growth, as had been customary in previous
needs surveys and allotment formulas. The Senate formula would apply through
FY1984. EPA was directed to conduct a new needs survey placing greater emphasis
on public health and water quality needs; that survey would be the basis for allocation
beginning in FY1985.
As enacted, P.L. 97-117 incorporated the House formula for 1982. For 1983
through 1985, the legislation used the average of the House formula and the Senate
formula for 1984 — which was 1980 population, backlog partial needs (for
categories I, II, IVB and IIIA), and a hold harmless provision that no state would
receive less than 80% of what it would have received under the 1977 amendments
formula. These four categories were those which were to be fully eligible for federal
grants, under categorical restrictions included in the legislation (see below).
Because of delays in enacting a reauthorization bill in the mid-1980s, Congress
extended this formula through 1986, as well.
Categorical Restrictions. The 1981 legislation put in place several
eligibility restrictions intended to restructure the grants program. The Senate
Committee explained the rationale in its report on the legislation.14
14 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Legislative
History of the Water Quality Act of 1987, including Public Law 97-440; Public Law 97-117,
Public Law 96-483; and Public Law 96-148.
100th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 2471.

CRS-11
The members of this Committee, the Administration, and the majority of the
witnesses who came before the Committee agree that the time has come to
provide priority funding to those parts of the program which provide the greatest
water quality benefit. The Committee bill reflects this principle. In the future,
only treatment facilities and the necessary interceptor sewers associated with
those plants will be eligible for Federal assistance.
Two broad points were made by those who advocated restrictions: (1) current
budgetary problems made it necessary to focus limited federal resources on the
highest priority environmental problems; and (2) the Administration believed that the
federal government’s funding responsibilities had largely been met, and remaining
water quality needs were local, not national in scope. Based on these issues, the
Reagan Administration proposed a number of program changes that Congress
endorsed with some modifications:
! The Administration recommended eliminating eligibility for new
collector sewers, sewer rehabilitation, infiltration and inflow
correction, and combined sewer overflow projects. The 1981
amendments retained full eligibility for infiltration and inflow
projects, on the basis that they can reduce the need for additional
sewage treatment plant capacity. The amendments made the other
categories generally ineligible for federal grants, but allowed
governors to use up to 20% of their annual allotment for such
projects. The general prohibition on use of federal funds for
separate storm sewer projects, established in the 1977 legislation,
was continued.
! The Administration recommended eliminating eligibility for reserve
capacity to meet future population growth and recommended that the
allotment formula be based only on backlog needs. The legislation
provided that, after October 1, 1984, no grant would be made for
reserve capacity in excess of that needed when an actual construction
grant is awarded and in no event in excess of needs existing on
October 1, 1990.
! The Administration recommended eliminating “hold harmless” and
minimum allocation provisions of the formula which were not
related to water quality benefits. Congress did not adopt these
recommendations.
Finally, although not part of the Administration’s recommendations, the enacted
legislation reduced the federal share for eligible projects from 75% to 55%, to extend
the availability of limited federal funds to more projects.
The Current Allotment Formula
In the 1987 amendments, P.L. 100-4, Congress adopted the allocation formula
that is currently in effect. Unlike the 1981 legislation, Congress did not make
fundamental changes in eligibility — there were no further limitations on types of
projects eligible for federal assistance. The prohibition on federal funding for

CRS-12
separate storm sewers was continued. The bigger policy issues debated in this
legislation concerned establishing state revolving funds as the future funding
mechanism, thus replacing the previous construction grants program. Congress
directed that the act’s statutory allotment formula would govern the new SRF
program (Title VI of the act) and also would continue to govern construction grants
allotment during the transition from the old funding program to the new one in 1991.
Nowhere in the legislative history of Congress’ final action on the 1987
amendments is there a clear statement about the weighting or factors that went into
the final allocation formula — it is even difficult to guess. The conference report on
the final legislation merely states: “The conference substitute adopts a new formula
for distributing construction grant funds and the state revolving loan fund
capitalization grants among states for fiscal years 1987 through 1990. The allotment
formula for FY1986 is the same as under current law.”15
It is clearer, however, where the two houses began. During consideration of the
legislation, the House favored retaining the formula adopted in 1981. The Senate
proposed an entirely new formula.
The Senate formula was based on partial needs (year 2000 needs — not backlog
needs, as in the 1981 formula) reported in the 1984 needs survey for the 4 categories
which are fully eligible for federal funds: I, II, IIIA (made eligible in 1981), and IVB.
As reported by the committee, the formula was essentially based on needs for these
categories. There was no explicit population factor — but an implicit population
factor was incorporated in reverse, because 21 small states were allotted a slightly
larger share in order to be able to maintain viable programs, according to the
committee report.16 In addition, the formula included an 80% hold harmless
provision for 11 large states that were expected to experience greater changes in
eligibility because of the revised formula, compared with the average.17
The formula adopted by the Senate, after debate on S. 1128, was different still:
it provided that the full extent of formula changes would apply to the last three of the
five years covered by the reauthorization and that a modified version would govern
during the first two years. The two-year modified version gave the large states an
85% hold harmless by holding down the amount of increased share that the smaller
states would receive — so that large states would lose less, and smaller states would
gain less, at least in the first two years.
Accordingly, the Senate formula was essentially needs-based, with an
unquantifiable population factor apparently included, as well. It was merged — in
15 Ibid., p. 791.
16 These 21 states were Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. Ibid., pp.
1479-82.
17 The 11 states were California, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Ibid.

CRS-13
ways that are not clear from available public documents — with the House formula,
which had total needs, partial needs, and 1980 population factors.
Concluding Thoughts
Since adoption of the allocation formula that has governed distribution of Clean
Water Act assistance since 1987,18 EPA and the states have produced five updated
needs surveys (in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004). In addition, updated
population information became available through two subsequent decennial Censuses
(in 1990 and 2000). Although population changes have occurred during that time,
and needs for water quality projects also have changed (total needs increased by 8.6%
between the 2000 and 2004 surveys), none of this more recent information is
reflected in the currently applicable distribution formula.
Also since 1987, Congress has on several occasions considered CWA
reauthorization legislation that would have modified that formula. In the 104th
Congress, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a bill (S.
2093), and in the 105th Congress, the House passed a comprehensive reauthorization
bill (H.R. 961). In the 107th Congress, House and Senate committees approved
legislation to reauthorize water infrastructure financing programs in the act (H.R.
3930, S. 1961). These bills included revised allocation formulas, as well as other
program changes. Neither received further action.
In the 108th Congress, legislation to extend CWA infrastructure financing was
approved by a House subcommittee (H.R. 1560) in July 2003. It included changes
to the allotment process: it would have extended the current statutory formula for
two years, and thereafter, a portion of funds would be allocated by that formula and
a portion would be distributed based on each state’s proportional needs of total needs.
In October 2004, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported a
similar bill (S. 2550, S.Rept. 108-386). Like H.R. 1560, S. 2550 would have
modified the allotment formula, moving towards a target allotment based entirely on
needs, but with several complex factors intended to moderate the potential for
substantial loss or gain of funds under the target, compared with the current statutory
allotment formula. (For information, see CRS Report RL32503, Water Infrastructure
Financing Legislation: Comparison of S. 2550 and H.R. 1560
, by Claudia Copeland
and Mary Tiemann.) Neither measure received further action, in part because of
controversies over the allotment formulas in the bills.
In the 109th Congress, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
approved S. 1400, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act (S.Rept. 109-186). Among
18 In 1995, three districts of the U.S.-administered United Nations Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, which previously had been eligible for Clean Water Act funds, completed
the process of becoming Freely Associated States with status as sovereign states by adopting
a Compact of Free Association. As of FY1999, the Trust Territory, which had been
receiving 0.1295% of available funds, is no longer eligible for grants under the act. EPA
made an administrative adjustment to allotment totals for all other recipients for FY2000
and onwards to reflect this change.

CRS-14
other provisions, S. 1400 would have revised the CWA formula for allocation of SRF
monies. This bill was similar to S. 2550 from the 108th Congress, although the
proposed allocation formula was different from that in the earlier bill. As in the
previous congress, no further action occurred on this bill.
In the 110th Congress, the House passed a reauthorization bill, H.R. 720, that
was similar to the measure that the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee’s Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee approved in the 108th
Congress (H.R. 1560), including a proposed new two-part allocation formula, as in
the earlier legislation. In September 2008, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee reported a CWA reauthorization bill (S. 3500) with a “placeholder” for
a new allocation formula, but no legislative language. There was no further action
on water infrastructure legislation.
In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act and established a
drinking water state revolving loan fund program modeled after the clean water SRF.
However, in that act (P.L. 104-182), Congress directed that drinking water SRF
capitalization grants be allotted among the states by EPA based on the proportional
share of each state’s needs identified in the most recent national drinking water needs
survey, not according to a statutory allotment formula.
While the clean water and drinking water SRFs represent significant amounts
of federal financial assistance, Congress has provided other assistance, as well, in the
form of grants earmarked in EPA appropriations acts for specific communities, both
small and large. In recent years, congressional appropriators have dedicated an
increasing portion of annual water infrastructure assistance as earmarked special
project grants which are not subject to any statutory or other allotment formula. For
example, for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161), Congress appropriated $689 million for clean
water SRF capitalization grants, $829 million for drinking water SRF capitalization
grants, and $177 million in earmarked grants for projects in 282 listed communities.
Since the first of these earmarks in EPA appropriations in FY1989, Congress has
provided $7 billion for special project grants.
Crafting an allotment formula has been one of the most controversial issues
debated during past reauthorizations of the Clean Water Act. The dollars involved
are significant, and considerations of “winner” and “loser” states bear heavily on
discussions of policy choices reflected in alternative formulations. This is likely to
be the case again, when Congress reauthorizes the wastewater infrastructure funding
portions of the act. In part because the current allocation formula is now more than
20 years old, the issue of how to allocate state-by-state distribution of federal funds
is likely to be an important topic during debate on water infrastructure financing
legislation. Elements of funding need, population, and possibly other factors are
likely to again be debated.